Jonah, I agree with you on the general tin-ear of Romney. He’s extremely un-nimble on the stump, which means that Republicans will be gambling that he can be sufficiently insulated and managed across the finish line without offering up any campaign-detonating hostage to fortune.
But, beyond that, I’m less sanguine about the underlying worldview that “I’m not concerned about the very poor” betrays. Romney:
We will hear from the Democrat party, “the plight of the poor,” and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor. . . . We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.
The Pundette responds:
I know Romney gives generously to charity but what a cold fish he is… A conservative candidate would talk about increasing opportunity for the very poor, about lessening the need for food stamps and housing vouchers by reducing government and invigorating the economy, rather than touting the awesomeness of our massive, dependency-inducing welfare state and suggesting it might need some beefing up.
Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.
After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society? I don’t know how “electable” Mitt is, but, even if he is, the greater danger, given the emptiness of his campaign to date, is that he’ll be elected with no real mandate for the course correction the Brokest Nation in History urgently needs. In last Monday’s debate, Newt said he wasn’t interested in going to Washington to “manage the decline”. Mitt’s just told us that he’s happy to “manage the decline” for the poor – but who knows who else?
Jesus said the poor would always be with us. I guess he couldn't get elected POTUS, either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJesus is a social conservative. The GOP Establishment would never let Him win the nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith his robust nonstick coating, he can easily evade any points in any post that he does not wish to address.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must have missed where any points were made contra my perfectly-reasoned position.
It's rather like trying to see stars in daytime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJesus also hated war...so the neo-cons wouldn't support him. In fact, Bill Kristol would probably call him a "Jewish Neville Chamberlain"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will do you one better. Kristol would worryingly ponder his anti-semite tendencies....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere do you get the idea that Jesus hated war? Just because one is blessed as a peacemaker doesn't mean that sometimes it's not helpful to dish out some pain. In fact, war is often a condition precedent to peace.
". . .whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. . . ." Luke 22:36
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. …From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations. . . ." Revelation 19:15
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are right Teflon93. And so it will be that the GOP Establishment will never allow Jindal or Rubio to have a shot at the White House. Too bad. We need to fight to get rid of the GOP Establishment and only then do we have a chance to take our country back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe'd have to show the Donald his birth cert.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would the King of Kings want that crummy job?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're talking about Obama, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJesus's national defense strategy would be "turn the other cheek." As a national security conservative, I'm not sure he ought to be electable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe thing is though, any time there was a schoolyard beef, he could just say "well, my dad is waaaay bigger than your dad" and there's really no argument to that :)
On a slightly more serious note, the Good Book also calls upon us to smite the heathen, so you pays your money...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehmmm there wasn't much turning of the cheek when he ran the money changers out the temple
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's spoken out against a cradle to grave entitlement society multiple times. Would you like to factor that into your analysis, or is it just that much fun building your very own customized and personal Mitt Romney out of cherry-picked quotes for the sole purpose of setting it up and knocking it down?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney says one thing but does the opposite.
Romneycare is the most intrusive entitlement every implemented in this country's history.
Romney also savaged Rick Perry for daring to suggest Social Security be reformed. He has played the MediScare game too.
But you MittBots forget easily when it comes to conservative principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother false post.
Romney savaged Rick Perry for using language on Social Security that would scare independents - suggesting not reform but tossing it aside completely.
That's it. And Romney was right - so long as you are willing to look beyond a narrow hard-right-wing world.
And Romneycare is not what you say it is. Is it intrusive - yes, it has an individual mandate. Guees what, the Founders had a personal mandate to own two musket, gunpowder and bullets so that you could be ready for the militia (plus a requirement to attend periodic training). Read up on the Militia Act.
There is also the intrusive requirement of signing up for the selective service - you can be drafted and forced to work, and to fight in a war you disagree with!
You can disagree with telling citizens of a state that they need to buy health insurance or pay something to cover the costs of free care. But, unlike Obamacare, Romneycare did not outlaw a huge number of individual plans nor tell employers exactly what health care coverage they had to provide. It also didn't tell insurers how much money they could spend, and where.
Please get some reality and perspective. It's ok to support someone else over Romney. I think Romney is most people's 2nd choice. But he's not the devil or some manchurian liberal candidate - not withstanding any paranoid fantasies shared over the radio (not by Rush, but by certain blowhard radio hosts).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnlike Romneycare, the Militia Act of 1792 is short enough to post:
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.
Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That court martial for the trial of militia be composed of militia officers only.
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court martial before whom the same shall be assessed, to the marshal of the district, in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies; and also the supervisor of the revenue of the same district, who shall record the said certificate in a book to be kept for that purpose. The said marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent, which costs and manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the state, in which the same shall be, in other cases of distress; and where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the marshal of the district or his deputy may commit such delinquent to gaol, during the term, for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States, may be committed.
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the supervisor of the revenue, in the district in which they are collected, within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum, as a compensation for their trouble; and in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any court of the United States, of the district, in which such fines shall be levied, having cognizance therefor, to be sued for, prosecuted and recovered, in the name of the supervisor of the district, with interest and costs.
Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the marshals of the several districts and deputies, shall have the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs, and their deputies in the several states have by law, in executing the laws of their respective states.
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.
APPROVED, May 2, 1792.
Now, I don't see the explicit requirement to buy anything, but beyond that, the common defense is clearly established as a responsibility of the federal government in The Consitution and was well-established in Common Law prior to its ratification.
Now kindly show me where in The Constitution or in common law where I may find the requirement to purchase health insurance.
I'll wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps you meant this one:
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
In which case you will note that per what I posted earlier, this is invoked only in time of emergency and is not a standing requirement to maintain such things, whereas Romneycare requires every living breathing citizen of Massachusetts to perpetually purchase health insurance.
There's quite a difference there.
Where may I find this in The Constitution? Where may I find it in common law? Where may I find it in our history?
Now go read the 9th Amendment and see why Romney's self-serving "federalist" argument is so bogus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Now go read the 9th Amendment and see why Romney's self-serving "federalist" argument is so bogus."
I think it was the 10th Amendment, but whatever. Your point is moot. If you don't like the Romneycare mandate in Massachusetts, don't live in Massachusetts. If you don't like the Obamacare mandate in the United States, you are deep trouble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse