What is Romney's worst liability at this point in time?

[Liability]

Who REALLY likes Romney and thinks he is the best America can do?

He is what we have to oppose the incumbent.

Given how hideous the incumbent is, I'll certainly take Mitt over the incumbent -- every day of the week.

 

[Liability]

Romney is not a real conservative. Write in Palin!

That makes less than zero sense.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Off of the list. Please don't be lying to yourself SO badly that you actually do not believe Romney has any liabilities. Ta.

Great question, and the tin foil option made me laugh, good one.

Reality is Romney has no liabilities with his base, he could, as I have said before and am not exaggerating, go on live national network TV and shoot in the head and kill 100 infants over a 5 minute period and every single one of his base will still RACE to the polls to vote for him and why is obvious.


My curiosity isnt what will these idiot baggers do, like the conz on here, they are all filled with racism, hate, intolerance and hate, they can easily be counted on to do what they do.

But how can there be anyone out there still undecided, that is my question.

 

[Avatar4321]

It is impossible to be against the Democrats and for the Republicans. Being for one is being for the other, as they are interchangeable as traitorous felons.
Drop the party politics, people! Romney is a sham! Obama is abysmal! Get over it and move on to something new. Are the Americans so lame that this is all we can come up with? Certainly not!

is it really difficult to handle the positions of the candidates that you have to resort to this sophistry where you claim everyone is the same and that no one is different?

 

[Avatar4321]

Off of the list. Please don't be lying to yourself SO badly that you actually do not believe Romney has any liabilities. Ta.

Great question, and the tin foil option made me laugh, good one.

Reality is Romney has no liabilities with his base, he could, as I have said before and am not exaggerating, go on live national network TV and shoot in the head and kill 100 infants over a 5 minute period and every single one of his base will still RACE to the polls to vote for him and why is obvious.


My curiosity isnt what will these idiot baggers do, like the conz on here, they are all filled with racism, hate, intolerance and hate, they can easily be counted on to do what they do.

But how can there be anyone out there still undecided, that is my question.

Romney has plenty of liabilities. He is human after all.

But apparently his liabilities arent big enough for the administration, they have to try to manufacture completely bogus ones.

 

[there4eyeM]

Romney is not a real conservative. Write in Palin!

That makes less than zero sense.

She wouldn't be worse.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Biggest liability.... Romneycare

I think it is that simple

True. (Even though it was a State's choice under the 9th and 10 Amendments and not meant for Federal consumption and forced on the remaining 49). [or was that remaining 56]?

granted it is a different situation with a state or locality trying to do this...

I still think it is his weak point

Here's what Romney suggested a few short years back:

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

 

[Liability]

Romney is not a real conservative. Write in Palin!

That makes less than zero sense.

She wouldn't be worse.

Well, you're wrong. No surprise there.

What would be a surprise is if you can ever manage to be right about -- anything.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I'd still like to know who would be stupid enough to put their family pet in a kennel, and attach it to a car roof luggage rack, when going on a few hundred mile, high speed vacation. Aside from Chevy Chase, that is.

Shows he's not too swift, caring, or someone I'd like to take that 2AM red phone call.

 

[The T]

True. (Even though it was a State's choice under the 9th and 10 Amendments and not meant for Federal consumption and forced on the remaining 49). [or was that remaining 56]?

granted it is a different situation with a state or locality trying to do this...

I still think it is his weak point

Here's what Romney suggested a few short years back:

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

And it was what? A STATE experiment afforded to them via WHAT?

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. State issue.

The Left and apparently YOU think it should be imposed on the rest of the nation regardless thier 70+% objections.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Off of the list. Please don't be lying to yourself SO badly that you actually do not believe Romney has any liabilities. Ta.

Great question, and the tin foil option made me laugh, good one.

Reality is Romney has no liabilities with his base, he could, as I have said before and am not exaggerating, go on live national network TV and shoot in the head and kill 100 infants over a 5 minute period and every single one of his base will still RACE to the polls to vote for him and why is obvious.


My curiosity isnt what will these idiot baggers do, like the conz on here, they are all filled with racism, hate, intolerance and hate, they can easily be counted on to do what they do.

But how can there be anyone out there still undecided, that is my question.

Romney has plenty of liabilities. He is human after all.

But apparently his liabilities arent big enough for the administration, they have to try to manufacture completely bogus ones.

oh god



yeah, to a bagger idiot i guess a felony is a manufactured liability

oh god

 

[The T]

I'd still like to know who would be stupid enough to put their family pet in a kennel, and attach it to a car roof luggage rack, when going on a few hundred mile, high speed vacation. Aside from Chevy Chase, that is.

Shows he's not too swift, caring, or someone I'd like to take that 2AM red phone call.

Did the animal DIE?

NO

/Discussion retard.

 

[Oldstyle]

Quite obviously, Romney's biggest problem is he's going to have to fight the liberal media to keep focus on important issues like the economy and unemployment while the Obama camp does everything it can to shift that focus to things like whether or not Bain Capital outsourced jobs.

