Get ready. Republicans about to cave

[JakeStarkey]

The will and wrath of the We the People shall be awful to behold should the GOP and TeaPs cause another major economic recession or worse.

One, they lose the House in 2014.

Two, the Dems end the 60-vote role in the first Senate meeting of 2015.

Three, all of the conservatives' worst night mares, which will be never ending, will come to pass.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?

As far as Romneycare, it's in a state where conservatism doesn't exist. The population both Dims and members of what they call the GOP in Mass. was ripe for bending over and grabbing their ankles for more bloated government.

Yeah you'll find a few high-profile Republican idiots like Romney and Gingrich that believe the government should be in control of healthcare, but you wont find very many fiscal conservatives that believe this.

Take your racial claim and shove it.

Promise? The right did not have a problem with government healthcare before Obama.

How old are you ?

 

[Katzndogz]

The EPA should have died long ago.

What we need really, to eliminate ALL existing government agencies and replace them all with the Department of Common Sense. Then we won't need the Department of Education to replace higher math with instruction on having better orgasms. The EPA would not be necessary when it orders people to tear down their homes to protect the "viewshed" of someone else. Common sense would tell you that a puddle in the driveway is not a "waterway" entitling the Dept of the Interior control over your front door.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only thing that surprises me is that Boehner held out past the 8 days I gave him.

I said this before ... the big gov Rs want the aca as much as the gov loving Ds, they're just pissed the idea didn't come from them.

This was all a dog and pony show. I refuse to attend another.

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?

As far as Romneycare, it's in a state where conservatism doesn't exist. The population both Dims and members of what they call the GOP in Mass. was ripe for bending over and grabbing their ankles for more bloated government.

Yeah you'll find a few high-profile Republican idiots like Romney and Gingrich that believe the government should be in control of healthcare, but you wont find very many fiscal conservatives that believe this.

Take your racial claim and shove it.

The racial claim might indeed be problematic but the partisan claim is rock-solid fact:

The ACA is a republican plan, developed by republicans as a counter-proposal to the plan being developed by Clinton shortly after he took office. It uses private insurance and the free market to provide Americans access to affordable healthcare.

Republicans only started hating the ACA after it was passed by a democratic Congress and signed into law by a democratic president.

The irony of this, of course, is that republicans should be in full support of the ACA, as a way to safeguard against a later implementation of an actual single payer system.

And the irony continues, as republican opposition to the ACA absent a plan of their own to replace the Act might very well help facilitate the implementation of a single payer system in the near future the right would truly find repugnant.

 

[Mertex]

Looks like the GOP is about to tuck it's tail and give in to everything.


Government shutdown: The Republicans are preparing to cave to the Democrats

The details of the latest Republican proposal to end the government shutdown are still sketchy but if all of the reports are true it looks as if they are about to cave to the Democrats and give them virtually everything they wanted in the first place.

The debt ceiling will be raised, the government will be reopened, Obamacare will be funded,the individual mandate will not be delayed, and worst of all, many of the sequester cuts will be reversed. The Republican proposal is a temporary proposal for it lifts the debt ceiling for six weeks and only funds the government through the middle of December, at that point we have to live through this theater yet again. The temporary aspect of this proposal is a blatantly obvious attempt at saving face, but it is not the only face saving measure being proposed.

In addition to this the Republicans are trying to save face by proposing a repeal of the unpopular medical device tax and the promise of future negotiations on spending cuts. So let me see if I have this correct; the Republicans are going to allow the sequester spending cuts to be reversed and then after this spending is raised they are going to go back to the table to talk about spending cuts. Does that make any sense even if the future spending cut negotiations ever come to pass, which I highly doubt.

Government shutdown: The Republicans are preparing to cave to the Democrats | Opinion - Conservative

I'll believe it when I see it happening.

 

[birddog]

The will and wrath of the We the People shall be awful to behold should the GOP and TeaPs cause another major economic recession or worse.

One, they lose the House in 2014.

Two, the Dems end the 60-vote role in the first Senate meeting of 2015.

Three, all of the conservatives' worst night mares, which will be never ending, will come to pass.

You are quite wrong, but that's usual. I believe there will be a backlash against dimocrats in the next two elections for primarily causing all these problems, and your comeuppance is on it's way!

 

[Mertex]

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?

As far as Romneycare, it's in a state where conservatism doesn't exist. The population both Dims and members of what they call the GOP in Mass. was ripe for bending over and grabbing their ankles for more bloated government.

Yeah you'll find a few high-profile Republican idiots like Romney and Gingrich that believe the government should be in control of healthcare, but you wont find very many fiscal conservatives that believe this.

Take your racial claim and shove it.

Promise? The right did not have a problem with government healthcare before Obama.

I think the better phrase is "The right contributed to the contents of Obamacare" - the problem is they don't like anything that helps the middle-class or the poor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What we need to do is send folks like Katzndogz to civics classes.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The EPA should have died long ago.

What we need really, to eliminate ALL existing government agencies and replace them all with the Department of Common Sense. Then we won't need the Department of Education to replace higher math with instruction on having better orgasms. The EPA would not be necessary when it orders people to tear down their homes to protect the "viewshed" of someone else. Common sense would tell you that a puddle in the driveway is not a "waterway" entitling the Dept of the Interior control over your front door.

Kat,
I used to find your posts bewildering, until I realized that you live on a different planet!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The will and wrath of the We the People shall be awful to behold should the GOP and TeaPs cause another major economic recession or worse.

One, they lose the House in 2014.

Two, the Dems end the 60-vote role in the first Senate meeting of 2015.

Three, all of the conservatives' worst night mares, which will be never ending, will come to pass.

You are quite wrong, but that's usual. I believe there will be a backlash against dimocrats in the next two elections for primarily causing all these problems, and your comeuppance is on it's way!

Your pre-election delusional complex has become a post-election delusional complex.

 

[Kathy58]

Has anyone else noticed that the R's have suddenly shut up about eliminating their ACA subsides? You know, the fact that we will be paying 75% of THEIR healthcare?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is the end of the tea party as a driving force in the republican party. They will be shown the door at the next election. The republicans are going to have to find new heros and leaders, and it won't be Ted Cruz. Look for the emergence of a new Cheney, but one with a certain amount of charisma. The next republican presidential candidate will come from the mainstream business world. Lord help us if they go with another Bush, though...

I hope you're right, it would be great to see a non radicalized Republican Party and a campaign in 2016 on ideas and not ideology and demagoguery. We might have had one in 2012, if Jon Huntsman had been selected as the GOP Standard Bearer. IMO, and that of many others, he was by leaps and bounds the best qualified Republican who tossed his hate in the ring last year.

Jon Huntsman, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?

As far as Romneycare, it's in a state where conservatism doesn't exist. The population both Dims and members of what they call the GOP in Mass. was ripe for bending over and grabbing their ankles for more bloated government.

Yeah you'll find a few high-profile Republican idiots like Romney and Gingrich that believe the government should be in control of healthcare, but you wont find very many fiscal conservatives that believe this.

Take your racial claim and shove it.

The racial claim might indeed be problematic but the partisan claim is rock-solid fact:

The ACA is a republican plan, developed by republicans as a counter-proposal to the plan being developed by Clinton shortly after he took office. It uses private insurance and the free market to provide Americans access to affordable healthcare.

Republicans only started hating the ACA after it was passed by a democratic Congress and signed into law by a democratic president.

The irony of this, of course, is that republicans should be in full support of the ACA, as a way to safeguard against a later implementation of an actual single payer system.

And the irony continues, as republican opposition to the ACA absent a plan of their own to replace the Act might very well help facilitate the implementation of a single payer system in the near future the right would truly find repugnant.

BULLSHIT ! You can find a few high profile Republicans that tossed around the idea, but mainstream mom and pop conservatives have always been against this kind of government takeover. You obviously also are not old enough to remember the fight over Hillarcare.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This was all a dog and pony show. I refuse to attend another.

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?[/quote]

yes, I did. And when Hillary came out with her plan, the Heritage Foundation came out with ITS Plan, which looked just like RomneyCare and the ACA. They had no problem with universal coverage as long as Big Insurance continued to get their cut of the action.

Until the Black Guy Did It.

[
As far as Romneycare, it's in a state where conservatism doesn't exist. The population both Dims and members of what they call the GOP in Mass. was ripe for bending over and grabbing their ankles for more bloated government.

Yeah you'll find a few high-profile Republican idiots like Romney and Gingrich that believe the government should be in control of healthcare, but you wont find very many fiscal conservatives that believe this.

Take your racial claim and shove it.

But yet, Oddly, before Romney, no one in MA ever put this kind of program into place.

The ironic thing was, RomneyCare was the one decent thing Mitt Romney ever did in his life. Doesn't make up for all the evil, like all the working folks he screwed over and being a Mormon.

And the poor guy couldn't talk about it because the Teabaggers were SOOOOO angry over ObamaCare.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?

