2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

romney can credibly claim that he always advocated for states to be able to enact their own health-care plans, but he absolutely touted the individual mandate as a good plan that worked great and should be strongly considered by other states. Remember that the original romney book came out when romney thought obama was pushing for a public option, so a mandate could still be touted as a conservative alternative. but obama switched to a mandate, and so -- voila -- romney's position no longer looked so good, and he removed that line from his book.

The conservative-alternative defense is exactly what Gingrich is using--that the mandate in 1994 was a conservative alternative to Hillary's plan--so that's a wash.

I asked this ages ago on some other thread: how is a health-care mandate different than a car-insurance mandate? I don't get it.

Wait; newt's said that he used to support an individual mandate, but only as an alternative to an even more-liberal clinton plan, but he came to realize that mandates were a bad idea, and he's renounced the notion.

I think that's what your saying. Just want to be clear.

By the way, I'm not convinced it's a wash. Romney remains proud of his plan in massachusetts, while newt now rejects the whole notion of mandates. I think newt has actually staked-out a clever position on this, vis-a-vis romney.

Yes, that's how Gingrich presented it tonight. I think it's a wash at worst for Gingrich--i.e., I don't see him getting hurt by this either.

Everything I'm reading says Romney lost -- the only issue seems to be how badly he damaged himself.

at best he lost by not doing damage to gingrich. he needs to reverse the tide here.

I've re-watched the Ted Kennedy moment a couple of times--TPM has it up--and although there's clearly some loud booing, it seems to be confined to a handful of people. The overall reaction may be closer to what Matt describes.

$10,000 bet was amazing. Romney fucked this debate up in an incredible way.

"I will bet one night with my wife that you are incorrect"

"which wife"

"mr. gingrich, please wait until you're being addressed"

Gingrich's "If we do survive" was...troubling.

that tossed-off line is typical of the apocalyptic claptrap in newt's books. if he makes it to the general election watch him get impaled on the fact that he's regularly predicted imminent doom for the U.S. since the 1980s.

this review by joan didion catalogues his insane bullshit circa 1994

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/aug/10/the-teachings-of-speaker-gingrich/

Romney is now saying that the $10,000 bet was the direct result of the president's outrageously lax gaming laws, part of the administration's larger War on Personal Responsibility.

"I'm running for president, for Pete's sake, I can't afford to be making $5,000 bets on national television. I was merely trying to illustrate a point."

"You mean $10,000--the bet was for $10,000, Governor."

"Be that as it may."

Wait what?

Twinge of nausea watching John Sununu shill for Romney this morning. As creepy as he was 20 years ago on Crossfire.

Presumably the $10,000 bet did its job: he can wave it off as "when you bet on the horses, bet what you can afford - when you bet on a sure thing, bet what the other guy can afford". and in the mean time, it sounds like he's undeniably right about this thing - which is a pretty neat trick, if this thing is in fact bullshit.

lol mitt i just cant even

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4laRUcuYXmY

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/09/Romney-Perry-CNN-debate-newscom2-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

One of those hack phrenologist types who reads clues in body language would probably tell you this with a lot better reason, but to me it looks like they're both mentally deficient and/or getting blowjobs beneath the podiums

Good morning! What's up??

http://www.picturesof.net/_images_300/Jesus_Christ_With_His_Arms_Spread_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_090706-204270-807009.jpg

This seems to be the deleted line from Romney's book:

"We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

So he's talking in general terms, not specifically about the mandate--Romney's right. Taking it out of the book looks bad, though, and it is a bit of a fine line. And I imagine the distinction will be lost in the flap over the bet itself.

http://rlv.zcache.fr/marquez_sanford_pour_le_president_2012_tasse-p168912406325063493zvaib_400.jpg

at least two magnificent reasons this should happen

Good explanation of Gingrich's (wildly misplaced) appeal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-professor-gingrich-vs-professor-obama.html?_r=1

Bam is gonna be difficult in debate for anyone when he proceeds to answer every question with "Good point... but did you kill Osama Bin Laden?"

http://i.imgur.com/Zo9ya.jpg

romney's book isn't as damning as the public statements he made, but I guess the whole changing the text for the re-release is irresistible as a slam.

I suppose it depends in part on who the Republican nominee is, but I'd be surprised if Bin Laden carries much weight in the debates. I would think the Republican could sidestep that fairly easily: if you don't have a job, how relevant is that to your life?

