And Romney said:
Well, that's, of course, the test. And the good news is in many cases the president will sign them, [with] regards to, for instance, the economy, the president has asked for trade promotion authority. Harry Reid won't give him that authority. Republicans want him to have that authority.... With regards to health care, for instance, when Reince Priebus talks about adjusting our health care system to make ObamaCare work better....
And so, these kinds of changes I think you'll actually see the president sign. I'm absolutely convinced that you're going to see with a Republican-led Senate, if we're lucky enough to get that, you're going to see bills get to the president's desk, he will sign some. Some, he won't sign. No question about that, he'll veto some, but I think at that point, we'll find out who really is the party of no.
Posts
61 comments:
Good point.
Obama doesn't have the guts to veto.
Do not question Nostradamus
Clinton was a politician; Obama isn't.
Oh no!
Romney also expects a compromise immigration reform bill from the GOP Senate majority. Obama's head will spin when his Hispanic bloc vote plan backfires as today's great compromiser from Kentucky passes it on to Boehner's House.
Anybody who's been paying attention knows that Harry Reid is a one man party of No.
All I want for Christmas is a Senate that actually votes.
King Putt will sign a lot more than anyone would imagine. Even some Conservatives.
Because my theory is, he doesn't care. About governing. He cares about himself. About being popular. About giving speeches.
But when it comes to governing, he doesn't care.
And if I'm right, we will see him give soaring speeches about how awful this Republican legislation is, and then, when it lands on his desk, he will sign it.
Mitt is right. Republicans will get a wonderful opportunity to showcase Obama's lies about who really is the party of no. I read somewhere that Reid would not even enter Democrats' amendments to the bills that were signed by Obama -- not even Democrats' own! Think about who really is the party of no -- Obama and his puppet Reid.
All I want for Christmas is a Senate that actually votes.
Yea that would be a refreshing change from the past 6 years.
Uh, Republicans don't have the majority yet. They are more than capable of screwing it up.
I'm reluctant to think about politics beyond Tuesday.
Wow - garage wants a Republican Senate too.
So Romney admits the GOP will NOT repeal Ocare,after all the show votes in the House and the lies to the base.
..
Wow - garage wants a Republican Senate too.
Sure, let them show the country how they can lead. (they can't)
As favorable as 2014 is for Republicans, 2016 is even more favorable to Democrats.
"So Romney admits the GOP will NOT repeal Ocare,after all the show votes in the House and the lies to the base."
I think the best strategy is to make it voluntary. That way all the lefties who want to pay high premiums for narrow networks can go for it. Those who want to keep their employer plans would do so and those who want new, high deductible polices with open networks can have that. Obama promised the voters they could have both.
Obamacare is really Medicaid for all and the cost will have to be addressed later.
Maybe he would sign such a bill. It would probably satisfy 90% of the GOP base who are smart enough to see what is happening.
The same thing applies to amnesty and Romney explained what he wants. 1. close the borders. 2. legalize long term residents with no criminal records. 3. Revise legal (although he said illegals, a slip ) immigration rules to get rid of the 1965 Kennedy Immigration law that turned our immigration laws upside down.
That is why we have chain migration of illiterate Mexican peasants while Europeans with skills we need have to enter lotteries.
Wow, this from the erstwhile Obama bootlicker, Michael Goodwin" Read the whole thing.
Normally, I am not a partisan advocate. I am a registered Democrat, though I vote as an independent.
Not this year. This is a national emergency and the only responsible action is to vote Republican for every federal office.
"That is why we have chain migration of illiterate Mexican peasants while Europeans with skills we need have to enter lotteries."
Can't have a North American Union with closed borders, comrade!
"Sure, let them show the country how they can lead. (they can't)
As favorable as 2014 is for Republicans, 2016 is even more favorable to Democrats."
I think Garage is kind of ahead of the 2016 meme here.
We won't be hearing about a Democrat President anymore. The media will do it's best to elect Democrats in 2016, which means from now on, once Repulicans gain power, it's all Republicans all the time.
