Home » Worth getting angry about?

Comments

Worth getting angry about? — 6 Comments

  1. Do you think that saying “[Romneycare] is not worth getting angry about” amounts to a gaffe? Do you think that amounts to an insult to voters who are angry about creeping government interference into healthcare? Do you think that amounts to saying, to those voters: You voters have poor temperaments. ?

  2. When I watched this in realtime, I thought Romney was reminding himself to keep cool. Look at his expressions as Santorum was pounding on Romneycare. Mitt was peeved, with nods and eye-rolls. It was the petulant Romney at the precipice of a public outburst.

    I saw Santorum’s speech as impassioned, but not angry. He wasn’t sputtering, he modulated his tone. A chink in Mitt’s armor has been identified. And this isn’t a silly gotcha my-facts-are-truer-than-your-facts like Newt and Mitt have.

    Santorum was making a logical argument about an important issue. If Romneycare is popular and effective in MA, Mitt can’t run against Obamacare. If Romneycare is a boondoggle, Mitt can’t claim to have been a good Governor.

  3. You silly little voters. Getting yourself all worked up over nothing important. They’re just principles! It isn’t as if they matter.

  4. Really like your blog and agree w/ your take on most things however, I think this time you’re wrong. His exact words almost don’t matter. You don’t say what you thought he meant. He does say “it’s not worth getting angry about” and they are arguing about Romney/Obama Care. So the logical conclusion is the one most people drew. Whatever the merits of Romney as a candidate, Romneycare is not one of them. It is the one thing people want him to flip-flop on and he won’t.

  5. KLSmith: the logical conclusion is the one most people draw??? Sorry, but that’s the strangest definition of logic I’ve ever heard.

    I didn’t explain the meaning of the exchange on the clip here because I didn’t think I needed to; I assumed that most people who thought he was referring to Obamacare hadn’t actually listened to it, but were getting their interpretations of it second-hand, and that if they listened to it in context they would have to revise their misconceptions.

    If you go to this thread, you’ll see there’s a fairly lengthy discussion on the subject. I explain there what Romney meant when he said it:

    Romney did not say Obamacare was not worth getting angry about.

    He said to Santorum–when Santorum was getting angry (talking about Romneycare and how much money it had cost Massachusetts, and exactly how it worked there, and he was making heated statements with which Romney disagreed)–that in the debate it wasn’t worth Santorum getting angry about. Romney spoke out quite forcefully right after this against Obamacare.

  6. neo-neocon Says:
    January 28th, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    KLSmith: the logical conclusion is the one most people draw??? Sorry, but that’s the strangest definition of logic I’ve ever heard. ”

    Might be worth reviewing what Smith wrote:

    “He does say “it’s not worth getting angry about” and they are arguing about Romney/Obama Care. So the logical conclusion is the one most people drew.”

    It appears that Smith was saying that he believed that most people had drawn what was in fact the logical conclusion; and not that the logic of a conclusion was demonstrated by a majority opinion regarding the validity of the inference.

    That said, I can’t even look at Gingrich anymore. He looks to me like the Republican equivalent of a suicide bomber, who’s ready to jerk the cord on his compatriots.

    Lord, I hope I’m wrong on that …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>