NYT: Romney Is Twisting the Facts About Healthcare

As longer term readers of this blog know, I have long been an advocate of sweeping health care reform.  In fact, I believe that a nationalized program akin to that of France or Canada  is the only real solution for most Americans.  Why do I feel this way?  First, having had a child who was stricken with a horrific illness, I know first hand how families with supposedly good or even excellent insurance coverage can still be wiped out financially.  Second, some years back, I worked for a law firm that represented a healthcare/hospital entity and I was appalled that delivering top level heath care was way down the priority list.  Instead, building monopolies and tying doctor groups to hospitals were the real priority.  And as for keeping costs down for patients, the concept never ever crept into the conversation.  The health care industry will not voluntarily reform itself and while doctors constantly plead poverty, they make more than just about any other segment of the population.  How does this figure into the presidential elections?  Because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan basically want to dismantle protections for the majority and allow the healthcare industry to run amok The New York Times looks at the Romney/Ryan myths and would be plans for health care.  It ought to scare the daylights out of anyone not sitting on vast amounts of family wealth. Here are excerpts:

The outcome of the presidential election will determine which of two opposing paths the nation will follow on health care for all Americans. If voters re-elect President Obama, he will protect the health care reforms that are his signature domestic achievement. If they elect Mitt Romney, they will be choosing a man who has pledged to repeal the reform law and replace it with — who knows what?  .  .  .  . Almost nothing the Republican candidates say on these or other health care issues can be taken at face value. Here are some of their bigger evasions: 

REPLACING OBAMACARE Although Mr. Romney has said he wants to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, he has provided few details on what he would replace it with. When challenged to do so at the first presidential debate, Mr. Romney never quite answered and made some egregious misstatements along the way, some of which were repeated by Mr. Ryan in the vice-presidential debate.  .  .  .  He continues to assert that his plan would cover people with pre-existing conditions when it clearly would not.

A major goal of the law was to cover some 30 million more people by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing coverage for middle-income people. That goal would be lost if the law was repealed. The Republicans, of course, have no plans for covering the uninsured beyond assuming they can use emergency rooms, leaving the problem to the states. 

MEDICARE Mr. Romney has misrepresented what would happen to both current beneficiaries and future generations under his proposals. He says his plans would have no effect on people now on Medicare or nearing eligibility. But if he succeeded in repealing the reform law, which has many provisions that hold down costs for Medicare enrollees, most beneficiaries would see their annual premiums and cost-sharing go up. The average beneficiary in traditional Medicare would pay about $5,000 more through 2022, and heavy users of prescription drugs about $18,000 more over the same period, if the act is repealed, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Department of Health and Human Services.

For future generations, the Romney-Ryan ticket would turn Medicare into a premium-support — or voucher — program in which the federal government provides a fixed amount of money to beneficiaries each year and allows it to grow by a small amount annually, which may not keep pace with medical costs. The whole point of turning to vouchers is to reduce federal spending on Medicare, so it seems likely that many beneficiaries would end up worse off than now. 

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan insist that the magic of competition among health insurers — both private plans and a public option like Medicare — will bring down premiums. But if competition fails to do that, beneficiaries would almost certainly get socked with added payments or fewer benefits. 

MEDICAID The Republicans want to repeal the reform law’s expansion of Medicaid to cover millions of low- and middle-income people and instead shrink federal funding by turning Medicaid into a block grant. States would be given a fixed amount of money equal to what they had been getting in federal payments for Medicaid, and that grant would then grow at a rate tied to inflation. If those increases failed to keep up with medical costs, states — faced with the necessity of balancing their budgets every year — would probably have to cut enrollments or benefits or payments to providers. That could include cuts to coverage for long-term and nursing home care that millions depend on.

Of course, it one is from a family of wealth and privilege like Messrs. Romney and Ryan, none of this is a concern since one can merely fall back on family money to secure needed health care.  Most of us are not that lucky and could easily find ourselves having to chose between eating and having a roof over our heads or receiving needed treatments and prescriptions.  Truth be told, Romney and Ryan do not give a flying f*ck about most Americans.  We heard it from Romney's own lips when he condemned 47% as moochers and parasites.

Mitt Romney Showed His Arrogance Last Night

It's no secret that I do not like Mitt Romney.  Frankly, in my view he's an arrogant prick: the spoiled little rich boy who thinks living an apartment while living off of trust funds while attending graduate school was a struggle.  And his equally bitchy and arrogant wife, Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney is no better in my book.   Fortunately, some of Romney's arrogance and sense of extreme entitlement came through last night - along with his patent dishonesty mentioned in a prior post.  Also telling was Romney's failure to give any specifics on how he would grow and strengthen the U.S. economy.  He merely said that he would and that was supposed to be all the voters - who he views as peasants and would be serfs to GOP plutocrats - need to know.  Thus, the real issue becomes whether or not voters wake up to who the real Mitt Romney is over the next couple of weeks or not.  Are Americans as stupid as Romney believes them to be.  I for one hope not.  A column in the Washington Post looks at these issues further.  Here some highlights:

[T]he most electorally significant performance was Romney’s. Under pressure this time, the former Massachusetts governor displayed his least attractive sides. He engaged in pointless on-stage litigation of the debate rules. He repeatedly demonstrated his disrespect for both the president and Candy Crowley, the moderator. And Romney was just plain querulous when anyone dared question him about the gaping holes in his tax and budget plans.

Any high school debate coach would tell a student that declaring, “Believe me because I said so,” is not an argument. Yet Romney confused biography with specificity and boasting with answering a straightforward inquiry. “Well, of course, they add up,” Romney insisted of his budget numbers.

Romney’s stonewalling was so obvious that it opened the way for one of Obama’s most effective lines of the evening: “If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion, and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it, you wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal. And neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up.”

The most instructive contrast between Debate I and Debate II was the extent to which Romney’s ideas crumbled at the slightest contact with challenge. Romney and Paul Ryan are erecting a Potemkin village designed to survive only until the polls close on Nov. 6. They cannot say directly that they really believe in slashing taxes on the rich and backing away from so much of what government does because they know that neither idea will sell. So they offer soothing language to the middle class, photo ops at homeless programs to convey compassion and a steady stream of attacks on Obama, aimed at shifting all the attention his way.

In the first debate, Obama let Romney back into the race by failing to shake his opponent’s self-presentation. But Romney also put himself into contention by pretending to be a moderate, shelving his plutocratic side and hiding his party’s long-term objectives.

In the second debate, the disguise fell. Romney revealed more of himself than he wanted to and asked voters to endorse a radical tax-cutting program without providing them the details that matter. Sketchy is one word for this. Deceptive is another.

Mitt Romney's Unfavorables Are Growing

Click image to enlarge

As the eve of the presidential debates nears, Mitt Romney's unfavorables are increasing to new heights (red in the chart above is unfavorable versus favorable views in black) putting even more pressure on Romney to somehow work a miracle in the debates.  Candidly, since Romney rarely comes across as genuine and may be faced with questions on his comments of the 47% of Americans he deems parasites and moochers, I'm betting he cannot pull it off. Especially, if he's asked about paying a lower rate in taxes than most secretaries.   Yes, I'm among the near 50% of American who have a negative view of the man.

Peggy Noonan Continues to Slam Mitt Romney

Some are predicting a GOP civil war thanks to Mitt Romney's hapless campaign.  And the brickbats from the thinking, rational members of the GOP pundit class that haven't already fled the party continues to be relentless.  I noted recently Peggy Noon's bashing of Romney who she described as a cyborg.  Well, she's back with another column in the Wall Street Journal that continues her assault on Romney.  Here are some highlights:

[H]ere's one tough, cool-eyed report on what is happening in the presidential race. It's from veteran Republican pollster, now corporate strategist, Steve Lombardo of Edelman public relations in Washington. Mr. Lombardo worked in the 2008 Romney campaign. He's not affiliated with any candidate. This is what he wrote Thursday morning, and what he sees is pretty much what I see.

