Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, May 20, 2011

Indiana governor Mitch "Yeah I The Pusher Man" Daniels is doing some fancy footwork, trying to get off the hook for a statement he made when standing for election in 2004.

Why?

Because in it he endorsed the exactly type of helath care mandate -- an idea many conservative GOPers claimed as their own until Barack Obama became president, at which point the concept suddenly morphed into unconstitutionality.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Doc_Sarvis

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Intro should read:

Indiana governor Mitch "Yeah I The Pusher Man" Daniels is doing some fancy footwork, trying to get off the hook for a statement he made when standing for election in 2004.

Why?

Because in it he endorsed the exactly type of helath care mandate he now condemns -- an idea many conservative GOPers claimed as their own until Barack Obama became president, at which point the concept suddenly morphed into unconstitutionality.

Oooops Another Republican who won't say what he actually believes on health care mandate. How can we trust people who are so content to oppose today what they supported yesterday? Their views are so obviously calculated to please the Tea Party that there is no way to know what they really think about anything. Fortunately for Dems, the Tea party won't be fooled, this clown is going no where. This year the Tea party is doing the Dems work for them. Only the right wing lunatics will pass the litmus tests and they will be the most easily defeated in 2012. Thanks Teabaggers!

Oooops Another Republican who won't say what he actually believes on health care mandate.

Much like the hundreds of supporters of Obama care who have sought and obtained waivers from it and the democrats in congress who shoved it down our throats but of course don't think it's good enough for themselves and their families.

Sorry, danni, I know your handlers don't like you hearing that both parties are the same. Just tell them it isn't your fault that I keep pointing it out. They probably won't take your card away

"This year the Tea party is doing the Dems work for them. Only the right wing lunatics will pass the litmus tests and they will be the most easily defeated in 2012. Thanks Teabaggers!"

My sense is your observation's solid.

If I was a WH strategist I think I'd be most leary of Obama facing off against Romney, but only the pre-massive flippity-floppity Romney. Had the GOP not hopped en masse into the klown kar he could have stuck with his Massachusetts record and mounted a formidible challenge. But, like his father, Mitt seems to be basically a progressive Republican and those folk, as we now know, represent positions which rank as anathema to the marginalists who seek total control of the party.

A Republican is willing to modify his opinion? Oh My!

Eight years later, with a world of experience to reflect upon, a Republican states a new interpretation? A new view? Oh My!

Meanwhile, Democrats see virtue in thinking it is still 1932, life expectancy is 61, and every problem requires a massive federal program.

Democrats: 79 years away from reality

#5 | Posted by vernon

Sorry but that issue plagues both parties. If anybody changes their opinion about anything then they are hung for it as being wishy washy.

79 years away from reality
#5 | Posted by vernon | Flag: 7,799 MILES FROM HOME (EASY PEASY - 3 HOURS FLYING TIME, MAX) AND 6 YEARS FROM EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

"Sorry, danni, I know your handlers don't like you hearing that both parties are the same. Just tell them it isn't your fault that I keep pointing it out. They probably won't take your card away"

If both parties are the same then tell me why Republicans are so desperate to run away from positions formerly supported by Republicans while Democrats are happy to embrace those positions. YOu're simply in the wrong thread to make the idiotic argument that both parties are the same. I won't try to say there aren't some issues on which Dems have been weak kneed but not this one. Democrats passed HCR with mandates and are now defending it while the same Republicans who passed mandates in their home states or supported mandates are running away from them simply because the TEa Party is against EVERYTHING.

"A Republican is willing to modify his opinion? Oh My!"

As usual, the main point eludes your notice.

It's not that Daniels changed his mind and switched his position -- although that's quite a leap we're dealing with here. It's the hypocrisy of political hack morons like you for whom what a GOPers does is "modify his opinion" while what a Dem does is "flip-flop."

Seriously, though, thank you for proving the point I wanted to make with this post.

"Meanwhile, Democrats see virtue in thinking it is still 1932, life expectancy is 61, and every problem requires a massive federal program."

Democrats didn't propose a massive federal program for health care, they passed a system which incorporates for profit private insurance companies but it is good that you acknowledge that in 1932 massive federal programs were required to bring us out of that Republican Depression. Many on your team aren't so honest.

"If both parties are the same then tell me why Republicans are so desperate to run away from positions formerly supported by Republicans while Democrats are happy to embrace those positions."

The GOPiggies made it clear from Day 1: destroy Obama's presidency. General Rule No. 1: if Obama's for it, they're against it and previous positions and national interests be damned.

"Up is down."

That's a Republican modifying his position.

If both parties are the same then tell me why Republicans are so desperate to run away from positions formerly supported by Republicans while Democrats are happy to embrace those positions.

You admit the DNC is embracing RNC ideas, yet deny they are the same? Wow. Holy disconnect Batman.

HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE BEGAN AS A REPUBLICAN IDEA:
In '90s, GOP Saw An Alternative To Clinton Plan

articles.boston.com

Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that has been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle," and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed....

Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans, the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most specialists agree some requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance does not work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits -- two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received -- by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

If both parties are the same then tell me why Republicans are so desperate to run away from positions formerly supported by Republicans while Democrats are happy to embrace those positions.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2011-05-20 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

If both parties are not the same then why is the U.S. flying MORE drone attacks in the Middle East? Why does the Democrat Commander in Chief continue renditions?

Why did he extend the Bush tax cuts?

Why is Luxurious Club Gitmo still operating?

#13
K, that's the two party game. Kind of a good cop/ bad cop thing. Different facades, but the direction is the same mostly.

The individual mandate was and is a bad idea. Regardless of who supports it.

K, that's the two party game. Kind of a good cop/ bad cop thing. Different facades, but the direction is the same mostly.

#16 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2011-05-20 09:59 AM |

It is a one party game. Kind of a good cop/ bad cop thing. Remember, both the "Good Cop" and the "Bad Cop" are cops; they are on the same side. The DNC and RNC are just the left and right sides of the same party.

"You admit the DNC is embracing RNC ideas, yet deny they are the same?"

Er....because Republicans son't embrace their own ideas now that Democrats will. If Republicans wanted to make it appear that both parties are the same then simple....just be consistent and embrace the same ideas you did just a short time ago. They won't because today's GOP is ruled by the radicals in the Tea Party. It is exactly as I said just the other day, the Democrats aren't leftists, they are the moderates occupying the middle where most Republican used to fit into the political spectrum. Democrats have moved somewhat right because Republicans have moved to the extreme right. Republicans can no longer claim to represent the center of American politics and the one's who used to are not scrambling to radicalize themselves. DAniels, Romney, Pawlenty are perfect examples of that.

GOP: We're in favor of health insurnace mandates.
DEM: Let's have health insurance mandates.
GOP: We're opposed to health insurance mandates.

Odd when you consider that Nelson Rockefeller, Chuck Percy, Bill Scranton, Everett Dirksen, Hugh Scott, John Rhodes, Barry Goldwater, Ed Brooke, Jacob Javitts, and a passle of others probably couldn't get a GOP nod for dog catcher today.

I can't open this (work blocks Huffington Post for some reason) so I have one question: did he support State mandatory Health but opposes Federal mandatory or was he always talking about Federal?

Here's what I've been able to dig up, Kanrei:

MITCH DANIELS IS YOUR NEWEST GOP CANDIDATE WHO PREVIOUSLY LIKED HCR

With the vultures of smoke picking at the Tweet-riddled carcass of Newt Gingrich's cocktail party...liberal sights are now set on Mitch Daniels, the next (would-be) candidate whose record contains a number of policy statements that could prove embarrassing. Sam Stein cites a 2003 article in the South Bend Tribune that summarizes then-candidate Daniels' views on health care reform: "The candidate said he favors a universal health care system that would move away from employee-based health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance. Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost. 'We really have to have universal coverage,' Daniels said." Daniels today told radio host Michael Smerconish today that he is against a mandate. "I don't believe in mandates," he said. "There's nothing wrong with trying to protect more people from being ruined by an adverse health effect."
www.huffingtonpost.com

Thanks. That is a flip-flop.

"Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost."

Just so I am on the same page... Why would the left not back this plan, as opposed to being OK with the current UHC, which fines individuals and companies? I bet there wouldn't be about 1000 waivers in less than a year and a half after passing. Or have the government take over the student loan industry, make some ridiculous mandate for 1099 transactions, give billions to HHS without any Congressional input... Seriously, knowing what a joke the current legislation is as it is vetted, how can anyone rip on other past proposals?

Deja vu all over again? Replace 1994 with 2008. LMAO!!

On September 22, 1993, President Bill Clinton, in a televised address, introduced the Health Security Act (HSA) (H.R. 3600, 1993), which would have provided universal health care coverage, or as Clinton (1993) put it, "comprehensive health benefits that can never be taken away" (p. vi). Clinton's speech received wide acclaim, and polls showed broad support for health care reform (Skocpol, 1995). A year later the HSA was dead without having ever come to a vote. In November 1994, in what many viewed as a repudiation of the HSA, voters swept Democrats from Congress and handed control to the Republicans. Universal coverage has disappeared from national debate, and many believe it will not surface again for many years (Aaron & Reischauer, 1995).
www.highbeam.com


FLIP FLOPPER

FLIP FLOPPER

FLIP FLOPPER

FLIP FLOPPER

FLIP FLOPPER

FLIP FLOPPER

FLIP FLOPPER

This fracturing of the Republican party over HCR and TeaBigots losing their minds over the lack of repeal is wonderful.

"This fracturing of the Republican party over HCR and TeaBigots losing their minds over the lack of repeal is wonderful."

No shit... Hell the only guage one has is the 2008 election as proof. Another brilliant post Senseboy....

Jeebus

The GOP are collecting enough flip flops to open a beachwear store

Daniels joins a long list of Republican politicos who've flip-flopped.

GOP Presidential candidate, former Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, is only the latest:

www.drudge.com

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable