Aug 4, 2007
New York Times: Romney Defends His Faith
August 4, 2007, 12:48 pm
Romney Defends His Faith
A clip of Republican Mitt Romney in a contentious exchange with a conservative Des Moines radio host over his Mormon beliefs is making the rounds today, offering something of a different critique about his religious faith.
Mr. Romney was interviewed on Thursday morning by Jan Mickelson, of WHO, who essentially challenged him on whether he was really a devout Mormon, a bit of a change from the usual questioning about his beliefs.
Mr. Mickelson pointed to Mormon doctrine discouraging abortion and questioned how Mr. Romney could have ever supported abortion rights. Until some two-and-a-half years ago, Mr. Romney has said that he was "effectively pro-choice," vowing to protect the law of the land in Massachusetts allowing abortion. But in a conversion story he has told many times at this point, when his state began debating the cloning of human embryos for stem cell research, he changed his view.
Much of the exchange occurred when they are not on the air, but the radio show had a camera that was taping Mr. Romney, something he clearly did not know.
In the video clip, Mr. Romney seems clearly irritated that Mr. Mickelson is trying to inform him of the particulars of his church's beliefs.
Mr. Romney explained that while his church bars individual members from getting abortions or encouraging that practice on a personal basis, it is an entirely different matter when it comes to the stances Mormons who are public officials take. He gives the example that he is barred as a member of the church from drinking alcohol, but that does not mean he should make that the law of the land for others.
Mr. Mickelson also questioned Mr. Romney about his knowledge of other aspects of Mormon beliefs, including whether Jesus Christ will appear in his second coming in Missouri.
Mr. Mickelson's point was that Mr. Romney should not be distancing himself from his church's beliefs because that is even more of a turnoff for Christian conservatives who disagree with Mormon theology.
But Mr. Romney lashed back that Mr. Mickelson is "trying to tell me I'm not a faithful Mormon."
This is actually a question that comes up with surprising regularity among Christian conservatives on the trail, who wonder if Mr. Romney is a "cafeteria Mormon" and not even faithful to his own church. It is illustrative of the delicate balancing act that Mr. Romney must do with regard to his faith among Christian conservatives he is courting who are troubled by his church's teachings.
Mr. Romney assured Mr. Mickelson that he is committed to his church, pointing out he served as bishop of his ward, the Mormon equivalent of a Roman Catholic parish, and president of his stake, a collection of wards.
But he pointed out, as he has time and time again, that he is not "running as a Mormon," so the specific doctrines of his church should not be a part of the discussion.
Here is the link.
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.
Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.
Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.
"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.
But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.
In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.
It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007 Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil) Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.
Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.
Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.
"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.
But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.
In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.
It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.
Mickelson in the Morning
Video note! After some debate, here's the re-posting of Thursday's intense exchange with Gov Mitt Romney. A technical note... All of the in-studio presidential interviews are video taped for later webcasting. Normally, as in this case, they are shot with two fixed cameras by the webcaster. He and the cameras are highly visible. The cameras are mounted on tripods just a few feet from the guest and host. Most of the time the interviews are mixed down for time and composition, as in the recent Senator John McCain interview. In this case the complete one camera feed was posted so no later issues of "editing" could be raised. ( and because Mickelson looks crappy on camera... ed. note)
Direct download: mickelson-2007-08-03.mp3
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 6:28 PM
Here are more comments:
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 6:28 PM
Here are more comments:
Thanks WHO and Jan for re-posting the video. The exchange of ideas was interesting.
posted by: j on Fri, 8/3 09:00 PM EDT
Jay,
Could you share with us the back story on how this video became public? Did Romney know he was being video taped? The whole thing smacks of unfair treatment of your guest. I'm not referring to your "hard" questioning of Romney. I'm referring to videoing someone when they are unaware and broadcasting what was supposed to be a private conversation -- off the record -- between you and your guest. That may be standard procedure in Iowa, but it's considered underhanded at best in other parts of the country. If that's NOT what happened, if Romney knew his comments were being recorded for broadcast (or he gave his permission for their broadcast after the fact), we should know that. If it is what happened, if you violated your guest's trust, we should know that, too.
By the way, I don't think Romney came off poorly in the exchange. It's the surreptitious nature of the recording that's distasteful.
Could you share with us the back story on how this video became public? Did Romney know he was being video taped? The whole thing smacks of unfair treatment of your guest. I'm not referring to your "hard" questioning of Romney. I'm referring to videoing someone when they are unaware and broadcasting what was supposed to be a private conversation -- off the record -- between you and your guest. That may be standard procedure in Iowa, but it's considered underhanded at best in other parts of the country. If that's NOT what happened, if Romney knew his comments were being recorded for broadcast (or he gave his permission for their broadcast after the fact), we should know that. If it is what happened, if you violated your guest's trust, we should know that, too.
By the way, I don't think Romney came off poorly in the exchange. It's the surreptitious nature of the recording that's distasteful.
posted by: David Walser on Sat, 8/4 03:57 AM EDT
Jan,
Please forgive my typo! I know your name and don't know how "Jan" became "Jay" in my post, above.
Please forgive my typo! I know your name and don't know how "Jan" became "Jay" in my post, above.
posted by: David Walser on Sat, 8/4 04:09 AM EDT
Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
Friday, August 03, 2007
Posted by Dean Barnett | 9:58 PM
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson's studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson's comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President's opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson's station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn't know what he was talking about. Although I've never heard even a snippet of Mickelson's show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn't know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
Dirty pool aside, I don't think Romney has looked better at any time during the campaign. Firm, decisive, authoritative – that's the guy I know. While it's a shame that some members of the media will decide that Romney should have to defend his faith and insist that he campaign for theologist-in-chief as well as commander-in-chief, it was wonderful to see Romney making such a strong case for his candidacy and the proper role of religion in the campaign.
The footage above starts a bit slow, but give it time. I promise you it heats up.
From the YouTube comments:
hlynnj (3 hours ago)
Did anyone else get the impression that Mickelson was trying trap Romney in his words? Perhaps the entire interview was a setup. Which GOP candidate is Mickelson supporting anyway? Mickelson seemed to deceive Romney into thinking their off-the-air conversation was off the record too but Mickelson recorded the whole thing. Nice job Mickelson! If anything, this interview helps Mitt Romney. Go Mitt!
gundyrage (3 hours ago)
You would think that this Mickelson fella would do a little research before accusing a former leader of the LDS church of not knowing the churches teaching, than later accusing him of not being devout to said teachings. This interview lacks class and respect.
