Monday, July 9, 2012

Killing ObamaCare From the Inside

Sometimes, evil can’t be killed. It can just be buried somewhere until the next generation of teenagers stumbles across it. Some suggest that’s the case with ObamaCare. Frankly, I see no reason why it can’t be killed with reconciliation, but let’s assume arguendo that the Republicans somehow don’t capture the Senate or can’t get it through reconciliation. Is there another way to drive a stake through this unearthly terror? Actually, yes.

There are four or five ideas being battered around right now on how to kill ObamaCare without a full repeal. I think a couple of these are excellent temporary measures, but a couple others would be disastrous. Here are my thoughts.

Method One: Starve It. Most federal laws require funding to function. Without funding, they cannot hand out cash, award contracts or even assign government workers to perform tasks. In some instances, this won’t matter because the law is enforced by private individuals who can bring suit to make it happen or, in the case of criminal law, it can be used by DOJ without specific funding. But ObamacCare isn’t that kind of law.

ObamaCare requires the creation of federal exchanges, requires enforcement officials, workers to process paperwork, inspectors, etc. It requires the payment of money to insurance companies and states, funding for the creation of demonstration projects, etc. It even requires money for IRS agents to be able to pursue the penalties. Without money, none of that can happen.

Usually, when laws like ObamaCare get passed, the Congress appropriates (assigns) money in advance to make the law happen. Those appropriations then become line items in the federal budget and take on a life of their own because they become part of each subsequent budget unless they are specifically voted down.

But in this case, the Democrats got careless (or more accurately tried to hide the price) and didn’t appropriate any money. To make up for this, Obama has been funding the law from an HHS slush fund meant to pay for the Federal government’s general health care expenses. Romney can stop this on day one and effectively kill the implementation of the bill. And unless the Congress decides to force funding on Romney, the bill will be dead until Romney is out of the White House.

This could kill about 90% of the bill for up to 8 years.

Method Two: Ignore It. An offshoot of the first method would be that Romney could simply tell his agencies not to enforce the law. Thus, the IRS would not collect the tax, HHS and Medicare would do nothing to implement the law, etc. Obama has done this with laws he doesn’t like, like many related to immigration.

The problem with this approach is that once money is obligated by Congress for a specific purpose, the President must do that. Until Nixon, Presidents often impounded such money rather than spend it, but a weakened Nixon administration gave up this power. So while Romney could ignore the law for a little, the courts would eventually force him to act. Although, that could take a couple years.

This could kill about 90% of the bill for up to two/three years.

Method Three: A World Without Rules. To implement a law, the Executive Branch issues rules which tell everyone how the government will enforce the laws. In most cases, these rules are written by the agencies on behalf of the White House -- though a few are handled independently. A new President has the power to re-write any regulations which prior Presidents have issued. Thus, in theory, Romney can wipe out or re-write all the rules related to ObamaCare to neuter it.

But there’s a catch with this method: wiping out rules isn’t as easy as it sounds. For one thing, once rules are promulgated, the agency must go through the whole rulemaking process to change them. That means the rules must be issued in proposed form, the public must be allowed to comment, the rules must be issued in final form, and then dozens of lawsuits will be filed before the rules go into effect. Until that point, Obama’s rules would still apply. This wouldn’t apply to any rules Obama hasn’t finalized yet, but it would apply to all the rules he has finalized. Thus, most of his rules could stay in effect for two to three years.

The other problem is the legal review. As unbelievable as it sounds after Obama’s term, the Executive is required to enforce the laws as reasonably written. So it would be nearly impossible for Romney to just change the rule to “just kidding.” He could cleverly sabotage much of it, but not all of it. Also, the next administration could simply redo his rules.

This could eventually wipe out most of the law, but it would take time and it would only last until the next administration changed the rules.

Method Four: Misimplementation. Because the law was written with the idea that Democratic administrations would handle all the dirty details away from the sight of the voters, the law gives HHS a lot of discretion in terms of how to implement the law. Romney could exploit this by certifying that people, businesses and states are in compliance when they aren’t really. This could defang the law.

Personally, however, I don’t like this option at all. This wouldn’t wipe out any of the law and it runs the risk of turning into cronyism. It also wouldn’t stop liberal states from taking advantage of the law to demand massive federal subsidies.

That leads me to another method of misimplementation. When the Democrats drafted ObamaCare, they made an interesting mistake. The way the law is written, it doesn’t allow the Federal government to give subsidies for buying insurance except through state insurance exchanges. Thus, if states refuse to set those up, the federal government can set up alternate exchanges but it can’t provide subsidies.

Some conservatives are saying this would be a good move. I completely disagree. This does nothing to kill the bill. It also allows the establishment of federal control, which can become rather oppressive, especially if the Democrats manage to sneak funding into a bill somehow. In effect, this would be like letting a robber hold a gun to your head just because you think it’s not currently loaded. Moreover, this would allow liberal states to implement the law and get subsidies from taxpayers all across the country, while people living in conservative states would not get the subsidies. In effect, conservatives states would be subsidizing big rich liberal states, and the bill would appear much cheaper. This is a bad solution.

Thoughts?

94 comments:

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Excellent analysis. Let's do 'em all.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I wouldn't recommend the last couple.

DUQ said...

Andrew, Glad you're back. And now, I will read the article. :D

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I'm with Cloward and Piven on this one. Overload the system in every way possible until your target collapses. Once that happens, we can return to the rule of law and commonsense, and put the health care house in order.

Needless to say, I was only half-kidding.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ. I await your thoughts.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I totally agree. I think it's a horrible idea for conservative states to opt out and essentially subsidize the liberal states. But there are a lot of conservatives actually suggesting that. It just makes no sense to me.

DUQ said...

Interesting analysis. I don't know enough about the law to say any of this independently, but I believe what you say. It sounds like the last couple would be a mistake and it sounds like the first couple would be good for a while. I think we really need to push repeal.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ. I think the last couple would be a mistake because they leave really dangerous pieces in place. And all it would take is one moment of weakness and these things could spring into life. I also think it's a horrible idea to opt-out of Obamacare. For one thing, that makes the whole system cheaper, i.e. it keeps the costs down. So the system will last longer than it otherwise would. For another, the money will be taken by the federal government no matter what. So even if the state doesn't participate, it's still paying the bill. All opting out achieves is letting the system benefit people in places like California at the expense of people in the conservative states.

Doc Whoa said...

DUQ, You and me both. I'm glad other people can explain this stuff! Andrew, is this what you went to lawschool for?

AndrewPrice said...

Doc. Yes, I went to law school so I could blog! LOL! Actually, this is stuff you learn in Con Law and if you do any sort of regulatory work.

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, So lawschool is all about becoming a blogger these days is it? ;)

Anyway, thanks for the interesting analysis. Do you think Romney will do any of these?

K said...

There will be political ramifications if the Republicans just sh*tcan the entire thing while leaving it on the books. So pass a law to fund just one of the more or less popular Obama-care provisions - e.g. pre-existing conditions - and pay for it up front by creating a new tax on DVD/Blu-ray sales, cable media and motion picture production. Call it the Aaron Sorkin/Paul Haggis "Please raise our taxes" tax.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, You may not believe this, but they actually have courses now in how to blog and how to be a writer for lawyers. It's become that kind of world.

I think Romney will do each of these to one degree or another. But he's very smartly not commenting on it right now. I know a lot of conservatives are really ticked off that he's not promising which he'll use, but that would be a very stupid thing to do.

And I should note, these same conservatives also want him to issue a public apology for RomneyCare -- talk about a poorly-timed and suicidal move.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I agree. They can't ignore this. And I don't think they will. I think what will happen is that Romney will use a couple of the methods above to kill further implementation while the Republicans get a repeal through the Congress.

I see no reason why they can't do it through reconciliation either, but just in case, I wanted to point out that these options are being considered.

I agree too about keeping the couple popular ones.

ellenB said...

Excellent article Andrew! Welcome back!

I vote for repeal. But I'll take the first couple as a temporary measure.

I agree it's not all that smart for conservatives states not to participate.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Very well thought out analysis, Andrew!

It's good to know Romney can do something while Congress gets the repeal through, or even if they can't.

Starve the beast then kill it. Then kill it again just to be sure.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ellen! I'd say it's good to be back, but someone rifled my desk and they stole my parking space! LOL!

Repeal is definitely preferred. But I agree that the first couple would be a good temporary measure.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

BTW, I didn't know that about the last one. Then again, it would be a good way to get all the liberals in the states that implement it then we kill it, bwa ha ha ha ha!

Well...it would be funny.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben! These are the arguments people are suggesting around the net and I thought I would point out some of the pros and cons.

