It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red State: OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election (Andrea Saul blunder)

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Red State founder Erick Ercikson tweets: "OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election."

Others are saying this is Romney's "Read my lips" moment.

So what happened?

"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care." -- Andrea Saul, Romney campaign spokesperson


Romney spokesperson cites Massachusetts health law
(politico.com)


A Mitt Romney spokesperson offered an unusual counterattack Wednesday to an ad in which a laid-off steelworker blames the presumptive GOP nominee for his family losing health care: If that family had lived in Massachusetts, it would have been covered by the former governor’s universal health care law.

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign press secretary, said during an appearance on Fox News


Erick Ericson, founder of the conservative blog Red State, tweeted:



Red State tears into Mitt Romney further:
Housebreaking Romney: The Importance of Being Vocal
(redstate.com)

They can whine all they like, but Romney's spokesperson let the genie out of the bottle, she went where the Romney campaign was never supposed to go - Mitt's one real accomplishment, the Massachusetts universal health care act. Saul said what every conservative thinks, but none ever dare speak aloud, that had this woman been covered by MA's health care law, she would not have died from lack of health care*. (* see my note at the bottom of this post).

Another source for the blunder:
Andrea Saul, Romney Spox, Gets Pilloried For Mentioning Candidate's Most Important Achievement
(huffingtonpost.com)


So, it's come to this. Today, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney responded to an attack ad disseminated by a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. The ad was a controversial broadside, worthy of a response. The spokeswoman spoke against the ad with conviction. She offered a counter argument that was precise and logical and fair. The spokeswoman cleanly invoked her candidate's greatest legislative achievement, in an eminently reasonable way, in her candidate's defense.

And that spokeswoman's response is being hailed as one of the 2012 campaign season's most colossal cock-ups.


But on Fox News this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul went "off-script," and amid a larger declaration about the ad being despicable and some pushback on the facts of the ad, she offered this statement in Romney's defense: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."


Responding to a Super PAC attack ad, Romney's campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul came right out and admitted "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."

Well, that's good, right? The whole point of universal health care was to prevent people from dying from a lack of health care!

Thank you, Andrea Saul, for making the point Obama has been making - people need health care. Now please explain why Mitt Romney wants to revoke universal health care if elected, as you so aptly illustrated, if a similar act works and saves lives in Massachusetts - an act he himself initiated?

Romney's greatest achievement - the Massachusetts universal health care act - and he can never mention it or bring it up, even in passing, because it only serves to remind conservatives how hypocritical their position is on the topic.


* note: The attack ad that elicited the response from Saul was incorrect in claiming the wife of the laid-off steel worker died directly from her husbands job loss at GST Steel. She had died several years later, and had private insurance for part of that time. At the time Saul made her Fox appearance, however, she only knew what was presented in the ad and made a response to that.
edit on 9-8-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care." -- Andrea Saul, Romney campaign spokesperson


If only the Massachusetts Health Care Law was applied nationwide....hmmmm....what a novel idea.

It really sounds like Romney would support a President that would campaign on expanding Massachusets Health Care Law nationwide...doesn't it??? I wonder why he isn't taking that position himself????



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



It really sounds like Romney would support a President that would campaign on expanding Massachusets Health Care Law nationwide...doesn't it??? I wonder why he isn't taking that position himself????


It's inexplicable, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
So turns out Mitttens is an evil socailist who wants to implement his Romney care and force everyone to have health care!

Who does he think we are? Sweden?!!?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


That's GREAT news!

Now if we can just kick the other guy to the curb as well.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


There's a whole topic about republicans making an issue of Obama's school records here.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
So turns out Mitttens is an evil socailist who wants to implement his Romney care and force everyone to have health care!

Who does he think we are? Sweden?!!?


I really like that nick name. "Mittens" it works well and made me laugh, thanks for that.


I really just wanted to say that. I don't understand all this stuff that is a big deal. I find it hard to believe a statement like that could turn things? I am not saying I am for Mittens, lol, I am for something different, if there is such a thing, but I work and try to stay a float. So its hard to follow any of this stuff anyway.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I lived in MA. for over 30 years, when Mitt was there, and I had to file for Bankruptcy along with about 5 co-workers. I couldn't afford to work at my former employer, not just for the medical costs, all costs involved with being employed for a non profit in MA.

I think Obama is worse, I would rather vote for one of those smart monkeys who do computers better than people. I'd feel safer.

I am only voting to write Ron Paul in as my vote, a write in for the candidate who deserved more attention. This election is a joke, so I plan on writing in the joke candidate according to them.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
I think I get the whole issue now, and what Romney's stance on the whole health care issue is, and I think I now understand why. It's not easy to explain but I am going to give a stab at it....

Romney does not want Federal Universal Health Care. He isn't against a State mandated Health Care, such as he himself implemented in Massachusetts. I believe as far as he is concerned this issue should be handled on a State to State level and not necessarily recognized and mandated by the Federal Government.

You see, if Universal Health Care becomes a Federal mandate, it means that large corporations and multi-state companies will have no choice but to pay into the system in the form of federal taxes, thus reducing their profit.

What has happened in Massachusetts (where I live) is that because of the Massachusetts Health Care Act, large corporations and multi-state companies are finding ways around having to pay for health care and burdening the State with picking up the cost of health care to their workers. Many corporations in Massachusetts only provide paid heath insurance to "full time workers". They have begun to reclassify many positions hourly part-time, non managerial positions (with full time hours), and the only "full time" positions being salaried managerial positions, so that they don't have to pay a share of health care premiums, and it is left up to the state to pick up the tab because under Romney's Affordable Health Care Act, multi-state companies and corporations are only required to provide health insurance to full time workers. This saves the companies and corporations huge amounts of money.