HiveRadical (7 hours ago)
I wish people would get over the Stephanopolous thing. The man clearly didn't know what to ask what he wanted to ask. I'm glad Romney's been assertive on that. As a Mormon myself I get frustrated when people simplify things, and in so doing, distort them to the point that they are literally wrong.
If Mikelson wanted to really find out then why not give the full position of the Chruch on abortion? It's available on the website where it clearly points out views of exceptions in which abortion may be okay, or even proper.
But he misunderstood the Church's position. He missed the nuance that our Church allows abortion in certain circumstances and he misunderstood that being for the capacity to keep the options of abortion available for such exceptions is NOT against Church policy. Mikelson was not wanting to allow the nuance that genuinely exists.
But he misunderstood the Church's position. He missed the nuance that our Church allows abortion in certain circumstances and he misunderstood that being for the capacity to keep the options of abortion available for such exceptions is NOT against Church policy. Mikelson was not wanting to allow the nuance that genuinely exists.
BrenttheGreat (7 hours ago)
That DJ is worthless. He won't even listen, or give Romney the chance to talk. Romney did well.
phil24601 (9 hours ago)
This Mickelson guy is definitely a little screwy. I'm glad we're electing Romney and not Mickelson for president. The dude wants to just ignore the supreme court whenever he doesn't like a decision.
This video shows a very impressive side of Romney, he's not going to put up with radical stunts like this where they don't give him a chance to answer.
This video shows a very impressive side of Romney, he's not going to put up with radical stunts like this where they don't give him a chance to answer.
theaustinpeay (9 hours ago)
Romney is very impressive. Even when he doesn't know he's being taped. He's very classy.
darthmills (9 hours ago)
wow, first time i have seen mitt get upset. refreshing. Go get em mitt! President Romney 08!!
Edenite2006 (12 hours ago)
Thanks for posting this.. This is the kind of open discussion we need to see Mitt speaking openly about his faith so we can understand where he stands on his beliefs...
From the TownHall comments on Dean's post:
SCOTTMSTER (12 hours ago)
I feel Jan Mickelson had a pre-planned agenda for Mitt Romney to explain his views on his LDS religion and make his religion an issue in his run for the presidency. It however turned into a GREAT off air and genuine perspective of how Mitt views his moral and religious convictions, how those morals and views intertwine to make him what he is and yet separate as a President.
Mitt wins again, what a classy Presidential candidate.
Scott Rasmussen
Gilbert. Az.
Mitt wins again, what a classy Presidential candidate.
Scott Rasmussen
Gilbert. Az.
From the TownHall comments on Dean's post:
| SJU writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 4:34 AM |
| Is Mickelson Promoting Christian Facism? | |
| Wow, Mickelson seems to be saying, if someone from his church were to run for president that he would expect that president to convince or maybe even impose his beliefs into the decisions that all the citizens in the U.S. make. Does that sound a little like the Taliban to you? Is that what those who are against Romney, on the basis of religion are saying? It sure sounds like it. Either that, or Mickelson's church doesn't have any standards and therefore there's Nooo Probleeeem. No wonder the left worries about the evangelical extremists. They start to sound like, either it's their way, or off with our heads! | |
| Daniel writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 2:54 AM |
| What arrogance! | |
| Romney was exactly right about Mormon beliefs. It was ridiculous to see Mickelson pretend that he understands what being a Mormon means better than does a man who has led a congregation as a Mormon bishop and then, as a Mormon stake president, has led SEVERAL congregations and overseen SEVERAL bishops. Mitt Romney has been a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint as well as a full-time missionary for it, and Mickelson isn't even a member. Astonishing. | |
| Thomas9938 writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 1:59 AM |
| Off-Mitt-da-Gloves | |
| A rare look at a candidate's true nature...and I liked it alot. While I'm a "Rudy-Guy" myself (talk about the abortion question, but Rudy gets a pass, because he's Catholic and they don't really follow the rules anyway), I would be perfectly comfortable with Mr. Romney as President. He's smart, sensible, and a realistic person. He's right too. You don't run or govern as a representative of your religion (and it must be terribly frustrating to have to remind interviewers of that simple fact, time after time). You run for the job, pledging to perform it, as the law dictates. It was a cheap-tacky-trashy sort of thing this interviewer did, to secretly record the "Off-Air" comments of his guest. It's a cheap-shot that will likely make Mr. Romney a better candidate from here on out though. | |
| chessexpert writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 1:30 AM |
| Is Mitt sincere? Yes | |
| The biggest complaint about Mitt Romney is that he is flip flopper. The fear is that you can't take his words at face value. He might advance other words and actions when it suits him. Is he sincere? Is he steadfast? These attacks on Mitt have an obious opportunistic quality. They gang up and repeat, and repeat, and repeat. They are mostly soundbite arguments. Still the questions remain: Who is the real Mitt Romney? Is there a there there? It is ironic that the sins of the Democrats - Kerry, Clinton, and others - are visited on a Republican, Romney. I think Romney is sincere and steadfast. He is the real deal. Yes, it's wise to question, but it's not worldly or smart to be a perpetual cynic. | |
| jimgdvm writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 1:13 AM |
| Hmmm | |
| I agree this is not Mini-Mitt, or "Plastic-Mitt". It is the best I have seen him. Maybe it's that passion that he has not really shown in debates and on the stump. Understandably though, if you have been hammered about your faith for all these months, you ought to take the opportunity to "vent". Mitt did so in manner that showed a controlled frustration with his interviewer. While I'm not sold yet, it sure makes me look at him even closer. | |
| one hot minute writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:48 AM |
| Mitt looked great | |
| Yeah, there are some folks out there who still haven't figured out we're electing a Commander-in-Thief, not a Theologian-in-Chief. If these folks think they have a theological divide with LDS, wait until they find out what living under the Islamic caliphate is all about ! Mitt looked great in handling the situation, and Brightwinger makes a good point about how it appears Mickleson was hoping to catch Romney in a relaxed "gotcha !" moment where, say, the Governor was picking a piece of broccoli out of his teeth. For heaven's sake, at least the guy who does the "Girls Gone Wild" videos asks his subjects to sign a document affirming they know they were being videotaped. And you know if either the Sam Brownback or Ron Paul campaign got ahold of a hypothetical video of Romney picking broccoli out of his teeth, it might enable them each to sustain their 9th and 10th place "grassroots" campaigns for another...two weeks ! Townhall's own anti-Romney blogger Matt Lewis would have been able to mine that gold for at least a week's worth of "If Mitt has trouble with broccoli, just HOW can we trust him to defeat Al Qaeda ?!" posts. | |
