President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 02, 2011 07:09 PM UTC

Romney Vows "Complete Repeal of Obamacare," Crowd Misses Punchline

  • 19 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

CBS News’ Stephanie Condon, covering former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s formal entry into the 2012 Republican presidential race today:

[A]s he begins his second bid for the White House, Romney faces some challenges. He’s largely a known quantity among Republican primary voters and has yet to generate significant enthusiasm for his campaign. Among Republicans, he’s plagued by his health care reforms in Massachusetts; and Democrats continue to pin him with familiar labels, calling him a “flip-flopper.”

Romney hopes to overcome all of that, however, by focusing on the issue that’s first and foremost on voters’ minds: “From my first day in office my number one job will be to see that America once again is number in job creation,” he’ll say, according to his prepared remarks. Americans deserve to get ahead if they work hard, Romney will say, instead of being “crushed by this Obama economy.”

The former governor intends to make other economic promises, such as capping federal spending at 20 percent and balancing the budget.

He’s also promising “a complete repeal of Obamacare,” though it’s unclear whether he’ll address the health care reforms he implemented in Massachusetts, which have been dubbed “Romneycare.” Romney has already strenuously argued that his health care reforms were different than those implemented at the federal level.

Romney consistently leads in polls of Colorado Republicans, and we’ve previously noted his PAC’s generosity to Colorado GOP officials like Rep. Cory Gardner–though we haven’t heard yet if Rep. Gardner has reciprocated with backing for Romney.

There is no shortage of criticism on the right for Romney, in particular his role in health care reform for the state of Massachusetts–but also his “evolving” positions on other wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. As we’ve said before, to the extent that Colorado Republicans are able to swallow Romney’s ideological inconsistencies, without a break in their special brand of uncompromising conservative firebreathing on all of these same issues…

Well, you’ve read Animal Farm, right? The part about the sheep?

Tweet
Share

Comments

19 thoughts on “Romney Vows “Complete Repeal of Obamacare,” Crowd Misses Punchline”

  1. You can book it

    His team did a fantastic job in 2008 and they’ve continued to cultivate those relationships – honestly, Romney’s machine in Colorado is darn impressive, and better ran than most Colorado-based Statewide Campaigns

    That said – I don’t think Romney will win the GOP nomination overall – I would pen Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin as the nominee (Rudy Giuliani is a darkhorse that could do it) – but Romney very well could win the nomination (and the Presidency) and as far as I’m concerned, he’s got Colorado in the bag either way

    1. But let me go on record as saying that I do not believe Palin will actually run. I only have one basis for that, but I’m fairly sure of it. Sort of. Anyway, that’s my half assed prediction.

      To the larger field, I think you might be right about the Newt, but I think T Paw lands it. Why? Because the GOP knows they probably don’t stand a chance. All the legitimate hopefuls will stay out and Newt doesn’t have enough GO(T)P appeal. If T Paw gets better name recognition, he’s be a shoo in for the sacrificial lamb. He’s definitely, of the people out so far, the best chance to be the GOP’s Clinton. Not really sure why I don’t think Romney, but I don’t.

      Bachmann has a shot at the running mate. Nothing more.

        1. I think Palin is going to run – SarahPac just sent out 400,000 fundraising mailers – after running for office twice, no one understands the price of mailers better than me – 400,000??? That’s a Presidential campaign right there

          Analysis wise –

          Why Newt Gingrich –

          Newt is going to SMOKE everyone in the debates – that’s going to give him a great chance at taking the entire thing

          Why Sarah Palin –

          Amongst this haze of GOP Presidential candidates going back and forth on healthcare, medicare, cap-and-trade, etc… there’s a storm brewing in which, the GOP electorate is quickly going to gravitate to the one candidate that can beat his/her fist against the podium and yell, “I may not be an intellectual. I may not be well read. But you damn well know, I am a CONSERVATIVE. And more than intellect, I have a spine!”

          No one can make that speech better than Sarah Palin (and the reason why is because she can say and MEAN IT sincerely) – this could be the reason why she takes it

          3. Rudy Giuliani –

          Bigoted people ADORE Rudy Giuliani – I have NO way of substantiating this – all I can say is that, when I meet the most anti-immigrant GOPers, as well as the most anti-Muslim ones, they all say they’re voting for Giuliani en masse

          To me, Giuliani’s polling is the finest reflection for how truly bigoted the GOP is today – if he’s polling at 30% (for example) then that’s 30% of the GOP that quite possibly believes that we should wage war against the Muslim World, with the goal being the extinction of every Muslim individual

          Honestly, if Giuliani was running for President against Slovadan Milosevic, and they were the only two choices, I would vote for Milosevic — based on his treatment of Muslims in NYC, I would HATE to see a Giuliani Presidency

          4. Other Candidates –

          TPaw is going NOWHERE – mark these words – Michelle Bachman will get more in Iowa than TPaw – TPaw, as a matter of fact, will struggle to break 15% in Iowa, thus ending his campaign for good

          Romney is at his best right now when he can fundraise – once the debates start, he’ll be a trainwreck – I’ve had yet to see Romney perform well in a debate (sans the 2002 Massachusetts Governor’s debate, but I thought his opponent was a weak debater)

          I would BET money that Newt Gingrich will be the nominee, simply on the basis that he’s going to smoke everyone in the debates – if not Newt, then it’ll be Sarah Palin

          1. doesn’t mean she’s running. It’s a PAC, not a charity for children and unicorns. The trip she’s making on those funds right now must be fun!

