ObamaCare abortion debate rekindles RomneyCare controversies

posted at 1:36 pm on March 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Jules Crittenden calls it Mitt Romney’s health-care problem, and he doesn’t mean a nagging cold.  Romney appeared on Fox News Sunday to talk about his new book, but Chris Wallace probed Romney’s response to criticisms mounting over his expansive health-care system in Massachusetts.  That plan imposed mandates on businesses and individuals, setting minimum insurance-coverage standards, and subsidies — which looks a lot like the ObamaCare proposal floating in Congress.  The result has been skyrocketing premiums and massive cost overruns, one of the main arguments against the ObamaCare approach:

On the surface, it would seem that the abortion coverage in RomneyCare would be the big problem. However, as the Boston Herald reports, Romney had little choice in that provision:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s presumed 2012 presidential campaign is getting off to a bumpy start as his signature Bay State health-care plan has come under new fire from conservatives because it subsidizes abortions.

Romney’s landmark 2006 universal health-care law allows low-income residents covered under Commonwealth Care to get taxpayer-funded abortions. Abortion has become a lightning rod in the highly charged battle over President Obama’s health-care push. …

But Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said his boss had no choice when he pushed his health plan because he had to abide by a Supreme Judicial Court ruling mandating abortion coverage for women getting Medicaid.

“It’s not something that Gov. Romney agrees with, but it’s longstanding court precedent that predates his administration,” Fehrnstrom wrote in an e-mail.

The bigger problem is the enormous cost of RomneyCare. In this interview, Romney said that he didn’t raise taxes to pay for the plan, but the cost overruns will force Massachusetts to either do so now or significantly alter the program:

Romney’s making quite a few claims about what Romneycare is doing to Massachusetts, claims that don’t add up. He told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that “the plan this year, for instance, is $80 million below budget.”

But The Wall Street Journal reports that it’s nearly $50 million over budget.

Romney then added that the costs are “coming in very much within the range that was forecast when the Legislature and I put this together.” In fact, Gov. Deval Patrick’s asking for $912 million to fund the program for next year – at least $100 million more than projected when Romney was governor.

And that’s just what it’s costing us as taxpayers. Romneycare is also driving up our insurance premiums and the cost of our actual health care, too. So will Obamacare. But Romney, a Republican candidate for president, is defending the former and attacking the latter.

In his defense, Romney admitted to Fox that about half of the real costs of “extending coverage to the uninsured” (aka forcing young, healthy people to buy expensive insurance they don’t need) is covered by federal tax dollars. In other words, as expensive as it is, without federal subsidies it would cost even more.

Romney wants to differentiate his approach to that of ObamaCare by noting that his plan was on the state level, not federal. That’s true, but also a non-sequitur. As the Herald notes, it uses mainly the same approach that ObamaCare uses in imposing more government control over the health-care sector. Like ObamaCare will, Massachusetts has only succeeded in increasing costs, both to the government and to individuals. While the White House acknowledges using the Massachusetts plan as a model for their own general suggestions on health-care reform, their opponents have used Massachusetts much more specifically as an argument against them. And Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts speaks volumes about how Bay State voters feel about government-controlled health care.

Romney would be better off jettisoning his support of the plan, perhaps chalking it up to bad implementation. Arguing that following a similar plan on a federal level is objectionable merely because of federalism isn’t going to work if Romney wants to challenge for the GOP nomination to run against Obama in 2012. The nation is coming around to the realization that government intervention creates more problems than it solves, and that free-market reform has the best chance of succeeding. Romney’s continued insistence on supporting a government intervention through some nuanced points on which level mandates what to whom is a losing argument.

Update: The Club for Growth isn’t impressed, either:

But guess who disagrees with Romney’s assessment? The Club for Growth, a powerhouse conservative group with a lot of sway in GOP primaries. A top Club official tore into Romney, telling us that if Romney believes this, then he’s “in the wrong party.”

