You will vote for Romney.
You will smile and act like you like it, through gritted teeth.
I am not putting up with 4 more years of that idiot in the white house because you are too petulant to pull your heads out of your asses. This pouting "Not Red enough" crap is what Liberals do. Conservatives are just that: We do what makes sense.
Mark Levin is a hypocrite, despite bashing Romney in 2012 and calling him a RINO over the same issues that he supported in 2008 even despite Romneycare already in effect since 2006 by stating, "The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney."
Really, since all the Anyone-But-Romney group states that they will stay home if Romney is nominated, why not us Romney-bots stay home if your candidate is elected. Your misguided anger is immature. Romney was Governor of a state that had a 85% Democrat Congress. What do you think he was supposed to do. He is catching the blame for every dumb liberal idea that the liberal majority of people in Mass. tried to or had passed into law even before Romney became Governor. I never realized that conservatives could be so immature to just give four more years to the worst president America ever had. You’re not going to hurt Romney, he will still have his 200 million, his excellent family, his faith, you are not going to hurt the "GOP" establishment" whoever they are only going to hurt yourselves for many years to come.
Romney's biggest problem is that he is not a politician. He doesn't walk around think about abortion and family values all the conservative talking point. He just lives them. Romney can fix the economy. I don't need him for anything else thank you.
Why is our government full of liars and crooks? Because that’s what the people of America want. They want people to lie to them, promise things, yes even conservative talking points that will never happen. Sales tax, never going to happen, why, because you have to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th amendment, has to go to congress and then be voted on and passed by 2/3 of the states. “For those in Rio Land”. You don’t want both on the books because we will
end up with both taxes.
Romney understands this, many of you do not. Conservatives, you had your chance to save America and you blew it. Tell that to your kids and grandkids.
That's 100% correct- except they mostly moved earlier- in the 60's and early 70's, not the late 70's and early 80's.
Repeal depends on how soon we can complete the purge of the Senate that began in 2010. Until then it's up to your state to opt out. Otherwise, move. Read Liberty and Tyranny, Chapter 5, "On Federalism".
The MA House and Senate each passed their own bills. They also added a slew of provisions to Romney's bill, including an employer mandate, which he vetoed but they overrode. Healthcare was going to happen in MA with him or without him.
Nonsense! These are important issues whose resolution determine the direction of the country. What should be the "point" of what we say? Only what will help the ESTABLISHMENT imposed candidate? No way!
Unbelievably we are about to repeat the fundamental mistake which lead to Obama's election. We simply are not listening to what the candidate is actually saying. Romney is a RINO - a Republican In Name Only. If Romney is the nominee the 2012 election is reduced to two Democrats running against one another.
The only stance Romney has not vacillated on is Romney Care…"the decision of a mandate should be pushed down to the States. The decision should be left to the States." Every other position he has taken, he has changed for political expediency. But like Obama, Romney sees his Health Care mandate as his signature achievement.
Actually listen to what Romney says:
1. Romney says he will repeal Obama Care.
a. Well in point of fact a President doesn't have the authority to repeal a law. So this statement is meaningless.
2. The decision on Health Care mandate should be left up to the States like we did in Massachusetts.
a. He does not say there should not be a Health Care mandate, only that it should be mandated by the State.
3. The US Supreme Court decision on Obama Care is irreverent.
a. The primary basis for the 'legal challenge' to Obama Care is the ability of the Federal Government to issue this mandated purchase by the US Citizen's across state lines IN THIS MANNER.
b. The Federal Government in fact requires mandate behavior all the time. It simply 'pushes it down to the States' to mandate. This action has been upheld in the US Supreme Court over and over.
- The Federal Government will simply attach the Romney/Obama Care mandate to one or another federal funding source.
- Just as the Federal Government does with Highway Tax funds, if the State wants the Federal Funds it must MANDATE the Romney/Obama Health Care - JUST LIKE MASSACHUSETTS.