| se7en writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:29 AM |
| 2nd Coming acc. to Mormons | |
| Mitt was very impressive. He's exactly right. The whole George Stephanopolis issue is just silly. Mormons believe the 2nd Coming (or when Christ appears to the whole world in His glory), will be at the Mount of Olives! Now, Mormons also believe that he will appear in Missouri BEFORE that time to meet with few faithful mormons. That is NOT the 2nd coming. They also believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 - Is that Jesus's 2nd coming? NO, his 2nd coming is when he appears to the whole world in all His glory, not when he makes little appearances to individuals or small groups of people. Therefore, Mitt is correct on Mormon theology. Mormons do believe the 2nd Coming is in Jerusalem, NOT Missouri. | |
| cordeiro writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:28 AM |
| Mickelson | |
| got taken to school. Well done Mitt. Thanks for the post Dean. | |
| Joe writes: | Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:10 AM |
| Mitt impressed me with this | |
| Mitt held his own and defended his position well. Frankly I thought Mitt was a bit of a phony, but he raised his stature with me a lot with his arguments. They were civil and forceful. Maybe I have been too hard on the Governor. | |
| Joe writes: | Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:45 PM |
| I heard Mitt get way-laid | |
| by Glenn Beck too. It was about the flat tax. I will give Beck limited credit in I think he is a jerk on the flat tax to all politicians, but it was still out of hand. I was impressed that Mitt calmly explained that the American people would not tollerate the superrich not paying any taxes (which is what Beck's flat tax would mean) and the middle class paying the vast bulk of taxes. | |
| Daniel (LA) writes: | Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:43 PM |
| Wow! | |
| Mitt was impressive! Standing firm in his personal beliefs while understanding the difference between personal belief and governance. Mickelson came off as arogant and unwilling to reason. Even as Mitt would offer a rebuttal, Mickelson seemed incapable acknowledging his errors. | |
| Sami writes: | Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:06 PM |
| Love it! | |
| Mitt supporter since Dec '04 Wearing a Mitt shirt today strangely enough. Seeing Mitt handle himself under fire in an "off the record" environment was fantastic. Cool, poised, firm, fair, can't give him enough props. I hope a lot of people see this video. It'll help with independents and the farther right at the same time. | |
| DK Walser writes: | Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:04 PM |
| Wow! | |
| Look, I know Jan Mickelson was TRYING to do the right thing, but that was just way out of line. It was good to see Mitt stand up for himself, but it was so painful to listen to Jan grill Romney about Romney's beliefs. Who's the best arbiter of what Mitt Romney believes, Romney or someone else? | |
| shockfam2 writes: | Friday, August, 03, 2007 10:57 PM |
| Wow. | |
| You know, I've supported Romney for a while now by default (he's been the least "bad"). One of my biggest complaints about him was that he was plastic, that most of his lines were well rehearsed and focused grouped. The only thing I can say now is that he actually really impressed me here. He was firm but respectful and answered the questions directly. I don't know what Mickelson's intent was in releasing this video, but I do think it will only help the Governor. | |
Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
Friday, August 03, 2007
Mitt Takes the Gloves Off
Posted by Dean Barnett | 9:58 PM
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson’s comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President’s opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson’s station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although I’ve never heard even a snippet of Mickelson’s show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn’t know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
Dirty pool aside, I don’t think Romney has looked better at any time during the campaign. Firm, decisive, authoritative – that’s the guy I know. While it’s a shame that some members of the media will decide that Romney should have to defend his faith and insist that he campaign for theologist-in-chief as well as commander-in-chief, it was wonderful to see Romney making such a strong case for his candidacy and the proper role of religion in the campaign.
The footage above starts a bit slow, but give it time. I promise you it heats up.
mrclark writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 10:36 PM
Scummy of Mickelson to post this….
But I’d like to thank him for doing so.
Hey…I’ve personally never been “FOR” Mitt Romney like for instance Hugh has. I have no qualms about voting for a man who happens to be a Mormon either.
But viewing this video definitely put Mitt over the top (for me) as a real contender for the office. He shows grit and more than holds his own against Jan Mickelson (whoever that is). And it has nothing to do with Mitt saying he won’t try to impose his religion’s restrictions on alcohol on us either.
Hopefully this Mickelson guy disclosed to the Romney campaign before posting this. It would at least have been the honorable thing to do considering he told Mitt it was “off the record”, and then he puts it “on the record” by releasing it to the public via the web.
shockfam2 writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 10:57 PM
Wow.
You know, I’ve supported Romney for a while now by default (he’s been the least “bad”). One of my biggest complaints about him was that he was plastic, that most of his lines were well rehearsed and focused grouped. The only thing I can say now is that he actually really impressed me here. He was firm but respectful and answered the questions directly. I don’t know what Mickelson’s intent was in releasing this video, but I do think it will only help the Governor.
DK Walser writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:04 PM
Wow!
Look, I know Jan Mickelson was TRYING to do the right thing, but that was just way out of line. It was good to see Mitt stand up for himself, but it was so painful to listen to Jan grill Romney about Romney’s beliefs. Who’s the best arbiter of what Mitt Romney believes, Romney or someone else?
Sami writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:06 PM
Love it!
Mitt supporter since Dec ‘04
Wearing a Mitt shirt today strangely enough.
Seeing Mitt handle himself under fire in an “off the record” environment was fantastic.
Cool, poised, firm, fair, can’t give him enough props. I hope a lot of people see this video. It’ll help with independents and the farther right at the same time.
Daniel (LA) writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:43 PM
Wow!
Mitt was impressive! Standing firm in his personal beliefs while understanding the difference between personal belief and governance.
Mickelson came off as arogant and unwilling to reason. Even as Mitt would offer a rebuttal, Mickelson seemed incapable acknowledging his errors.
Joe writes: Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:10 AM
Mitt impressed me with this
Mitt held his own and defended his position well. Frankly I thought Mitt was a bit of a phony, but he raised his stature with me a lot with his arguments. They were civil and forceful.
Maybe I have been too hard on the Governor.
one hot minute writes: Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:48 AM
Mitt looked great
Yeah, there are some folks out there who still haven’t figured out we’re electing a Commander-in-Thief, not a Theologian-in-Chief.