One thing Hillary's side argued throughout the 2008 nomination was that all her vulnerable points were a matter of public record--that the Republicans wouldn't be able to dig up anything new because everything was already out there. (Probably wishful thinking in terms of Bill's post-presidential activities, but anyway.) I wonder if all Gingrich's baggage is already out there, or if there's more to come. I don't know. If there's nothing more to come, I think he can hang on--it doesn't appear right now that hammering away at what's there is helping Romney and the rest (sometimes, witness last night, it even backfires). If there's more, that's different.

The Newt / Sanford liaison hasn't yet come to light.

For reasons I mention above, I think the change in romney's book is plenty significant.

Newt continues to gain in SC and Florida:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/11/9365498-gingrich-opens-up-big-leads-in-south-carolina-and-florida?ocid=twitter

But...

In hypothetical match-ups, the president [in Florida] leads Romney by seven points (48 to 41 percent) and Gingrich by 12 points (51 to 39 percent).

In South Carolina -- a reliable Republican state in presidential contests -- Obama’s approval rating stands at 44 percent, and he holds narrow leads over Romney (45 to 42 percent) and Gingrich (46 to 42 percent).

http://www.tenerifepropertyshop.ru/upload/images/news/march%20news/white%20knight.jpg

I would think the Republican could sidestep that fairly easily: if you don't have a job, how relevant is that to your life?

I think for guys running against gay marriage, etc., "how is this relative to your life with respect to employment" isn't really gonna wash

at least two magnificent reasons this should happen

― by (mennen), Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:48 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

lol lol

What I meant in terms of Obama was that I can't see "But I killed Osama bin Laden" getting him very far in the face of whatever Republican it is attacking him on the economy...I know there's a parallel universe in which Republican debates take place, but I imagine the debates in the general will be a little more grounded, and that the economy will be front and center. If Obama's lucky enough that it somehow isn't, that would be very lucky indeed.

it's time for a Dennis Perrin tweet!

"To paraphrase Gore Vidal, American politics is for energetic mediocrities, of which we have a limitless supply."

It's always time for a dennis perrin tweet.

If O drank Bin Laden's blood, would that prove he's not a Muslim? I don't know my sharia well enough.

might prove he's not a jehova's witness

prob not kosher either, so AIPAC would be pissed

lolwat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieqS4p-jUQ4&feature=youtu.be

lol

such a dumb -- and, shockingly, scripted -- move by romney. first, he's going to endure a firestorm for looking so smug and out of touch (something that didn't immediately occur to me when i heard about this wager-offer). and when that begins to subside, people are going to start looking at the substance of his proposed "bet," which shines an uncomfortable light on romney's fondness for an individual mandate(and yes, romney did remove an incriminating line from his book). finally, it will shine an uncomfortable light on the fact that romney made this change in his book when it became expedient to do so (once the debate shifted to where obama himself was proposing an individual mandate), exposing him -- once again -- as a flip-flopper.

H.W. checks his watch, discovers grocery-store scanners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0fIhnboptk

i think the bet thing is overblown. it seemed facetious, and designed to prove a point (romney strongly believes in his point-of-view). but it also made him look like an ass when he didn't need to, and it's going to draw tons of attention to an issue where he really is very vulnerable with GOP voters,(n.1) but somehow has (until now) sidestepped the issue.

____________________________
(n.1) romney's got a defensible position on this, but its a procedural position, i.e., that the fed gov't doesn't have the power, under the reverse commerce-clause, to force americans to buy a private insurance product, but individual states do. but that misses the base's fury over obamacare, which is that no gov't should have the power to force you to buy a private insurance product, whether it be a state or federal gov't. romney has been very skilled at playing slight-of-hand with this, and it even appeared that the GOP base would overlook the deception, even if exposed, but that free-pass might be over now.

I can't quite tell if you think the bet was a big deal or not a big deal...your last two posts seem to contradict each other. (I think it's a big deal in the short term, regardless of whether it should be or not, and the short term is important when you're inside a three-week window before the first votes are cast.)

it's a big deal in terms of hurting romney's image. but it shouldn't have been a big deal (tr: media has overblown a minor moment).

but romney's also gotten a pass on so many issues for so long in this primary season that he would have no real right to complain.

Most presidential campaigns include a whole series of tempests in teapots like this one. What's amazing is that, eventually they add up to most of what the campaign was "about". So, on the face of it, our campaigns appear to be "about" nothing (which isn't strictly true).