If Obama is reelected Democrats win. If Romney is elected Democrats win. Either way we will see a SOCIAL HEALTH CARE MANDATED. Returning to the sports metaphor; the immediate play is beating Obama and/or defeating the Federal Health Care Mandate. The endgame is much greater than that - it is the fundamental restoration of our government in accordance with the Founding Father's vision and away from the creeping Socialist model which is fuelled by the Politian's self interest.
How easy it is to manipulate us. - Electability. The most powerful motive for voting for Romney, electability. A designation the GOP establishment bestowed upon Romney BEFORE WE HEARD FROM THE CANIDATES and BEFORE ANY VOTING TOOK PLACE. Of course the media picked it up and has repeated endlessly. The general population hearing this repeated ad nauseam takes it up thoughtlessly. Even though every poll shows the GOP voters will consolidate behind whoever is the nominee. I don't care if it is a Democrat or a Republican buying off an election, I don't know about you, but being manipulated like this really ticks me off!
We should be focused upon what is the quality of the President we elect.
Is he able to perform the huge job ahead? Obama was not and four years later is not.
We need someone who can repair the immense damage done to our fundamental constitutional / governmental system. Of these candidates only Newt Gingrich has that ability.
When my house is on fire the only thing I care about is the skills of the firefighter. I don’t care anything about their personal life.
In this instance we need someone to save our country. We don’t need Romney with his hollow feel-good statements. We don’t need Santorum to tell me what my spiritual values should be. We don't need Paul who is unable to understand why it is beneficial to fight wars on foreign soil rather than in our neighborhoods.
We need Newt Gingrich to return our country to the fundamental constitutional foundations. We need Newt Gingrich who thinks outside the current lockstep self-serving establishment. We need Newt Gingrich who has sharp elbows and can fight the inside political fights. We need a President who clearly, thoughtfully and unapologetically puts America first.
Levin's correct that all government mandates - whether local, state, or federal - are statist and therefore inherently "unconservative". But "unconservative" isn't "unconstitutional".
Coulter's point isn't that RomneyCare was some great conservative achievement. She's merely arguing that unlike ObamaCare, it's constitutional and a far less intrusive piece of legislation than the overwhelmingly liberal Massachusetts legislature might have enacted if Romney had not been governor.
Thank you Mark Levin for setting the record straight. Romney is a statist and was a terrible governor.
Love the show and loved your book.
Mark missed her point, and he broke her column up so that his listeners could not discern her argument either. Read her column yourself, and you will see she is simply making the case that Romney is not more liberal than Gingrich.
As usual the Great One is right on target. I am sick and tired of seeing her on tv whining and twitching on Romneycare!! She supported another moderate Christie and when he said no she pivoted to Romney. Why???? Bye Bye Ann.
What part of Romney will repeal Obamacare people do not understand? I know Mark Levin is not a big Romney fan but didnt he endorse Romney back in 2008 together with Rush and Sean Hannity? He said he will repeal it so many times.
Government mandates are not conservative, and we should not encourage or justify them. Point well taken, and well elaborated upon.
Of course you recognize Ann is not arguing against that. She is making a nuanced yet important argument that Romneycare should not be equated with Obamacare.
Ann's position is not that Romney is a conservative champion, rather she simply argues that Romney is not more liberal than Gingrich and that Romney is the better candidate to run against Obama.
Well stated! Half the people on this thread haven't read, or don't understand the constitution! They would support big gov bush while simultaneously bashing Romneycare.
I agree! Most of these morons think Newt is the answer. Except he is just as liberal as Mitt, and twice as corrupt!
Its scares me to think that some of these people are representing the conservative movement when they don't support the constitution.
Mark is sometimes loud, obnoxious, and difficult to deal with but he is almost always correct. He is in this instance as well. Coulter has prostituted herself for Romney and should be called to account for it in public.