As far as Romneycare, it's in a state where conservatism doesn't exist. The population both Dims and members of what they call the GOP in Mass. was ripe for bending over and grabbing their ankles for more bloated government.

Yeah you'll find a few high-profile Republican idiots like Romney and Gingrich that believe the government should be in control of healthcare, but you wont find very many fiscal conservatives that believe this.

Take your racial claim and shove it.

Promise? The right did not have a problem with government healthcare before Obama.

Yes they did. The big gov Rs didn't have a problem with it.

 

[Kathy58]

From Charles Krauthammer and the San Antonio Express News;

For all the hyped indignation over GOP “anarchism,” there has been remarkable media reticence about the president's intransigence. He has refused to negotiate anything unless the Republicans fully fund the government and raise the debt ceiling — unconditionally.

For all his protestations about protecting the full faith and credit of the United States — jittery markets are showing that his brinkmanship could have precisely the opposite effect — the president's real intent is to score a humiliating victory over the GOP.

So far, so good. Republicans have fallen to 28 percent approval, the lowest level ever for either party in 21 years of polling and a staggering 10-point drop in the last month. Democrats have also declined, but only four points and, in the end, partisan politics is a zero-sum game. If you lose less than the other guy, you win — because every seat in Congress will be allocated to one party or the other, no matter how disgusted the country is with both.

To be sure, the administration has, as always, overplayed a good hand, with punitive shutdowns — such as of the World War II Memorial — clearly intended to be blamed on the GOP.

People aren't that stupid. They know a gratuitous abuse of government (lockout) power when they see it. Moreover, Republicans have been passing partial funding bills for such things as national monuments and cancer research, forcing Harry Reid's Democratic Senate to kill them with a stone cold heart.

Even worse for Democrats, their current partisan advantage is a wasting asset. The rule is simple: shutdown good, debt ceiling bad. Every day the debt ceiling approaches, President Obama's leverage diminishes.

Obama insists he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling as a matter of principle. It's never been used as leverage for extraneous (i.e., non-budgetary) demands, he claims.

Nonsense. It's been so used dozens of times going back at least to 1973 when Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale tried to force campaign finance reform on President Nixon. Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator in 2006.

So much for principle. Moreover, should Obama miscalculate the brinkmanship, he'll become the first president to ever allow a default. Precisely opposite to the principle he pretends to be espousing — and ruinous to what's left of his presidency. Breaching the debt ceiling would indeed, as he claims, be an economic disaster, aborting an already historically anemic recovery.

As president, he would take the blame. He can't allow it.

It's a bluff. He will blink.

That's why, as the debt ceiling approaches, the initiative will increasingly swing to House Speaker John Boehner. The real question is: What will Boehner do with it?

His answer thus far has been peculiar: He simply wants the president to sit down and negotiate.

Negotiate what? “There's nothing on the table,” said Boehner on Tuesday. “There's nothing off the table.”

Stranger still. You cannot negotiate if you don't know what you want. The Republicans need to present a simple, broadly popular set of demands to attach to the debt ceiling. The president will deal.

In his Tuesday press conference, he'd already abandoned his original ultimatum of give me a long-term extension or I don't budge. Now it's: Give me an extension of any length and I'll come to the table.

On Thursday, Boehner took that exit ramp, offering Obama a six-week debt-ceiling extension during which negotiations would be conducted. Unless Obama reverses himself and refuses, his “no negotiations” posture evaporates.

What, then, to ask for? Paul Ryan, as usual, points the way with a suggestion that would turn the partial and imperfect success of the last debt-ceiling fight — the automatic spending cuts (“sequester&#8221 that seriously reduced discretionary spending — into the larger success of curbing entitlements, which is where the real money is.

After all, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs (plus interest payments) already claim more than half the federal budget. And they are poised to explode, eating up (estimates the Congressional Budget Office) 97 percent of revenues within 25 years.

Raising (and indexing) the retirement age while changing the inflation measure for entitlements would alone be major achievements. Democrats could be offered relief on the sequester — which everyone agrees needs restructuring anyway, since it cuts agency budgets indiscriminately, often illogically, by formula.

It's win-win.

A serious attack on the deficit — good. Refiguring sequestration to restore some defense spending and some logic to discretionary spending — also good. Forcing the president off Mount Olympus — priceless.

[email protected]

 

[TooTall]

If teaps get anything with ACA and debt ceiling, then they will come back on Roe v Wade, on DOMA and DADT, and host of other things.

