Romney-Brown 2012?

February 18th, 2010 at 5:05 pm | 49 Comments |

| Print

Follow FrumForum‘s coverage of CPAC via twitter @DavidFrum, @FrumForum, @timkmak and @noahkgreen.

Click here for FrumForum‘s CPAC Diaries with up to the minute gossip and news from the convention.

Click here for liveblogging of CPAC 2010 convention speeches and panels.



After bowling with Mitt Romney yesterday, Scott Brown introduced his friend and mentor to the adoring crowds of CPAC 2010, which started today. As Brown said: “When I started my campaign, we could only hold our events in a phone booth, and he was one of those guys in the booth with me.”

The strategy of the speech was clear: If you are a Republican who is happy that Scott Brown has derailed the President’s health care plan, its all due to Mitt Romney. It was Romney who helped Brown make his email lists, Romney who helped him fundraise.

Romney began his speech by saying that he loves taking Scott Brown wherever he can take him. And Romney also tried to whitewash away his RINO label (“I’m usually considered suspicious at events like this…”) by tagging himself to Brown: “Lets say something I never thought you would say at CPAC, Thank you Massachusets for killing Obamacare! Thank you attacking the Pelosi-Reid-Obama axis.”

It may be too early for 2012 VP speculation, but its clear what the logic is behind a Romney-Brown ticket. If Brown can (somehow) remain in good Tea Party standing for the next two years (a hard task, no doubt) then he can be a crutch for anyone who thinks Romney is not conservative enough. How can he be a RINO if the guy who killed Obamacare campaigns with him?

Best Joke by Mitt Romney: You may not have heard this, but Lindsay Vaughn’s gold medal has been stripped. (Audience goes silent) It’s been determined that President Obama has been going downhill faster then she did!

Worst Joke from Mitt Romney: Obama’s economic failure will be the biggest failure since Al Gore’s invention of the internet. (In this humble blogger’s opinion, I find the internet very helpful for my work.)

NOTE: The 12th amendment says that electoral college members may not vote for both a President and a Vice President from their own state. Massachusetts’ votes wouldn’t be cast on the bottom of the ticket, or invalidated. If the ticket could win by a +12 electoral college margin, you could conceivably see a Romney-Brown team in the White House!





Recent Posts by Noah Kristula-Green



49 Comments so far ↓

  • sparty

    Is Scott Brown the next Ronald Reagan?

    Neil Cavuto wants to know.

    Snort.

  • msmilack

    Scott Brown is such an intellectual lightweight, it’s amazing anyone supports him. He misrepresented himself during the campaign and seems most interested these days in playing basketball with Obama to keep himself in the news (Obama is too smart to fall into his ridiculous trap). This is a man who takes pride in his previous career as a nude model; who brags about his daughter being on American Idol; and who doesn’t have his facts straight before he speaks (so far, he’s been corrected for not understanding that military tribunals provide lawyers for suspected terrorists just as they do in federal courts; and for his statement that the stimulus package has created no jobs). I had foolishly hoped he was telling the truth when, during his campaign, he pledged to be independent; it took him no time at all to show he was lying. He is a little puppet of Mitt Romney who has already proven himself to be unreliable as his stands shift according to what he imagines will get him elected in any given term. Michael Steele was actually right when he wrote Romney off as a potential candidate for that very reason (and then, as usual, took it back under pressure of his peers). I always found it interesting that Romney offered no opinions on national health care since he took pride (when it suited his personal agenda) in establishing the equivalent in Massachusetts (where he is disliked by even the people who elected him). These two Ken dolls should just start a magazine for pretty boys with no ideas but filled with much ambition. Brown is a male equivalent of Sarah Palin even as Brown attempts to distance himself from her (lying when he said he had no contact with her which he then had to correct). My favorite part of his interview with B. Walters came when she asked about the support he received from the tea party ($250,000) and he said, “tea party?” as if he didn’t know what the term meant. He is persona personified: an empty shell. If he is the Republicans hope, god help them.

  • kevin47

    Msmilack,

    Breathe. Put the gun down.

    Just be cool. Let’s talk about this.

  • kevin47

    I know the geographical diversity thing is oversold a bit, but a Massachusetts tag team would be a pretty bold move. After the 2010 elections, I don’t think the tea party movement is going to be a major player. Scott Brown might simply be a popular conservative by that time, and might make sense for that reason, but the Tea Party won’t have much to do with it.