WOW. Slavery is JUST like having to pay for your own insurance, is that a joke? The government forces people to buy auto insurance in order to drive, is that slavery? The government forces us to buy auto insurance to protect the people we drive next to in case of an accident. If the government were to force us to buy health insurance, it would be a similar concept, instead of protecting other people it would protect the tax payer from picking up the tab on people who refuse to pay. What rights are we losing here? the right not to have health insurance? were is that in the constitution? Im not saying i think the government should do this, but if the people of a state want it, let them have it. Oh, and what part of an individual mandate allows the government to control your healthcare? You are confusing a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM with an individual mandate, although one includes the other, they are not mutually inclusive.
This guy is very convincing in his delivery only the substance of what hes saying is very wrong for instance he keep saying that Obamas health insurance is socialism and its not and he talks about individual mandates which we should want to be a part of because it will cut because according to the cbo it will cut medical cost premiums and reduce the fast growth of insurance and last and mostly it will insure over 40 million americans and we should be willing to sign on to having health insurance because it contribute to the common good of the american people instead of look at the individual mandate as a bad thing design to take away our freedoms because it does so much good for all of us to have health insurance now I can agree with levin with romney care's failure but the Obama plan has financing and that is the removal of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy which even replublicans have said has led to the budget problems we have today with the lack of revenues being collected by the federal government and democrates definitely know what to do with the additional revenues otherwise we would not have had a budget surplus under Bill Clinton. So even though levin scares you with his shouting and snarlling speech he is still short on facts.
30 min of ripping Romneycare apart, but not a single alternative to it. The problem with Romneycare was the the dysfunctional connector. It may have been much more effective, but the dems wrecked it. Its easy to pick apart failed policies, but its much harder to give a viable alternative, which Levin doesn't do. Not even close. Also, Newt has been pro-individual mandate for 25 years, so why are we even talking about this, whether Newt or Romney gets the nomination it wont matter because both have similar opinions about healthcare.
Ann Coulter has an agenda. She is partnering with a gay group to try and change the GOP into a gay friendly party and her friend Christie is a great example of this, just look at his appointment of an openly gay advocate judge in New Jersey a few weeks back.
Ann, you have now lost all credibility with true conservatives. Romney defends individual mandates on healthcare, and it is simply unconstitutional. He argues it is a state's issue. That's like the KKK arguing segregation was a state's issue. When you trounce people's rights laid out in the constitution, you cannot justify it with state's rights. We fought a Civil War and suffered from the race riots of the 1960s because of this backward thinking.
Levin missed the point of the article. It was not meant to be a defense of Romneycare (the title is sarcastic). She is not advocating that Romneycare was a good idea or that it should be started in other states. She is pointing out that the assumption that Romneycare and Obamacare are the same is an incorrect one. One is unconstitutional and one is not. One is a 2000 page monstrosity and the other is not. She points out that in fact Romneycare has failed due to it being used as a structure by liberals to add measures that lead to redistribution of wealth and more government control of healthcare. So her conclusion is that it is a failure, but not even in the same ballpark as Obamacare. She also points out that in fact the mandate per se is not the worst part of Obamacare or Romneycare as it has been portrayed recently. It is the government control of healthcare.
She also supports Romney despite his mistakes because she knows he is way better than Obama, that there is no reason to believe whatsoever that he will do nothing other than repeal Obamacare and he is the only candidate that can beat Obama in November. She is dispelling the myths about a complicated issue so people can understand what happened more clearly and not just assume he is the same as Obama, which could not be further from the truth.
Coulter is off the reservation..... Mittens is a RINO, Newt is a Big Government, Power hungry mostly-conservative but, unelectable candidate. Ron Paul is Care-less(blind to worldwide dangers), and crazy enough to believe that the population of this nation can handle the legalization of narcotics(good man! i like him. would love to hear all his theories with lots of beer and pretzels.) Not as our president(FAR better than Obama) though. Santorum is the only choice. He is a great conservative, A Reagan Conservative. If he gets the nomination,? He'll crush Obama.
You knew at a glance Ann's column would provoke people to exclaim that Ann is endorsing mandates and or endorsing Romneycare. People: Read. The. Column.
