I got into a bit of a debate last night with a very politically aware friend about Romney's work in Massachusetts with health care. We disagreed about how much of a problem it was going to be for him. In MY reading, it seems that Romney is being assaulted for it as a problem by the Media, but I haven't seen actual Republicans complain about it. Personally, I think that it's consistent to be willing to have strong/supportive/invasive (take your pick of adjectives) health care at the state level, but to be against it at the federal level. I am not, strictly speaking, a Republican, though, and I'm curious to know what you all think of it. Is this a hypocrisy on his part? Is it something the GOP base will find to be a problem? Or is it a consistent position that Democrats are using as a red herring? Ed O.
Here's my take on the Republican position. Most are not thrilled with Romney's health care bill in Mass., but they are probably willing to overlook that part of his bio due to the fact that he's a successful businessman who supports free-market principles, lower taxes, and smaller federal government. Oh, and most important of all, he's NOT Obama.
I'm obviously not a republican. But it seems to me that if Republicans are willing to nominate Romney (and it seems they are, according to the polls), then you'll lose much if not all of the ability to attack Obama on healthcare. Since attacking Obama on healthcare has been the centerpiece of republican strategy so far, choosing the one candidate who can't plausibly continue that strategy seems like an odd choice. I don't think the 'it's ok to do it at the state level but not ok at the federal level' argument is going to be very convincing. barfo
Wasn't that the republican platform circa 2000? How well was that executed? I think it is going to be an issue for Romney. "Romneycare is OK in one state but not all 50...", sounds like bullcrap. Romneycare is probably the only thing positive I see about the guy. His religion is going to get in the way of policy making: anti-abortion, abstinence only education, anti-porn, banning all forms of marijuana usage, supports three strikes laws, banning assault weapons... hmmm... There's probably more I can pick at him about.
I'm not sure why any of these things would be bad to be strict on? Abortion is murder. You can argue it isn't, but at some point you were a fetus, and I couldn't kill you and get away with it Waiting to have sex until you are married is noble, if not tough to do. Why is it bad to teach it? Porn is great and all, but it's an addictive thing for many people and well over $100 billion dollar issue worldwide. Until otherwise said, Marijuana is illegal. Nothing wrong with enforcing it. It kills brain cells, and lowers your reaction time. Three strike law...really, you don;t like some asshole getting locked up for a long time after they commit three of the same crimes? I like hunting as much as the next guy, but we simply don;t need assault rifles in the general population Some of the things you mentioned are harmless, but most of them are real issues that need to have a stand taken against
It doesn't bother me a whit. He was the governor of a pretty liberal state with a huge freerider problem when it came to health care. I recall reading that the unpaid health care provided was over two-and-a-half times than the national average. As a result, MassCare was created to address some very specific problems Bay Staters faced. He had to please a Democratic-dominated Commonwealth Legislature, which meant he had to arrive at a different solution than he could have gotten than if he were governor of Utah. Do we believe after seeing the initial results that a Gov. Romney would have followed the same path as a Gov. Patrick? I think Romney would have tweaked it to get costs under control. The way I look at the country, we have 50 laboratories called states. Some experiments work, some don't. It's perfectly acceptable for a state to try this tack; they have the right to create a mandate such as this for their state residents. If someone in Massachusetts doesn't like it, it's not a massive burden to move to NH, VT, NY, CT or RI. At the level of the Federal Government, this kind of mandate (mandating activity) is a weak constitutional link (to the Commerce Clause). I suspect Mitt Romney would savor educating President Obama on health care in a debate.