  • TAZ

    Brown is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage……….

    Romney (is)(was)(is)(was)(is)(was) too……..

    Seems the tea partiers and social conservatives have not picked up on that yet……………

  • blowtorch_bob

    What’s their position on ponzi-scheme economics?

  • anniemargret

    Romney lost to McCain, remember?

    He will have a really hard time selling himself as a social conservative, when he really isn’t. Mormon to boot, which the majority of Republican Christians just can’t handle without foaming at the mouth.

    And while Romney certainly has business credentials, he has a ‘slick’ demeanor (as Sinz noted earlier), and that doesn’t play out well with the charisma so needed and so desired by the public. He looks like the fashionable wealthy East Coast businessman that he is. How is that one going to play out in the ‘heartland?” You know, Palin’s “real America?” Populism would be a hard sell for him.

    Nope. Republicans have no one. Not Palin. Not Romney. And not Dick “deficits don’t matter” pro-torturer Cheney.

    But there’s still three more years.

  • JonF

    I don’t have a problem with Scott Brown, but I can’t see a pro-choice, pro-gay pol ending up on the ticket in 2012, especially if another MA pol with dubious conservative bona fides is on it as well.
    Scott Brown has disguised himself well; but he’s really a liberal Republican in classic New England mode. That’s good for the GOP; it needs guys like him it can elect in the more liberal parts of the country, just as the Dems need their Jim Webbs. But I doubt that will play well in Texas and Utah.

  • Carney

    blowtorch_bob, like FDR’s “Social Security” scheme that will bankrupt us?

  • Carney

    A smarter choice for Romney is John Thune. Another handsome guy, but with no baggage, plus he’s not only a solid conservative he also does not come off as a nut. He’s an evangelical Protestant (crucial for tying up the base) but doesn’t have a southern or western twang or any blue collar air and thus avoids the rabid culture-war hate the media felt for W. and Palin.

  • kevin47

    “Mormon to boot, which the majority of Republican Christians just can’t handle without foaming at the mouth. ”

    How does the position of Republican Christians differ from that of liberals w/r/t Mormons? If anything, conservatives were foaming at the mouth FOR Romney last year, which was strange.

    As far as the social issues go, the only thing that matters at the executive level is judicial appointments. Romney will make the case that he is in a great position to nominate jurists with a conservative philosophy, and I think that’s what he intends to do if elected.

  • kevin47

    “Another handsome guy, but with no baggage, plus he’s not only a solid conservative he also does not come off as a nut.”

    Plus the Republicans can be assured of retaining his seat.

  • JeninCT

    Noah Kristula-Green wrote: “It may be too early for 2012 VP speculation, ”
    …but this great picture crossed my desk so I decided to write a caption!

    Msmilack wrote: “and who doesn’t have his facts straight before he speaks (so far, he’s been corrected for not understanding that military tribunals provide lawyers for suspected terrorists just as they do in federal courts;”

    The fact that he was correct by Biden only means that Biden misunderstood him.

    “These two Ken dolls should just start a magazine for pretty boys with no ideas but filled with much ambition.”

    Meow. Would you like them if they were chubby and bald?

  • Governing Principles

    Romeny is very orange in that photo. I’m not sure such an obviously fake tan engenders trust in a voter…

    http://www.governing-principles.com

  • msmilack

    Kevin47
    Point taken, you are right; talking is better than ranting (though I admit it feels good to vent once in a while). Behind my rant: I am so aggravated with the Republicans; I cannot name one who appears more interested in governing than in campaigning for the next election. Their scorch the earth obstructionism is paralyzing government and it is beyond clear that they do not care about the voters who elected them. I keep praying for one Republican who has enough integrity to put country before party– who is man or woman enough to stand up, apart from the rest, and say, “Enough Obama-bashing, enough campaigning for the next election, let’s save this country and do what we were elected to do.” To me, Romney and Brown are merely the most recent but hardly the only examples of such short-sighted selfish behavior and they never let the truth get in the way of their purposes. The behavior is so irresponsible, it blows my mind. And it doesn’t speak well of the voters who encourage them instead of demanding that they stop posturing and begin participating in a constructive way. That any of them would attend an event sponsored by the John Birch Society says a great deal to me about just how corrupt the conservative movement has become. Where are the intelligent elected officials in that party with character?

