Amidst hatred for health care, Mitt Romney is in trouble

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

http://www.onn.com/articles/mitt-romney-haunted-by-past/

BELMONT, MA—Though Mitt Romney is considered to be a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the national spotlight has forced him to repeatedly confront a major skeleton in his political closet: that as governor of Massachusetts he once tried to help poor, uninsured sick people.

Romney, who signed the state's 2006 health care reform act, has said he "deeply regrets" giving people in poor physical and mental health the opportunity to seek medical attention, admitting that helping very sick people get better remains a dark cloud hovering over his political career, and his biggest obstacle to becoming president of the United States of America.

"Every day I am haunted by the fact that I gave impoverished Massachusetts citizens a chance to receive health care," Romney told reporters Wednesday, adding that he feels ashamed whenever he looks back at how he forged bipartisan support to help uninsured Americans afford medicine to cure their illnesses. "I'm only human, and I've made mistakes. None bigger, of course, than helping cancer patients receive chemotherapy treatments and making sure that those suffering from pediatric AIDS could obtain medications, but that's my cross to bear."

"My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor," Romney added. "It was wrong, and I'm sorry."

According to Romney, if he could do things over again, he would do everything he could to make certain that uninsured individuals got sicker and sicker until they died. Promising his days of trying to provide medical coverage to the gravely ill are behind him, Romney said that if elected president, he would never even think about increasing anyone's quality of life or trying to lower the infant mortality rate.

In addition, Romney repeatedly apologized for wanting to help people suffering from diabetes, Crohn's disease, and anemia.

"I don't know what got into me back then," Romney said. "Wanting to make sure people were able to have health insurance if they left their job. Providing a federally funded website so individuals could compare the costs of insurance providers. Making certain that somebody who earns less than 150 percent of the poverty level can receive the same health care coverage as me or any government official. All I can say is that I was young and immature, and I am not that person anymore."

"The only solace I can take is in the hope that some of the folks I helped were terminally ill patients who eventually withered away and died," Romney added.

Though Romney has apologized profusely, Beltway insiders said he would need to distance himself from his I-tried-to-help-sickpeople image. Sources noted that Romney's current promise to take away health care from anyone who can't afford it is a step in the right direction, but might not be enough.

"The major strike against Mitt Romney is that he not only tried to help people get medical care, he actually did help people get medical care," conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said. "No other Republican in the field has that type of baggage. And in the end, in order to defeat President Obama, the GOP needs someone who has a track record of never wanting to help sick people."

Thus far, Romney is polling strongly in early primary states like New Hampshire and Iowa, but Republican strategists and voters agree that even in a general election, his sordid past would continue to dog him.

"I don't think I can vote for someone like that," Pennsylvania Republican Eric Tolbert said. "He says he's sorry, but how do I know that's the real Mitt Romney? What happens if he gets elected and tries to help sick people again?"

"I like Michele Bachmann now," Tolbert added. "Because what this country needs is a president who doesn't give a feth about helping people."

Truly, this is a dark time for Republicans with consciences!

**Alpharius**

This topic... it seems like it exists to start a fight...

Is that the case?

**Emperors Faithful**

Alpharius wrote:This topic... it seems like it exists to start a fight...

Is that the case?

Maybe, but I loled.

**Melissia**

Alpharius wrote:This topic... it seems like it exists to start a fight...

Is that the case?

Oh heavens no.

It's meant produce a few laughs, and maybe start a discussion, not a fight.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Melissia wrote:
Alpharius wrote:This topic... it seems like it exists to start a fight...

Is that the case?
Oh heavens no.

It's meant produce a few laughs, and maybe start a discussion, not a fight.

Bull gak! And you know it!

It is just another smug anti-republican smear that makes jack-asses from the left feel so superior.
Get bent!

You were on thin ice up until "get bent." Please review Dakka's policies regarding personal attacks. ~Manchu

**Kilkrazy**

I think you're overreacting a bit.

It's just a satirical article commenting on the candidate's change of direction.

I'm sure Democrat politicians must have had fun poked at them by the Onion for similar doings...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-orders-guantanamo-prisoners-transferred-to-n,19979/

**Melissia**

[delete, so not getting into that]

**biccat**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:It is just another smug anti-republican smear that makes jack-asses from the left feel so superior.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
It is just another smug anti-republican smear that makes jack-asses from the left feel so superior.

Why so insecure?

**Ma55ter_fett**

Thought it was a serious article for a minute there, you so had me.

Oh Onion, you so crazy.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:

Why so insecure?

Stating the truth is never insecurity.

It is those who hide behind 'satire' that are insecure and possibly emotionally damaged.

**htj**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
dogma wrote:

Why so insecure?

Stating the truth is never insecurity.

It is those who hide behind 'satire' that are insecure and possibly emotionally damaged.

Much as I'd like to step back and walk away from this comment, I take issue with your approach to one of the oldest document forms of humour. Satire is as old as and goes hand and hand with democracy. Most satirical comics would happily state their 'truth' as much as you would your 'truth' in a non-comedic, straight laced form. However, they are gifted with a natural sense of humour and choose to creatively turn their talent to the political sphere. Satire is the life blood of political observation and a fundamental tool in any democratic country.

**Portugal Jones**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
dogma wrote:

Why so insecure?

Stating the truth is never insecurity.

It is those who hide behind 'satire' that are insecure and possibly emotionally damaged.

Speaking of 'emotionally damaged,' if your inability to hold a polite conversation is not due to your own unbridled insecurity, then what exactly is your malfunction?

**Kilkrazy**

Everyone should try to bear in mind that you can attack the argument and not the person.

**mattyrm**

I find satire amusing... Am i emotionally damaged? :S

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Stating the truth is never insecurity.

It is those who hide behind 'satire' that are insecure and possibly emotionally damaged.

Why are you bringing up emotion at all? That hardly lends credence to your case.

In any case, the article was satire at the expense of the GOP. It was heavy handed for sure, but that is what it was.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

mattyrm wrote:I find satire amusing... Am i emotionally damaged? :S

Do you hide behind it?

Or should I ask... Did you read what I wrote or what you thought I wrote?

If you hide behind it, then yes. You are.
If you enjoy it (without hiding behind it) then you are not.

See, this is not so hard.

**Melissia**

So who IS hiding behind satire then?

The Onion makes fun of everyone you know, so it isn't them.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Stating the truth is never insecurity.

It is those who hide behind 'satire' that are insecure and possibly emotionally damaged.

Why are you bringing up emotion at all? That hardly lends credence to your case.

In any case, the article was satire at the expense of the GOP. It was heavy handed for sure, but that is what it was.

Perhaps I am just weary of the snobbery around the left and their "Oh how delightfully funny it is to insult the GOP!"
"I posted something insulting to about half of the people in the US, but it was funny so that makes it okay. It's satire!"

But if someone takes a position on the right of US politics they are "Stoopid" and their humor is 'offensive and low brow'. Anyone picks on Obama and they are racist. If you question any immigration policy (or even ask that said policies be enforced) you are a racist. If you want to keep marriage between a man and a woman (while giving eqaul rights to civil unions!) you are a biggot.

So why bring up emotion? Because nearly every counter argument made by the left is based on emotion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:So who IS hiding behind satire then?

The Onion makes fun of everyone you know, so it isn't them.

I wont be drawn into pointing out specific people, Melissa, as that is against forum rules.
But I am keeping track for myself.

**Melissia**

So you're just trolling then?

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:So you're just trolling then?

yes apparently you are.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Melissia wrote:So you're just trolling then?

So if someone insults half the US, and a person responds, the responder is the troll?

Perhaps I need to reacquaint myself with what it means to be a troll?

**Melissia**

No, I just found it funny

I occasionally post articles from the onion... nothing about "hiding behind satire" so much as I like their satrical style and figure that people from Dakka might be amused as well.

This time apparently I was wrong

**Frazzled**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Melissia wrote:So you're just trolling then?

So if someone insults half the US, and a person responds, the responder is the troll?

Perhaps I need to reacquaint myself with what it means to be a troll?

You're not going to get satisfaction here. An easy way around that is to ignore these threads and these posters. Its marvelous for your blood pressure.

**Melissia**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:So if someone insults half the US, and a person responds, the responder is the troll?

Noone in this thread has insulted half the US population, so that definition wouldn't work here anyway.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:So if someone insults half the US, and a person responds, the responder is the troll?
Noone in this thread has insulted half the US population, so that definition wouldn't work here anyway.

You did actually, but thats ok, we forgive you anyway.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:So if someone insults half the US, and a person responds, the responder is the troll?
Noone in this thread has insulted half the US population, so that definition wouldn't work here anyway.
You did actually, but thats ok, we forgive you anyway.

No, I did not.

On a technical point, the republican party is only about thirty one to thirty four percent of the population, not half, so even if you can somehow manage to argue that I've insulted the ENTIRE republican party (which is a laughable assertion), I haven't insulted half the united states-- barely a third if that.

More importantly though, the article in my OP was more aimed at the specific people and groups within the party as well as the media's depiction of them, satirizing (IE, bringing the vices, follies, shortcomings, hypocrisies, etc to the fore for the sake of humor) their current positions compared to positions they've taken in the past. This can be seen as insulting if one desires, but I don't see it as such-- certainly I also laugh at theonion pieces which depict positions I agree with to the extreme as well as ones such as this.

**Frazzled**

Where the article is aimed is irrelevant. I referred to your accompanying post on the topic:

Truly, this is a dark time for Republicans with consciences!

In the words of the immortal bard:

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Melissia wrote:No, I did not.

On a technical point, the republican party is only about thirty one to thirty four percent of the population, not half, so even if you can somehow manage to argue that I've insulted the ENTIRE republican party (which is a laughable assertion), I haven't insulted half the united states-- barely a third if that.

More importantly though, the article in my OP was more aimed at the specific people and groups within the party as well as the media's depiction of them, satirizing (IE, bringing the vices, follies, shortcomings, hypocrisies, etc to the fore for the sake of humor) their current positions compared to positions they've taken in the past. This can be seen as insulting if one desires, but I don't see it as such-- certainly I also laugh at theonion pieces which depict positions I agree with to the extreme as well as ones such as this.

It's okay Melissa. We know where you stand. There are no hard feelings.

**Frazzled**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Melissia wrote:No, I did not.

On a technical point, the republican party is only about thirty one to thirty four percent of the population, not half, so even if you can somehow manage to argue that I've insulted the ENTIRE republican party (which is a laughable assertion), I haven't insulted half the united states-- barely a third if that.

More importantly though, the article in my OP was more aimed at the specific people and groups within the party as well as the media's depiction of them, satirizing (IE, bringing the vices, follies, shortcomings, hypocrisies, etc to the fore for the sake of humor) their current positions compared to positions they've taken in the past. This can be seen as insulting if one desires, but I don't see it as such-- certainly I also laugh at theonion pieces which depict positions I agree with to the extreme as well as ones such as this.

It's okay Melissa. We know where you stand. There are no hard feelings.

Oh come on, I can't have hard feelings? No lets me have anything! WAAAA!!!