“We can say unequivocally that that is not a conservative plan,” Andy Roth, Club for Growth’s vice president for government affairs, told our reporter Ryan Derousseau when asked for comment on Romney’s claim about Romneycare.

On Sunday, Romney elicited skepticism even from Fox’s Chris Wallace when he said: “There a big difference between what we did and what President Obama is doing. What we did I think is the ultimate conservative plan.”

But Club for Growth’s Roth dismissed this as bunk, citing Romneycare’s individual mandate as proof. “The individual mandate is diametrically against what free-market conservatives believe in,” he said, adding that if Romney thinks his plan amounts to a conservative policy “than I think he is in the wrong party.”

Would Romney benefit by saying instead, “Look, I tried working with the Democrats on their terms, and this turned out to be a big mistake”?  I think it would put him more in the mainstream of where Americans want to take health-care reform now.  It would work better than continuing to defend MassCare.

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

The Constitution doesn’t encourage any entity in the U.S. to come up with a statist command and control plan for anyone.
We are a republic, not the USSR.

Jenfidel on March 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Sorry, Jen, but the Constitution allows states the latitude to become socialist hell-holes, if they so choose. The key is that the federal government is not allowed to bail them out and they risk losing population if they become too insane – which is exaclty what has been happening with the leftist states. The major problem is that the federal government IS bailing these states out, which is totally un-Constitutional and unfair to other states.

I think that RomneyCare is total sh!t and that Massachusetts deserves what it gets with it, but they have every right to implement that idiocy on the state level and that is exactly the way things are supposed to work – with the state getting noi help from the federal government to alleviate problems they generated themselves.

The bigger problems that states have with health care is that federal courts have overstepped their bounds and placed many unfunded (and un-Constitutional) mandates on states.

Romney is wrong in trying to defend the intelligence of his moronic socialization of the state’s health insurance/care, but he’s perfectly correct in pointing out that health care/insurance is a state issue, not a federal one, and there is no point to comparing any state plan with an un-Constitutional attempt to have the federal government take over health care/insurance.

neurosculptor on March 9, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Uhh…do you even understand the principles of federalism and the limitations the Constitution places on the federal government in telling the states what it can and can’t do!?

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM

This issue of what Federalism is or is not is beside the main point of whether government health care is a good idea or not, at the State or Federal level.

Brian1972 on March 9, 2010 at 3:32 PM

If Romney’s cred is fiscal policy, the RomneyCare kills him. It’s like Bush’s prescription drug plan on steroids, and I did not like that either. The spending, cuts to the core of governing.

AnotherOpinion on March 9, 2010 at 3:33 PM

So here’s the line of argument used by Romneybots-don’t vote for Sarah Palin because she’s damaged goods because she went to Canada as an infant to receive health care while Mitt Romney is the “grown-up” that conservatives need to lead the charge up Capitol Hill to repeal Obamacare if it passes, and supposedly will have the supreme credibility with Americans to argue for its repeal.

C’mon folks, you don’t have to be a genius to figure out that this does not add up at all. Do you really believe Romney is going to go to the wall to get Obamacare repealed?

technopeasant on March 9, 2010 at 3:33 PM

And I’m so sure they’re an unbiased source. Likely as not the MTF has an equally fair and reasonable opinon about the CLT.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Typical. Can’t refute the plethora of facts he posted, so you go after the messenger.

Try posting actual counterarguments with sources instead.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Now that there’s funny.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I thought it was obvious. Obamacare does not implement a single-payer system. It subsidizes people (that make up to nearly 100k) to purchase private insurance, some of which will be regulated on an exchange. Your description of Romneycare is an apt description of Obamacare.

BPD on March 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Ooooh, that’s gonna leave a mark.

Brian1972 on March 9, 2010 at 3:35 PM

1.Abortion

SED address the abortion aspect of Mitt’s plan in another post on another thread. But I’m reposting it here:

* In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women.
(Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

* According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services.
(Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

* In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.”
(Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)

Before anyone makes baseless accusations against Romney and his record. Look at the facts.