It is good to know that Romney can do a lot to stop this before it gets repealed.

One of the interesting problems right now is that a bunch of conservatives are throwing a hissy fit. They're whining that Romney hasn't specifically spelled out which of these methods he plans to use. But why in the world would he do that? How does that help him? All that does is give Obama an issue he can attack and it lets the defenders of ObamaCare know from which direction he will come at them. He is much better just leaving it vague.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, It's kind of funny how they really botched this law so badly when they wrote it. There are several key flaws like that. But they sometimes did it to hide the real price. Sometimes they were just incompetent. In any event, they've left this law open to major sabotage.

The problem, however, is that sabotage only slows the inevitable, it doesn't stop it. And it often turns out to be an easy way to get the law implemented because people aren't worried about stopping it so they let it through and then it blows up on them.

ellenB said...

Andrew, In light of your last point, what do you think of Rick Perry's decision today?

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew: Indeed. It's stupid to think that Romney should show his hand at this early stage of the game.

Obviously, the conservatives who think he should show every card as it's being dealt know nothing about high stakes poker or the value of a good poker face.

Knowledge is power and Romney would be giving Obama knowledge (power) if he made public every plan he has and all the details.

Meanwhile, Obama sure ain't revealing his hand although Obama doesn't have a good poker face.
And we can predict fairly accurately what cards Obama will play.

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, I think Perry did what he needed to do. The people of Texas clearly don't want Obamacare so he made a big show of turning it down and they are happy.

That said, I think it's foolish because taxes from Texas will still go to fund it and now there will be more money for California and New York. So their decision means they get all of the costs, but none of the benefits, and they end up keeping the system alive longer by reducing the chance of bankruptcy.

I'd call that a tactical win but a strategic loss for Perry.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I think it's largely part of the conservative Anybody-but-Romney tantrum.

A lot of these same people are just attacking everything he's doing, and they're doing it hypocritically. They ignore attacks he makes and then whine that he's not attacking.

They jump on him for not putting out a comprehensive platform when (1) he has done that on his website, and (2) it would be stupid to give Obama things to attack.

They blast him for not issuing a mea culpa right now on RomneyCare, which would be suicidally stupid. Why in the world should he attack his own record on an issue that few moderates care about?

They've been blasting him for not throwing more rhetorical stones like calling Obama a socialist. Except, he has said that. And moreover, it's not effective with moderates., who will decide this election.

And they've completely ignored how he's tied Obama's campaign into a twisted mess of excuses and changing themes. Obama can't a foothold or find a single attack, so he ends up shadowboxing with his own record and that is dragging him down. Every week it's some new strategy and none of them have worked. It's making Obama look desperate. So why change the strategy and throw Obama a lifesaver?

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Precisely, Andrew!

When the enemy is his own worst enemy why create a distraction or worse?

Obama desperately wants to get off the subject of the economy and find something that'll stick to teflon Mitt.

If you got a football team backed up to their own one yard line and it's 4th and 25 it's not a good time to blitz.

Deon Sanders said...

Unless of course, all your corners, linebackers and safety are as good as me.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, That's the old rule in the book and so many people don't get it? When the other guy is flailing and self-destructing, let him! Don't throw him a rope.

And I totally agree about the football metaphor, which is even more important in politics. Because in politics you need to win the middle to win the whole thing and you can't win the middle by preaching to the choir.

By the way, I really think these attacks go back to their being upset about the primaries.

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! Yes, Mr. Sanders, then by all means blitz like crazy!

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I do too, Andrew. Some people are having problems letting go.

Hell, there's still Paulbots saying Ron Paul still has a chance.
It's like reading the ramblings of a mad man.

Okay, it is the ramblings of a mad man but they are convinced, nevertheless.

One of our friends was gonna vote for the Constitutionalist candidate, whoever that is, until Roberts backstabbed America.

Now he's voting for Romney.

Hopefully more conservatives/libertarians will wake up and realize we need every vote we can get.

You know, the ones that really chap my hide (not really, that would be...weird) are the people that claim the GOP is just as bad as the democrats.

I just wanna smack 'em.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, "It is the ramblings of a mad man" -- LOL!

I think conservatives will all come around. I think the idea of leaving Obama in place will be more than enough to motivate them. The key for Romney thus becomes winning over the moderates. And you can't win the moderates by talking like an extremist or making arguments which only appeal to extremists.