If these folks think they have a theological divide with LDS, wait until they find out what living under the Islamic caliphate is all about !
Mitt looked great in handling the situation, and
Brightwinger makes a good point about how it appears Mickleson was hoping to catch Romney in a relaxed “gotcha !” moment where, say, the Governor was picking a piece of broccoli out of his teeth.
For heaven’s sake, at least the guy who does the “Girls Gone Wild” videos asks his subjects to sign a document affirming they know they were being videotaped.
And you know if either the Sam Brownback or Ron Paul campaign got ahold of a hypothetical video of Romney picking broccoli out of his teeth, it might enable them each to sustain their 9th and 10th place “grassroots” campaigns for another…two weeks !
Townhall’s own anti-Romney blogger Matt Lewis would have been able to mine that gold for at least a week’s worth of “If Mitt has trouble with broccoli, just HOW can we trust him to defeat Al Qaeda ?!” posts.
Mitt Takes the Gloves Off
Posted by Dean Barnett | 9:58 PM
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson’s comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President’s opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson’s station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although I’ve never heard even a snippet of Mickelson’s show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn’t know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
Dirty pool aside, I don’t think Romney has looked better at any time during the campaign. Firm, decisive, authoritative – that’s the guy I know. While it’s a shame that some members of the media will decide that Romney should have to defend his faith and insist that he campaign for theologist-in-chief as well as commander-in-chief, it was wonderful to see Romney making such a strong case for his candidacy and the proper role of religion in the campaign.
The footage above starts a bit slow, but give it time. I promise you it heats up.
mrclark writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 10:36 PM
Scummy of Mickelson to post this….
But I’d like to thank him for doing so.
Hey…I’ve personally never been “FOR” Mitt Romney like for instance Hugh has. I have no qualms about voting for a man who happens to be a Mormon either.
But viewing this video definitely put Mitt over the top (for me) as a real contender for the office. He shows grit and more than holds his own against Jan Mickelson (whoever that is). And it has nothing to do with Mitt saying he won’t try to impose his religion’s restrictions on alcohol on us either.
Hopefully this Mickelson guy disclosed to the Romney campaign before posting this. It would at least have been the honorable thing to do considering he told Mitt it was “off the record”, and then he puts it “on the record” by releasing it to the public via the web.
shockfam2 writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 10:57 PM
Wow.
You know, I’ve supported Romney for a while now by default (he’s been the least “bad”). One of my biggest complaints about him was that he was plastic, that most of his lines were well rehearsed and focused grouped. The only thing I can say now is that he actually really impressed me here. He was firm but respectful and answered the questions directly. I don’t know what Mickelson’s intent was in releasing this video, but I do think it will only help the Governor.
DK Walser writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:04 PM
Wow!
Look, I know Jan Mickelson was TRYING to do the right thing, but that was just way out of line. It was good to see Mitt stand up for himself, but it was so painful to listen to Jan grill Romney about Romney’s beliefs. Who’s the best arbiter of what Mitt Romney believes, Romney or someone else?
Sami writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:06 PM
Love it!
Mitt supporter since Dec ‘04
Wearing a Mitt shirt today strangely enough.
Seeing Mitt handle himself under fire in an “off the record” environment was fantastic.
Cool, poised, firm, fair, can’t give him enough props. I hope a lot of people see this video. It’ll help with independents and the farther right at the same time.
Daniel (LA) writes: Friday, August, 03, 2007 11:43 PM
Wow!
Mitt was impressive! Standing firm in his personal beliefs while understanding the difference between personal belief and governance.
Mickelson came off as arogant and unwilling to reason. Even as Mitt would offer a rebuttal, Mickelson seemed incapable acknowledging his errors.
Joe writes: Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:10 AM
Mitt impressed me with this
Mitt held his own and defended his position well. Frankly I thought Mitt was a bit of a phony, but he raised his stature with me a lot with his arguments. They were civil and forceful.
Maybe I have been too hard on the Governor.
one hot minute writes: Saturday, August, 04, 2007 12:48 AM
Mitt looked great
Yeah, there are some folks out there who still haven’t figured out we’re electing a Commander-in-Thief, not a Theologian-in-Chief.
If these folks think they have a theological divide with LDS, wait until they find out what living under the Islamic caliphate is all about !
Mitt looked great in handling the situation, and
Brightwinger makes a good point about how it appears Mickleson was hoping to catch Romney in a relaxed “gotcha !” moment where, say, the Governor was picking a piece of broccoli out of his teeth.
For heaven’s sake, at least the guy who does the “Girls Gone Wild” videos asks his subjects to sign a document affirming they know they were being videotaped.
And you know if either the Sam Brownback or Ron Paul campaign got ahold of a hypothetical video of Romney picking broccoli out of his teeth, it might enable them each to sustain their 9th and 10th place “grassroots” campaigns for another…two weeks !
Townhall’s own anti-Romney blogger Matt Lewis would have been able to mine that gold for at least a week’s worth of “If Mitt has trouble with broccoli, just HOW can we trust him to defeat Al Qaeda ?!” posts.
Aug 3, 2007
Mitt Romney is light on his feet
Wizbang provides the evidence and video following the excerpt:
The Washington Post embarrassed itself and its poor victim by attempting to set Mitt Romney up on the issue of health care.
A WaPo reporter (term used loosely) went into a diner before Mitt Romney arrived and baited a waitress there to challenge him on heath care. Then the Post was then dumb enough to post the video including the part where they where trying to bait the woman up.
Nicely done.
You know, a Fred Thompson/Mitt Romney ticket wouldn't be so bad.
Althouse
Friday, August 03, 2007
New Hampshire waitress versus Mitt Romney.
This is a useful video clip, because it shows Mitt Romney explaining his approach to health care and dealing with a high pressure confrontation from a voter. Really, there is nothing he can say that will fully satisfy the woman, but he uses the occasion to display himself as a rational problem-solver. He does not, however, try to connect with the woman on an emotional level, and after the exchange she is close to tears. "That's money off my table," she complains. His hour-long presence in the restaurant has cost her tips.
I think Romney ought to have walked up to the woman and asked her a few questions about the three sick children she mentioned and expressed some sympathy about how hard it is for her. He could have hugged her or taken her hand. Instead, he tried to win the debate on the substantive merits, something he's pretty good at. Yet he missed the chance to do something he could easily have done. And, once again, he looks a little cold and robotic. It's so unnecessary!