Here’s a link on everything that you would need to know.

What’s your point?
That Mitt Romney did not know any of that record when he set up a scheme for state-funded abortion mills in Massachusetts?
Or that he did know, but didn’t care?
Or that he’s immune from criticism, because he didn’t write the whole laws of the state, he uh, inherited them?

Around here we prosecute kids who play with matches. We know they didn’t plant 40,000 acres of tinder-dry brush; we know they probably didn’t mean for it to burn for a month. We take the view that if you’re going to be reckless in a situation with clearly obvious consequences, you’re liable for the consequences. Maybe that seems alien to you.

The Constitution allows States like MA or CA or WA or any other state to make their own choices in addressing the unique health care needs of its citizens.

Wonderful. Quit using federal tax dollars, you’ll spoil the control.

With Mitt Romney’s plan, everyone is required to pay for their own insurance, not to pay for the insurance of other people.

I can only imagine the shocked tears of insurance industry comptrollers as they struggle to make ends meet. On the one hand, costs go up–on the other, their sacred commitment to the individual customer to base that customer’s premium SOLELY on that customer’s needs–lest that customer pay more into the kitty that he gets back in value–thereby, paying for other people’s insurance…

Oh wait. That’s how they earn a profit–everybody pays out more than they are calculated to get back.

What’s wrong with making everyone pay their own way?

Nothing.
So stop making people pay a monthly premium for insurance in months they don’t use it.

4. Romney’s plan is popular in Massachusetts

A poll conducted this week by The Washington Post of 880 Massachusetts residents who said they voted in the special election found that 68 percent support the Massachusetts plan. Even among Brown voters, slightly more than half backed the 2006 law.” (Source.)

If we ran this country to suit Massachusetts voters– no. Not even in jest.

Sure, the health care plan has its flaws and mistakes…which are mainly attributable to the democrats attempting to modify Mitt’s plan…but the core conservative principles were preserved and that’s why Mitt’s plan works and is a hit with the Mass citizens.
Which is why, from now on, people should call it MassDemCare, not RomneyCare.

We should call it SomebodyElsesBaby because it works and is a hit. Right. It’s all their fault, unless you like it, in which case, thank Mitt Romney.

This basic dishonesty is what puts me off Romney.

Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Now that there’s funny.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Anything’s funny to you after you’ve been hitting the moonshine (again).

Stating the simple fact that different political groups call each other unreliable/fanatics/etc. is not the same as the dittoheads going “lalalala i’m not listening” to Conservative Samizdat’s factual posts.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:36 PM

So it’s “robbery” if you have to buy insurance that you don’t use, huh?

How about the robbery that occurs every time the responsible members of society are forced to pay for someone who doesn’t have insurance?

JA on March 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM

You are aware that those insurance purchases are subsidized by the state.
With this plan, you are paying more in taxes than you were before.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Anything’s funny to you after you’ve been hitting the moonshine (again).

Stating the simple fact that different political groups call each other unreliable/fanatics/etc. is not the same as the dittoheads going “lalalala i’m not listening” to Conservative Samizdat’s factual posts.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:36 PM

It’s wrong when other people ignore the facts and attack the messenger.
But it’s OK when you do it.

Right.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Yeah!! Romney/Graham 2012!!!

Dan Pet on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Romney/Snowe 2012!!!

Dan Pet on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM

You’re dense as a lead brick.

The fact that opposing political groups hate each other is not like posting pouty-lipped nonsense to a poster with sourced facts. Try to wrap your head around that.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

The problem is, the country as a whole is quickly coming to the conclusion that Big Government whether at the State or Federal level, is bad for the economy and crushes the individual under the weight of the massive bureaucracy that becomes necessary to administer these “plans”

Brian1972 on March 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Exactly. Big government, regardless if its at the state or federal level, is toxic to the economy and to individual rights. Such plans are not good for America.