I'm not sure how they will get away with it though. I mean, King Putt is still President.
But I won't be at all surprised if everything we hear on the news is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Most people will start thinking they are the President and Vice President.
Bitchtits whining about 2016 already.
"Have a happy November 4th, jackass."
I will be happy if Harry Reid is no longer the majority leader. Whether repubs achieve much past that would be icing on the cake. But, that quivering lipped bastard needs to go. His face is the one I most want to punch every time I see him on tv.
Sure Obama will sign. When John Boehner demands that the House approve a bankrupt level of debt, as he has before, the Senate will go along and Obama will sign. When Boehner passes bills that spend money we do not have and does not exist unless it is fraudulently printed like Monopoly money, as he has before, the Senate will go along and Obama will sign. When Boehner continues to fund ObamaCare, as he has before, the Senate will go along and Obama will sign.
Don't worry, the Boehner Establishment Republicans will continue to carry water for Obama and implement his agenda -- all while giving lip service to opposing him and passing gimmick votes.
Oh, please.
I'd much rather have a "do nothing" Congress than a "do something, even if it's wrong" or, worse, a "do anything that will make us seem liked" Congress.
@pm317 -- That's a good rant. I laughed at this quote:
the leakers claimed Obama was “visibly angry” and “demanded a more hands-on approach”
President Obama is a one-man road to serfdom. He is so angry at his own incompetence that he demands more power.
Mark: Bush spent money we didn't have. Obama is spending money we'll never have.
"Make Obamacare work better?
This is why Romney lost. It's also why, if he's runs again - he will lose.
Who needs congress? Shutting down government has proved political suicide, so congress has no power of the purse and consequently no power over the executive apparatus. Laws and policy can be dealt with through executive orders and departmental interpretation of their mandate.
We no longer have a government bound by the constitution. I don't think Mitt grasps that fact, he is a fixer upper, not a revolutionary. And we need a revolutionary to undo the criminal despotism under which we suffer.
Hagar said...
Clinton was a politician; Obama isn't.
11/2/14, 12:42 PM
No, Obama is a politician that has no experience or desire to figure out how to get a part of what he wants while conceding part of what the other side wants. He thinks like a prime minister in a country where he always has the majority behind him. Note the "I won." mentality. This is probably a result of being in Illinois for too long and used to doing things the Chicago way.
Romney is delusional.
The media will continue to cover for the dems and Obama.
As an arm to the democrat party, that is media job #1.
@Chuck, neither party and the institutions they represent get the seriousness of their work..
One fact of politics that the president never fully grasped is that Congress, not the White House, is the center of our political system. Sure, the president lives in a fancy house, enjoys a full-time chef, and has “Hail to the Chief” played when he enters a room. But Congress is—as Stanford’s Morris Fiorina once put it—“the keystone of the Washington establishment.” The Framers gave pride of place to Congress, making it Article I of the Constitution, and were so worried about its potential power they divided it into two. Ideally, the modern president can use his prestige and acumen to lead Congress, but Obama has fallen far from that ideal. He has treated Congress in a supercilious manner, burned his bridges with Republican leaders, and alienated even Democrats.
With nobody to call on Capitol Hill, the president will have lots of free time over the next two years. He might use some of it to ponder this truth: There are no permanent majorities in American politics. For over a decade, Democrats have been salivating at the prospect of demographic changes propelling them to permanent majority status. Obama in particular has been active on this front, and has ruthlessly divided the country along race, gender, and class lines in the hope of speeding this process along. But he has overlooked two historical realities.
@Henry, some of us have been waiting since 2008 for a media personality to write that kind of article about Obama and the Democrats -- it only took 6 long years..and it is still just one article.
chuck:
The federal government was "shutdown" by Obama and Reid. It operates without a budget -- actually a trillion dollar deficit -- and Congress has no influence over its expenditures. This strategy has proven to have ambiguous value for Democrats, and few political and democratic repercussions.