The title is SARCASTIC. Just look through the list of her past titles. And anyway you would know that if you _read the column_.
Mark--who at no point does his listeners the service of representing Ann's argument--says "Ann concedes that [a federal mandate] is unconstitutional, but her point is 'what’s the big deal?'" That is NOT her point--and it is obvious that that is not her point. She is saying a STATE mandate is a small concern relative to a government takeover of the healthcare industry.
Simply read the whole column carefully, and you will see she is arguing that it is fallacious to equate Obamacare and Romneycare. Why is that relevant? Because equating the two is often the primary grounds for calling Romney more liberal than Gingrich.
Dissapointed in all the hate against Ann. She is a great conservative voice in the lions den. If there was a truly conservative candidate she would probably endorse them. Now she is like the rest of us, trying to pick the candidate that sucks the least. If she thinks that is Romney then fine. Only the Newt/Paul/Rick Bots are going to spew that much hate against her because of it. There can be a civil debate on the points she makes in her article. Perhaps it's liberal trolls spewing all the hate.
Cav Mort, it isn't hate for Ann. It is calling her out when she is wrong. Do you think Mark Levin ( a great Conservative voice) engages in hate? No.
Are you a Romney bot? Is there such a thing? It's funny really. I've never heard the term bot applied to anyones followers as a "bot" except Ron Paul's, and I agree.
westernman your example of auto insurance is VOID. Operating a vehicle is considered a privilage by the state. One does not have to drive or buy insurance if they the individual chose not to drive. so please rethink you logic. thank you.
This is the amicus brief that the Heritage Foundation filed in FL against Obamacare. Oddly never ONCE mentions Massachusetts nor Romneycare. It does advocate against an individual mandate - though one can imply by it's case for Federalism and its omission of complicity in Romneycare that this brief is in total regard addressed solely to the Federal level mandate, not a State one.
The fact remains that Heritage Foundation endorsed and helped create Romneycare. If they see it as a mistake now, they are just as reluctant to openly express it as Mitt Romney is.
The bottom line is this: Romneycare was Constitutional. Obamacare is not. Will Mitt Romney repeal Obamacare if possible? Do you believe his promise to do so?
Mitt Romney should win the nomination and advocate against Obamacare due to the fact that it is unconstitutional and contains horrible provisions. He also at that point should be willing to concede some level of error in the Romneycare plan, it was an experiment in a state that was desired by the majority of his constituents.
It was Constitutional. Obamacare is not.
I'm not going to twist myself into a pretzel voting for Romney. I did that with Bush, never again.
I'll vote for Romney if he is the nominee, and I'll verbally bash him upside the head whenever he needs it.
We can't carry water for these guys when they stray, we can't push them to the right that way. We just shoot ourselves in the foot by blindly following their agenda just because we think Democrats will be worse. The strategy really hurt us under Bush and where did it lead? Obama!
You don't have to be a Romney fan to vote for Romney. My vote is simply a protest/rebuke of the status quo.
From the Heritage Foundation website:
Doesn't look like backing away to me.
Levin likes socialism, when it is forcing every household of 3 to pay the equivalent of $10,000 each for $1,000,000,000,000+ wars 8,000 miles away against cave dwellers, when we could simply be neutral and have a strong civil defense against invaders, like Switzerland, and draw much less hostility. We've set up permanent squatter camps in foreign countries (military bases), and they're attacking us because of it. Switzerland and Japan don't set up permanent squatter camps in foreign countries, and have no foreign terrorist attacks because of it. Levin believes in limited socialism, the type he wants. Just another neo-con hypocrite, crying about socialism of being forced to pay for services you don't want, while supporting wars that benefit nobody but another Middle Eastern country.
What would Paul have done to save the kidnapped American Jessica Buchanan in Somalia? Say, "Oh, I'm sorry, you get what you get when you travel to such places to try and help people".
She is a person without principle, she has always been that way, she dated Bill Maher, so what does that tell you?