"The pendulum has swung toward Obama." Mitt Romney has "a damaged political persona." He is running behind in key states like Ohio and Virginia and, to a lesser extent, Florida. The president is reversing the decline that began with his "You didn't build that" comment. For three weeks he's been on a roll. The wind's at his back.  How did we get here? What can turn it around?

1. Mr. Romney came out of the primaries "a damaged and flawed candidate." Voters began to see him as elitist, rich, out of touch. "Here the Democrats' early advertising was crucial." Newt Gingrich hurt too, with his attacks on Bain.

2. The Democrats defined Mr. Romney "before he had a chance to define himself." His campaign failed in "not doing a substantial positive media buy to explain who Mitt Romney is and what kind of president he might be."

3. "Perceptions of the economy are improving." Unemployment is high, but the stock market has improved, bringing 401(k)s with it.

4. Obama's approval ratings are up five to six points since last year. He is now at roughly 49% approval, comparable to where President Bush was in 2004.

5. "The president had a strong convention and Romney a weak one." The RNC failed "to relaunch a rebranded Romney and create momentum."

6. Team Romney has been "reactive," partly because of the need for damage control, but it also failed to force the Obama campaign to react to its proposals and initiatives.

7. The "47%" comment didn't help, but Mr. Romney's Libya statement was a critical moment. Team Romney did not know "the most basic political tenet of a foreign crisis: when there is an international incident in which America is attacked, voters in this country will (at least in the short term) rally around the flag and the President. Always. It is stunning that Team Romney failed to recognize this." 

The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant "rolling calamity." A lot of people weighed in, in I suppose expected ways: "Glad you said this," "Mad you said this." But, some surprises. No one that I know of defended the campaign or argued "you're missing some of its quiet excellence." Instead there was broad agreement with the gist of the critique—from some in the midlevel of the campaign itself, from outside backers and from various party activists and officials. 

There were wistful notes from the Republicans who'd helped run previous campaigns, most of whom could be characterized as serious, moderate conservatives, all of whom want to see Mr. Romney win  .   .   .   but they're in despair at the Romney campaign.

Romney Has His Own "Redistribution" Plan

With his campaign in such a bad mess that some are predicting a GOP civil war, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, a/k/a Mini Mitt, are grasping for anything that might breath life into the hopefully moribund campaign.   They think they found a message: the Obama is a "redistributionist" who supports European socialism on statements he made 14 years ago.  Yes, it's lame and has nothing to do with Obama's recent statements, but when one is out of touch, has alienated nearly half the population by calling them lazy moochers, one has to grab whatever twig one finds in the river as it flows towards the top of the approaching waterfall.  The irony, however, as the Washington Post points out is that Romney has his own redistribution plan: progressive taxes, maintaining social security, some form of Medicare, etc.   Of course, he has another goal too: make the poor and the middle class pay more so that he can allow the wealthy to have more - including the obscenely wealthy.  Here are some editorial highlights:

[T]he Romney campaign is accusing President Obama of being a — gasp! — redistributionist. In a rather pale replay of 2008’s Joe the Plumber spread-the-wealth debate, the GOP dredged up a 14-year-old video.

Mitt Romney and his campaign seized on the clip as ominous evidence of Mr. Obama’s European socialist tendencies. “I know there are some who believe that, if you simply take from some and give to others, then we’ll all be better off. It’s known as redistribution. It’s never been a characteristic of America,” Mr. Romney said.

The campaign apparently thinks that voters will find “redistribution” a scary word. But does Mr. Romney really disagree with the belief that part of government’s role is, in Mr. Obama’s words, to help “make sure that everybody’s got a shot”? To tax is to redistribute. To govern is to redistribute. Benefits from government spending flow in different amounts to different individuals and different states.

More to the point, Mr. Romney himself has endorsed redistributionism. He does not proposing abolishing Medicaid, Pell grants for college affordability or food stamps — all ways in which government redistributes benefits to those less well off. Indeed, Mr. Romney has proposed more redistribution. Social Security is a redistributionist program .  .  .  . 

Mr. Romney favors — brace yourselves — a progressive tax code. He has said that one of the principles of his details-to-follow tax plan is to maintain the current progressivity of the code so that the wealthiest continue to pay the same share of taxes — that is, a larger share of taxes than the less well-off pay.