And this is what Republicans are reduced to: Obamacare is evil incarnate... but it's perfectly fine for people in Massachusetts. barfo
a vast majority of Americans disagree with you and many take offense at this sort of characterization. Thats why it's a problem politically there is nothing wrong with waiting to have sex until you are married, though I don't view it as a noble thing to do. Certainly not having sex is a surefire way to not have an unwanted pregnancy or catch a disease which is why Planned Parenthood and everyone else teaches young people about that option. But when the policy is abstinence only, statistically even more kids have sex. They also have more anal sex which of course spreads AIDS. If the goal is to have less unwanted pregnancies and a healthier population, abstinence only has proven to be bad policy. it's very expensive to enforce pot being illegal and of course many Americans would rather it wasn't. Our courts and jails are clogged with pot cases and convicted offenders... us tax payers are footing that bill. Make it legal and violent Mexican cartels and criminal organizations across the country lose a major stream of revenue. Again statistics show that use rate actually drops for populations when it isn't illegal for much the same reason drinking rates went up during prohibition. People are attracted to taboo. Btw, booze kills even more brain cells, lowers reaction time, and kills 10's of thousands of Americans every year. I want to see pot legalized and then tax the hell out of it... my roads have potholes agreed, though the NRA/rockribbed Republican types probably think we are commies, which is why politically this is a bad thing for Romney disagree on the things I countered. Hopefully I gave you enough reasoning to at least understand why someone might feel that way and why those things could prove to be political liabilities for a candidate STOMP
...and every sperm is a possible life & every egg the body expels each month is a possible life & every miscarriage is a possible life. Not that I would take abortion lightly but it's a fact of life & I'd rather have people doing it with proper medical care than hurling themselves down stairs or using coat hangers. Making something illegal doesn't make it not happen still. Why is it noble? Why don't people wait to ride a bike, get a drivers license or go to college until they're married? It's true that abstinence is the only way to be free of STDs & unwanted pregnancy. By that I mean, life long abstinence. Marriage is no guarantee of anything. Spouses cheat, become baby crazy or fall out of love all the time. The majority of people who wait until they're married will still want to use a form of birth control. Abstinence only education purposely does not discuss these important topics & instead vilifies sex as something shameful. It's the byproduct of latent religious guilt. There are a lot of things that could be considered addictive when used in excess. We don't ban them all. Sexuality is part of human nature. I am not sure why you considered it being a $100 billion business an "issue"? Additionally Romney was against things like the "Fairness Doctrine", calling it censorship while at the same times he's on his crusade to prevent any "child" from ever being subjected to anything that might be "offensive". It also reduces pain, nausea & anxiety in those who use it medicinally or recreationally. Medical marijuana is not necessarily illegal at this time. The history behind how it became illegal is a story of spooky government control which you'd hope the "less government" advocates would get behind. BTW, Alcohol kills your brain cells & lowers your reaction time, why isn't beer still banned? Cigarettes destroy your lungs while leading to lung cancer & heart disease, why are cigarettes still allowed? Fattening foods clog up your arteries & make you lethargic, why are fatty foods still allowed? It's a law that is overly broad & punishes a lot of non-violent offenders. It's a waste of money to lock people up for life who are there for mainly non-violent offenses. Put them in a quality rehab program & you'll probably get better & cheaper results. Guns are already heavily regulated, taxed & most of these "assault weapons" require a special license & notification of the local police department to own one. Also banning specific firearms kind of goes against the constitution which I thought would be important to the right wing base. Additionally the label of "assault weapon" usually is placed on guns that look scary, but aren't necessarily more deadly than widely available hunting rifles.
This sounds confusing. Anal sex alone does not cause AIDS. AIDS will be transmitted almost as easily vaginally & is still possible orally as well. Barrier forms of birth control reduce but do not eliminate the risk entirely.
I understand that your position seems to be one that many commentators in the media has taken, but I'm curious to see if Republicans see it that way. To you as a non-Republican? Or to Republicans? Ed O.
Gotcha. I tend to think that most swing voters are either in favor of Obamacare (or more government-supplied healthcare) or are against it, and I don't think that they're going to vote in favor of Obama merely because of a perceived inconsistency on the part of Romney and Mass's healthcare. Ed O.
Probably you are right. But for those who are looking to "throw the bums out" and "get somebody different in there", it probably reduces the motivation to run out and vote for Romney. To the extent he can be painted as an older, whiter Obama, it may discourage voters who would otherwise vote against Obama. Add to that the problems he may have in energizing the Republican base (because of RomneyCare, and other issues). barfo