Picture how Bill Clinton -- or even George Bush -- would have handled this situation. That woman was emotionally fragile, not a heckler. Someone needs to teach Romney a few tricks.
I think Romney ought to have walked up to the woman and asked her a few questions about the three sick children she mentioned and expressed some sympathy about how hard it is for her. He could have hugged her or taken her hand. Instead, he tried to win the debate on the substantive merits, something he's pretty good at. Yet he missed the chance to do something he could easily have done. And, once again, he looks a little cold and robotic. It's so unnecessary!
Picture how Bill Clinton -- or even George Bush -- would have handled this situation. That woman was emotionally fragile, not a heckler. Someone needs to teach Romney a few tricks.
Labels: health, Mitt Romney
55 Comments:
- EnigmatiCore said...
-
"The waitress would not be mollified no matter what. She wanted free stuff and indicated as much when she complained about co-pays, deductibles."
I agree that she would not be mollified. And I guess that there is a way to look at it to say that she wanted 'free stuff', but that sounds to me like trying to make her sound like some lazy freeloader.
Sure, she wants health care for her family. She wants to be able to afford it, and what she can't afford she wants to be able to get anyway. Her wants stem from actual needs, though. She needs health care, and finds it frustrating that she cannot meet her needs.
When you argue that just because she wants something doesn't make it anyone else's problem, then rightfully others are going to look at you as a cold-hearted bastard. Even if you can make a solid philosophic argument against the evils of socialism.
The Democrats have a solution-- have government pay more to make it more affordable for people.
There is are problems with this solution, however. People don't want to pay more in taxes. More importantly, the reason the cost is high is because there is a limited supply. Lowering the price increases demand, and that will just make supply issues more difficult.
The GOP, or at least conservatives, don't have the answer, since they immediately yell 'socialism' and talk about individual responsibility.
I have not read all of the candidate's full plans yet, but hopefully one will have a plan that is focused on increasing supply. Making it more profitable to be a doctor, or to develop new medicines, and less risky to practice (in the form of litigation). That will result in greater availability, which will result in lower prices and shorter waits for care. - bill said...
-
Sounds like Romney was channeling the Food Whore:
But the tide has changed into today's society. All you have to do is click on any given news site to see the decline of so many. People are out for #1, and by God if you get in the way you will get berated, harassed - and in some cases sued. It is this self-entitled, self-indulgent attitude that has put people like me on the defense, or on the offense depending on which way you look at it.
So the customer is not always right. You don't have to be perfect, and you certainly don't have to fall all over yourself gushing with praise and compliments.
Running for president is about a country, so good for him for not condescending to the the individual. Boo emotions. Yea robotic! - knoxwhirled said...
-
I don't think he should have hugged her--she came out swinging, and it would have seemed disingenuous or patronizing if he'd tried to soothe her. But he did sound stupid talking in platitudes like "We Got The Job Done In My State." It's not cold or robotic as much as slimy political rhetoric.
Anyway, she obviously think any solution is not good enough unless it means she has to pay nothing. It sounded to me like no deductible or copay would be small enough to satisfy her.
enigmatic, People don't want to pay more in taxes is only one of many reasons "conservatives" object to socialized medicine. There are many scarier consequences besides higher taxes. - vet66 said...
-
An acquaintance was recently turned down for medical insurance of some sort because the individual was obese.
The medical company specified how much weight was to be lost before elegibility was to be considered.
Be careful what you ask for! Don't smoke, don't drink, don't gain too much weight, don't lose too much weight, get exercise, watch your diet and you may qualify for health care.
Or violate all of the above and pay for your own! Choice is yours! - amba said...
-
I'd rather they don't learn "tricks." I'd rather be unconsoled than manipulated.
Anyway, there are some it comes naturally to, and that's the only time it comes across. For Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton, it was part of his seduction repertoire and need. For George Bush it was . . . I don't know. His comfort with regular folks? - Hoosier Daddy said...
-
Like it or not, universal health care is an inevitability. The rising costs of health care are not only unsustainable by the individual but are putting a huge strain on businesses which is having an impact on our ability to compete. When health care costs increase at rates of 7-12% annually and business are having to foot the lion's share of that costs in the form of benefits, its not surprising to see them outsource jobs to China and India.
If the main burden of providing health care coverage is leveraged across the board with corporate, personal and say, a federal sales tax, you'll see corporate America including small business push for it.
Part of this 'crisis' falls on us and our expectations of health care. AJ Lynch said it right in that many people want unlimited access with no out of pocket costs at which I say people in hell want ice water. We're going to pay for it not in insurance premiums but in taxes and most likely with rationed care. I'm expecting to see an expansion of Medicare in that it will just cover everyone and the private industry will hang in there selling supplements to cover what Medicare doesn't. That is probably the best case scenario - carly said...
-
I'm not a Mitt supporter but I AM a supporter of logic and reason; I don't really care how a person makes me "feel". And I want the President of the US to be a person who thinks, not one who feels. Personally, I don't even care how a person behaves in his/her personal life.
I think it's a shame that candidates for political office have to cozy up to people in order to win; and it's a shame there there seem to be so many people stupid enough to base their decisions on how someone makes them feel.
When I go to the voting booth I pull the lever for someone to represent me in government; not to be my friend--or my parent. If more people accepted the fact that politics is a business, I think we'd get better elected officials. And maybe we'd even be able to move AWAY from a nanny state instead of hurtling faster toward
one. - AJ Lynch said...
-
EC said:
"The GOP, or at least conservatives, don't have the answer, since they immediately yell 'socialism' and talk about individual responsibility. "
That is not true- I have a plan- enact a universal payroll tax of about 3-4% and every citizen gets a voucher that can be used to buy their own insurance. If you choose low deductible and low co-pays, that mean you will pay more of the premium out of your own pocket. The employer gets out of the health insurance game, plans are no longer linked to your job.
Hell citizens get a voucher even if you don't work. That is my plan in a nutshell. Best part is no changing your insurance when you change jobs!! Sound good? Vote for me - I am running for Emperor.
And I think Republicans like Romney, Guiliani have plans too.
So you are wrong when you say Republicans and conservatives have no plan. - Tim said...
-
"...Making it more profitable to be a doctor, or to develop new medicines, and less risky to practice (in the form of litigation). That will result in greater availability, which will result in lower prices and shorter waits for care."
Well, Enigmatic, there's your paradox. We want to increase supply to reduce prices, yet to increase supply we have to improve wages/reimbursements.
As for your erroneous statement that the GOP/conservatives don't have THE answer, sure - no one does, including the Democrats. They would just shift costs to taxpayers, using tax dollars to buy more health care. It ain't rocket science.
The better way to go is to erode the third-party payer system, get employers out of the game, provide tax equity and tax incentives for both buying health care coverage AND taking care of oneself (isn't it odd that as out of pocket health care expenses decline for Americans [as they are], Americans are increasingly unhappy with their health care?). There are, of course, other systemic changes necessary, but until the third-party payer system and its attendant ills are eroded, everything else is in vain. - paul a'barge said...
-
....He could have hugged her or taken her hand...
Sexual Harassment.
Geez, what is it with you people (feminists). You want to be touched. You don't want to be touched.
Not long ago GWB gave the German leader (female) a friendly pat on the back, and the nuance crowd went ballistic about it.
How about this? We give you folks two white signs with hand sticks on them. One says Touch me! and the other says Do NOT Touch me!!. And you folks walk around holding up one of the other.
Would that be ok? - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"If you choose low deductible and low co-pays, that mean you will pay more of the premium out of your own pocket. The employer gets out of the health insurance game, plans are no longer linked to your job."
I can see how this can impact demand.
I fail to see how this would increase supply. And when it boils right down to it, this is what everyone really wants/needs. We want/need the supply for the catch-all "health care" to be significantly more abundant. - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"Well, Enigmatic, there's your paradox. We want to increase supply to reduce prices, yet to increase supply we have to improve wages/reimbursements."
I guess I am failing to see the paradox here, unless one believes that the only way to reduce prices is to reduce profits. I do not believe this to be the case.
There are plenty of things which increase the "cost-to-market" for doctors and for medicines. Working on eliminating or minimizing those would be the approach that appeals to me. - EnigmatiCore said...
-
By the way, I completely understand the dynamics where third-party pay systems increase demand to levels that are unnecessary.
I just believe that it is less important to fix that side of the equation as to fix the other side. We want to live, and we want to increase the health of our families. We, therefore, are always going to want to improve the supply side of the health care equation. That is where the focus needs to be. - AJ Lynch said...
-
Enigmatic said:
"I fail to see how this would increase supply. And when it boils right down to it, this is what everyone really wants/needs. We want/need the supply for the catch-all "health care" to be significantly more abundant."
Do ANY of the Dem candidates have a plan that increases the "supply" (number of) doctors, nurses, healthcare providers??
No they do not- the Dem plans just want to take the "Pain spelled PAYING" OUT OF THE EQUATION. That will greatly increase demand and will not increase the supply unless the Dems pump more billions into the equation.
My plan gives every citizen the resources to buy basic coverage and every citizen has to dig into theor own pocket to pay for other than basic services. That sound fair? If not, let's just give everyone a BMW too so they can drive themselves to the doctor. - hdhouse said...
-
That poor woman spends probably $15,000+ a year on health care. That is $15,000 after tax dollars so if she is in a minimal situation it equates to nearly $20,000 in earned income.
People who go to the emergency room for routine care with no way of paying get it for free as Romney pointed out but that argument means nothing to someone who is paying through the nose. The ones who pay the most are the ones who don't have insurance but have enough money because the fee charges are based on insurance payment schedules and are thus inflated to maximize insurance receiveables.
What she is saying to Romney is "that isn't fair" and what Romney was pressed into doing in Massachusetts won't play nationally because of the "for profit" insurance interests and physician money.
We may have all the technology the world has ever seen but we fail to realize that preventive medicine is the greatest cost savings. She is right to demand a fix
NOT as VET says about "wanting a handout" and others ascribe to her as "get it for free".
He cared about his soundbites and talking points and not an iota about her. That stinks. - hdhouse said...
-
paul a'barge said...
"Not long ago GWB gave the German leader (female) a friendly pat on the back, and the nuance crowd went ballistic about it."
NO HE DIDN'T. He gave her a shoulder rub..and unwelcomed one at that. Stop being inaccurate. - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"Do ANY of the Dem candidates have a plan that increases the "supply" (number of) doctors, nurses, healthcare providers??"
I did not say that they do. What I said was at least their plan has some appeal for people who feel they cannot get what they want or need.
"My plan gives every citizen the resources to buy basic coverage and every citizen has to dig into theor own pocket to pay for other than basic services. That sound fair?"
It sounds fair, except if one cannot get the health care they want or need, or at least not without incredible hardship. Like the waitress here. I doubt it would sound fair to her.
So do not wonder why she'll turn to the Democrats' plans.
If we solve the harder problem-- making health care and the components thereof abundant, then the questions of fairness melt away, the possibilities for class warfare diminish, and we all get to be healthier.
I say we try to tackle the harder problem. Figure out how to lower the entry costs to being a doctor. Figure out how to make it cheaper to bring new medicines to market. Figure out how to reduce the risks that cause insurance to be so prohibitive, but do so carefully so that people still have protection from negligence and malpractice.
Not easy, but more likely to work than socialized medicine, and more likely to win public favor than "go it alone, because that's fair." - Tim said...
-
EC said: "I just believe that it is less important to fix that side of the equation as to fix the other side."
Except it is the primary, underlying economic relationship of our entire health care system. Not fixing that is like adding on to a house with a crumbling foundation - you're just making a big problem bigger.
I know you aren't arguing that "health care is a right," but they, and anyone, seeking to effectively "reform" health care in the U.S. has to address the underlying economic dysfunction of the third-party payer system. Most Americans, save for the small percentage of those in the individual market, get their health care from a third-party - either the government (Medicaid, Medicare, VA/Champus) - or their employer. This distorts economic signals on both the supply and demand side; until we fix that, everything - supply, demand, innovation, etc., will continue to be distorted as well. - Tim said...
-
PS: Dems just want to redistribute wealth to buy more health care, er, strike that, they want to buy votes by buying voters health care.
- AJ Lynch said...
-
"If we solve the harder problem-- making health care and the components thereof abundant, then the questions of fairness melt away, the possibilities for class warfare diminish, and we all get to be healthier."
You can't make more doctors unless you can do one of two things:
1- Increase the average earnings of doctors. 2- Increase the average IQ of human beings.
I have a niece and nephew in pre-med and they have to study their asses off to get good grades and I have to bite my tongue from trying to persuade them from going to work on Wall Street instead.