  • anniemargret

    msmilack: “Where are the intelligent elected officials in that party with character?”

    That’s an easy one. It died with Ronald Reagan, probably the last of the Republicans with character and integrity.

  • msmilack

    It is obvious that Romney is hoping Scott Brown will do for him what Palin did for McCain: help him slip onto a ticket, hoping the excitement of the new guy will the older guy get votes. B/w, it wasn’t just Biden who corrected Scott Brown; the corrections have come from multiple sources, especially about the stimulus package and jobs created or saved in Massachusetts (25,000). He simply hasn’t done his homework and is spouting party line.

  • debs

    Um…Does the writer understand that the guy “who killed Obamacare” enthusiastically supported Romneycare–which is identical to Obamacare? So what does that make Brown–and Romney, for that matter? You choose: thoughtful public servants who have accepted the logic of a regulation/mandate/subsidy system (not as effective, but similar in structure to that found in the Netherlands and Switzerland) to get the nation to near universal health care, and one that begins to bend the cost curve. Or frauds and cynics, who won’t even defend a program they support themselves! It’s depressing that a degree from the University of Chicago is no longer a guarantee that someone will grasp–or even be cognizant of–rudimentary contradictions like this.

  • TAZ

    I’m betting Romney will be the pick for 2012, but he cant afford a person like Brown (liberal) on the back of the ticket, the base will stay home.

    Romney is going to have to pick someone comfy with the base.

  • JeninCT

    Msmilack wrote: “B/w, it wasn’t just Biden who corrected Scott Brown; the corrections have come from multiple sources, especially about the stimulus package and jobs created or saved in Massachusetts (25,000). ”

    If Scott Brown was ‘corrected’ about jobs saved or created in Mass. (Multiple sources? Really?) then who’s correcting all the Obama administration officials who ever quoted a number of jobs saved or created? They’re all quoting different numbers.

  • mickster99

    As a far leftist, can someone who is a conservative enumerate what it means to be “conservative enough”. And then perhaps demonstrate historically how elected conservatives since Reagan/Gingrich/Cheney Bush have successful enacted conservative policies. Looking for facts and information please. Not interested in trolling name calling please. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

  • mickster99

    Listening to conservatives they refer frequently to smaller government. What specifically does that mean? They also refer to lower taxes. I am wondering lower taxes for which segment of taxpayers. Would it be for taxpayers regardless of the their income? They are also concerned about socialism. What specifically does “socialism” identify in terms of current government? Or what does that mean in terms of actual government policies currently enacted into law or proposed to become law. Thanks for the info.

  • kevin47

    “Point taken, you are right; talking is better than ranting”

    Paragraphs are good too.

    “Behind my rant: I am so aggravated with the Republicans; I cannot name one who appears more interested in governing than in campaigning for the next election.”

    That’s kind of the thing when your party is the minority. The Republicans can’t govern right now, because they are outnumbered by those who are charged with the task.

    “Their scorch the earth obstructionism is paralyzing government”

    It really isn’t. The Democrats have had every opportunity to pass their initiatives. What the Republican obstructionism has done is forced them to examine the electoral consequences of their agenda. Doing so often paralyzes government, which is fine by me. Governmental paralysis is not an inherent problem, in my view.

    “and it is beyond clear that they do not care about the voters who elected them.”

    I disagree with this. The voters who elected them want them to drown the Democratic agenda.

    “I keep praying for one Republican who has enough integrity to put country before party”

    What you are really praying for is that Republicans will embrace your worldview. They believe they are opposing a poorly considered agenda (and I think they are right), and so they are defending their country.

    “To me, Romney and Brown are merely the most recent but hardly the only examples of such short-sighted selfish behavior and they never let the truth get in the way of their purposes.”

    What is the truth, and what is their purpose? I would argue that what you believe to be true, they do not consider to be true. I vehemently oppose Obama’s agenda. That is because I don’t think he has the right ideas, not because I am ignoring truth.

    Very few people have made any attempt to convince me that I am wrong. Usually, I get a snarky remark about George W. or Sarah Palin. I find this line of argumentation unpersuasive, and so does Romney.

    “That any of them would attend an event sponsored by the John Birch Society says a great deal to me about just how corrupt the conservative movement has become.”

    How so? Also, to which event are you referring?