And the fact that conservatives aren't getting this is puzzling. They should know better, which is why I still attribute this to a tantrum.

ellenB said...

Andrew and USSBen, I agree completely. When the other side is imploding you stand back and watch them, you don't start tossing out platforms and mea culpas. Why help Obama?

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, That's my thinking too.

T-Rav said...

I don't know--as far as Method Three goes, Romney and Co. could just say to the courts, "Well, President Unicorn decided not to enforce immigration laws and a bunch of others, because 'it's the right thing to do,' so why can we not do that?" Actually, come to think of it, I'd really like to see them say that to the SCOTUS. I want to see if Roberts can twist himself infinitely in making a ruling and thereby create a singularity.

As far as Method One goes, I like it, but isn't there the possibility that government agencies favorably disposed to ObamaCare would simply move money around from their other programs to make up for the shortfall? I honestly have no idea.

Oh, and welcome back!

tryanmax said...

Ow! Mah brainz! I can't take this on the first day back from vacation. Just, whatever you think is best, go for it.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, This is the abridged and simplified version! :)

tryanmax said...

DON'T SAY THAT!

(Sorry, that's me channeling my two-year-old._

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks!

On Method One, no. The agencies can't just shift money around. They need to spend the money as it is assigned. That said, many agencies have a slushfund from which they could draw money. But each agency would be under the control of Romney and his appointees. In other words, there isn't some low level schmuck who can decide to shift money around or tap such a fund. Those decisions come from the top, and the people at the top are all political appointees.

The real danger on number one is that it doesn't actually kill the thing -- so the next President could go ahead and turn the switch to on.

On flipping the court the bird, it's more complicated than that. I know the blogs make a big deal of Obama flaunting the will of Congress, but he has been fairly careful to stay within his discretion when ignoring these laws. And when he hasn't, he's lost. Romney would have a LOT of wiggle room if he chose to go that route, but the one thing he couldn't do would be to completely ignore the law. It would slowly take effect little by little.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, This is why so much in politics is so hard for normal people to understand. Half the terms I used had specific meanings which the average person might not even understand. Few people understand how the government actually works, what it can do and can't, and when the rules really are meaningful and when they aren't.

This is difficult stuff. And a lot of the people tossing these ideas around really don't understand them.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The key thing to remember is that almost nothing you read about these ideas is right. :(

And the people screaming that Romney is failing because he hasn't outlined how he will use these ideas are idiots.

Jen said...

I don't think anybody wants to know my thoughts--it might not be pretty.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I'm sure we do. :) Let's hear them.

ScyFyterry said...

I'm dizzy. So the bottom line is that none of these things will work permanently, but most will work and Romney can stop it from going into effect for 4-8 years very quickly?

Jen said...

Andrew, It'll be the ramblings of a mad man! A might bit too radical right now. I'm just really fed up with it all, so some people might want to stay away from me.

And I'm all for killing it over, and over, and over, and over...

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, Yes, that's the bottom line.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, LOL! Feel free to rant as needed. :)

T-Rav said...

Ahem, Jen. It'll be the ramblings of a "mad person." Here at Commentarama, we try to be respectful and inclusive of the fairer sex. You're welcome.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Perhaps we can stick with "crackpot"? :)

ScyFyterry said...

Madperson just sounds so wrong!

Jen said...

T-Rav, Ummmm, I AM the fairer sex!

Andrew, I need some target practice. You got any targets?

I won't be ignoring any responses, I just won't respond for a while. Back later.

ScyFyterry said...

Next thing it will be "calm-challeneged individual" as in, "it will be the rantings of a calm-challenged individual!"

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, It does sound so wrong.. so so wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Wait a minute! Are you saying women are the fairer sex? Shoot! I had that backwards. No wonder they all looked at me funny at that NOW rally?!

As for targets, Commentarama does indeed sell targets. They're shaped like black helicopters with Ben Bernanke, Oprah and Shia Labeouf sticking their heads out the window. :) We call it the Target of Opportunists.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, There's always somebody in every crowd who pushes a joke too far, and that's you man. ;)

ScyFyterry said...

Andrew, I true! :)

tryanmax said...

As to Romney offering specifics--and I apologize if this came up already--I think he is in a perfect position not to. The fact of the matter is, even if Romney devises literal panacea, the left will ridicule it as stupid and unworkable.

tryanmax said...