What's REALLY important here? Which guy has the skills to get this country moving again? It's quite obvious that one of our two candidates has ZERO expertise at economics and understands nothing about business in general while the other has made his living by excelling at both. So which one of those two would a "rational" person choose? One of them has a history of working with the other side of the aisle to get things accomplished while the other has a history of the opposite. Again...which one of these two would a "rational" person choose to try and alleviate the partisan gridlock we now have in Washington?

 

[Liability]

Great question, and the tin foil option made me laugh, good one.

Reality is Romney has no liabilities with his base, he could, as I have said before and am not exaggerating, go on live national network TV and shoot in the head and kill 100 infants over a 5 minute period and every single one of his base will still RACE to the polls to vote for him and why is obvious.


My curiosity isnt what will these idiot baggers do, like the conz on here, they are all filled with racism, hate, intolerance and hate, they can easily be counted on to do what they do.

But how can there be anyone out there still undecided, that is my question.

Romney has plenty of liabilities. He is human after all.

But apparently his liabilities arent big enough for the administration, they have to try to manufacture completely bogus ones.

oh god



yeah, to a bagger idiot i guess a felony is a manufactured liability

oh god

No lie. No misrepresentation. No crime. No felony, libzhate.

You're just spewing mindless dishonest DNC propaganda.

 

[rightwinger]

granted it is a different situation with a state or locality trying to do this...

I still think it is his weak point

Here's what Romney suggested a few short years back:

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

And it was what? A STATE experiment afforded to them via WHAT?

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. State issue.

The Left and apparently YOU think it should be imposed on the rest of the nation regardless thier 70+% objections.

Supreme Court decided otherwise

 

[The T]

True. (Even though it was a State's choice under the 9th and 10 Amendments and not meant for Federal consumption and forced on the remaining 49). [or was that remaining 56]?

4 cocoa puffs

Really, Dainty?

If you imagine that The T's analysis is erroneous, you surely must be able to offer an explanation as to how it's allegedly misguided.

Go.

I see Dantoid doesn't care and has escaped the straightjacket again.

 

[HUGGY]

I'd still like to know who would be stupid enough to put their family pet in a kennel, and attach it to a car roof luggage rack, when going on a few hundred mile, high speed vacation. Aside from Chevy Chase, that is.

Shows he's not too swift, caring, or someone I'd like to take that 2AM red phone call.

Did the animal DIE?
NO

/Discussion retard.

Of course not. That's why all dog lovers have given Mittens a pass on that episode.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Romney has plenty of liabilities. He is human after all.

But apparently his liabilities arent big enough for the administration, they have to try to manufacture completely bogus ones.

oh god



yeah, to a bagger idiot i guess a felony is a manufactured liability

oh god

No lie. No misrepresentation. No crime. No felony, libzhate.

You're just spewing mindless dishonest DNC propaganda.

I have some land for sale in Florida, it is a really good deal, may I email you about it?

 

[BDBoop]

What Romney Can Learn From Geraldine Ferraro - Bloomberg

In order to put the tax questions to rest, Ferraro on Aug. 21, 1984 did something that seems unimaginable in the scripted reality show that is a 21st century campaign. A couple hundred journalists crammed into the ballroom of the Viscount Hotel near Kennedy Airport. After prepping for hours, Ferraro told them she would answer every question from every person in the room.

After almost two hours in front of a battery of microphones, she won respect but no respite. Here is Sam Roberts' account in the next day's New York Times:

Mrs. Ferraro conceded that the fact that she was an officer of P. Zaccaro Company but ''never, never had authority'' to sign company checks was ''sloppy.''

The New York Times article hinted that Ferraro's troubles might not be over:

In Dallas, Ed Rollins, President Reagan's campaign manager, said that Mrs. Ferraro had become ''a drag'' on the Democratic ticket. Asked if her disclosures this week had resolved questions that have been raised about her finances, Mr. Rollins told reporters: ''She's got some very significant questions she still has to respond to. It's over when you people quit asking her questions.''

Those questions never stopped. Not even after the 1984 campaign ended. When Ferraro ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 1992 (and employed this blogger), the same questions resurfaced.

No one outside Romney's camp knows what his taxes contain, or whether releasing them will settle the issues or raise new (and potentially more damaging) questions. As it happened, Ferraro and Zaccaro paid, on average, about 40 percent of their income in taxes. That's one plot point from which Romney's story surely diverges from Ferraro's.

Take notes, Willard.

 

[Dick Tuck]

granted it is a different situation with a state or locality trying to do this...

I still think it is his weak point

Here's what Romney suggested a few short years back:

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

And it was what? A STATE experiment afforded to them via WHAT?

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. State issue.

The Left and apparently YOU think it should be imposed on the rest of the nation regardless thier 70+% objections.

It wasn't an experiment. It was their public policy. He recommended that Obama adopt the "mandate". The only difference between Obamacare and Romney care, is that Romney supported abortion service.