But Mitt’s plan didn’t add any NEW bureaucracy or added any new burdens on the individual. He simply required people either get their own insurance through a private insurer (not a gov’t one) or pay their own way.

What happens when the “experiment” goes bad?

The politicians come running to DC to get Congress to bail them out with OUR money. (see CA, NY, MA, MI, ect.)

Brian1972 on March 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM

The founding fathers would simply say that the if the experiment goes bad, then it should be left to fail. The founding fathers would strongly oppose bailing out any state for its mismanagement of its funds or programs.

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

You’re dense as a lead brick.

The fact that opposing political groups hate each other is not like posting pouty-lipped nonsense to a poster with sourced facts. Try to wrap your head around that.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Getting big with the insults again. I thought you claimed you were too smart for that kind of tactic.

You dismissed the arguments made with merely the claim that political groups disagree.

That you can’t see past your over rated intellect to see the inherent contradiction in that position is no surprise to me.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:44 PM

But Mitt’s plan didn’t add any NEW bureaucracy or added any new burdens on the individual. He simply required people either get their own insurance through a private insurer (not a gov’t one) or pay their own way.

He didn’t add any new burdens, he just required people who weren’t buying insurance to buy insurance.

I’m sure that you have managed to convince yourself that this is not a contradiction.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM

You dismissed the arguments made with merely the claim fact that political groups disagree call each other unreliable sources.PM

FTFY.

That you can’t see past your over rated intellect to see the inherent contradiction in that position is no surprise to me.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:44

Physician, heal thyself.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM

The founding fathers would simply say that the if the experiment goes bad, then it should be left to fail. The founding fathers would strongly oppose bailing out any state for its mismanagement of its funds or programs.

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

So you think the it’s wrong that RomneyCare is subsidized by the feds?

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Physician, heal thyself.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM

There’s a difference, I actually am great, where as you are just wrong.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Why are all of you so shocked with this news? Why did you support Romney in 2008 when he had Romneycare all along? Shame on you for not checking out his record in 2008!

He has never been a Conservative, he just likes to say he is a Conservative. His record in Mass. is not Conservative!

VFT on March 9, 2010 at 3:47 PM

I love the way that D-S states that it is wrong to reject something by attacking the messenger, then he bends himself into pretzels to prove that it is ok for him to do just that.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:48 PM

There’s a difference, I actually am great, where as you are just wrong.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Uh-huh. You’re the special one because…you say so, and you run around spouting conservatard talking points on the Internet.

Your crown is made of cardboard and your robe is a window curtain, oh King Mark the ‘Great’.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I love the way that D-S states that it is wrong to reject something by attacking the messenger, then he bends himself into pretzels to prove that it is ok for him to do just that.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:48 PM

I love the way Mark doesn’t make any arguments, he just spouts his own ‘greatness’ like the chest-thumping redneck he is.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Uh-huh. You’re the special one because…you say so, and you run around spouting conservatard talking points on the Internet.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I’m special, because on this issue, I’m right. You on the other hand just go around whinning about uber-rich people having stuff you don’t and how we have to make govt all powerfull to fix that.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM

I love the way Mark doesn’t make any arguments, he just spouts his own ‘greatness’ like the chest-thumping redneck he is.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Actually, I made many arguments. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them is your problem, not mine.
As to the redneck crack, you need to search your own soul and find out why you hate those who disagree with you so much.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM

What’s a conservatard?

Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM

The fact that opposing political groups hate each other is not like posting pouty-lipped nonsense to a poster with sourced facts. Try to wrap your head around that.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Excuse me, but my retort wasn’t “pouty-lipped nonsense” nor was Lori’s link “sourced facts.”
She posted a partisan Left report full of LIES entitled “Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrolled Costs.”
It’s not a myth!
The costs are out of control and the result has been that MA has had to ration services, starting with the poor first, the very people it was supposed to help the most.

Jenfidel on March 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM

What’s a conservatard?

Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM

0_o You’ve never heard that before? Think the mirror image of a libtard. Be sure to include the feelings of being somehow ‘better’, as witness MarkTheGreatBigImbecile.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM

So it’s “robbery” if you have to buy insurance that you don’t use, huh?

How about the robbery that occurs every time the responsible members of society are forced to pay for someone who doesn’t have insurance?

I’m fine with your reasoning, as long as you’re willing to sign a document agreeing that by forgoing insurance, you are also giving up the right to any healthcare that you can’t pay for.

The Club for Growth is wrong on this one. Forcing people to be responsible and pay their own way is conservative.

JA on March 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Thomas Sowell had a point, that the bills for his kids births were paid off over years. There’s nothing irresponsible about long-term financing. But these days, providers prefer to post a loss immediately and then get reimbursement from the state or from their HMO.

You’re fine with that because you confuse your stupidity in joining an insurance plan with social responsibility. JA, if you were likely to get back 100% of what you paid as premiums, you’d have been denied insurance. The whole system is about fleecing you.

That would be none of my business, except the providers arent’ allowed to offer a cash discount compared to insurance or Medicare. So, by being dumb, you have enabled the doctors to gouge me. I can either pay inflated prices or do without.

Your “reform” is about seeing that I don’t prosper despite dodging the con of monthly payments to an insurer for nothing. You can’t pretend to shop smart, you already paid and said “here, get me nice health care and keep the change”. I would be a sap to care about your limitations on my behavior.

Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM

The costs are out of control and the result has been that MA has had to ration services, starting with the poor first, the very people it was supposed to help the most.

Jenfidel on March 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM

I was referring to Conservative Samizdat’s post. Which, BTW, addressed exactly why the whole thing went to ruin:

5. Flaws With Mitts Health Care Plans Were Created By The Democrats.

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.

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Two reasons why you’re stupid.

1) Mitt’s health care plan is NOT a “communist” style health care plan as your point is suggesting.

2). Even if it were true, the Constitution allows the states , NOT the federal government to come up with its own health care plan.

If Kansas, Washington, Utah or Florida or any other state wants to come up with a “communist” style plan, the Constitution permits the states to do so.

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Only two? I’m disappointed.

The states do not have wholesale right and power to make plans for it’s citizens.

The mandates in Mass are as onerous and unAmerican as in ZeroCare, and as in the USSR.

Keep flinging that poo.

Maquis on March 9, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Oh.

Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I was referring to Conservative Samizdat’s post. Which, BTW, addressed exactly why the whole thing went to ruin:

5. Flaws With Mitts Health Care Plans Were Created By The Democrats.

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.

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Mitten’s is supposed to be such a smart, shrewd businessman and executive (he went to Harvard, just like Obama, after all!).
He should have foreseen that the Dem legislature had too much wiggle room to change it into a Socialist nightmare and vetoed it!
He doesn’t get a pass.

Palin precedent: She refused all or most of Maobama’s Stimulus money for AK as Governor.
Her decision was overridden by the AK legislature, but she definitely went on record that she thought it was a mistake, with future obligations for the state that they wouldn’t like and opposed it.
Mitt should have done exactly this as MA Governor, but he did not.
And he’s still bragging about a what a “conservative” success it is to this day.
Epic. Fail.

Jenfidel on March 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Jenfidel on March 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Fair enough. Although I’m inclined to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt on introducing the whole thing, he needs to admit it was hijacked and didn’t work.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Fair enough. Although I’m inclined to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt on introducing the whole thing, he needs to admit it was hijacked and didn’t work.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM

He should have realized 6 months ago that it was hijacked and isn’t working, it shouldn’t be taking Romney this long to figure it out.

deidre on March 9, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Be sure to include the feelings of being somehow ‘better’, as witness MarkTheGreatBigImbecile.

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM

I don’t just feel I’m better, I prove it every day. As opposed to you, who just keeps on embarrasing himself.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I don’t just feel I’m better, I prove it every day.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM

By standing in front of a mirror and telling yourself how great you are? Or by acting like a pompous Yankee Doodle Doofus?

