Romney faces questions about intensity of support

you cant unite an insane asylum.

Don't worry about us, the conservatives. This is a matter of the candidate with more delegates, that's all. My friends like Santorum and I don't. But if Santorum wins, I will plug my nose.

Don't worry about us, the conservatives.

We were talking about Republicans, not conservatives. The GOP hasn't been about conservatism since Goldwater's days.

Why the republican party put forth the field of idiots they did is astounding. You mean to tell me that with all the billionaires and millionaires who have everything on the line this election...they couldn't find (or buy) ONE republican to run that would rally the party around them.....like a JFK...a Reagan.....or a.....oh I don't know....a President Obama?

Fools. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul are four names that will NEVER have President in front of them.

Obama/Biden 2012......Sanders/Warren 2016

I wonder if Mittens spends hours changing his socks from one foot to the other. This goes on the right foot. Wait, maybe the left, wait, maybe the right, wait, maybe the left.

Flip-Flop.

Obama 2012

My wild guess is that Mitt Romney will get the nomination by default. Who wants to elect a sociopath adulterer lobbyist or an ultra orthodox Catholic nut case? My guess is that Romney would then be forced to take on a Teapublican vice presidential candidate as a concession to the right wing. The question is will that work. It could be a repeat of Sarah Palin sabotaging the McCain presidential bid.

Gingrich and Santorum right now have gotten more popular with the Republicans that will refuse to vote for a Mormon. The fundamentalist Protestant Republicans regard the Mormon Church as a cult. This leaves the big question, will the Teapublicans mutiny and run their own candidates? Sarah Palin would be high on the list for possible candidates.

Is it really a question of intensity for Romney? This is the big issue I see - he cannot relate to average Americans. I am reluctant to bring his religion into this, but the reality is that he has no real diversity for women's rights in his world. He inherited wealth, he is a multi millionaire, unemployed and makes his money from investments only. And I am assuming that he is already "owned" by the Koch brothers. Perhaps he isn't a part of the 1% club of multi billionaires, but he is rich and he is their candidate.

Romney symptom of GOP cognitive dissonance.

Base thinks GOP about self-dependence and individual freedom. Leadership knows GOP is about submission to corporations and rich.

Leadership shoving Romney into base's face highlights this divide. He's embodiment of corporate supremacy.

Romney shows corporate face of GOP.

"...doubt for fall"?

Actually, I don't at all doubt that he's going to fall; I see little other than his dedication to wealth and the wealthy, that has kept him on his feet to this point.

Lisa
like a JFK

John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

Obama has never used this quote as his policy direction like JFK. Obama is more like- What can the government get its sticky fingers into and ruin next!

The joke is that liberals of today do not get that being liberal should be being liberated, not completely Obama-controlled in all aspects of ones life. Small government = large freedoms. Large government- you are being controlled by government strings. Where did the 2012 liberals get lost!
Right on JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

It may well be a noble statement MPN, but a heluva lot of Republicans then asked what more they themselves could get, in the form of sweeter Social Security and a new program called Medicare. Today, why should that last pot be further sweetened for the elderly, and denied for those who're doing the work??

Today, why should that last pot be further sweetened for the elderly, and denied for those who're doing the work??

Oh dear.

Censored by moi.

determined,

Don't worry about us, the conservatives. This is a matter of the candidate with more delegates, that's all. My friends like Santorum and I don't. But if Santorum wins, I will plug my nose.

I couldn't agree more. We can do without another President that has to learn on the job, like the one we have now. Romney is the only candidate that has actual Executive Branch experience and the ability to actually run a government effectively.

Romney is the only candidate that has actual Executive Branch experience and the ability to actually run a government effectively.

He disagrees with you. He says he didn't actually run Massachusetts effectively. He actually repudiates the only significantly positive thing he did here.

He repudiates building up a $3 billion surplus? He repudiates balancing the budget? He repudiates cutting taxes?

I think you must be very confused.

What I was referring to is that he repudiates mandating health insurance for all (the only good thing he did as governor), but heck let's pop the balloon you recklessly tried to float:

Romney's approach to balancing the budget is also something repudiates, including, for example, the creation of 33 new fees and 57 fee increases, raising over a half a billion dollars in just one year. (What's worse is that fees are generally regressive, while income tax is progressive, so Romney's approach to balance the budget harmed the poor to protect the rich.)

