Mitt Romney responded to the Supreme Court’s upholding the health care law last Thursday with a short, blunt declaration: “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day,” he said. “I will act to repeal Obamacare.” Like many other Republicans, Romney has said he wants to “repeal and replace” the health care law. But however much he’s pressed, he offers few specifics about what he would replace it with. On Thursday, he skipped over the issue altogether.
This has become a familiar pattern: a ringing affirmation of some major policy difference with President Obama, followed by a lot of vagueness about what he would do instead.
Comments
Let him keep thinking that way. He is fading in the polls and if this keeps up,the election will be nothing more than a mere formality for Obama.
This is no surprise. It is the same Mitt Romney MA residents have known for years. He doesn't believe in anything except for his quest for power.
Politically one cannot fault Mitt for not staking out solid lines of policy as he makes his run. It may in fact be his best route to a victory in November. I am not sure if it is the best route for being President if he wins or for governing with any sense that people support his ideas. The policy positions of the Republican Party can be locally favorable but nationally abhorred. Privatization of SS, Medicare,more tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating the homeowner deduction, restriction of womens health care, these are not programs that win you friends or influence enemies. However, it would be healthy for the national debate to lay them out there. (NP) The political player in me understands and might even think the obfuscation is the way to go. The citizen in me says at this point in our history it isn't the healthy way to go. We need to settle this fight. Do we follow a Darwinian path to the future or do we follow a more "we are in this together" path. We need to fight this out openly.
Scot Lehigh wrote on this same issue a few weeks ago. My comment then, and now, is that Romney is being very smart in NOT revealing the granular details of his policies. Doing so would make him the target of the hostile media, and would take the focus off the president. This election should be a referendum on Barack Obama, and Romney would only hurt his cause by giving the Obama media fodder for attack. NEW PARAGRAPH: Broad themes are far better as a way to contrast himself with the president-smaller vs larger government, higher vs lower taxes, embracing business vs viewing business as the enemy. Mitt can worry about the specifics once he is actually working on policy as president
He cannot elaborate on his policies until his largest donors tell him what his positions are. Right now he's trying to figure out who to sell the USA to and still have at worst case 90% of the country's value left.
Mitt Romney wants to be the ________________ (fill in the blank) candidate. He wants voters to think he agrees with them. It is deception and lies to state some policy goal and not state what sacrifices would make it happen. Reduce the deficit and cut taxes-- sure, we all want that. The problem is, he knows he cannot do both and isn't willing to tell the truth about which he will actually do.
The polls mean squat. At this point in 1980 Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by nine points. A president obsessed with minimizing downside risk is not entirely a bad thing BTW. W should've tried it.
Factually incorrect. No the election is not a referendum on President Obama alone. It is Obama or Romney. It is a choice between a President for people or a President for billionaires. A President who thinks everyone deserves to be treated fairly, or a President who wants to keep the game rigged in his favor. He makes millions and millions every year, yet pays a lower tax rate than you and I do! Then, he claims, he "follows the rules." Well, heck, his kind _wrote_ the rules!
Has any candidate ever outlined specific details? All we got last election was Hope and Change.
This comment has been removed.
An excellent description of how Obama is campaigning on the opponents supposed weakness rather than his own strength. I guess it tells us how to get ahead in this world. "Don't tell us why we should vote for you. Tell us why we shouldn't vote for the other guy."
Judging by likes and dislikes of this and other comments, the people of Massachusetts still believe they are smarter than an average bear.
Mitt Robme isn't likely to spell out any policies as he basically has none. His entire campaign is based around: "Vote for me because I'd like to be President." (I'm Mitt Rmoney and I approved this message). What private sector skills does he have? Well, he's really good at throwing workers out of their jobs, selling off company assets, looting the worker's pension funds and outsourcing the jobs to China...all at a profit to Mitt and his Bain henchman. That's the template by which Mittens has operated all his career. Do you really somehow see this as somehow good for working folks? Because I sure don't.
