Today's Republican Debate - Mitt Romney vs. Mitt Romney

Dav said:

No they are not identical... but they are very similar, and in one respect - the inclusion of a partial public option - Romneycare is arguably even worse. No, it did not raise taxes, but it led to spending rates that required later tax raises, and I don't see that as being any different. The rest of the bill, even its main architects agree that it's extremely similar. Same economy-killing regulations and idiotic price-controls.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to sit here and defend Romneycare, call it a good thing, or even say I like Romney. That just isn't my stance at all. My issue however is attempting to present that he "Supported Obamacare" as if that's some kind of definitive fact...which its not. He supported something very similar to it, and if they said that no problem. But to me, its not "mostly true" to suggest that someone gave support for something that they never did. Did he support something similar? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he ever came out to support Obamacare.

Now, all of this would be fine if what Romney's been saying is true, that it was a Massachusetts-centric problem, not meant to be applied elsewhere, and that it's an improvement on the system that came before it. However, he was clearly very proud of the bill, going so far as to include a copy of it in his gubernatorial portrait. And he never, ever made it seem like a state-only concern until it became politically necessary to do so. The killer is that he has endorsed using the plan - sorry, "aspects" of the plan (whatever that means) - elsewhere in the nation, and clearly thought it was a good plan that held up in its own right, not just for MA, but universally. Given the government-expanding nature of the bill, it really puts his supposedly fiscal conservative instincts into question.

Click to expand...

Again, never said I trusted Romney. I've actually said the opposite in this thread. However, attempting to present my guess of what he likely actually thinks or feel as if its some kind of fact that can then be built upon is just incorrect. Its an opinion, at best, and your OPINION on something doesn't magically cause facts to appear...such as their claim that he supported Obamacare.

I don't hate Romney, in fact I think he may be the least-bad candidate running for office right now and might end up voting for him just to keep the crazies out (unless, unlikely as it seems now, Huntsman catches on). But this is a huge stain on his record - even bigger than his various social-policy flip-flops (most of which aren't as bad as people make them out to be) - and conservatives should remain suspicious of him for it.

Click to expand...

Agree...which is part of why I think the ad will be EFFECTIVE even if its extremely hard and fast with the truth. I've got zero issue with the Dem's or Rep's going after Romney and the healthcare bill and its similarities to Obama. However, simply because I don't trust him as a politician and don't like Romneycare doesn't mean I can just close my eyes to obvious misrepresentation. I have a significant issue with trying to proclaim that saying someone supports something they've never once, in any way shape or form, said they support is somehow "somewhat true".

Which was the heart of my issue here and where my argument as been. Want to put out dishonest political ads? Fine. As I said in this thread, its par for the course and a systemic problem I can't get highly worked up about because its so prevalent. However, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining...which is what was attempting to be done by trying and say that claiming he supported something he never supported is more truth than dishonest spin and half truths. That's as best as I'd say it could be...half truth. But mostly true? To me that'd be him talking very positive about it but stopping just short of saying "I support it". Supporting something similar but not identical to me means its entirely untrue and completely spin to suggest he specifically supported something else.

disneydude said:

Call me a flip-flopper (or maybe.....not).....I like the Mitt Romney of a decade ago....can't stand the one now. If I could vote for the old Romney I would, however, the re-invented Romney that is trying to attract the right-wing GOP of today is not the same guy....

Click to expand...

Reminds me of how McCain changed his positions to more closely match his base during the campaign. Perry is just much better at it..............................................with an almost superhuman ability......................

Yeeup, he believes that Romneycare is extremely similar to Obamacare, that Romney supported Obamacare, and that Romney probably STILL supports Obamacare, and is lying ... but it's incredibly dishonest to say that Romney flip flopped. Makes you wonder who the biggest liar is in all this?

AdamT said:

Yeeup, he believes that Romneycare is extremely similar to Obamacare, that Romney supported Obamacare, and that Romney probably STILL supports Obamacare, and is lying ... but it's incredibly dishonest to say that Romney flip flopped. Makes you wonder who the biggest liar is in all this?

Click to expand...

Difference between you and I is I don't put my personal opinions based on my own biases and anecdotal evidence out there as if they're certain facts. I actually recognize them as OPINION

Zyphlin said:

Difference between you and I is I don't put my personal opinions based on my own biases and anecdotal evidence out there as if they're certain facts. I actually recognize them as OPINION

Click to expand...

The difference between you and I is that, if someone tells me they have a bridge they want to sell me, I don't take them strictly at their word.

AdamT said:

The difference between you and I is that, if someone tells me they have a bridge they want to sell me, I don't take them strictly at their word.

Click to expand...

Ummmm.......no, that is not it.

Redress said:

Ummmm.......no, that is not it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i think you're right. It's more like someone is selling him a bridge, and he doesn't actually think the bridge belongs to the guy, but you know he's got some paperwork there that looks pretty fake, but you can't really prove it's 100% for sure fake ... so sure, why not.

AdamT said:

Yeah, i think you're right. It's more like someone is selling him a bridge, and he doesn't actually think the bridge belongs to the guy, but you know he's got some paperwork there that looks pretty fake, but you can't really prove it's 100% for sure fake ... so sure, why not.

Click to expand...

Nope. Still way off. Zyphlin is one of the smarter, shrewder people on this board. He is wrong about alot of things, but by god he has solid reasons for believing those wrong things.

Redress said:

Nope. Still way off. Zyphlin is one of the smarter, shrewder people on this board. He is wrong about alot of things, but by god he has solid reasons for believing those wrong things.

Click to expand...

I agree that he's one of the smarter cabbages in this cart. He's just wrong on this one.