    “Where are the intelligent elected officials in that party with character?”

    I’m not sold on Romney as a candidate, but he certainly seems to be quite intelligent.

    Mostly, you seem to be upset that Republicans disagree with you. This fact is not going to change. There are at least two sides to every important political question, by definition. Else, it would cease to be a political question.

  • kevin47

    “As a far leftist, can someone who is a conservative enumerate what it means to be “conservative enough”.”

    In short, I would say this entails an ethic that says government ought not determine winners and losers, whether it applies to business decisions or to fundamental liberties. It also recognizes the limitations of federal government, seeking to confine it to matters of national defense.

    “And then perhaps demonstrate historically how elected conservatives since Reagan/Gingrich/Cheney Bush have successful enacted conservative policies.”

    Reagan sought to cut spending while investing in a military chess match with Russia, which we won.

    Gingrich sought to hold government accountable to providing return on taxpayer investment, and he won.

    Cheney saw a proactive military as essential to providing for our self defense.

    George W. Bush was a rather poor conduit for conservative values, though left a pronounced thumbprint on the judiciary, and saw a strong role for the United States in providing for its own defense.

    “Listening to conservatives they refer frequently to smaller government. What specifically does that mean?”

    It means that, overall, the government should have a smaller role in the economy, specifically with respect to the provision of goods and services.

    “They also refer to lower taxes.”

    A compelling argument for reducing spending.

    “I am wondering lower taxes for which segment of taxpayers.”

    If given their druthers, tax cuts would be across the board.

    “Would it be for taxpayers regardless of the their income?”

    Depends, but generally no. Taxes are defined by income and expenditures. Theoretically, we could solely tax expenditures, and there are conservatives who believe we should endeavor to do so. However, in the contemporary political context, it is impossible to disregard income when proposing tax policy.

    “They are also concerned about socialism.”

    Not in and of itself. Socialism is a means to ends that conservatives oppose.

    “What specifically does “socialism” identify in terms of current government?”

    Government controlling industries and markets. America possesses certain hallmarks of socialism, particularly as it respects our ag policy. To most conservatives our agricultural subsidies are a cautionary tale about the dangers of centralizing business, but that’s just one example.

    “Or what does that mean in terms of actual government policies currently enacted into law or proposed to become law.”

    I already identified farm subsidies. I would add cap and trade as a potential policy that would move us closer to socialism. It should be noted that Socialism, far from being anti-business, actually embraces a coalition between government and business. I would argue that the cap and trade proposal on the table represents the ultimate environmental handshake between government and business, at our expense.

    “Thanks for the info.”

    You are welcome.

  • msmilack

    kevin47
    I have one correction to your response that feels important enough to make: please do not tell me what I am “really” praying for; you are in no position to know. There is enough projection going on in today’s political climate without imposing it on me. The fact is nothing would please me more than to have noble opposition in our government, I am not simply hoping for a Republican who shares my worldview. I want a two-party system that functions well. Honest discussion works better without believing you know more than the person speaking about her own thoughts.

  • mickster99

    Kevin 47: Thanks for detailed and thoughtful reply. I appreciate it. I find it interesting that when defining socialism you mentioned our agriculture policy and farm subsidies. I assume by that do you mean financial supports of for certain commodity prices so as to make us competetive with foreign growers? Where do you think social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid fit in as aspects of socialism active in the US? As for controlling markets would you include the SEC, the FED as aspects of socialism. I recall reading a number of Republicans called for the eliminated of the SEC and let capital markets regulate themselves. Does that seem like a useful policy? Thanks again.

  • msmilack

    Misc.: just read that the person who supposedly became violent with Romney on an airplane (and was removed) has explained that actually, it was Romney who struck him first; luckily, a friend caught the whole event on film (those little cell phones come in so handy) which I assume will become available any minute. I bet Romney is wishing he had stuck to his previous policy of using private planes. Shortly after McCain got skewered for living in 7 (or was it 8?) residences, Romney quietly began to unload his own multiple mansions, selling three (or is it four?) of his five million dollar homes and began to fly commercial. Maybe he should just purchase a truck like Scott Brown.

  • mickster99

    kevin47, if you were a Republican president with a large majority controlling the House or Representatives and say 60+ Republican senators what would be your legislative agenda to put a conservative agenda for smaller government, lower taxes, elimination of waste, etc into effect in the U.S.?

  • GOProud

    Noah writes: “The strategy of the speech was clear: If you are a Republican who is happy that Scott Brown has derailed the President’s health care plan, its all due to Mitt Romney.”

    Thanks Noah –I told FF readers and even the farLeft trolls here that very thing in an earlier post only to get the “he’s a mormon”, “he’s a RINO”, “he’s a flip flopper” tossed back at the insight… and I won’t even share what the farLeft trolls said.

    farLeft trolls on FF given advice to Mitt or GOPers is about as sincere as Elliot Spitzer and Tiger Woods heading up a conference on Marriage Vows, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski giving tips on Mastering that Pedophile Urge, or Barney Frank and Joe Biden producing a coloring book on Ethics in Govt and Public Service for Democrat Dummies.

    But that’s ok… the farLeft’s fear –and you can literally smell the fear on guys like Chrissie Matthews, Keith Olbermann and David Alexrod– is well grounded. Let’s keeping putting the fork in them and turning ‘em on the spit of political reality because they’ve earned it for the years of abuse they heaped on W and Cheney.

  • sinz54

    msmilack: I keep praying for one Republican who has enough integrity to put country before party– who is man or woman enough to stand up, apart from the rest, and say, “Enough Obama-bashing, enough campaigning for the next election, let’s save this country and do what we were elected to do.”
    Republicans were NOT elected to acquiesce in Obama’s incessant attempts to drive the country sharply to the Left. That’s the point you keep forgetting. We conservatives believe that Obama’s policies are wrong for the country. But you want us to just shut up and go away and let Obama do whatever he wants, right?

    You are so wrong on every count, it’s unbelievable.

    I live in MA. I’m not going to bother trying to explain to you how a heavily Democratic and liberal state could elect a conservative Republican to the Senate. Many of the same voters who voted for Obama in 2008 voted for Brown in 2010, including suburban voters who were supposed to be swinging to the Dems–till 2010. We MA voters made the right choice, given who Brown’s opponent was and what she was all about. (I’m too contemptuous of her even to name her.)

    Until the Scott Brown win, the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The GOP couldn’t stop them from passing anything they wanted to pass. Why do you suppose they didn’t? It’s because the two bills that are blocked in Congress–health care reform and cap-and-trade–are deeply unpopular with the voters.

  • sinz54

    msmilack: I always found it interesting that Romney offered no opinions on national health care since he took pride (when it suited his personal agenda) in establishing the equivalent [to ObamaCare] in Massachusetts (where he is disliked by even the people who elected him).
    If RomneyCare is disliked in MA (because it didn’t stop health care premiums from rising sharply), then why on earth should we enact an “equivalent” bill nationally like ObamaCare? Isn’t the reaction of MA voters to their own health care reform a warning flag that we should do something different nationally?

    RomneyCare has the same basic structure as ObamaCare: Guaranteed issue; a mandate on all citizens to purchase insurance; and it even has a public option, CommonwealthCare, for the truly needy. Yet here are the Dems proposing to enact the same basic thing nationwide–even though MA voters are now sufficiently turned off that they could elect a conservative Republican to the U.S. Senate who promises to stop the other 49 states from having what MA has.

  • sinz54

    mickster99: kevin47, if you were a Republican president with a large majority controlling the House or Representatives and say 60+ Republican senators what would be your legislative agenda to put a conservative agenda for smaller government, lower taxes, elimination of waste, etc into effect in the U.S.?
    Could I put my $0.02 in?

    I would go with the Paul Ryan plan–as a starting point for discussion.

    Currently, Paul Ryan has the ONLY plan, from either party, that seriously attempts to stem the explosive rise in Medicare costs.

    The Ryan plan is flawed. But at least Paul Ryan has the guts to take on the entitlements problem, rather than toss it over the fence as Obama keeps doing.

  • sinz54

    kevin47: What you are really praying for is that Republicans will embrace your worldview. They believe they are opposing a poorly considered agenda (and I think they are right), and so they are defending their country.
    Thank you.

    That is exactly right.

    Obama is soft on terrorism.
    Obama is soft on Iran.
    Obama has expanded the national debt to frightening levels.
    Obama’s health care plan won’t do a damned thing to control costs. If anything, costs will rise sharply.
    Obama’s cap-and-trade plan will be shot through with corruption and shady deals, weakening its power, just as it has been in Europe. (Even the hard-core Leftists to Obama’s left admit this.)

    I live in MA.
    Scott Brown promised to oppose most of these things Obama is doing.
    He’s representing my interests by doing so.

  • sinz54

    debs: Does the writer understand that the guy “who killed Obamacare” enthusiastically supported Romneycare–which is identical to Obamacare? So what does that make Brown–and Romney, for that matter?
    I live in MA.

    Do YOU understand that the state of MA supported RomneyCare–it’s a liberal Dem state–but then elected Scott Brown to oppose ObamaCare nationwide? What does that make the citizens of MA?

    Do you know why they did that?

    For two reasons:

    1. RomneyCare is increasingly unpopular in MA, now that it has failed to constrain costs. (I live in MA. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of MA just raised my premium by over 40%.)

    2. Nevertheless, at least the citizens of MA already have RomneyCare, which they pay for through their state taxes. With ObamaCare, they would have to pay through their federal taxes for a program that duplicates what they already have. There’s no benefit to the citizens of MA from ObamaCare. Rather, the federal tax dollars of MA residents would go to subsidize ObamaCare for other states.

  • sinz54

    debs:

    BTW, ObamaCare is not identical to RomneyCare, as you claim.

    It’s worse.

    ObamaCare is shot through with special side deals to every special interest.

    MA has one of the finest hospital complexes in America, and possibly on earth. RomneyCare could leverage off of that. ObamaCare can’t.

    RomneyCare has a public option for the truly needy. ObamaCare doesn’t.

    That’s the main reason why MA voted for Scott Brown: Why should the citizens of MA pay Federal taxes to support a national program that is worse than what they already have and for which they pay through their state taxes? Why should the citizens of MA pay twice for the same thing?

    Scott Brown hammered that point in his campaign stops–and it was devastating to the Dems.

  • debs

    Sinz,

    You live in Massachusetts, and you dislike Romneycare, but most of your fellow citizens *don’t.* The ABC/Harvard/Kaiser poll taken a few days after Brown’s election showed that 68% of Mass residents approved of Romneycare. Just ain’t true that most people in the state don’t like–maybe you ought to get out a little more.

  • debs

    If Obama’s program doesn’t have a public option, it certainly not because he got any help from the Republicans! You’re kidding right? You’re blaming Obama because the Dems health care plan lacks a public option? Blame Joe Lieberman if you want, but 90% of Dems wanted a public option and zero Republicans did. The hospital point you make is irrelevant–the structures of the two bill are exactly the same, subsidy/mandate/regulation–and the special interest payoffs will be eliminated in the final bill, and are much less than the payoffs that pharm and the insurance companies got from the Bush administration for Medicare Part D–much less. In fact, that’s why we have Medicare Advantage now–which fleeces the taxpayers.

  • debs

    I meant to say, of course, that most of your fellow citizen do like the program. Here’s the key graf from the Post article on Jan 23rd:

    Massachusetts enacted a universal health-care plan several years ago, and the survey shows that it remains highly popular. Overall, 68 percent of the voters in Tuesday’s election say they support the plan, including slightly more than half of those voting for Brown.

  • GOProud

    Sinz54: “… even though MA voters are now sufficiently turned off that they could elect a conservative Republican to the U.S. Senate who promises to stop the other 49 states from having what MA has….”

    I think you’ve got a problem of association, here. Voters didn’t elect Brown to repudiate MA health care programs; they voted for Brown for a whelter of reasons… to oppose ObamaCare, the harsh partisanship in DC, to rebel against the Democrat Party machine that thought it was a Kennedy seat… and, famously, against the Obami’s return to a pre-9/11 mentality on terror.

    Brown won, Sinz54, because voters wanted him over a weak-knee’d, ineffective Coakley who had Obami Thugs manhandle press people and throw them to the curb when asking simple questions of Coakley. It didn’t help that the Obami Thug worked for the White House… but that’s how it goes when Robert Gibbs isn’t free to do public floggings of wayward press.

    It’s associations, pal. And stretching Brown’s election as a repudiation of MA Health Care plan is one that also stretches reality.

    It’s kind of like the educator yesterday who told a group of us at CPAC that students from families that are religious-centered get better grades, are better adjusted socially and do well in life. Therefore, we need to change HeadStart to include religious training for poor students from mostly dysfunctional families who can’t seem to get even the basic value of giving kids a warm breakfast.

    It’s a problem with associating two unrelated events.

  • ratgov

    sinz54 “Obama has expanded the national debt to frightening levels.”

    Here is my stock answer whenever someone talks about Obama raising the debt enormously:

    In 2001 the CBO estimated a budget surplus of $850B in 2009. Three things changed that drastically:
    - Bush tax cuts (which were suppose to increase government revenue by encouraging growth, but growth did not come close to covering the loss in revenue)
    - The war in Iraq and Afghanistan
    - Medicare part D
    Those three items (no matter what your feeling about them) had an absolutely massive effect on the amount of money our government spends (both short term – the wars will eventually end) and long term (Medicare part D will have an absolutely massive impact on the cost of governemnt FOREVER).

    When Obama took office, the Federal Budget was around 2.8T. The Federal budget for 2010 is around $3.5T.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873746.html

    That is a 25% increase, but it does not give anywhere near the real picture. If we remove entitlement spending (social security, medicare and interest) the number goes from 2008 $1.1T, 2010 $1.4T.

    Finally, the Obama administration has done something that I think that everyone would think is the correct thing to do: Start counting the cost of the wars in the budget (this was not done in the 2008 Budget). If you add that to the 2008 budget it is $1.3T. So the real answer (unless you wanted Obama to cut social security last year) is the the budget increased about 7% from 2008 to 2010.

    BTW I’m totally with you on the cap and trade stuff. But you won’t win if you don’t speak the truth.

  • kevin47

    “I have one correction to your response that feels important enough to make: please do not tell me what I am “really” praying for; you are in no position to know.”

    I’m in some position, having read your opinions. Your concept of a health dissent is that which largely cedes the argument. In fairness, you might be praying for zombies from Saturn to enslave us to work in their salt mines, so I apologize for potentially misrepresenting your religious views.

    “I find it interesting that when defining socialism you mentioned our agriculture policy and farm subsidies. I assume by that do you mean financial supports of for certain commodity prices so as to make us competetive with foreign growers?”

    Your wording is pretty confusing, but I am referring to price controls and subsidies. The problem, and this is a hallmark of socialism, is that the product of governmental intervention has been absorbed into agricultural economy. Any farmer who purchases farmland does so with the understanding that his land will be subsidized.

    “Where do you think social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid fit in as aspects of socialism active in the US?”

    By and large, they don’t, though you could argue that governmental negotiations constitute a sort of price control for health providers. My opposition to Social Security stems from the fact that it is financially untenable. Just because something is stupid doesn’t make it socialist.

    “As for controlling markets would you include the SEC, the FED as aspects of socialism. I recall reading a number of Republicans called for the eliminated of the SEC and let capital markets regulate themselves. Does that seem like a useful policy? Thanks again.”

    It does seem like a useful policy, though I wouldn’t fall on my sword over the question. The SEC provides a certain measure of market confidence among the public, which is not dispositive. However, that seems to be the extent of its usefulness.

    “kevin47, if you were a Republican president with a large majority controlling the House or Representatives and say 60+ Republican senators what would be your legislative agenda to put a conservative agenda for smaller government, lower taxes, elimination of waste, etc into effect in the U.S.?”

    I would eliminate the DOE outright, as well as any federal funding for non-military education.

    I would propose a privatized Social Security system that would eventually lead to the dissolution of the program.

    I would support a three year income tax increase (across the board, no exceptions) to pair with leftover Tarp/Stim funding to pay down the debt. I would work with congress to landmine it, meaning I would call for a tax deduction after the fourth year, such that any member of congress calling to make the increase permanent can be charged with raising taxes.

    I would support a line-item veto.

    I would make it very clear that our government is more than willing to carry out assassinations, if it serves our interests. I also wouldn’t hesitate to facilitate liberation in Iran, though I would demand compensation in terms of natural resources for such an endeavor. I would understand that those on the left who subscribe to an intellectually untenable sort of pacifism would cry foul. I would not care.

    I would remove the tax incentive for employers to provide health insurance, but create a tax deduction for the purchase of health insurance. To facilitate the transition, I would provide an incentive for employees to transfer benefits compensation to dollar compensation. From what I understand, Sen. Wyden proposed something very similar.

  • JonF

    Re: and, famously, against the Obami’s return to a pre-9/11 mentality on terror.