This is why Romney lost. He he has a killer argument, a real zinger that should be all over the pages of punditry, and he fumbles the line. "You're going to see", "you're going to see", "that", "no question about that", "but I think at this point", blah blah blah. He has W's fluency and Gore's charm.
April Apple said...
"Make Obamacare work better?
This is why Romney lost. It's also why, if he's runs again - he will lose.
Agreed.
The Bush's/Romney's of the world are decent folks who still, to this day, after all we've seen, display no recognition of what they are up against politically.
Much less how to effectively confront/combat the left.
Drago wrote:
April Apple said...
"Make Obamacare work better?
Again, I think the tea partiers are being short sighted here. So long as Obama is president he's not going to allow his signature legislation to be overturned. Repeal requires a president who actually wants it repealed.
Any specifics on just why the Dems stonewall Obama on trade authority?
They have more leverage now (assuming they take back the senate) to where they can get some concessions from the President. But the concession is not going to be the repeal of the law. It would have been much more of a possibility if Romney had won the white house. Even if the dems kept the senate.
Mark wrote:
Sure Obama will sign. When John Boehner demands that the House approve a bankrupt level of debt, as he has before, the Senate will go along and Obama will sign. When Boehner passes bills that spend money we do not have and does not exist unless it is fraudulently printed like Monopoly money, as he has before, the Senate will go along and Obama will sign. When Boehner continues to fund ObamaCare, as he has before, the Senate will go along and Obama will sign.
But lets remember, that repubs only controlled the House. They had no real power. LEts at least let repubs get control of the senate before we damn them for not living up to their ideals.
jr565: "Again, I think the tea partiers are being short sighted here. So long as Obama is president he's not going to allow his signature legislation to be overturned. Repeal requires a president who actually wants it repealed."
No argument.
However, there are a number of ACA legislative change items (on the margins) that would be politically difficult for dems to oppose and obama to veto.
Not that the dems won't of course.
But it would certainly change the dynamic and put a stake in the ground for 2016.
The republicans have no interest in doing what it takes to solve this countries problems. It is going to take more than a slower rate of government growth. The bureaucracy is strangling the economy. Obamacare has made it impossible to hire full time workers.
The only growth in our economy since 2006 has been in wealthy investment bankers and government cronies. Growth in the stock market can be directly tied to the free money the fed has been pumping in.
The republicans don't want to change that. They just want a piece. Right after they compromise on amnesty. And they will smear Rand and Cruz and anyone that might upset the apple cart in 2016 to the point that the dems wont have to worry about it. They will pave the way for Romney/Bush or whatever "moderate" who will just manage the decline.
Until the republicans start calling out the democrats and how their policies affect the country nothing will change.
This is a good start:
http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Maxine-Waters-Poverty-Pimp-Posters-in-Inglewood-665x1024.jpg
@565 Again, I think the tea partiers are being short sighted here. So long as Obama is president he's not going to allow his signature legislation to be overturned. Repeal requires a president who actually wants it repealed.
I have no illusions about what the congress can and cannot do with Obama or Hillary or any leftist at the helm. The only way to repeal (or repeal and replace if you will) obamacare is to have control of all three branches. My comment was based on the fact that Romney thinks Obamacare can and should be saved at all.
It will be a waste of time to try to repeal Obamacare with Obama still in power. He will veto any attempt. I actually hope a GOP led senate & house won't bother.
Our only hope is to keep HillaryCare out because single payer is the obvious next step for these people. Why Obamacare was designed to fail.
Nothing will happen the next two years-no matter who is in charge of the senate.
kiss kiss
"It will be a waste of time to try to repeal Obamacare with Obama still in power. He will veto any attempt. I actually hope a GOP led senate & house won't bother."
Of course he'll veto it. However, it's important to put the marker down.
And when they do, the New York Times will blame the GOP for sending bills they know Obama won't sign.
And when they do, the New York Times will blame the GOP for sending bills they know Obama won't sign.
"Any specifics on just why the Dems stonewall Obama on trade authority?"
AFL-CIO
Next question.
With the senate filibuster rules, how likely is it that anything will get passed?