It’s indisputable that Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama have diverging views about the danger posed by increasing income inequality and the degree of redistribution in which government should engage. But the Romney campaign’s desperate, clownish portrayal of Mr. Obama does this important debate a serious disservice.

 As I have noted before, I find it bizarre that a political party that wraps itself in religion and claims to worship Christ and the Bible continually maligns European governments where the Gospel message of caring for the sick and the poor is actually done through national health care systems, etc., while in America, Republicans want to callously throw the poor and sick in the gutter.  The hypocrisy is breath taking.

David Brooks: Thurston Howell Romney

I realize that I've already beaten up on Mitt Romney's incredibly contemptuous statements on 47% of the American population, but conservative columnist David Brooks' column in the New York Times entitled "Thurston Howell Romney" is simply too good to pass up. I generally disagree with most of Brooks' positions and views, but today his analysis was spot on.  It's pretty bad when even conservative columnists are piling on and bashing Romney for his greed, insensitivity and stupidity.  In my view, they simply finally realized that Romney is a self-centered, arrogant bastard who thinks he's entitled to be president simply because he wants to be president.  Here are some excerpts:

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.  

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year.
Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? 

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor. 

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that. 

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.   But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true.

[A]s a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.  

He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop? 

 Brooks is in good company in bashing Romney.  Peggy Noonan has slammed Romney in the Wall Street Journal :

What should Mitt Romney do now? He should peer deep into the abyss. He should look straight into the heart of darkness where lies a Republican defeat in a year the Republican presidential candidate almost couldn’t lose. He should imagine what it will mean for the country, for a great political philosophy, conservatism, for his party and, last, for himself. He must look down unblinkingly.

[H]is comments released last night and made months ago at the private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. Mr. Romney has relearned what four years ago Sen. Barack Obama learned: There’s no such thing as private when you’re a candidate with a mic. There’s someone who doesn’t like you in that audience. There’s someone with a cellphone.

This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything. They don’t know much about America.

We are a big, complicated nation. And we are human beings. We are people. We have souls. We are complex. We are not data points. Many things go into our decisions and our political affiliations.
You have to be sophisticated to know that. And if you’re operating at the top of national politics, you’re supposed to be sophisticated.

As for those workers who don’t pay any income taxes, they pay payroll taxes—Social Security and Medicare. They want to rise in the world and make more money. They’d like to file a 1040 because that will mean they got a raise or a better job.   They too are potential Romney voters, because they’re suffering under the no-growth economy.

So: Romney’s theory of the case is all wrong. His understanding of the political topography is wrong.

So Where Are Romney's Despised 47%

Click image to enlarge

Yesterday I posted about Mitt Romney's open contempt for a large segment of Americans - particularly those who "paid no taxes."  Well guess what.  Most of those folks live in the Deep South and in states that are Republican bastions.  Just as is the case of those who receive most government aid, it's the red states, not the blue states who suck up the most federal money.  Thus, in his rant, Romney was actually slamming his own party base it would seem: lower income angry white voters in conservative states.  The Atlantic has a telling map posted above that shows where those Romney deems parasites actually live.  Here are highlights from The Atlantic piece that looks at who does and doesn't "pay taxes" further:

So let's set that speculation aside and look at who the people are who actually pay no income tax. Romney's statements are a little unclear, but it appears that the 47 percent figure represents all of those who pay no income tax, rather than the Democratic base. His problem is that those people are disproportionately in red states -- that is, states that tend to vote Republican.

It's important to remember that just because people aren't paying income tax doesn't mean they're not paying taxes -- they pay federal payroll taxes and state and local sales taxes, for example. Once those taxes are factored in, the tax regime is basically flat. And the reason that most income tax nonpayers don't pay is they simply don't make enough income to qualify to pay. As one might expect, the map of states with the highest poverty levels resembles this map fairly closely. Many of them are also seniors, a highly contested voting bloc. Just more than 10 percent of households pay no income tax because they're retired. They might also be voters in places like Florida who are already jumpy about the changes to Medicare and Medicaid that the Romney-Ryan ticket has proposed -- although they would be mostly unaffected by those reforms.

So Romney appears to be wrong about these voters. But if calling for a less progressive taxation system was enough to alienate poor voters in the Deep South, the Republican Party would have already lost its stronghold there.

So once again we see Romney not only having his facts wrong, but also displaying an open contempt for average Americans when gathered with his 1% buddies.  The same folks Romney wants to give a massive tax break to at the expense of the middle class.  The man is truly an arrogant asshole.

Scott Rigell - Too Extreme for Virginia

I've noted before my opposition to the re-election of Scott Rigell.  Yes, the same Scott Rigell who was endorsed by the virulently anti-gay Lou Sheldon, the founder of Conservative Values Coalition that disseminates shockingly vile and untrue anti-gay propaganda that depicts LGBT Americans as disease ridden, a menace to children, alcoholic drug users and a threat to western civilization.  A website called Rigell's Record has timely information on Scott Rigell's extremism.  Here's a sampling:

 

What’s Rigell’s record on issues that matter to Virginia families?

• Economy: Backed a radical budget that his own party called too extreme.
• Education: Tried to slash investment in schools and make college more expensive.
• Women’s Rights: Worked with Todd Akin to re-define rape to limit care for victims of incest and statutory rape.
• Seniors: Supports ending Medicare as we know it and making seniors pay more for health care.
• Veterans: Wants to gut support for veterans and recklessly weaken our military, killing thousands of Virginian jobs.

Please check it out if you live in Virginia's 2nd Congressional District.  I would further add that I used to live in Rigell's neighborhood and the attitude displayed by Mitt Romney in the secret video released by Mother Jones applies to Rigell and his wife as well.  They are, in my opinion, arrogant, falsely pious modern day Pharisees who have nothing but contempt for the less fortunate and most Americans.

Out of Touch Romney Calls $200,000 - $250,000 "Middle Income"

This blog has noted time and time again Mitt Romney's utter inability to grasp much less feel the slightest  empathy for the lives of most Americans  He and his wife truly are today's version of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette of the American political world.  And now Romney has underscored this reality yet again when he said during a :Good Morning America" interview that "middle income" as income of $200,000 to $250,000.  Perhaps in Mr. Romney's world of great wealth and privilege, but in low wage Hampton Roads that income bracket would put one among the wealthy. Back in the real world the U.S. Census Bureau reports that median income is $50,000 - that's right, a mere one-quarter of what Romney sees as "middle income."   The Washington Post looks a Romney's latest "sliver foot in his mouth" moment.  Here are excerpts:

Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.  But how does he define “middle-income”? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

Romney’s comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers,” Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.

“Is $100,000 middle income?” Stephanopoulos asked.  “No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,” Romney responded.


The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.

Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $250,000, while Romney wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone.

Romney has not explained how he would keep his plan from growing the nation’s deficit.

Mitt Romney - Still Inhuman

Candidly, I did not watch Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney's speech last night.  I'd had a late dinner after a local political event and frankly did not want to end up hurling it up with her disingenuous and self-serving act.   But, from what I'm reading, many found her effort to humanize her robot husband unsuccessful.  It's not surprising given Mitt Romney's cluelessness about ordinary Americans' lives, his obsession with money (and avoid taxes) and his sense of entitlement that seeps through constantly.  Even her story about their lives during his student days underscored the alternate reality that Mitt and Marie Antoinette live in.  Here's part of the analysis from a Washington Post column:

Ann Romney gamely attempted to humanize her husband, Mitt, at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday night, and you could tell. She provided the sorts of details about their early marriage that politicians and their spouses often have on hand to make themselves seem relatable — their dining-room table was an ironing board, on which they ate a lot of tuna fish and pasta — right after explaining that Mitt’s father ran an auto company. And she kept insisting — too much — that Mitt makes her laugh.

In fact, Ann Romney’s most powerful lines were not about how Mitt Romney is just like the rest of us — but how he has shown himself to be very different.  .   .   .   .  Mitt Romney’s most impressive and consistently manifest attribute is his inhuman work ethic. That also points to one of Mitt Romney’s greatest weaknesses — it remains utterly mysterious to what end, beyond his own advancement, he wants to apply all that talent and drive.

A piece in Mother Jones had a similar reaction.  Here's the relevant quote:

[D]id anyone else notice that even Ann Romney was almost entirely unable to humanize Mitt? She talked about the things he had done, but hardly at all about the kind of person he is. There was a brief reference to Mitt being "warm and loving and patient" — and helpful to friends in trouble — but after that it was all about Mitt being hardworking and successful. In other words, pretty much the corporate drone we all think he is. I doubt very much that this really helped the Republican cause with women much.

And then there's this quote from from The Atlantic:

Ann Romney talked about living in a basement apartment while Mitt Romney was in grad school, but as David Shuster notes, they were living off stock options. Christie just mentioned moving into a "studio apartment" with his wife when they were first married. I hope one day I can look back on my young person's middle class real estate experience as stark poverty. 

 

Ron Paul: I’m An "Undecided" Voter

Despite the GOP's carefully orchestrated effort to present Mitt Romney yesterday as something less than a money loving, tax avoiding robot, things haven't sailed as smoothly in La La Land as hoped by the PR packaging team.  One of the big headaches?  Ron Paul and some of his delegates at the GOP convention.  Among the symptoms that not all is as well as some would pretend is Paul's own statement that (1) he won't endorse Romney/Ryan and (2) he's an undecided voter who just might not personally vote for the GOP ticket.  Then, there's the fight that broke out on the convention floor involving some of Paul's delegates.  First, here are highlights from Politico on Paul's statements:

Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday he’s not planning to endorse the GOP ticket at the Republican National Convention and that right now, he’s an “undecided” voter.

The Texas Republican told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto that he expects to leave the convention without endorsing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, but that he “will probably vote” this November. Cavuto asked Paul if he leans more toward supporting Romney and the former presidential candidate said that “on certain issues,” he does.

Paul, who held a rally over the weekend for his supporters, told Cavuto he thinks the Republican ticket is “anxious; I think they’re really anxious to have our votes.” And although both Ryan and Romney have said recently they expect Paul supporters to come around to the Republican ticket, the Texas congressman said “they might be jumping the gun a bit.”

“I don’t own my delegates,” he said.  His supporters “are going to do what they want to do” and “when they ask me what to do, I say, ‘Do what you want to do.’”

And yes, his delegates are indeed showing their independence and unwillingness to nominate Mr. Etch A Sketch. .  Here are excerpts from a Washington Post column:

As the new rules disenfranchising the Paul delegates came to a vote, shouts of “no!” and a cascade of boos poured from Paul supporters across the hall. Maine delegates at one end of the arena and Texas delegates at the other began chanting, “Point of order!” Demonstrators shouted down the next speaker, a Republican National Committee member from Puerto Rico, and party chairman Reince Priebus hammered his gavel, pleading for quiet. A Nevada delegate raised his middle finger at Priebus and called him an “[expletive] tyrant.”

Convention officials evicted some of the loudest demonstrators, who filled the hallways with shouts of “fraud!” and “farce!” and “sheep!” Paul supporters inside the hall resumed their booing and cries of “no!” — this time directed at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who had taken the gavel.

The outcome of the dispute, in Romney’s favor, was never in doubt. But the episode illustrated a recurrent tension for the Republican nominee: the orderliness of his world colliding with chaotic reality. Romney is by many accounts a control freak, a stickler for rules and order. His campaign, following his instincts, runs the same way — and it has struggled mightily to stick to its script this week even as Hurricane Isaac zeroed in on New Orleans. 

In that sense, the convention may be a valuable lesson in Romney’s leadership style. The presidency is one storm after another, some natural and others man-made. Can Romney adapt when a crisis causes a script change? So far, the indication is he expects the crisis to adapt to him.

Romney is an arrogant, out of touch from reality individual and it's frightening to think of him dealing with foreign leaders if he attains the White House.  His disastrous trip to the U.K. for the Olympics may well have been a glimpse of a Romney presidency.  People and other nations are not his corporate flunkies who can be forced to follow his dictates.