Romney didn't implement this because he cared about whether or not people had access to affordable health care, he did it to give multi-state companies and large corporations a way to avoid having to pay for these benefits, thus increasing the amount of money that they make, the amount of profit that goes to their shareholders and into the pockets of the uber rich.

If health care becomes a federal mandate (a federal tax) they will have to pay into the healthcare system regardless, and these large multi-state companies and corporations will lose money.

Once you open your eyes and actually see how the system works, and for whom it is working for you understand what is really going on and why Romney seems to be flip flopping on the issue.

Truth is that he is not, you just have to understand which team that he's really playing for.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
LOL. The people he has working for him are such clowns. You mean like implement Romneycare nationally. THAT'S WHAT OBAMA DID.



edit on 9-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


The facts are the ad is a lie, the woman had health insurance through her own employer after her husband was laid off. No idea why this person said that, a retort with actual facts, such as, the woman had insurance, and Romney was not at Bain when her husband was laid off, would have been a powerful blow to Obama's message.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
I think I get the whole issue now, and what Romney's stance on the whole health care issue is, and I think I now understand why. It's not easy to explain but I am going to give a stab at it....

Romney does not want Federal Universal Health Care. He isn't against a State mandated Health Care, such as he himself implemented in Massachusetts. I believe as far as he is concerned this issue should be handled on a State to State level and not necessarily recognized and mandated by the Federal Government.

You see, if Universal Health Care becomes a Federal mandate, it means that large corporations and multi-state companies will have no choice but to pay into the system in the form of federal taxes, thus reducing their profit.

What has happened in Massachusetts (where I live) is that because of the Massachusetts Health Care Act, large corporations and multi-state companies are finding ways around having to pay for health care and burdening the State with picking up the cost of health care to their workers. Many corporations in Massachusetts only provide paid heath insurance to "full time workers". They have begun to reclassify many positions hourly part-time, non managerial positions (with full time hours), and the only "full time" positions being salaried managerial positions, so that they don't have to pay a share of health care premiums, and it is left up to the state to pick up the tab because under Romney's Affordable Health Care Act, multi-state companies and corporations are only required to provide health insurance to full time workers. This saves the companies and corporations huge amounts of money.

Romney didn't implement this because he cared about whether or not people had access to affordable health care, he did it to give multi-state companies and large corporations a way to avoid having to pay for these benefits, thus increasing the amount of money that they make, the amount of profit that goes to their shareholders and into the pockets of the uber rich.

If health care becomes a federal mandate (a federal tax) they will have to pay into the healthcare system regardless, and these large multi-state companies and corporations will lose money.

Once you open your eyes and actually see how the system works, and for whom it is working for you understand what is really going on and why Romney seems to be flip flopping on the issue.

Truth is that he is not, you just have to understand which team that he's really playing for.


I am from Massachusetts, last I checked the people of Mass. wanted this, voted for it, and are happy with it. What you said is true though, with Obamacare employers will find ways to shift the burden as the problem with healthcare is the cost, and Obamacare does nothing to fix that.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Her response is faulty anyway. Obamacare/Romneycare doesn't guarantee that anyone will have insurance. You are just charged a tax if you do not have any. It's one big corporation circle jerk.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


So what happened?

"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care." -- Andrea Saul, Romney campaign spokesperson


What just "happened" was the planned response they thought of ahead of time.

They are not as stupid as many think.

It wasn't a shot-gun response.

The voters who have "given up" on Obama weren't planning on voting at all until now.

Romney gets the "dead votes".

The Obama Campaign made the initial mistake this time.



edit on Aug-09-2012 by xuenchen because:




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
In relation to the temple shooting, I also heard he had the Sikhs confused with sjeiks, on a constant basis. I dont know whats worse, what a wanker...



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


What?

Do you not understand what happened here?

The Romney campaign endorsed Romneycare, which is Obamacare. You know, Romney pretends that he wants to repeal Obamacare and all...back pedaling.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


" Well, that's good, right? The whole point of universal health care was to prevent people from dying from a lack of health care!"


Under the old system no one dies because of lack of health care. People die because of illness. And secondly, any poor person can get free emergency care at any county hospital. Hospitals cannot refuse emergency care based on lack of insurance.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Under the old system no one dies because of lack of health care. People die because of illness.


If your insurance will not cover the prescription you need in order to prolong your life then you kinda do die from lack of health care. Those pills exist, they'll just cost you an extreme amount of money you don't have! Insurance doesn't cover them...so you can just die early.

Happened to my grandfather.


And secondly, any poor person can get free emergency care at any county hospital. Hospitals cannot refuse emergency care based on lack of insurance.


It isn't free. They will still bill you for it. Which can result in getting sued, and ruining your credit score. That can then destroy your whole future.

And this will still happen. Obamacare is not a single payer system..it's not nationalized...it's the same old thing as it is now.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
The fact that this guy's name will appear on the ballot at all is amazing to me, most other politicians have at least made an effort to look like they aren't lying, hypocritical sell-outs... he's not even trying! I mean, he even makes politicians look bad, and that is saying a lot!!!

Just one more reason which makes me believe we should be given two ballots, one FOR, and one AGAINST (this is the way most voters go anyway), tally them up, and may the lesser loser not lose.

It's just sad that our system has been set-up so that any possible decent candidate is filtered out, and we are left with these guys. BTW, it's the same situation here in Canada... just pathetic.

the Billmeister



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join