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM

What’s a conservatard?

Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Anyone who won’t agree with D-S the first time.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM

By standing in front of a mirror and telling yourself how great you are? Or by acting like a pompous Yankee Doodle Doofus?

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM

No, by showing everyone what a big fool you are. Not that it takes the actions of someone as great as I am to do that.

I’m sure 95% of the people here could do it, if they took the time.

And would you please say uber-rich again. I need another laugh.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM

And would you please say uber-rich again. I need another laugh.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Sure you wouldn’t prefer a joke about booze, broads, or blowing up poor brown people?

In any case, what’s the operative status of WrongneyCare now? How broke is it?

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM

How do we convince you SFTT?

Al in St. Lou on March 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Your entire argument fails because Mitt could have just avoided the situation by NOT TINKERING WITH HEALTHCARE AT ALL.

fossten on March 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Sure you wouldn’t prefer a joke about booze, broads, or blowing up poor brown people?

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Now people who disagree with you want to blow up brown people.

So much hatred lurks in the hearts of liberals.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Did YOU PEOPLE watch the same video I just watched? The one that Romney doubled-down on Romneycare and said “It is working?” The same video that he said is the “ULTIMATE CONSERVATIVE PLAN?” The same video that he used the ole’ “it is saving lives” Leftist propaganda garbage?

And NOW you want Romney to say something that opposes what he just said in that video, that opposes what he believes in? Just what good would that do? Would it make you feel better? Or do you actually think this douchebag actually has any credibility?

Just when are you people going to wipe this miserable flip/flop/flipping scumbag off your lists?

For the next few years, do we really have to deal with the Romney sockpuppet Leftist RINO trolls (inevitably) popping up out of the woodwork and advocating Romney for 2012? You know how the they do it, the same way they pushed McCain…..for one, by giving us the “either vote for Romney, or it’s your fault if America is destroyed by Obama”.

nottakingsides on March 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Now people who disagree with you want to blow up brown people.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Putting words in my mouth, again.

Ctrl+F – “people who disagree with me want to blow up brown people”

“! Phrase not found”

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Ctrl+F – “people who disagree with me want to blow up brown people”

“! Phrase not found”

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM

I guess you never bother reading what you write.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Hey D-S, I remember a few weeks ago, you were whinning about people who made fun of you by changing your tag.

I guess this was just another of those rules that didn’t apply to you.

And you wonder why you get no respect around here.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 4:56 PM

And NOW you want Romney to say something that opposes what he just said in that video, that opposes what he believes in?

nottakingsides on March 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM

They know Romney better than you do.

Romney has principles…and if you don’t like them, well… he has others!

assault weapons ban

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007

“Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,” said Governor Romney. “I’m proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.”
- Governor Romney, News Release, January 12, 2007

“The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday rejected the Legislature’s plan to raise the state minimum wage to $8 an hour over two years, angering Democratic lawmakers and advocates who accused him of abandoning a 2002 campaign pledge to significantly boost the pay of low-wage workers.
- Boston Globe, July 22, 2006

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ ” Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”

Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007

In his appeals to conservative voters, Romney has made the Arizona senator’s work on immigration one of his favorite targets. When McCain and other senators unveiled the latest reform bill two weeks ago, Romney called it the “wrong approach” and immediately launched a television ad slamming “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
- Boston Globe, June 1, 2007

Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.

In 2002, Romney broke with his predecessor, Jane Swift, and Republican governors before her by declining to sign a written vow not to raise taxes once in office.

- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007

Almost five years after he refused to sign a “no new taxes” pledge during his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he had done just that, as his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination began in earnest.
- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007

During a debate, Romney declared: ‘I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ ”

Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ”yes” to the question, ‘Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?’

“Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life.” – Governor Romney

“In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that ‘as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.’ ” 1994

# “[Romney] did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.”
- Bay Windows, 3/28/2002

“There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions.” On another occasion, his spokesman “declined to state Romney’s position on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, and declined to say whether the governor opposes gay adoptions.”
- State House press conference, 6/15/2005
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006

Romney stated, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” In the same article, a BSA official criticized Romney for opposing Scout policy.
- Boston Globe, 10/27/1994

More recently Romney proposed allocating $250,000 for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth for fiscal year 2006, twice what he proposed for FY05. The Legislature ultimately funded the commission at $250,000 for FY05, so Romney’s proposal for next year amounts to level funding, and the proposal is still a far cry from $1.6 million the commission received in the mid-’90s before the state budget crisis. Yet as commission co-chair Kathleen Henry said, Romney could just as easily have dissolved the program. “We serve completely at the will of the governor,” said Henry.
- Bay Windows 3/3/2005

Twice after the Legislature approved funding for the Commission, Romney then appeased pro-family activists by vetoing it! However, since there are not enough Republicans to sustain vetoes, a veto is largely a charade.

* When Romney was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy, Bay Windows asked him how he would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” He answered:

“I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.”
– Bay Windows, 8/25/1994

Lopez: “And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: “No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges…As for military policy and the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.”
- Interview with National Review, December 14, 2006

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?”

Governor Romney: “Boy, I sure do. You know, that’s a topic that’s really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults.

“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
Sincerely, W. Mitt Romney

“Romney arrived on the scene with great promise, but is leaving the Republican Party here in shambles. Not only are the Republicans yielding the governor’s office for the first time in 16 years, but registered Republicans have fallen by 31,000 since Romney took office, and their legislative presence is at historic lows. But it worked out fine for him: He is now chasing the prize he really covets, the presidency.”
- Boston Globe 11/8/2006

“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006

“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”
- Boston Globe, December 17, 2006

“I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.”
- Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “A Stem-Cell Solution,” National Review Online, June 15, 2007

“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ ”
- Boston Globe, July 7, 2005

“Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.”
- Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill,” Boston Globe, July 26, 2005

sharrukin on March 9, 2010 at 4:58 PM

please excuse my overly personal snark. I should not argue online with only 2 hours sleep.

Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM

There’s a difference, I actually am great, where as you are just wrong.

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:47 PM

you 2 need to get a room. your exchanges are really getting tiresome.

Badger40 on March 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I was less than impressed with Romney especially on healthcare. Wallace even skirted the pre-existing conditions issue which would have probably made him looke even worse. I just can’t see him having a chance against Sarah Palin in the primary. Not with this performance.

mike_NC9 on March 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM

He should have foreseen that the Dem legislature had too much wiggle room to change it into a Socialist nightmare and vetoed it!
He doesn’t get a pass.

Jenfidel on March 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Mitt Romney DID try to veto the changes that democrats wanted to make to his plan. However, the democrats overrode his veto.

The games pretty much over when the legislature overrides your veto.

However, let me introduce you to some facts regarding the legislature and Mitt’s plan:

The citizens of Mass wanted RomneyCare. Only TWO members of the House and Senate voted against it.

Furthermore, the Massachusetts democrats, had they gotten their way, would of passed a much more worse healthcare plan without Mitt Romney.

However, despite the Massachuesetts democrats meddling with Mitt’s plan, Romney at least kept the health care plan away from government control. Private health insurance and care still thrives in Mass. He prevented a government takeover.

Anyways, Mitt gets a pass. He attempted to veto but was overridden. That’s how legislation is supposed to work. Sometimes vetos win. Sometimes they don’t.

Your entire argument fails because Mitt could have just avoided the situation by NOT TINKERING WITH HEALTHCARE AT ALL.

fossten on March 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM

As far as I know, there is no movement within the state of Massachusetts, by any any of the major gubernatorial candidates to overturn it because it is still popular.

As I said above, RomneyCare passed with only TWO members of the House and Senate who voted against it.

One of the main problems with Mitt’s plan isn’t Really Mitt Romney’s fault. The blame for the cost curve of health care
occurred after Mitt left office.
The blame for any defects with Mitt’s health care plan should be laid at the feat of the Democratic legislature and Governor Deval.

