Scott Brown: Sure, I supported RomneyCare, but…

posted at 7:20 pm on January 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

To cleanse the palate, a friendly reminder from today’s Cavuto that a Massachusetts Republican is still a Massachusetts Republican. Brown’s defense is that a state program like RomneyCare and a one-size-fits-all federal program like ObamaCare are two different things, but the differences have been eroding over time as the public option dropped off the table. (Back in August, CNN said RomneyCare was becoming a “model” for the federal plan.) Philip Klein wrote a column about the two programs’ similarities just last month at AmSpec, noting particularly that both programs of course contain an individual mandate, which conservatives regard as a de facto middle-class tax hike. And as Brown himself notes in passing here, RomneyCare still has cost issues, which have become a none-too-minor problem for the man who gave the program its name.

Doesn’t mean Brown shouldn’t be supported — in fact, his experience could be useful if the GOP does take back the House next year and tries to revise the current bill somehow — but it’s interesting how he’s gotten a total pass on this in the interest of taking over Teddy’s seat while Mitt continues to struggle with it ahead of the primaries. Exit question for Schumer: Would a “teabagger” really have supported RomneyCare?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Admit the folly of it, Brown.
Then have a better alternative at the ready.

Badger40 on January 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! NO MORE RINOS = DEMOCRAT RULE FOR THE NEXT 200 YEARS.

sayabule1 on January 13, 2010 at 7:54 PM

You actually believe that the way to win is to run liberals in conservative districts?

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM

a Massachusetts Republican is still a Massachusetts Republican.

And luckily he’s running for office in Massachusetts. I’m not getting shook up over this. He’s willing to go in there with some common sense and STOP Obamacare so I support him 10000%.

Oink on January 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Shouldn’t he embrace it as “a lesson” and how our nation shouldn’t repeat mistakes of Mass?

marklmail on January 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM

I’d only support the War on Drugs if <3 Palin <3 supported it.

Proud Rino on January 13, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Thanks for admitting that you can’t think for yourself. It’s just that you are willing to change who does your thinking for you from time to time.

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Sorta on topic:
Heard a ND radio programs yesterday (liberal) & a caller asked why Conrad was going to vote yes on the health care crap sandwich when an overwhelming majority of North Dakotans(I believe it was 68%+) opposed it.
The caller was insulted that Conrad thinks those people are too stupid to know what they want.
The show host (Mike McHealy I think), a liberal, explained that sometimes a Senator must vote against his constituents’ desires for the greater good, or for his ‘conscience’.
And the called said that in this case that is not an acceptable option & the show host basically got rid of the guy with no counter argument other than ‘basically it’s for your own good’.
I think if Conrad endorses this garbage, North Dakotans are going to be real PO’d.
I don’t know if it’ll be enough to get rid of the guy, but there might be a chance.

Badger40 on January 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Ok, so let’s not vote for Brown because of this issue. Are you kidding me? That is just plain stupid.

sayabule1 on January 13, 2010 at 8:08 PM

How many people here have taken that position?

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM

sayabule1 on January 13, 2010 at 8:08 PM

You do know that there is difference between criticism and support, don’t you?

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM

So it’s OK to support universal health care if the states do it? Your problem is the federal government doing it? Interesting.

Proud Rino on January 13, 2010 at 8:09 PM

In your world, do the laws that MA passes, instantly apply to everyone in the country?

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM

I’m only voting for true conservatives.

Proud Rino on January 13, 2010 at 8:21 PM

That would be a first.

Voting would also be a first, I suspect you won’t be eligible to vote for at least 4 or 5 years.

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Do not try too hard, your two neurons might get overloaded.

bayview on January 13, 2010 at 9:32 PM

He found someone to lend him a spare?

MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

IDK you know what he was talking about. He is talking about the Nirvana Fallacy. Basically comparing actual things to idealized but unrealistic things. It amounts to a delusion.

But I think the notion of “unrealistic” is idealized. And in many cases, put forward with the intent to deceive. The “center-right” advances in strength within the Republican party by selling right-wing politics as “unrealistic”–even in situations where it could win. NY-23, for instance.

Chris_Balsz on January 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Brown is right that the proper place for health care reform is in the individual states. MA tried it, it caused insurance costs to rise. Fix it and move on.

The 10th amendment does not allow the federal government to do these things. It is the prerogative of the states to do these things, to do an experiment if you will

Dasher on January 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Chris_Balsz on January 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

So it is realistic to think that a Social Conservative would win in San Francisco? Or Massachusetts that is far more accepting of gay marriage than Texas?

Holger on January 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

He should address it the same way Romney should address it: Admit it’s an abject failure that should never be repeated, esp. at the federal level. Everyone makes mistakes; the question is whether you learn from them or not.

At this point, you have to take him at his word that he will oppose ObamaCare and vote for him anyway. I would feel the same way if Romney were the presidential nominee in 2012. RomneyCare is NOT going to be a dealbreaker for me if my only options are Romney and Obama.

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Plus, the man has served 30 years in the National Guard as an Infantry Officer, Quartermaster Officer and a JAG. I doubt very much he’d lie his ass off about Obamacare.

I see absolutely no reason why he’d vote for it because Massachusetts already has Romneycare, they do not need Obamacare.

He is what, a 90 percent ally?

Holger on January 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Seriously…I understand that Cavuto has to do that fair and balanced things and all that, but AP, do we really need to highlight this stuff. Is Brown “right” enough for me? Probably not 100%, no…but I am CERTAIN of one thing: Martha Coakley is 100% Massachusettes liberal. This alone is enough to vote for anything other than her.

Huckabye-Romney on January 14, 2010 at 10:33 AM

but it’s interesting how he’s gotten a total pass on this in the interest of taking over Teddy’s seat while Mitt continues to struggle with it ahead of the primaries.–Ace

Who wrote RomneyCare for Massachusetts? Who sponsored it? Who campaigned for it? Not Scott Brown. It was and remains Romney’s illegitimate baby. That Romney was able for a time to convincingly fool conservatives and independents whose own politics align heart and soul with the Tea Party protests is all the more reason to repudiate Romney, the media’s new front man for progressive socialism being maneuvered by global Marxists as the GOP leadership‘s top choice for the 2012 ticket according to the media, in order for the Marxist “owners” to own our liberty.

maverick muse on January 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM

no…but I am CERTAIN of one thing: Martha Coakley is 100% Massachusettes liberal. –Huckabye-Romney

Coakley’s Kennedy “Massachusettes” is the fraud of non-existent precincts and districts.

Massachusetts for Brown in the tradition of John Adams.

maverick muse on January 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

So it is realistic to think that a Social Conservative would win in San Francisco? Or Massachusetts that is far more accepting of gay marriage than Texas?

Holger on January 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

San Francisco is an asylum without walls. Everybody living there has chosen higher prices, higher crime, higher taxes, and a slower economy, as admission to the be-in. No, I don’t think you can import a conservative there. I would think it totally realistic to ignore any nominal Republican from that enclave.

Massachusetts is much more diverse. Yes I think it realistic.

Isn’t it true that you’d rather we didn’t advance social conservatism in this country–even if it were not a proved loser at the polls?

Chris_Balsz on January 14, 2010 at 10:59 AM

There are folks who are ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to ObamaCare
from Tennessee that once upon a time voted to try their state’s sponsored healthcare, another abject failure in the world’s consistently mad repetitive effort to legislate and coerce charity that will never be charitable or real.

Allahpundit catches excellent points but then reflects the energy in his focus off target. Deceit. He has issues that prevent him from strengthening a solid conservative core that he feels no affinity for, only antipathy–the progressive epidemic that people rode to bring Obama into office. Allahpundit, while doing his work in research, is yet fascinated with implementing the greatest destruction; being a progressive sabotaging conservatism is his joy in life. If he were not working for Malkin, there is no way that Allahpundit would tolerate the Tea Party as anything beyond his butt for ridicule. His modus operandi remains to infiltrate as a “friend” in order to sabotage the heart of a matter just for spite. How long before he gets his promotion to Politico where he can really tear loose, he wonders in angst. At least Malkin keeps him from biting off his nose to spite his face. So it seems.

maverick muse on January 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patootie what Mass does. If Mass representatives want to pass a law requiring every resident to purchase pet rocks, why should I (a non-resident) care?

As long as Brown believes in Federalism –that it is up to the sovereign states to decide what programs they want or don’t want — he’s good enough for me.

CJ on January 14, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Isn’t it true that you’d rather we didn’t advance social conservatism in this country–even if it were not a proved loser at the polls?

Chris_Balsz on January 14, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Um, no. I am a social conservative. I just happen not to be a Christian. I’d like to see Social Conservatism flourish. I’d just like to see Social Conservatives less concerned with Religious orthodoxy and more concerned with the Virtues.

Holger on January 14, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Or Massachusetts that is far more accepting of gay marriage than Texas?

Holger

Hey, don’t mess with Texas.

Voters are challenged to choose the candidate most qualified for the job. Election results prove Bible-belt Texans’ vote for gays to serve the public in office. Texan “tolerance” evidently grants sexual preference privacy, even when campaigns don’t.

That same tolerance deserves the same respect in turn, as marriage is an ancient bond between one man and one woman. No PC Marxist revisionism against this sacred tradition is needed in Texas given legal wills, living wills, power of attorney, civil unions, and an over abundant population of lawyers.

maverick muse on January 14, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Yet another proof that, once you get liberal social entitlements, no politician can run against them, no matter how bad they are.

joe_doufu on January 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Holger on January 14, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I’d just like to see Social Conservatives less concerned with Religious orthodoxy and more concerned with the Virtues.

I see your point; thank you. Dogmatism is not a virtue. Knowledge, faith, hope, charity and responsibility are.

$.02 In politics, follow the money. Vote fiscal conservative in order to not fund socialist agenda programs. Virtue can not be coerced. Virtue exists in life, in the living process, in familial lessons taught and recognized by the state as civics, citizen responsibilities to each other. As proven through time, the more legislation, the less civic pride and the less virtue honored. The Constitution limited government so that virtue could abound without a Big Brother or Nanny making the population into subjects to exploit. Fraud legislated mandates in order to profit while subjugating the virtue of Liberty. Since Liberty entails civic duties, “Freedom is not free.”

maverick muse on January 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Brown is better than the alternative at this point.

WyoMike on January 14, 2010 at 1:22 PM

There is a BIG difference between a state experimenting with such a plan and Fed-zilla imposing it on the entire country. That difference is called the Constitution!

MJBrutus on January 14, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Who wrote RomneyCare for Massachusetts? Who sponsored it? Who campaigned for it? Not Scott Brown. It was and remains Romney’s illegitimate baby.

maverick muse on January 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM

People like you still don’t understand what happened with Romney’s Health Care plan.

The Democrats pretty much altered, modified and tinkered with the original plans of Mitt’s Health Care plan.

Which is why, from now on, people should call it MassDemCare, not RomneyCare.

I would also strongly recommend everyone read this blog for a quick rebuttal to the typical arguments against Mitt’s health care plan.

Conservative Samizdat on January 14, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3