Romney also raised taxes, something else he repudiates now.

Beyond that, a lot of Romney's budget balancing was smoke and mirrors, reducing state disbursements to cities and towns, spiking property taxes, something else which Romney repudiates.

I'm not confused JC. I live here, and lived through Romney's self-serving idiocy. His idiocy was so self-serving and damaging to the commonwealth that eventually our legislature had to just start overriding every veto, and essentially he became a lame duck long before he decided not to run for re-election.

Perhaps I missed when he said that he shouldn't have implemented the Massachussetts health care plan. Or, more likely, it didn't happen. He has not backed away from it, he justs points out that it is not appropriate for the entire nation.

I think I see the problem: You choose to allow yourself to be deceived by the "I'll say anything to get elected" nonsense that Republicans like Romney spew. Fair enough. Let's test how deep it goes: Why do Massachusetts residents deserve a better health care safety net than the rest of the country?

I don't believe they necessarily have a better health care safety net than the rest of the country. They do have a health care system that covers more people (due to the mandate), but it is also one of the most costly states for insurance. Nobody in any of the other states is denied care if they go to the hospital. Do they receive better health care in MA though? I don't know that they do.

I don't believe they necessarily have a better health care safety net than the rest of the country.

We do. If we cannot get past this clearly observable fact (i.e., where you acknowledge that having a safety net represents having a better safety net versus not having a safety net representing a worse safety net) then we have no common basis on which to engage in a discussion.

Perhaps you need to define "safety net" for me, as it pertains to healthcare. To me, having the ability to go to the hospital to receive treatment, regardless of ability to pay, sounds like a safety net. Having to pay the difference of an 80/20 policy with a $1000 deductible doesn't sound like much at all for someone making minimum wage.

Oh dear.

The health plan of the Gov Romney was a blessing of showing that if did not work in a small State, less in the whole country.

determined,

I agree, actually. However, it is important to realize that at the time, this was actually an idea that came from conservative think-tanks. It was based on the concept of people taking personal responsibility for themselves. I think Romney did an excellent job of taking an idea and making it a reality. If he hadn't, it would not be so obvious that the ACA will be a nightmare on a nationwide basis.

The good intentions are in every idea, the trouble is put those intentions to work. This is why the actual Law is not favorable to us. We got an increase of $4,00/yr .

To me, having the ability to go to the hospital to receive treatment, regardless of ability to pay, sounds like a safety net.

Demonstrating the prototypical short-sightedness that typifies the right-wing's perspective, ignoring both the health and financial benefits of preventive and preemptive care.

Do you honestly believe that making derisive comments, without actually addressing the question asked of you, somehow makes your point?

I didn't say that going to the hospital for treatment was ideal or optimal. However, it certainly does provide a "safety net" for those without the means to pay for health care. But, except for the "feel good" aspects of providing insurance coverage to people with minimal incomes, I fail to see how it affects preventive or pre-emptive care. When people barely have enough money to eat, they are not going to spend money on a co-pay at the doctors office for non-emergency services. And, if you think that only paying 20% of the $100,000 medical bill (when they are hospitalized) is somehow going to keep them from bankruptcy you are only kidding yourself.

Do you honestly believe that making derisive comments, without actually addressing the question asked of you, somehow makes your point?

Of course not, but that's not what I did. I made a bold (not derisive ) comment, absolutely addressing the issue, i.e., making the point about how what you wrote ignores the health and financial benefits of preventive and preemptive care.

I didn't say that going to the hospital for treatment was ideal or optimal.

Do you honestly believe that criticizing approaches that you understand are superior to your approach somehow makes your point?

But, except for the "feel good" aspects of providing insurance coverage to people with minimal incomes, I fail to see how it affects preventive or pre-emptive care.

That seems evident. Denying the the manner in which both preventive and pre-emptive care reduces overall costs and improves overall health is the only way you can try to defend your inferior perspective.

When people barely have enough money to eat, they are not going to spend money on a co-pay at the doctors office for non-emergency services.