If sex was fair... nevermind. I'll leave the too-far-ness to Terry.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, LOL! You true indeed. I guess. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Romney is absolutely in the perfect position to stay quiet on this issue. Obama is flailing. Romney has already promised to repeal and replace the law. Nothing more needs to be said at this point. In fact, to the contrary, the more specific he gets, the easier it will be for Obama to find a way to attack him.

I really think there is some ulterior motive going on -- or just rampant stupidity. These are the exact same people who kept up the Anybody But Romney attack long after it was obvious he was going to win, and they still haven't tried to stop proving they were right. So I think their advice is self-serving. And it is horrible. I kid you not that HotAir and Charles Krauthammer wrote articles this weekend saying that Romney is "blowing it" because he "still refuses to apologize for RomneyCare." Why in the world should he do that? How does that help anything? That's the kind of advice people give an ex they secretly want to have fail.

T-Rav said...

Jen, like good leftists everywhere, I will happily remind you of your need to think of your female identity and solidarity at all times, and ridicule you if you don't. ;-) As for targets, I have a few unruly kittens I'd like to interest you in.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Nice stop! You were headed toward a cliff at full speed there.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, you should have just told the NOW people you used to be a woman, or were planning to be one. They eat that stuff up.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That is a good point. We should all remember our group identities at all times. :)

T-Rav said...

"If sex was fair...nevermind. I'll leave the too-far-ness to Terry."

There are a lot of potential replies crossing my brain right now, and I can't say a single one of them.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think they weren't buy it from the moment I walked into the crowd. It could have been my "Barefoot and Pregnant YES" t-shirt.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's the insidious thing tryanmax has done. You know what you want to say... but can't. :(

tryanmax said...

And the best part is, I couldn't think of a punchline myself. My diabolical plan has unfolded nicely. Heh heh heh heh heh.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Somehow, I knew that was the case. Oh well, we've been had again!

tryanmax said...

Back on topic, though. I've noticed that the anybody-but-Romney crowd has actually doubled down since he locked in the nomination. I guess we should redub them the "Romny-can't-do-anything-right" crowd. Take last week for example: Independence Day fell on a Wednesday, and a record number of Americans took a week-long vacation (or so I heard). Essentially, last week was a media dead week. Yet the right-wing media was insisting that Romney was making a grave error by going on vacation himself.

There was some nonsense about taking momentum from the Roberts decision, even though the decision was practically the opposite. There was something about countering Obama's campaign even though Obama has resorted to telling proven lies--no rebuttal needed. They even made some to-do over his jet-ski, declaring it Romney's "Beetle Bailey" moment, apparently to save the MSM the trouble. I think they were also trying to imply that jet-skiing is a rich-person pastime b/c apparently everyone in RWR is too stuck up to realize how affordable one is.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree. That is exactly how I saw events last week and how I'm seeing these people. Romney can do no right and everything Obama says is the end-all-be-all.

The mea culpa thing, for example, blew my mind. So Romney's failing because he didn't go out and apologize for something which few liberals or moderates care about? How does it help to create that kind of issue and to give Obama a MASSIVE sound bite? Why not apologize for Mormonism being a cult while he's at it? Or for his ancestors owning slaves. Or to every person who has ever been fired. How much nonsense is this?

And then on issue after issue, Obama will come out with some pathetic attack which will never resonate with the public, and before Obama even finishes his sentence, these same RWR people start whining how Romney blew it because he didn't respond -- I've even seen them ignore his responses just so they can claim he didn't.

Give me a break. For one thing, Obama is flailing. He's throwing every single charge he can imagine at Romney, hoping something will stick. If Romney starts trying to counter each one, he risks elevating these pathetic slaps into actual punches. Why help Obama land a punch?

Further, by responding, Romney risks shifting the debate from Obama's record, which Obama is clearly trying to run away from, to Romney's record. That's not what Romney wants.

Also, these same RWR people are using all kinds of dirty fake attacks: "Romney lacks passion" and "he doesn't sound strong enough." What kind of criticism is that? Or my favorite, "he's not doing well in the polls." These are the same polls which always show the Democrat ahead, and which RWR otherwise dismissed. Not to mention, Romney is tied or in the lead in several states where he should be 10-15% behind. How is he under-performing?