Not possible, ever.

next they will want to kill the EPA, FEMA, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Education, privatize SS and Medicare, etc etc.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Zoom-boing]

From Charles Krauthammer and the San Antonio Express News;

For all the hyped indignation over GOP “anarchism,” there has been remarkable media reticence about the president's intransigence. He has refused to negotiate anything unless the Republicans fully fund the government and raise the debt ceiling — unconditionally.

For all his protestations about protecting the full faith and credit of the United States — jittery markets are showing that his brinkmanship could have precisely the opposite effect — the president's real intent is to score a humiliating victory over the GOP.

So far, so good. Republicans have fallen to 28 percent approval, the lowest level ever for either party in 21 years of polling and a staggering 10-point drop in the last month. Democrats have also declined, but only four points and, in the end, partisan politics is a zero-sum game. If you lose less than the other guy, you win — because every seat in Congress will be allocated to one party or the other, no matter how disgusted the country is with both.

To be sure, the administration has, as always, overplayed a good hand, with punitive shutdowns — such as of the World War II Memorial — clearly intended to be blamed on the GOP.

People aren't that stupid. They know a gratuitous abuse of government (lockout) power when they see it. Moreover, Republicans have been passing partial funding bills for such things as national monuments and cancer research, forcing Harry Reid's Democratic Senate to kill them with a stone cold heart.

Even worse for Democrats, their current partisan advantage is a wasting asset. The rule is simple: shutdown good, debt ceiling bad. Every day the debt ceiling approaches, President Obama's leverage diminishes.

Obama insists he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling as a matter of principle. It's never been used as leverage for extraneous (i.e., non-budgetary) demands, he claims.

Nonsense. It's been so used dozens of times going back at least to 1973 when Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale tried to force campaign finance reform on President Nixon. Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator in 2006.

So much for principle. Moreover, should Obama miscalculate the brinkmanship, he'll become the first president to ever allow a default. Precisely opposite to the principle he pretends to be espousing — and ruinous to what's left of his presidency. Breaching the debt ceiling would indeed, as he claims, be an economic disaster, aborting an already historically anemic recovery.

As president, he would take the blame. He can't allow it.

It's a bluff. He will blink.

That's why, as the debt ceiling approaches, the initiative will increasingly swing to House Speaker John Boehner. The real question is: What will Boehner do with it?

His answer thus far has been peculiar: He simply wants the president to sit down and negotiate.

Negotiate what? “There's nothing on the table,” said Boehner on Tuesday. “There's nothing off the table.”

Stranger still. You cannot negotiate if you don't know what you want. The Republicans need to present a simple, broadly popular set of demands to attach to the debt ceiling. The president will deal.

In his Tuesday press conference, he'd already abandoned his original ultimatum of give me a long-term extension or I don't budge. Now it's: Give me an extension of any length and I'll come to the table.

On Thursday, Boehner took that exit ramp, offering Obama a six-week debt-ceiling extension during which negotiations would be conducted. Unless Obama reverses himself and refuses, his “no negotiations” posture evaporates.

What, then, to ask for? Paul Ryan, as usual, points the way with a suggestion that would turn the partial and imperfect success of the last debt-ceiling fight — the automatic spending cuts (“sequester”) that seriously reduced discretionary spending — into the larger success of curbing entitlements, which is where the real money is.

After all, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs (plus interest payments) already claim more than half the federal budget. And they are poised to explode, eating up (estimates the Congressional Budget Office) 97 percent of revenues within 25 years.

Raising (and indexing) the retirement age while changing the inflation measure for entitlements would alone be major achievements. Democrats could be offered relief on the sequester — which everyone agrees needs restructuring anyway, since it cuts agency budgets indiscriminately, often illogically, by formula.

It's win-win.

A serious attack on the deficit — good. Refiguring sequestration to restore some defense spending and some logic to discretionary spending — also good. Forcing the president off Mount Olympus — priceless.

[email protected]

Where's the part about delaying the aca for a year?

 

[percysunshine]

From Charles Krauthammer and the San Antonio Express News;

For all the hyped indignation over GOP “anarchism,” there has been remarkable media reticence about the president's intransigence. He has refused to negotiate anything unless the Republicans fully fund the government and raise the debt ceiling — unconditionally.

For all his protestations about protecting the full faith and credit of the United States — jittery markets are showing that his brinkmanship could have precisely the opposite effect — the president's real intent is to score a humiliating victory over the GOP.

So far, so good. Republicans have fallen to 28 percent approval, the lowest level ever for either party in 21 years of polling and a staggering 10-point drop in the last month. Democrats have also declined, but only four points and, in the end, partisan politics is a zero-sum game. If you lose less than the other guy, you win — because every seat in Congress will be allocated to one party or the other, no matter how disgusted the country is with both.

To be sure, the administration has, as always, overplayed a good hand, with punitive shutdowns — such as of the World War II Memorial — clearly intended to be blamed on the GOP.

People aren't that stupid. They know a gratuitous abuse of government (lockout) power when they see it. Moreover, Republicans have been passing partial funding bills for such things as national monuments and cancer research, forcing Harry Reid's Democratic Senate to kill them with a stone cold heart.

Even worse for Democrats, their current partisan advantage is a wasting asset. The rule is simple: shutdown good, debt ceiling bad. Every day the debt ceiling approaches, President Obama's leverage diminishes.

Obama insists he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling as a matter of principle. It's never been used as leverage for extraneous (i.e., non-budgetary) demands, he claims.

Nonsense. It's been so used dozens of times going back at least to 1973 when Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale tried to force campaign finance reform on President Nixon. Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator in 2006.

So much for principle. Moreover, should Obama miscalculate the brinkmanship, he'll become the first president to ever allow a default. Precisely opposite to the principle he pretends to be espousing — and ruinous to what's left of his presidency. Breaching the debt ceiling would indeed, as he claims, be an economic disaster, aborting an already historically anemic recovery.

As president, he would take the blame. He can't allow it.

It's a bluff. He will blink.

That's why, as the debt ceiling approaches, the initiative will increasingly swing to House Speaker John Boehner. The real question is: What will Boehner do with it?

His answer thus far has been peculiar: He simply wants the president to sit down and negotiate.

Negotiate what? “There's nothing on the table,” said Boehner on Tuesday. “There's nothing off the table.”

Stranger still. You cannot negotiate if you don't know what you want. The Republicans need to present a simple, broadly popular set of demands to attach to the debt ceiling. The president will deal.

In his Tuesday press conference, he'd already abandoned his original ultimatum of give me a long-term extension or I don't budge. Now it's: Give me an extension of any length and I'll come to the table.

On Thursday, Boehner took that exit ramp, offering Obama a six-week debt-ceiling extension during which negotiations would be conducted. Unless Obama reverses himself and refuses, his “no negotiations” posture evaporates.

What, then, to ask for? Paul Ryan, as usual, points the way with a suggestion that would turn the partial and imperfect success of the last debt-ceiling fight — the automatic spending cuts (“sequester”) that seriously reduced discretionary spending — into the larger success of curbing entitlements, which is where the real money is.

After all, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs (plus interest payments) already claim more than half the federal budget. And they are poised to explode, eating up (estimates the Congressional Budget Office) 97 percent of revenues within 25 years.

Raising (and indexing) the retirement age while changing the inflation measure for entitlements would alone be major achievements. Democrats could be offered relief on the sequester — which everyone agrees needs restructuring anyway, since it cuts agency budgets indiscriminately, often illogically, by formula.

It's win-win.

A serious attack on the deficit — good. Refiguring sequestration to restore some defense spending and some logic to discretionary spending — also good. Forcing the president off Mount Olympus — priceless.

[email protected]

Where's the part about delaying the aca for a year?

Harry Reid killed it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

[

This was all a dog and pony show. I refuse to attend another.

The idea DID come from them. The right had no problem with ACA when it was called RomneyCare.

It was just when the Black Guy Did It, they had a problem.

But the real problem is the GOP's inability to stand up to a phony astroturfing monster they created called the Tea Party.

Not that I want to re-argue this point again, but you are so full of shit about the right not having a problem with government healthcare before Obama. If I hear this claim one more time, I will explode. Are you not old enough to remember the Clinton administrations attempt at Hillarycare ?

yes, I did. And when Hillary came out with her plan, the Heritage Foundation came out with ITS Plan, which looked just like RomneyCare and the ACA. They had no problem with universal coverage as long as Big Insurance continued to get their cut of the action.

Until the Black Guy Did It.



But yet, Oddly, before Romney, no one in MA ever put this kind of program into place.

The ironic thing was, RomneyCare was the one decent thing Mitt Romney ever did in his life. Doesn't make up for all the evil, like all the working folks he screwed over and being a Mormon.

And the poor guy couldn't talk about it because the Teabaggers were SOOOOO angry over ObamaCare.

[/QUOTE]



I wondered when the Heritage Foundation article would come up ! Lol ! Yeah, that proves that conservatives always wanted the government to take over the healthcare system ! Too funny !

Again, you can find a few examples where some Republicans were for a government system, just as you can find some Dims against abortion. Doesn't mean shit.

And by the way, typical lib that would refer to someone as being "evil" simply because they are a Mormon.