If you feel that so strongly, i.e., that it would even benefit the insurance company financially to foster preventive care, then don't charge them a co-pay for preventive service.

And, if you think that only paying 20% of the $100,000 medical bill (when they are hospitalized) is somehow going to keep them from bankruptcy you are only kidding yourself.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Nice attempt to derail though.

Walt,

Perhaps I'm just missing something. Can you explain to me how having insurance when you are making minimum wage provides any real advantage? Insurance companies charge co-pays for doctor's office visits and pharmaceuticals. They have deductibles - usually around $1000 or more per person or $2500 per family. They only pay a portion of the medical costs, typically between 80-90%, leaving the remainder to be paid by the insured.

I cannot see the advantage, to anyone other than the insurance company, for someone in a low income situation. If there is, great - but I just don't see how.

We haven't had the problem you're talking about here in Mass. The health care mandate is working, despite the existence of some co-pays.

Also, I found this:

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will eliminate co-pays and deductibles for recommended preventive care, including preventive care for women..."

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill45.pdf

Walt,

Eliminating the co-pay and deductibles for preventive care certainly makes more sense, although I have to believe that will likely increase policy costs overall. Removing the revenue from the insurance companies for 100's of millions of people will cost them a lot of money. And, if I'm correct, MA has very high premiums (on average) as a result - something that is likely to occur on a national level with the ACA.

We haven't had the problem you're talking about here in Mass.

Are you certain of that or have you just not heard anything? It's obviously rather difficult to gauge a negative (i.e., how many people did NOT go to the doctor for preventive care; how many people did NOT receive treatment because they were concerned about co-pays and/or deductibles, etc.).

Eliminating the co-pay and deductibles for preventive care certainly makes more sense, although I have to believe that will likely increase policy costs overall.

They say that in the long-run switching from preventive care to waiting until you need to go to the ER for a critical problem will save money. Beyond that, let's not lose sight of the fact that there is an objective here to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks and are essentially left to die on the streets, so is there a cost to that? Of course there is.

Are you certain of that or have you just not heard anything?

Yes. Like anything there are ups and downs that the net-result has been distinctly positive.

there is an objective here to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks

An admirable goal, but I'm not certain it does that very well. I gather that somewhere around 6% of the population will still not be covered by the ACA. That's still quite a lot of people "falling through the cracks".

Better to have less people fall through the cracks than more people fall through the cracks.

True. Only time will tell whether the ACA will stand and, if so, whether it will prove as costly as I'm afraid it will. From what I've seen regarding the costs in MA, it certainly doesn't look very promising on a national scale.

Promising compared to what?

Remember what we're starting with:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

I doubt that ACA is going to do much to stop medical bankruptcy. Insurance does not cover 100% of costs. People who have major problems such as cancer, heart disease, etc. can run up bills very quickly, even if they are only responsible for 10% of the cost. And, if it is a debilitating disease that causes job loss, all bets are off.

I doubt that ACA is going to do much to stop medical bankruptcy.

You can doubt every last little thing, I suppose, but health care reform will always have impact, as the health care mandate has had impact here, and positive impact at that.

Insurance does not cover 100% of costs.

A greater number of people with insurance coverage even at what ever percentage means a fewer number of people going into bankruptcy due to medical expenses.

People who have major problems such as cancer, heart disease, etc. can run up bills very quickly, even if they are only responsible for 10% of the cost.

And people with certain other conditions don't. The existence of cases where things won't be better doesn't obviate the existence of cases where things will be better.

And, if it is a debilitating disease that causes job loss, all bets are off.

None of which is an excuse for leaving health care as it is, or doing something that even fewer people would benefit from.

The existence of cases where things won't be better doesn't obviate the existence of cases where things will be better.

I agree. However, the question of whether the gain is worth the cost is a relevant question.

If only 1 out of 1000 avoid bankruptcy, that otherwise wouldn't have, is it effective? How about 1 out of 100? 1 out of 10? Again, this is difficult to measure because it is a negative - how many people did NOT file bankruptcy that would have?

Is there any evidence that the bankruptcy rate in MA, attributed to medical costs, has decreased? If so, is it significant?