It's all a big shell game.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The Wall Street Journal actually complained that Romney hasn't put out a detailed economic plan even though (1) nobody does that and (2) he's got a plan with 57 fricken points. What more do they want? How is that a genuine criticism?

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I only hope that Obamacraptax gets repealed. I don't even care about a replacement.

And you are exactly right, your suggestions would work until a progressive president gets into office, then we would be right back to where we started.

I do notice that none of the "complainers" are backing repeal and replace. They just whine about Romney's so-called failings.

It must be catching, because the same thing is happening to O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer. Despite the fact that O'Mara has a slam-dunk case and ample ammunition of prosecution malfeasance, so-called supporters of Zimmerman are complaining that O'Mara isn't as "aggressive" as he should be.

I don't know what it is, but people seem to think that Romney should constantly be at Obama's throat. Same with O'Mara at the Prosecution's throat. It makes me wonder if some of these people are trying to throw the election/trial.

tryanmax said...

I honestly don't know what to make of it. It's as though both parties (relative media factions included) are imploding and racing for the bottom. It absolutely blows my mind.

You forgot to mention one other tactic which RWR has grown particularly fond of. Whenever the Democrats or the media twist some of Romney's words or those of his representatives, RWR throws the blame for it on Mitt. Then they bolster their idiocy by saying that a "real leader" should be able to foresee such attacks. That is taking a realistically desirable characteristic and turning it into something unattainable.

Besides, what point are they trying to make with that notion? That Obama is a better leader than Romney? It's high time RWR stop comparing Romney against some imaginary ideal combination of Reagan, Washington, and Christ and start comparing him against his opponent, Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm, Mmm, Mmm).

tryanmax said...

Joel, that puts me in mind of a thought I had earlier today. During the primaries, when Mitt ran a solid campaign against Newt and Ricky, all the self-appointed conservative voices whined that Mitt was too harsh. Now that he is running against Obama the same voices are complaining that he is too soft. Either Romney or RWR has changed, and only one has to cater to broadcast ratings.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I've noticed that too with Zimmerman (as with Romney). There seems to be this idea that if you aren't out there clawing the other guy's throat, pounding the table every time you're on camera, and screaming the most outlandish criticism, then somehow you've "gone soft" and you are throwing the fight.

I think it's ridiculous.

And you're right, there is nothing constructive being offered by the critics. They are just whining that Romney is doing everything wrong -- responds too fast, too slow, not enough, too much, etc. It's a fools game because heads they win, tails he loses.


Welcome back, by the way! :)

tryanmax said...

Joel, you keep prompting my thinker. This attitude that Romney and O'Mara need to be constantly going for the jugular reminds me of what I experience in my divorce. I just handled it calmly, cooly, got all my paperwork done on time and built a very strong case for myself. I couldn't have done that if I had been tossing chairs and screaming my head off like my friends and family thought I should be doing.

Joel Farnham said...

tryanmax,

I agree. Sometimes, I think these voices are so desperate to keep the status quo that they become indignant when things change especially without their help.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It's as though both parties (relative media factions included) are imploding and racing for the bottom. It absolutely blows my mind.

Ditto. First the Democrats went insane. Now our side is insane. And it seems to get worse every week.

That's a good point too. They are attacking Romney for the spin on his words rather than his words. And then they whine that somehow this was Romney's fault because he didn't control the MSM. When has anyone ever controlled the MSM?

You're right too about the comparison to perfection. That's another problem. They keep comparing our candidates (and particularly Romney) to this idealized version of historical figures. That's like comparing your girlfriend to some character out of a movie. Sure, you can do it, but it will never be a valid comparison.

I also like how they vacillate between Obama being the worst president and politician ever and his being the most brilliant campaigner ever. It seems they believe which ever version makes Romney look worse at the moment.

In the end, I don't know what they are hoping to achieve except throwing a tantrum. I think this tantrum began when they failed to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon early enough and since that time they've been running around screaming heretic at everyone just to prove they are the most conservative.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel and tryanmax, There is a definite ring of desperation to the criticism, almost a mania. It's like this a purely emotional attack premised on some sense of wanting revenge.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, not the picture attached to this article. I have still seem some people posting that Romney has yet to say that he wants to repeal Obamacare. Yeah, right. He said it in every debate, he said it every speech for half a year. He said if after the SC's decision. Yet, some people persist in saying "he never said he would repeal it."

Joel Farnham said...

Revenge is right, that and the fear of being inconsequential.

Thanks, it's good to be back. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree. I think the masses want revenge -- their side against the "evils" of Bush, our side against the "evils" of Obama. But the pundits are freaked out. I really think they got caught flatfooted when the Tea Party came along and they are now desperate to be seen as the first to sniff out heretics so they are never seen as behind the curve again.

Jen said...

T-Rav, I'm back, but just for a moment. Are you telling me that you are a leftist? Kinda sounds that way based on your response.

I am whatever I want to be, and whenever I want to be it. Does that help or confuse you?

And no, I'm not using kittens for targets. I have plenty of little ones running around right now, and I like those furballs.

Andrew, good targets. How soon can I get one of them?

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, They'll be over your house any minute. :)

Jen said...

Andrew, Oh, is that what I was seeing here recently?

AndrewPrice said...

Yep. That's our product stalking your cattle. :)

T-Rav said...

Jen, I'm just yanking your chain, I promise. I've been around libs long enough I can mimic their language when it suits me.

But seriously, I'm about to close a deal with some Syrian rebels on these kittens of mine, so if you change your mind, you should contact me pronto.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"I think they were also trying to imply that jet-skiing is a rich-person pastime b/c apparently everyone in RWR is too stuck up to realize how affordable one is."

As Adam Baldwin said:
"You mean the jet skis Romney used to save folks that were drowning?" (may not be a direct quote but that's the essence of it.

Tryanmax is correct, one doesn't hafta be wealthy to own jet skis. They are probably cheaper (or comparable in price) to those atv's or dirt bikes.

Andrew: I too am getting sick n' tired of the repeated lies from the fringe right, and the lie that Romney hasn't said he will repeal Obamascare (when he has repeatedly said he will)is the one I see the most.

You're probably right that more folks will get onboard after the Convention.

I have a feeling there will be a few diehard anyonebutRomneyists after the Convention, but as they slowly lose support they'll be increasingly irrevelant and properly labelled as the imbeciles they are.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tryanmax said:
"If sex was fair... nevermind."

What we need is sexual justice!
I don't know exactly what that means, but it sounds fair.
We need to pass the sex fairness and affordability act to see what's in it.
Besides, sex is a right.

It's in the Constitution...somewhere. If I were allowed to rub lemon juice on the Constitution I could prove it, but the powers that be will never allow that. It would blow their coverup.

It would be a man-date or a date...depending on how you roll.
Sexual justice. Demand it! It's the only fair thing to do.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, On the jet ski thing, it just sounds rich to people who haven't done it, and they're just looking to score a few quick hits, hoping it sticks. And by conservatives whining about this, they help to make it stick. Ignoring it, like Romney has or fighting back by showing Obama to be worse is the better approach.

rlaWTX said...

Ben's "sex fairness and affordability act" - now that's an interesting concept; let's see just how messed up the congresscritters can get!

T-Rav - Roberts' infinite twist - does that create a Mobius strip or a Lemniscate?

On topic(s): I'm with Jen on killing it over and over and over - plus she doesn't want to use kittens as targets!
Folks are spinning Perry's announcement because it came about the same time as a report that TX is in the bottom of the # of insured people list.
defunding ObamaTax is an excellent plan - along with the EPA and the czar-niches and any other idiocy stoppable by defunding!!!!

RW media need to shut up. They need to adopt the 11th Commandment now that the candidate is chosen. Get a grip and get on board. You canNOT convince me that 4 more years of TOTUS would be "good for conservatism" in the long run. Sure, we'd all be miserable together, but we'd also end up with a mess that was truly to big to fix. And as much as I appreciate Jindal and Ryan, waiting for them to be available in 2016 is insanity. They are not only "calm-challenged individuals", but they are intelligence-challenged and rationality-challenged as well.
[and what is/can be done at the state level is not analogous to what can/should be done at the federal level!!!!!!!!! (RomneyCare)]

rlaWTX said...

["They" = RW media, not Jindal or Ryan]

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, My guess is that if Congress passed a sex fairness and affordability act, the no one would ever have sex again.

The 11th Commandment has been entirely forgotten, sadly. And I agree that waiting for a better candidate to come along is a horrible idea. Obama can't be left to damage the country for four more years.

Patti said...

my simple thought is this: i don't care what method is used, only that some method is used.

kill it!

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I agree. And I don't think this is something the Republicans can ignore. They need to repeal this sucker or die trying.

Post a Comment