Finally, there is a difference between tinkering and overhauling the entire system.

ObamaCare seeks to overhaul the entire healthcare system. Mitt Romney’s plan simply sought to make improvements in the system.

States, under the Constitution, are allowed to tinker with their health care plan. The federal government is forbidden to do so.

So you think the it’s wrong that RomneyCare is subsidized by the feds?

MarkTheGreat on March 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Romney took what the state was already receiving in federal funding and simply routed it towards his health care plan.

If you oppose federal subsidies, you must be logically consistent and oppose states taking federal subsidizes for farming, housing, education, etc.

You must support the state being weaned off the federal teat completely for everything.

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Romney’s 2012 campaign appears to be imploding before it starts:
- He puts people to sleep on Letterman while Palin goes into stand-up comedy on Leno and wins the ratings war
- No Apology failed to crack Amazon.com’s top 10 and the book signing tour isn’t generating much excitement
- The Chris Wallace interview was a disaster

Time for the RINOs on Team “Stop Sarah” to start warming T-Paw up in the bullpen. Another charismatically-challenged Republican tries to stop the ‘Cuda. Look out T-Paw, “You know she has a rifle.”

bw222 on March 9, 2010 at 5:44 PM

How does Romney show his face in public with ROMNEYCARE floating around as a constant reminder of what he can do?? Imagine Mittens in the Whitehouse….every speech would be just like the Letterman interview…SNORE!

Dan Pet on March 9, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Looks like Ayatollah Romney is taking the same approach as Ayatollah Cornyn and Ayatollah Crist …

When you get cow doo on your boots – pretend you didn’t step in anything at all – maybe no one will notice.

Problem is … we can all smell what they stepped in no matter how much they pretend otherwise.

HondaV65 on March 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Republican establishment is DREAMING … DREAMING if they think that they can win by nominating the only other person in America besides Obama to have a failing Health Care system named after him.

That … in itself – is really the nail in the coffin. There are two men in the nation with a socialist health plan named after them – one is Obama … the other Romney.

You aren’t going to beat Obama with voters hearing “RomneyCare” in their ears when they go to the polls.

HondaV65 on March 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM

So if Conservative Samizdat thinks it’s an awesome plan, credit to Mitt Romney for his organizational genius.

If JA sees the same interview and the plan, and thinks it’s ok but costs too much, Mitt Romney couldn’t help what others did to his wonderful mandates and cost curbs.

If Chris sees the mandate and the cost and the whole idea as godawful, its up to Massachusets to choose for itself to be a liberal hellhole and full credit to Mitt Romney for staving off socialism.

Whatever you happen to look for from a politician, Mitt Romney is that man. He’s done whatever you think needed doing, for YOUR reasons.

Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Another Romney who isn’t going to be President!

chickasaw42 on March 9, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Huckster is out, and now Romney is trying to defend the indefensible instead of standing up for what is right and showing humility by admitting he was wrong.

Sarah will win the GOP nomination. It won’t be close.

Sapwolf on March 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Conservative Samizdat on March 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM

He’s not a conservative.

That’s the truth, and it is no longer arguable her on Hotair or anywhere in the universe.

Sapwolf on March 9, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Romney is bigoted against my new adopted sister from Eastern Europe. It breaks my heart the way the Romney’s of the world hate her. She’s a refugee whose life began a year after mine, and her other sisters had to fight all over the world.

Why do you hate me?

Sapwolf on March 9, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Romney could have dumped Romneycare and stood strong against abortion and the $50 copay. But he wanted a healthcare plan for his state, no matter what. He wanted the credit for it, so now he has to take the hits on it.

The gall of Romney to say that his healthcare plan is “pro-life”. Does he even know what pro-life means?

It does not mean, a $50 copay for an abortion.

Good for Chris Wallace to call him out on his Romneycare/Obamacare plan.

texasconserv on March 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2