    Meanwhile in the real world Obama has done his own version of the surge in Afghanistan (you know, the pace where the Al Qaida big wigs hang out) and he is lobbing missiles into suspected Al Qaida sites in Pakistan. I realize GOP talking points will be repeated on a site like this, but could we at least have some that are not blatantly false?

  • sinz54

    GOProud: I think you’ve got a problem of association, here. Voters didn’t elect Brown to repudiate MA health care programs; they voted for Brown for a whelter of reasons… to oppose ObamaCare, the harsh partisanship in DC, to rebel against the Democrat Party machine that thought it was a Kennedy seat… and, famously, against the Obami’s return to a pre-9/11 mentality on terror.
    I live in MA, remember.

    I listen to the local talk shows.
    I do a lot of discussing with my neighbors and with the health care staff at my dialysis center.

    I know what people in MA were worried about.

    You’re right about the concerns about Obama’s counter-terrorism policy; I forgot and I should have mentioned that.

    But Brown explicitly promised to go to Washington to oppose Obama’s agenda. He promised to oppose ObamaCare, period. He did NOT promise any of that mushy post-partisanship or bi-partisanship or any such thing.

  • sinz54

    GOProud: And stretching Brown’s election as a repudiation of MA Health Care plan is one that also stretches reality.
    I keep explaining to the Dems I come in contact with,

    that the Brown position (and it’s one that MA voters agreed with) was: We’ve got health care reform in MA already. We don’t need ObamaCare because RomneyCare was actually better–and because we’ve already got one of the finest medical complexes in the world, right here in the Boston area. So why should we pay Federal taxes to support a national program that we don’t need? All we will end up doing is subsidizing the states, like Nebraska, that didn’t bother to elect their own health care reforms.

    And THAT is a consistent conservative position: If each of the states can act as a “social laboratory,” devising successful health care reforms, then the Federal Government’s role in health care reform can be made smaller–and cheaper.

    My advice to Ben Nelson of Nebraska: Your state doesn’t have the social pathologies of a bicoastal state. You don’t have vast numbers of illegal immigrants, or urban slums filled with the underclass. If you implemented “NelsonCare” for your own state, it wouldn’t bankrupt your people. So what stopped YOU from enacting your OWN health care reforms, as Romney did in MA?

  • sinz54

    debs:

    You missed my point entirely.

    Some MA residents approve of RomneyCare, some don’t.
    But all agree that it’s here to stay, paid for with our state tax dollars.
    And we have no need to pay for ObamaCare as well through our federal tax dollars.
    Since we have RomneyCare, but Nebraska has no health care reforms of its own,
    ObamaCare will force us MA residents to subsidize the health care of Nebraska, with no benefit to ourselves.
    Q.E.D.

  • sinz54

    ratgov:

    Take a look at this chart of past and future deficit spending:

    http://i47.tinypic.com/b62dn6.jpg

    According to the CBO, every single one of the projected deficits in the Obama administration are higher than those of the Bush Administration.

    And this chart doesn’t also show the imminent explosive rise in entitlement spending for SS and Medicare, as the baby-boomers finally retire.

    Paul Ryan, to his credit, has made fixing that explosive rise in Medicare spending into a centerpiece of his reform proposal.

    No other politicians, Dem or Repub, have had the guts to suggest such a thing.

  • JonF

    Sinz,

    Medicare is a huge problem. But SS is not. There is no “explosive rise”on the horizon for SS. There is a slow, steady increase for a few years, then a flattening out.
    SS can be made sustainable indefinitely with some small bore changes: raise the income taxation cap, increase the retirement age, and redo the COLA formula. To be sure there may be political issues with each of those, and I too worry that we lack the will for these and other problems we face. But there are no economic problems that cannot be surmounted in regards to SS.

  • msmilack

    Republicans are so mean.

  • sinz54

    JonF:

    I agree about increasing the retirement age for both SS and Medicare. I’ve been advocating that myself for quite a long time.

    But Medicare, unless SS, is not sustainable without fundamental restructuring of the program. We can’t have a shrunken cohort of young people paying for the medical care of baby-boomers, some of whom (thanks to modern medicine) will live till they’re 100.

    GOP Rep. Paul Ryan at least has the guts to tackle the problem. There isn’t anyone on the Dem side, from Obama on down, who will even discuss it publicly.