Yes, I do think Obama was pummeled by Romney in presentation and style tonight, and it’s not my intention to analyze it. I just can’t let Romney’s bullshit about pre-existing conditions slide.
Romney “lengthy description” of his plan on his website, as he alluded to during the debate, is only 369 words, and it states
Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
If Romney “appeals Obamacare”, we’d just revert back to the old status quo, which I’ve been intimately acquainted with for the past 15 years or so. You must retain “continuous” coverage to avoid losing coverage for pre-existing conditions. Continuous coverage means you can’t have a gap of more than 63 days. It means that a person struggling to get by who loses his job has to figure out a way to pay $500-$1000/month for COBRA coverage to continue affordable treatment for his or his family member’s cancer treatments. A snafu once put my continuous coverage in jeopardy years back. It would have been disastrous, as it has been disastrous for tens of millions of Americans over the years.
Again, people would pre-existing conditions would not be protected under Romney’s “plan”.
Maybe he shouldn’t have stuck his dog Seamus on top of the family station wagon for a road trip.
Kudos to whoever started this site for Mitt Romney.
I haven’t watched any of the 17 or 18 GOP debates. I certainly follow what’s going on. I read news stories and commentaries and hear way too much on NPR, who, to my annoyance, give these guys a fair shake. Most of what they say is repulsive to me.
I turned on the CNN debate earlier (via the web).
Romney, defending his Bain record of creating jobs to wild applause, got even bigger applause when he spoke of shoving capitalism down Obama’s throat in the general election campaign.
Santorum then chimed in that Obama was responsible for the squalor that too many Americans were living in.
I turned it off. I didn’t even wait for Newt to make his pandering over-the-top racist comment-of-the-hour.
McCain was the Dalai Lama compared to these guys. At least he’d tell supporters to calm down and that they were wrong when they’d say Obama was a Muslim or a terrorist who’d destroy America.
I don’t even like Obama all that much, but the tone of the GOP is so nasty.
UPDATE I recommend Andrew Sullivan’s commentary. It informs me and validates my disgust at the same time.
Today, I saw a Toyota Prius with a Mitt Romney bumper sticker. The driver is probably a vegan that works at a Wilson’s Leather.
Iowans take politics very seriously, and they’re far more interested in learning about presidential candidates than most Americans. I don’t know if this is a function of their first-in-the-nation status or the lack of anything more interesting to do in Iowa. Either way, they give careful scrutiny to candidates in way a national campaign will never allow for, so I don’t subscribe to the notion that it’s unfair that they get to decide. After all, Iowans are a reasonable-enough representative of Americans1. I suppose it might make sense to rotate primary schedules every four years. I’m mainly saying that having a more national primary would result in the campaigning having absolutely no substance.
I am hoping that John Edwards pulls out a win over Clinton and Obama. For me, he’s got the best combination of authenticity and ability. If it’s going to be Clinton or Obama, I do not have a preference. I like Obama more, but not as much as everyone else who’s in love with Obama. I believe that, of the three first-tier candidates, Obama is most vulnerable to losing in a general election, although my reasoning might be canceled out by the intangible element of first-time voters whom Obama may be able to motivate to come out in ways no other candidate ever has before. (My cynicism here comes from the part about how “no other candidate ever has before” ever truly gotten young people come out and vote. Sure, they register. But they never really do come out and vote).
On the Republican side, the Huckabee vs. Romney choice is quite frightening. Hard to believe that McCain, Giuliani aren’t even trying to compete given those horrific options. Huckabee wants to make history by defeating a guy who has outspent him by huge margins. That would indeed be impressive. But it would be a disturbing mirror of Iowans should they select a man who refutes evolution, once preached that women belong at home, and believed that AIDS victims should be quarantined. It would hardly be more flattering should they select Romney, a guy who believes in his heart of hearts absolutely nothing.
Dodd, Richardson, Biden are all much better candidates than Huckabee and Romney based on their knowledge, qualifications, and authenticity, and it’s unfortunate that one or more of them will probably be out of the reason within a week or two.
1 White, middle-class Americans
Q: What would be more dangerous or despicable than a President Giuliani?
A: a President Huckabee or a President Romney
That’s my reaction to the latest Huckabee news– Huckabee refuses to retract ’92 remarks on AIDS patients — and Mitt Romney’s recent “freedom requires religion” speech.
Dems and progressives capable of rational thought ought to shelve the anti-Rudy rants and documentaries for the time being; the time for their relevance will come soon enough.
Bill O’Reilly, etc. like to paint progressives as haters of America. I don’t hate America. However, should eight years of George W. Bush be followed by four years of Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney, this nation will be so much under God that anyone with a secular thought will suffocate.
Any mostly-binary chart to summarize candidate positions has its problems. Few issues are black-and-white, for me, at least. But I thought it would be interesting to run through the chart and see whom I agreed with most. Now, the people I agree with most are not necessarily the people I think are the best candidates for President. I agree with a lot of pundits and bloggers and even myself most of the time…that doesn’t mean we’re all quality presidential candidates.
1. Kucinich (22)
2T. Gravel (18)
2T. Clinton (18)
2T. Obama (18)
2T. Edwards (18)
6. Richardson (17)
7. Dodd (16)
8. Biden (14)
9. Paul (11)
10. McCain (9)
11. Giuliani (8)
12. Brownback (5)
13. Cox (4)
14T. Huckabee (3)
14T. Tancredo (3)
16. Romney (2)
17T. Thompson (1)
17T. Hunter (1)
My realistic (as in mainstream electibility) top 5 preferences:
And while I don’t care that Mitt Romney spent nearly $2K on makeup while governor, since the media cares so much about John Edwards’ personal grooming expenses (and 44% of Americans are apparently aware of those expenses based on a poll), I figure I might as well make sure a few people here and there know that Mr. “I keep my dog on the roof of my station wagon during family trips” Romney also has spent quite a bit of money on personal grooming, specifically makeup. Mitt wears makeup. Haha.
I’m fully aware that all public figures wear makeup and that it’s required under harsh television and convention lighting. Again, I have no gripe with Mitt or anyone else making an investment in their personal appearance. It’s the media’s and the public’s focus on Edwards’ grooming that irks me.
I suppose it irks me more that the media doesn’t ask Romney WTF he’s talking about when he says things like that, “We oughta double Gitmo!” There are plenty of substantial policy views that warrant attention. But I bet more people read this post as-is then if it were entitled, “Mitt Romney’s dangerous foreign policy”.
Romney and Sharpton on Mormons – The Caucus – Politics – New York Times Blog:
[Romney] said today that he believed most voters were not looking to elect someone â€œbased upon what church they go to but based upon their values and vision.â€
Not to sound like a pre-JFK anti-Catholic bigot, but people should indeed look at what church you go to if you’re running for President. Your adherence to any particular religious doctrine is wholly relevant when one considers whom to vote for, because it is nonsense whenever someone claims that their faith does not dictate their decisions in government. If a candidate does claim this, then his or her adherence to that faith is questionable, at best. If your faith plays a significant role in defining you, then certainly your decisions factor in teaching from your faith.
So, Mitt Romney, if someone appears to attack your Mormonism, listen to the attack and tell people if it’s valid or not. If you were a Mormon while the Mormon Church preached inequality decades ago, how do you reconcile this? I’m not saying you can’t reconcile it, but you ought to be able to defend your faith. Or if you think that 50% of what your faith dictates is bullshit, you ought to have the cajones to say so. Otherwise, you’re just the gigantic phony that I currently believe you to be.