"The Bush's/Romney's of the world are decent folks who still, to this day, after all we've seen, display no recognition of what they are up against politically."
Yes, all he can do is save the country. I do agree with the criticism of his political skills. That, of course, has nothing to do with what we need.
I remember somebody, mate Bill Safire, writing about the two types of presidential candidate.
One has "the fire in the belly" to do what is necessary to get elected.
The other can "ride the horse" and do what is needed to make the office work.
The only example the writer could pint to was Eisenhower who could "ride the horse" and didn't care that much about getting elected.
Romney was another.
Congress should pass a bill that mandates that all parts of Obamacare not implemented by a certain date are automatically repealed. For example, if the employer mandate is not enforced by Oct 1 2016, it is automatically repealed.
If Obama vetoes it is proof positive that he is an obstructionist-not willing to work with Congress, not willing to implement the law as written on the original timetable or a revised one.
If he does not veto, then either the public and politicians will have to live with the consequences of Obamacare as written, or the parts of the law not in effect will be voided.
Whatever the situation, we will be in better shape than today-the statute and implementation will be in accord.
"And when they do, the New York Times will blame the GOP for sending bills they know Obama won't sign."
Which is no reason to do, or not do, anything. If the Republicans haven't figured that out yet (and I don't believe most have) they truly are the Stupid Party.
So Romney admits the GOP will NOT repeal Ocare,after all the show votes in the House and the lies to the base
Romney doesn't actually have a say in the matter. You might as well poll Sarah Palin or Al Gore for their opinions.
April, we could have gotten a repeal if we had the house and the presidency. Which would have been the case had Romney won. had Romney won, not only would he have repealed obamacare but we could have put Harry Reid over a barrel.
Saying we have to deal with obamacare is dealing with the world that exists with Romney not as president.
"Obamacare is really Medicaid for all and the cost will have to be addressed later."
No, it is most definitely NOT that. THAT is what we need.
Obamneycare is just a scheme to push more customers into the hands of private health insurers.
"Saying we have to deal with obamacare is dealing with the world that exists with Romney not as president."
Pretty much. The other thing is that there may be elements of Obamacare that the GOP doesn't want to repeal, or that may be individually popular, like the keeping 26 year olds on their parents' plans.
I have no illusions that the GOP will ever go with complete repeal, not at this point--even if they have both houses of Congress and the presidency. The ACA as a whole is unpopular, but within that unpopularity lies enough diversity of opinion that complete repeal would be as unpopular as keeping it all in place.
A better plan is repealing parts of it--namely the employer mandates which are arguably job-killers--or even adding new reforms, such as requiring providers and insurers to provide a full disclosure of what a procedure or treatment will cost the patient prior to incurring the cost (for nonemergencies). The fact that you never know what will be covered until after you owe it is absurd, and a health law proposed by someone who isn't a "jayvee" president might have addressed this.
If the GOP takes the Senate, as expected, the key will be an agenda palatable to the middle. Pass some broadly popular bills so Obama has to either sign them or anger the middle. Avoid hard-core base-pleasing red meat, at least to the extent possible--the last thing they need is campaign material for the Dems to use in 2016 to scare the middle against the idea of the GOP controlling the entire government.
Holding on to the Senate will depend on the fortunes of Senators Rubio, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey and Kelly Ayotte.
565 -Re: Romney's promise to Repeal: I believed Romney at the time. Now? I'm starting to think, based on his own words, the man is full of crap. Political maneuvering aside.
"My comment was based on the fact that Romney thinks Obamacare can and should be saved at all."
-- It sounded more like triage to me. Something we do until we can do a bigger fix later, and if all the little fixes defang it entirely, all the better.
Now? I'm starting to think, based on his own words, the man is full of crap.
I didn't believe him, and not only about health care, but about climate change also. Romney is an elitist who thinks he knows best, but tempers his public stance to get the votes of the ignorant masses. It's not quite outright lying, but pretty darn close IMHO. It's one of the reasons he is such a lousy politician, he can't fake sincerity with the pros.
Post a Comment