            I’m not sure how much common sense mixed with a dash of integrity need be applied to Palin. She’s marketing, not running.

            So sez me, but I’m a bit of a cynic. Neither of us will REALLY know until she says one way or the other. But I do have to point out that I’ve been working with non-profit groups since I was 17. I fully understand the costs of glossies.

            The rest of your analysis, totally. Now, which party are we talking about? The GOP you probably remember would do just that. This GOP? I dunno. I think you have to imagine that you’ve hit your head with a shovel and then reanalyze. Then you’ll be closer. 🙂

  2. There is a very basic difference between Romney and Obama’s health care reform, and that is Massachusetts is a state, and the federal government does not have the power to enforce an individual mandate. If a state does, as every state does with auto insurance today, that’s different under the 10th Amendment.

    Bring the caffeine level down a little, it’s amazing how it’s not so crazy and flip floppy after all. But I still wouldn’t support it in Colorado. I don’t want to live in Massachusetts, or I would.

    1. …it is a matter of convictions

      How can you call yourself a ‘limited government conservative’ and actually believe a STATE MANDATE to be a good thing?

      Romney’s ability to not see the difference demonstrates his lack of intelligence – and last I checked, I value a President who is intelligent

      However – if being done for reasons of political gamery, then it suggests something worse – which is that Romney has no convictions (and I fear this one to be the case)

    2. No.  Driving is a privilege, and if you want the privilege of driving, then and only then do you need auto insurance.  There is no “mandate” at the state level to purchase auto insurance whether you drive or not.  Only if you own a car are you required to have auto insurance.

      I do have a problem with the federal “mandate” to purchase health insurance, and I’m not at all sure it will survive a legal challenge, particularly given how the Supreme Court is constituted.  I personally think the federal government lacks the power to compel the purchase of anything, health insurance included.

      1. Only if you happen to own a body that will some day require expensive repairs (that fellow taxpayers will have to eat if you’re too irresponsible to have covered yourself) should you ever be required to purchase health insurance.

        Immortals (long-form proof required) need not ever apply . . .  

        1. if requiring health insurance is a good idea, but rather whether the federal government has the power to compel its purchase.  I’m not at all sure the Constitution permits that.

          1. can compel the purchaser of an automobile to purchase insurance, why can’t THE STATE . . .  (BTW, Pols, we really need some scarier text options that just bold, italic, and quote, don’t you think? — we have to be able to communicate with these Republicans in a manner that they can understand) . . . compel users of health care to purchase insurance?

            And, like I indicated, it’s completely voluntary — if you’re immortal, then the optional “mandate” doesn’t apply.

            2. First, the “mandate” is at the federal level, not the state.  Hence, your discussion of state power is irrelevant.  The question is whether the federal government has the power to compel everyone to purchase a specific product called, generically, “health insurance.”  I do not believe the federal constitution grants that power.  

              Second, the auto insurance comparison is specious.  

              Third, if you are calling me a “Republican,” you are sorely mistaken.  😉

          2. They compelled every man 18 or older to purchase, with their own money, a gun and other supplies necessary to participate in their local militia.

            They also compelled sailors to pay into a health insurance fund.

            1. The Militia Act(s) of 1792 was based on a power explicitly granted to Congress: to raise and support armies.  The health care “mandate” is based on no such explicit grant of power.  

              As an aside, the Militia Act of 1792 also specified “able-bodied white male citizen[s].”  And there was no requirement to purchase the eunumerated equipment–it was acceptable to manufacture it, have it be gifted, etc.  There are a host of other exclusions that applied; suffice it to say that if that is the best argument in favor of a mandate to purchase something, it’s counterproductive to use.

              1. Congress was given the power to provide for the defense and general welfare of the country (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1), with no direction as to exactly what that encompasses.

                Additionally, it was given power to raise and support Armies (for no longer than 2 years per bill), and to call forth the Militia (separate from Armies).  Forcing able-bodied men to purchase (or otherwise acquire) suitable quality arms does not fall within the scope of “support”, or “calling forth” – it falls within the broader scope of the first paragraph of Sec. 8.

                As to the exceptions, etc., the health care mandate also does not specify exactly how you come by the health care, and it has exceptions as well.

                I fail to see how it’s different.  And you failed to address the establishment of the marine health service.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

74 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!