No valid baseline study was ever performed (i.e., we have no statistically significant data to compare today's numbers to). Even if people wanted to use the existing data (n=44 for one study! and that is a subset of national data, not a state-specific survey, so the small dataset is even more invalid) for baseline, the measurement would be grossly confounded by changes in bankruptcy law. (That comparison does show improvement, but again, it is pointless given the small sample size and damaged nature of the baseline data.) So there is no way to ever determine the impact via statistics. Instead all we can use as a gauge is rational logic.

Well, there is always 2016. Problems are troubles with the family, a death, etc., not politics.

The right-wing has a problem

And the left wing has created a no-win economy.

The left has gone down the path of no return-like Greece. They win votes by throwing candy to masses. This candy in the way of "freebies" has wet the appetitite of the entitlement crowd to the extent they they believe it is their RIGHT to get handouts without working. Even illegals in the county get $4.2 billion for the child tax credit!!! This money could at least go to the needy citizens.

Furthermore the left is the hand of the Unions as easily noted by the Obama actions. All proposed stimulus was for union workers or Davis BAcon wage scale jobs.

There is no way the Democrat Party can turn back from the give-away programs because they now need it to stay in power. Between the union wages running jobs off shore and the give away programs, soon it will be lights out as the burden becomes to heavy for the top half of the tax filers who pay all income taxes to cover.

And the left wing has created a no-win economy.

Well, it isn't really about winning. It's about all living a satisfying life. No one necessarily has to win. What's important is that no one loses.

The left has gone down the path of no return-like Greece.

Then come up with a better way of everyone living a satisfying life, without going down any no return path. I'm a former Republican just itching for the chance to jump back to the GOP, a GOP that affirms and promotes respect and dignity for all people, a GOP that respects a woman's reproductive choice, a GOP that doesn't try to favor Christianity, a GOP that doesn't persecute homosexuals, a GOP that aggressively fosters a prosperous economy that provides access to great jobs for all who are able-bodied and takes care of those who are not.

Give me that kind of GOP and I'll drop these Democrats like a hot potato. However: Don't ask me to give the Republicans a pass for any immoral acts, or to dictate to anyone what religious beliefs and values they should subscribe to. Don't ask me to give the Republicans a pass to enrich rich people and marginalize the poor or weak. We'll always have poor people; that is no excuse to subject them to a less-than-satisfactory life. There is someplace between the prototypical middle class experience and destitution; it is that middle place where the American poor should find themselves, not that lower extreme.

I have no great amity for this tax credit or that give-away program. Get rid of them all, as far as I'm concerned: I'm perfectly fine with expecting everyone to work for the essentials of life, but setting that threshold requires that we who set that threshold assure that achievement is a matter of able-bodied people's willingness to work, and then we take onto society the responsibility to bridge whatever gap that remains after that. It requires that none be cast adrift subject to chances and probability with regard to the essentials of life, while others enjoy windfall fortune. This is the true meaning of morality.

No one is holding the poor down but themselves. Trillions have been spent on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to give the poor help. However, many of the identified poor are not poor, but they are either tax cheaters and claim to be poor or they make a life of mooching, only a small are group really not able to earn their own living. The US has trained people to wait for government assistance, rather than find work like they did for 100s of years before the USA began welfare. Sadly some feel giving people an appetite for a handout is a good way to earn a vote. There is no fixed class of incomes, there is a lot of movement between the groups. As it is 50% of tax filers pay no Income tax and the top 10% pay a huge portion of all taxes. This is clearly not asking all citizens to have skin in the game. In fact you end up with the non-tax payers voting to tax the small group paying taxes. This is clearly a poor direction for a free county. Republicans ask for less micromanagement of lives so we can instill an entrepreneurial spirit to get the economy going. Obama fills your heads with half truths that make you angry and he has given the Unions free reign, those very unions that ran manufacturing off shore. He wastes immense amounts of money on bad projects. He is robbing Medicare to pay for Obamacare and then saying that the Republicans are trying to kill it….

No one is holding the poor down but themselves.

False: The poor are being held down, specifically, by an economic system that has been deliberately and methodically re-crafted over fifty years to benefit business at the expense of labor. Over that period of time income inequity between rich and poor has doubled. This results in a dearth of good jobs, higher unemployment, skyrocketing underemployment, and the development of what is practically a caste system the suffering within which is only relieved by the safety net you disparaged.

Let's be clear: TANF and SNAP don't hold the less affluent down - the lack of good jobs that pay living wages holds the less affluent down.

If you pay substantially more than public assistance for basic needs (including child care for custodial parents) to keep corporate headquarter's corridors clean, to stock shelves at the grocery, etc., the vast majority of able-bodied workers will prefer that job to public assistance. The problem is not the handouts - it is the failure of business to flood the labor market with jobs that pay well enough to raise a family. I'm not talking about enough money to go on vacation trips, to drive a fancy car, to wear designer clothing, etc. I'm talking about being able to reliably afford the basic needs: security, health care, clothing, shelter, food, education, employment.

The solution is to undertake changes that removal all incentives for business to relocate jobs off-shore, and exact substantial financial considerations from businesses that seek to sell product or services to Americans that are produced off-shore. There is no question that there is a consequence of such action, but objecting on that basis ignores the reality: There is a consequence (and pretty much the same consequence) either way! It would be better to take the hit from making imports of food, fuel, and consumer products far more expensive, and benefit from the increase in demand on the US labor pool, than to just continue forward driving income inequity yet-even more immorally higher.

Yes, that Jeb and Sarah jump in the race could be very interesting.

Yes, that Jeb and Sarah jump in the race could be very interesting.

would move the dem voting block as nothing else would. continue the Bush dynasty? never ever in a million years and Sarah? pfffft

Why not?

The Kennedys had a strong representation in the Congress and now another of the kid is for the same path.

would move the dem voting block as nothing else

Wait a minute....are you posting that the Dem block is not moving with the same enthusiasm for our gracious President?

The tax evasion issue is not going to go away for Romney. Do an internet search for tax free investments. They are being advertised by the same offshore banks that handle offshore tax evasion bank accounts. It just a new scam with the same goal, tax evasion.

Hi folks, those who know me (and you are invited to check my truthlover history to back before the election of Obama), know that I was a huge fan of Obama, a critic of Hillary, and then before the election took a lot of shots at Palin (she was a very easy target and a way of turning voters from McCain to either Obama or at least neutral).

I've only loosely followed Romney. But I know this: he's tried to appeal to the rightwingnuts but can't do a very good job because he wants to save the Middle Class and believes in a safety net for the poor. As for his version of Obamacare in Massachusetts (actually, since it came first maybe Obama's should be called Romneycare), both are horrid policies which I will not debate or even discuss further here.

But Romney, if he ran, and especially if Ron Paul was his running mate (now don't snicker too hard or you might spill your coffee), he'd wipe out Obama. I must know forty progressives who excitedly supported him in his first campaign, some of whom contributed big bucks (not needed today because he as a Super Pac collecting from the banksters and others), and not one will vote for Obama. I certainly won't. I think he's actually a bit more dangerous than Bush II because he's continued the worst of Bush II's policies, pluse hasn't prosecuted any of the banksters for blatant fraud, pluse has extended our wars in the Middle East as well as in Afghanistan, Pakastan, Yemen, Libya, had

planned (now temporily posatphoned) to post Marines in Israel to sprotect the attack on Iran, etc etc etc.

Obama's lost his progressive base, the youth, probably the military vote (he did okay with them last time I think), and those of us who are opposed to American exceptionalism and the military imperialsim by the US, thosd who would like US to stop marching in lockstep with Israel...

and against Obama will be every racist in the nation (I'm not praising or condoning racism, just pointing our a fact).

And, if Romney should win in a contested election, that would only create a momentum and push him even further ahead.

Í think ''Romeny wil have a better chance of Obma for the reaons ons probided ll the ramblings above.

Our gracious made his own bed.

The reality is that the Republicans these days have no desire to compromise about anything ever, so the idea of compromising within their own party, with the moderates, when they can "win" the nomination without doing so, is probably not even going to cross their minds. They're not going to start moderating their views until it is almost too late (if not fully too late) when they realize that they cannot win with just the votes that represent their base.