AdamT said:

Yeah, i think you're right. It's more like someone is selling him a bridge, and he doesn't actually think the bridge belongs to the guy, but you know he's got some paperwork there that looks pretty fake, but you can't really prove it's 100% for sure fake ... so sure, why not.

Click to expand...

Actually, it'd be more like this.

Someone says "Hey, that guy doesn't own that bridge". Now, I know for 100% fact the guy DOES own the bridge. However, from what I know about him, I know that it was PROBABLY paid for with other peoples money and he's likely more of a caretaker of it. If he approached me and said "Hey, I'll sell you this bridge" I'd likely say no, because I don't trust based on my own JUDGEMENT that its fully in his ability to sell it without issues. However, I'd still say the statement that he doesn't own it would be false because based on the actual FACTS it would be a lie because it'd be quite clear by his paperwork stating such that he DOES own it.

Similarly, we have 0 evidence of Romney ever coming out in favor of Obamacare, so its unquestionably untrue to say he "supported Obama's plan". As a personal judgement I may think deep down he does, however my JUDGEMENT and OPINION of what he actually thinks are not FACTS. The ad, however, IS attempting to present a fact. A fact that is not true.

Zyphlin said:

Actually, it'd be more like this.

Someone says "Hey, that guy doesn't own that bridge". Now, I know for 100% fact the guy DOES own the bridge. However, from what I know about him, I know that it was PROBABLY paid for with other peoples money and he's likely more of a caretaker of it. If he approached me and said "Hey, I'll sell you this bridge" I'd likely say no, because I don't trust based on my own JUDGEMENT that its fully in his ability to sell it without issues. However, I'd still say the statement that he doesn't own it would be false because based on the actual FACTS it would be a lie because it'd be quite clear by his paperwork stating such that he DOES own it.

Similarly, we have 0 evidence of Romney ever coming out in favor of Obamacare, so its unquestionably untrue to say he "supported Obama's plan". As a personal judgement I may think deep down he does, however my JUDGEMENT and OPINION of what he actually thinks are not FACTS. The ad, however, IS attempting to present a fact. A fact that is not true.

Click to expand...

I would say that the ad is presenting the judgment of the people who paid for the ad. And since I deem the judgment entirely reasonable, I would give it a thumbs up.

Catawba said:

Reminds me of how McCain changed his positions to more closely match his base during the campaign. Perry is just much better at it..............................................with an almost superhuman ability......................

Click to expand...

True....the old McCain was much better than the re-invented one that tried to appeal to the wacko base of the GOP....just like the Old Mitt is much better than the re-invented one that is courting the radical wing of the GOP today.

Any possibility that the New Mitt Romney will choose the Old Mitt Romney as is running mate if he gets the nomination?

AdamT said:

The ridiculous thing is that it's Romney's No. 1 achievement in government, and something he SHOULD be proud of. Thanks to Obamneycare, 98% of MA residents are covered by health insurance. In a recent poll, 62% of MA residents said they were favor of it to just 21% against.

Romneycare’s Rising Popularity in Massachusetts | FrumForum

Click to expand...

What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for, say, Texas. I believe that Texas should vote on it's own plan, or to even have a plan at all, rather than having a Federal one shoved down it's throat. If some people in Texas don't like that, then they should move to Massachusetts. If some people in Massachusetts don't like what happened there, then they can always move to Texas. But the final decision should be up to the states. The reason it isn't right now is because of the insurance lobboy that helped Obama to foist this atrocity upon the rest of us.

MrMindSpeaker said:

i think thats a fair claim, but one really dosnt know the motive.!

Click to expand...

We do know the motive. Its called a liberal can't run as a republican primary presidential candidate in various parts of the country so he is pretending to be a conservative and he is hoping that voters do not watch the news or internet so they can't verify what a blatant liar and flip flopper he is.

so when deciding to support him or not if he does happen to be the nominee, people will then have to choose to believe it or not.

Click to expand...

Only a fool would believe him.One has to assume that if he got elected he would be Obama's second term because he changed his mind again on what he claims to believe.

disneydude said:

Any possibility that the New Mitt Romney will choose the Old Mitt Romney as is running mate if he gets the nomination?

Click to expand...

Oh I think its pretty clear Romney is going to get the nomination. All he has to do is wait for the remaining candidates to implode and then for the general election campaign just morph back into more moderate positions. A very small feat for...........PLASTIC MAN!

Catawba said:

Oh I think its pretty clear Romney is going to get the nomination. All he has to do is wait for the remaining candidates to implode and then for the general election campaign just morph back into more moderate positions. A very small feat for...........PLASTIC MAN!

Click to expand...

i dont know, time is running out and at this moment Newt is beating him in the polls. i think newt was always going to do good, his campaign was poisoned by the media from the start with his manager and other staff stepping down and it just took time for people to make up their own mind and not let the media do it for them.

Catawba said:

Oh I think its pretty clear Romney is going to get the nomination. All he has to do is wait for the remaining candidates to implode and then for the general election campaign just morph back into more moderate positions. A very small feat for...........PLASTIC MAN!

Click to expand...

That is exactly what McCain tried to do.....however, McCain had sold his integrity to the right-wing to such a degree that there was no returning to his true self. I think the same is very likely true with Romney.

MrMindSpeaker said:

i dont know, time is running out and at this moment Newt is beating him in the polls. i think newt was always going to do good, his campaign was poisoned by the media from the start with his manager and other staff stepping down and it just took time for people to make up their own mind and not let the media do it for them.

Click to expand...

I can only hope you are right and the GOP picks Gingrich to run against Obama. I don't think the Democrats will be so lucky, but one can always hope!