Hdhouse - my plan would cover many of her costs via my voucher program. But I will exclude you from my plan because you are too dumb to select your own insurance plan heh. - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"You can't make more doctors unless you can do one of two things:
1- Increase the average earnings of doctors. "
You can reduce the costs of being a doctor.
I further suggest to you that our supply of doctors is not limited by our supply of smart people. There are plenty of people with more than sufficient brainpower to be doctors, who make less than what doctors make. Some would have chosen to be doctors if the costs of becoming a doctor were not so high, or if the risks of being a doctor were not so high.
The problem with health care is one of scarcity. We can remove scarcity by removing demand. Or we can remove scarcity by increasing supply.
As long as people have health issues, there is only so much demand that can be removed. It is a challenge, but the right answer is to increase supply. - chickenlittle said...
-
We could reduce the costs of educating doctors along the lines of what we do in graduate science education. The eventual result may be what happened to science though- an initial perceived shortage lead to an overabundance, which finally led to a domestic shortage which was fed by overseas applicants.
- TMink said...
-
I don't vote for a hug.
Trey - Original Mike said...
-
Maybe I wasn't paying attention prior, but it was with Bill Clinton that I first noticed this expectation that the President of the United States feel my pain. This is the last thing I want from my President. The person should be too busy to be the emoter-in-chief. Good grief.
With respect to this woman and health care; if she's poor enough, the government should pick up her health care costs. And it does. It's called Medicaid. And if Medicaid is underfunded, we should talk about fixing that. But the problem with universal health care is precisely that it covers everybody. There no such thing as "free for everybody". Haven't any of the Dems ever taken an economics course? - Matthew said...
-
The woman said her copays were too high, but I thought I heard her say they were $30. To me, anything less than $100 is ridiculous. But in fact, I do think chronic disabilities should be covered by the government, because it's simply too expensive a burden for the individual or family. I favor universal catastrophic insurance for this. But it only should cover those without, and the sytem should be totally private. Government would just dole out funds with no strings attached.
Everything else including end of life care should be provided by private insurance or paid out of pocket. And the entire medical field should be totally deregulated. When you can go to India and get American level open-heart surgery for 90% less than it costs here, you know we've got some major issues with taxes, regulations, and tort. - Original Mike said...
-
This post has been removed by the author.
- AJ Lynch said...
-
Did anyone else notice there are many more good ideas and propoals here than you will find in a Dem or Rep debate.
- Original Mike said...
-
"Universal catastrophic insurance."
I could get behind that, but that isn't even remotely what they're talking about. One of our regulars, Freder, couldn't even understand the concept. - Original Mike said...
-
"Universal catastrophic insurance."
I could get behind that, but that isn't even remotely what they're talking about. One of our regulars, Freder, couldn't even understand the concept. - Galvanized said...
-
The Presidency isn't about being the Boss and telling people how it is. Empathy and interpersonal skills are quite high on my list in a Presidential candidate. And the ability to answer tough questions from irate or dissatisfied voters and make them feel listened to and effective in your policy decision-making is a basic requirement.
- Galvanized said...
-
And I think that the "feel your pain" technique in campaiging began long before Clinton. Remember the "chicken in every pot, a car in every garage" speech? There is a need to be accountable to the "little man" in politics, even in the highest office.
- chickenlittle said...
-
Matthew said: "But in fact, I do think chronic disabilities should be covered by the government"
"should" is becoming "will be". People like me have voluntarily help carry such burdens without help of the government. I buy health insurance for my family of four and because we are healthy, we have paid much more in healthcare than we have gotten out. In a year or so, my employer will be offering a much high deductable option. I'm ambivalent about switching (feeling older?, unlucky?), but I cannot blame younger people from contemplating doing so. - Fred said...
-
You know, I think George W. would have handled this situation a lot better, and that says a lot.
Bush struggles with speech, but he wears his heart on his sleeve and that will be his saving grace as politics eat away at what remains of the administration.
Bill Clinton would've received an A+ for effort and a gold star for performance, it's just an unfair comparison. When it comes to 'handling' crowds, people, and hostile environments, he is in a league of his own. - Geoff Matthews said...
-
The last I saw, there were in excess of 300 million people in the U.S., and I'd bet there are at least 300 million different problems that they face. I'd rather that my president were a problem solver than an sympathizer. A president will be overwhelmed if (s)he takes an actual interest in 300 million+ people. Solving problems is less so.
But showing sympathy plays well for the emotional. Fine and all, but it doesn't SOLVE PROBLEMS. - ricpic said...
-
Being rational isn't enough in feminized America, the candidate has to exude oily feelings!
- paul a'barge said...
-
HDHouse: NO HE DIDN'T. He gave her a shoulder rub..and unwelcomed one at that. Stop being inaccurate
A shoulder rub takes more than a couple of seconds. I watched the film, and his hands were on her shoulders no longer than a couple of seconds. So you're wrong.
Not only are you wrong (congenitally), but you have no idea what was in her brain as GWB proceeded to the podium to give his portion of the speeches. So, not only are you wrong, you're an idiot.
Please hold that little white sign up a bit higher, HDHouse ... the one that says No! Do NOT Touch me!!
Just so we can figure out where all sphincter-monkeys are coming from. - MadisonMan said...
-
A shoulder rub takes more than a couple of seconds
I'm curious where that rule comes from.
If you go to youtube and search on Bush Shoulder Rub, you can see it. My opinion is that A. Merkel is pretty weirded out by the whole thing. She certainly didn't react like she welcomed it. - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"I'm curious where that rule comes from."
I don't know, but whenever I try to cut one short my spouse brings it up and I have to keep going. - Simon said...
-
I think Trey nailed it with a kind of zen mantra- "I don't vote for a hug." Romney gave the best answer he could have given, although I'd rather he said "I'm sorry, maybe you misheard me, I'm running for President of the United States, not Governor of New Hampshire."
- Revenant said...
-
I favor universal catastrophic insurance for this.
The day we get universal catastrophic insurance is the day the government starts making dangerous activities illegal.
Skydiving? Absolutely not -- raises health care costs.
You want a motorcycle? Well, you can't have one! The odds of catastrophic injury are far too high!
Smoking? Flat-out illegal. Why, think of all the money you'll cost us when you get cancer.
What, you want to visit *Africa*? Sorry, that requires special government dispensation. The chance of contracting AIDS or getting shot is just too high, you know.
Oh, and then the Republicans take over again. Now there's a government *interest* in banning sodomy. Oh, not because they're against gays or anything (heavens no, not them), but because it is a medical fact that anal sex transmits disease so much more easily than other forms of sex do. All those catastrophic medical expenses are just too much for the government to be asked to handle.
Then here come the Democrats. Hunting just carries too high a risk of shooting accidents, and that costs the taxpayers money.
Etc, etc. - Simon said...
-
Rev - and why stop at sodomy in the modern meaning of anal sex? Why not ban all sodomy in the biblical sense of non-reproductive sex? That'd sure cut down on STD transmission.
- Cedarford said...
-
Vet66 - vet66 said...
Tongue in cheek? Under the democratic health plan we could hire jihadist physicians to work on the cheap as the countries Marcus Welby types retire.
Guess what, Maxwell Smart...1/3rd of American doctors are foreign born already as are 1/4 of the nurses - producing a service that is 50% more expensive than any other advanced nations. With 3 times the error rate, twice the "dirty hospital infection rate", with lower life expectency.
Of course, medical professionals are like scientists and engineers - according to Dubya. They come here to do the low-pay jobs Americans refuse to do and we need more H1-B visas and more amnesty instead of trying to train more doctors at university.
Why try funding a new nursing school to open up the middle class opportunities for Americans to work 55,000 -75,000 a year RN, RN specialist jobs when you can hire Peruvian, Nigerian, and Yemeni nurses instead? Besides, such nurses work better with the Yemeni and Oba tribe doctors hired.
***********************
While I agree with Hoosier Daddy that universal health care is inevitable in America - in part because the "genius of the free market" has miserably failed where professionals collude to set prices and control supply pf professionals, where lobbies collude with gov't to set prices and how many new millionaires are created in the nursing home and med labs industries - Romney had strong points.
And remember this is New Hampshire, the "sick of Bush incompetence, sick of Iraq, but still Live Free or Die State". Romney standing up to a parasite liberal will play well with NH Reps and Independents.
A parasite who tried to emotionally confront him, who argued that all she needs should be free from the government taxpayer then whined she lost tips because she favored a tirade over doing her job for a solid hour while other customers arrived, waited, and were served by others that got the tips while the waitress vented.
Sometimes when you stand up to an emotional bully or someone in Full Throttle Victimhood Entitlement Demanding...you will appear to be the "Father that says NO!" rather than the "Mummy that hugs you and cares about you and understands and asks you to go see Daddy about the money".
But I think Romney understands people are looking for "The Person Who Says No!" after Bush has gone 6 years with a 40% increase in government spending that exceeds even LBJ's with a single veto...and even that was not against the corrupt porkmeisters of both parties. He runs on the fact that he vetos crazy spenders, did so hundreds of times, likes vetoing, and wants to control demands without fiscal limit rather than massively jack up taxes.
Far better to see a candidate that frankly states the truth a voter doesn't want to hear rather than a manipulative head nod, an faux empathetic "I hear you", stand if listening raptly for a minute while the prole vents, then wrap things up with a hug and a "I feel your pain, and things will be better when I can care for all your needs better as President" then move on to the next crowd and wipe you mind fresh and clean of that last confrontation...
Of course, his handlers will likely tell him that he wasted way too much time - and work more with him so he can completely deliver his message, stand up for his beliefs, then slide out of the confrontation -in 5-10 minutes - without looking dismissive.
As an executive, Romney will likely agree that his time management in the "waitress debate" sucked. An hour squandored. She wasn't exactly Teddy Kennedy, they weren't exactly going to get 15 minutes of the cafe debate on national news..He wasn't going to convince her and have her hand over a big campaign donation or rally 10,000 voters in her "irritated Democrat-favoring waitresses association" to his side. - Ruth Anne Adams said...
-
Holy smokes! Who knew Janice Soprano took a waitress job in New Hampshire?
- knoxwhirled said...
-
hee
I thought the same thing - Harkonnendog said...
-
"1/3rd of American doctors are foreign born already as are 1/4 of the nurses - producing a service that is 50% more expensive than any other advanced nations. With 3 times the error rate, twice the "dirty hospital infection rate", with lower life expectency."
What a bunch of crap... sigh... - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"Why not ban all sodomy in the biblical sense of non-reproductive sex?"
Hmm. Then I might be able to get away with having a backrub be only seconds long.
No, I don't think I like that tradeoff. - EnigmatiCore said...
-
"What a bunch of crap"
Don't sweat it. 76.8% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up. - Theo Boehm said...
-
What a bunch of crap... sigh...
76.8% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up.
What is the sound of one link clicking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The waitress gave up her tips when she confronted Romney. What did she expect when she asked a politician running for the Presidency a loaded question? Either prepare for a marathon answer and no tips or pour coffee, listen and learn, and don't play the "Woe is me" card in front of cameras.
As for Romney not praying with the woman (Mormon prosletyzing?) a la Bush, or getting a close in hug from Bill with all that photo-op portends, Romney is not about to try and calm a weepy woman who is having financial problems.
Romney did all he could in a no-win situation. Hopefully, his entourage picked up the tab and left a 20% tip.
Picture how Bill Clinton -- or even George Bush -- would have handled this situation.
...and look how well those Presidencies turned out!!
Yes, Romney should have expressed some sympathy - but even then it wouldn't have helped much.
Republicans are at a decided disadvantage on health care - too many people think they ought to have health care at someone else's expense - their employer, their doctor, the hospital, the drug company - anyone but themselves. The economics of this, of course, are unsustainable - but Democrats pimp the lie you can have free, excellent, and unlimited care, and folks have bought into it.
Sure you can. It's right on the shelf in Halliburton's basement next to the free energy machine they are hiding from us. Another win for demagoguery.
The waitress would not be mollified no matter what. She wanted free stuff and indicated as much when she complained about co-pays, deductibles.
Tim put it better than I will but manyof the people who are demanding universal healthcare view it as encompassing the ability to go to a doctor as many times as they like and at no charge. Can't be done unless the Fed budget is maybe doubled.
I'm more curious about how Giuliani would have handled the same situation, than I am about how the last two Presidents would have.
Interesting that the subject of health care comes up in a restaurant at the same time the flaming jihadist physician dies of his self-inflicted injuries.
Tongue in cheek? Under the democratic health plan we could hire jihadist physicians to work on the cheap as the countries Marcus Welby types retire.