Yeah, well the "other guy" happens to be someone who's campaigning in a fog of nonanswers to anything...his basic message is: I'm not Obama...and here's what's wrong with Obama. But somehow you're OK with that even though you claim it's Obama who's not being accountable? Better take a closer look at Mitt Robme's deliberate vagueness unless you're just one of those who'll do anything to get that black man out of the White House.
Yeah, as Mittens has already said: If voters knew what I was going to do, they wouldn't vote for me. Dunno about you, but I find that pretty ominous. I wonder how Mitt's outsourcing jobs, looting workers' pension funds, selling off company assets and pocketing big profits for himself translates into anything good for the Nation and the working man. As far I can see, Mitt Romney is a liar, a coward and has done nothing to improve the lives of anyone but himself, first, his business partners, second, and his family, third. Anybody else gets bis smile, empty platitudes and the sight of Romney running away to hide from any accountabilty for what he HASN'T done. The average person doesn't understand why people like Mitt need tohide their money in Cayman Island tax havens and refuse to show their tax returns after. It's not too difficult to figure out why that might be.
Well, that's about 80% more than we're getting from Romney. But judging from what we've seen from Mitt we can guess that his approach will be: Outsource jobs to China, sell off Nation's assets, loot the pension funds (social security), pocket aas much cash as possible and stash it in a Cayman Island account. Because that's been Mitten's M.O. during his entire private sector career. Public service? Yeah he's on the record as dropping a huge tax increase on Massachusetts taxpayers via Romneycare all the while claiming he NEVER raised taxes. So no wonder Mittens doesn't want to explain anything...he'd look like an even bigger liar, flip-flopper, coward and phony than he already does.
Lots of questions. Suggest you seek, at least, some answers from the do-nothing, obstructionist Boehner-led US House, which has thwarted every serious Obama effort on the jobs front. You might also make inquiries of the Fortune 500 CEOs, whose companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash, refusing to invest, expand operations and employ more people. GOP policies the last decade nearly destroyed the US economy and helped create the worldwide economic mess that weighs heavily on most industrial countries. The last recession was second only to the Great Depression in its impact, and it took more than a decade and something known as World War II to turn around the US economy. Simplistic minds like yours avoid retrospective analysis and information that might undermine your beliefs. Retreat to your cave.
Romney is betting that people will decide that after four years of Obamanomics the voters will have had enough hope and change. He could very well be right. Oh, BTW, the monthly payroll numbers came out today, and once again, they s*cked. The Dow is down 200 points.
This comment has been removed.
I'll tell you this No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn I'll tell you 'bout Texas Radio and the Big Beat Soft drivin', slow and mad, like some new language Now, listen to this, and I'll tell you 'bout the Texas I'll tell you 'bout the Texas Radio I'll tell you 'bout the hopeless night Wandering the Western dream Tell you 'bout the maiden with raw iron soul
Apropos of the earlier commentary by attaturk and Richmond12, I strongly agree with attaturk. I am NOT voting for a candidate who offers only (pleasant) generalities. Don't tell me you're going to cut my taxes, for example, and then spring ex post that you'll need to slash my parents' Social Security payments to do so once you're in the White House. That's not cricket! [NEW PARAGRAPH] I very much hope both Obama and Romney receive tough questions during the presidential debates. I want to hear more specifics from both, not pablum.
Kate, it is most certainly a referendum on Obama. He needs to convince people that he has made their lives better. Good luck with that. 4 years ago, Obama's only record was as a community organizer and part time law instructor. This time, he has an actual record, and he must defend it. Only a moron could believe his policies have done any good. Lucky for him, there are millions of morons who vote.
Other than the election of 1788 has there ever been one that HASN'T been a referendum on the preceeding 4 years?
Quite right. Before that it was 'compassionate conservatism,' and before that, 'it's the economy, stupid,' 'read my lips...' 'trickle-down (more accurately described by GHWB as voodoo economics)', and I confess I don't remember Carter's or Nixon's slogans. The most recent specific platform I remember from history was Andrew Jackson's promise to shut down the Bank of the United States, which he did.