There is a completely different set of tactics for winning the election than those used to win the nomination. The republicans have such a wacky primary that they are burning all their bridges with the moderate bloc, and will be stranded come time for the general election.

Obama doesn't have to walk to the 2nd term. He can sit in a wheelchair and be pushed there by the right.

 given their hatred of Obama

You aren't a sweet condensed milk.

Why is it that the Tea Party demagogues always appear on Newsvine with screen names like.....

• TheTruthOnly
• RealFacts
• etc.

They seem desperate to validate their own ideas with some assertion that they are the voice of the one true path to salvation and at the same time imply that others are wrong. As if a screen name alone confers divine insight and righteousness. Every time I see one of these presumptive screen names I get a chuckle.

In contrast, no one else seems to do this. I think it's a good indicator of the inherent insecurity of the two groups.

Why is it that the Tea Party demagogues always appear on Newsvine with screen names like.....

It's a religious thing......

My screen name represents my desire to have the TRUTH ONLY. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, tea party or any presumptions. So with that out of the way, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what Barry has done to make himself such an unbeatable candidate. And I really prefer facts....you know, truthful facts.

Oh, it's not like they aren't trying each and every day. Gerrymandering in Texas. Voter ID (Jim Crow) laws in the former slave states. They are desperately trying to rig any state they possibly can knowing full well they can't win an honest contest with their 10% approval ratings and radical minority base.

Mofongo; without the women vote, they would have to manipulate the voting machines to win, its the only way if they don't get caught.

Its funny, how Libs do exactly what they accuse others of. Do you guys really hate America that much?

TTO,

Give love and sugar to the antagonists.

Well you've captured the Republican spin accurately. But how can they say they want a smaller federal government and more personal freedom while promoting things like........

• Increased defense spending - the single largest expense in the federal budget already
• Making your health decisions for you - abortion, contraception
• Religious Domination - creationism and prayer in schools, religion (Christianity) in government

What they really want to make smaller is anything that helps the poor and middle class....

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Healthcare Reform

On top of the hypocrisy on spending, they want to lower taxes for the wealthiest 1% among us who already enjoy huge federal tax subsidies (capital gains, carried interest, etc) while raising the taxes for the poor and middle class.

Those are the differences I focus on. And I DO NOT see Republicans as the party of personal liberty! They are a bunch of theocratic control freaks out to control everyone's lives and thinking. Just say no!

Mofongo.....all 3 items you claim Repubs promote are dead wrong. Never heard anyone say they want a Theocracy. The law is the law when it comes to abortion etc., the real issue is Persons of faith dont want their tax dollars going to such things, and lastly Defense spending is going down as much as I personally believe it should be a priority that we stay the worlds ONLY superpower. Shhh, dont tell anyone of leftist persuasions, but "Its still a dangerous world with people that hate you and would love to chop your lil head off".

Never heard anyone say they want a Theocracy.

The refusal of folks like Santorum to admit what they are aiming for is more a commentary on their deceitful nature than anything else.

The law is the law

And the law shouldn't be used as a tool to inflict specific religious perspectives on others.

the real issue is Persons of faith dont want their tax dollars going to such things

I'm a person of faith, who believes that eating meat, the product of the infliction of inexcusable cruelty on sentient beings, is immoral. I don't want my tax dollars going to subsidize industrial factory farm companies that feed this engine of cruelty and infliction of suffering for profit. I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for meat for state dinners, for military mess halls, for SNAP, etc.

Are you suggesting that the fact that my religious beliefs should dictate to the American public that its meat industry must collapse?

Or are you suggesting that the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law should be suspended, and my religious beliefs should be ignored while your religious beliefs are capitulated to?

Down the block is a Kingdom Hall. They wouldn't want their tax dollars going to provide health insurance for government workers to cover medical procedures that require blood transfusions. Closer to the town center is a synagogue. They wouldn't want their tax dollars going toward pork. And so on. How many religious perspectives are you willing to have society build its government around? Oh wait... I know the answer... only one... yours. That's indefensible.

Well said Caryl, this guy couldn't muster my ass up off the couch even if I was a (cough, gag) repub.

I like the Louboutin shoes .