ObamaCare blasted by … Mitt Romney

posted at 4:58 pm on March 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

His post is titled “A campaign begins today,” but per Marc Ambinder, there may be a campaign that effectively ends today too.

America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.

He calls his accomplishment “historic” — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.

He’s going to have to position himself as the tip of the spear in the repeal movement to have any chance of surviving the primaries now, which explains the un-Mitt-like vehemence of the denunciation here. We can debate who the big winner is on the GOP side from the O-Care clusterfark — I’d say Ryan given how he turned it into a platform for his ideas on entitlement reform — but there’s really no question who the loser is, as both critics and supporters alike have discerned a striking resemblance between RomneyCare and the bouncing baby behemoth born in the House last night. Ambinder claims it’s an open question whether RomneyCare has worked or not, but it ain’t that open; as Pawlenty guy Patrick Ruffini notes, there’s a reason The One has been strikingly reluctant to tout it despite straining in every other way possible to frame the bill as bipartisan. I’ve argued before that Mitt has no choice but to defend R-Care lest another flip-flop finally and fatally destroy his credibility, but now that O-Care’s on the books, he has to do something to dilute his record. Start a PAC specifically devoted to repeal? Organize some sort of national speaking tour to campaign against it? Ideas are welcome, but one way or another, he’ll have to become the point man on this issue. And even then, I don’t know if it’ll be enough.

Via Ben Smith, here’s what an unnamed “conservative foe” dropped on him today. Call it the Ghost of Primary Ads Future.


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 4

Come back when you understand federalism The War Powers Act. He can still call to repeal Obamacare and support Romneycare on states rights Article II issues. The federal government Congress has no business in it.

I have a slight problem with defending a SNAFU on the grounds that an officeholder has the privilege to run amok, neener neener. Especially when we’re discussing the Presidency.

And btw, Romney wrote last August in an op-ed that Mr. Obama should look to MA for the model of a national plan.

Chris_Balsz on March 22, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Sarah Palin is a fine human being. And Mitt Romney has a truly stupendous chin. But NO politician who’s getting free airtime is saying anything CLOSE to what needs to be said to save the Republic today.

Then you’re not listening. Palin is saying EXACTLY what needs to be said to save the Republic. You just have your ears closed for some reason. And not only is she saying it, she LIVES it. Something no other candidate can claim.

There’re a million people in America right now who could do a better job as President than Ronald Reagan did. HE was not a fluke; the only fluke was that someone like him could infiltrate the media.

Okay… now you’re in whackjob territory.

If the past hundred years has taught us anything, it’s that we can’t rely on the media to tell us who is an “electible” candidate and who is not.

Well they certainly told you. And you fell for it.

Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that the past hundred years haven’t taught most of us anything.

logis on March 22, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Speak for yourself. Your post just proved that point.

atheling on March 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Appeasement blasted by…Neville Chamberlain?

National socialism blasted by…Adolf Hitler?

Twinkies blasted by…Rosie O’Donnell?

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM

We’ll be working on Iowa and New Hampshire and will surprise a lot of people a year from now. Dr. Paul is a more credible opponent of the social medicine as a medical doctor for 35 years, then someone who actually set up the disastrous system in Massachusetts.

The Dean on March 22, 2010 at 7:46 PM

It’s rare … if ever, when I agree with Dean. And further – I think “Dr. Paul” is a whack job.

But …

Dean is right here – even Ron Paul is now a more viable candidate for the GOP nomination than Mitt Romney is.

HondaV65 on March 22, 2010 at 8:21 PM

And btw, Romney wrote last August in an op-ed that Mr. Obama should look to MA for the model of a national plan.

Chris_Balsz on March 22, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Do you remember who published it or perhaps you could provide a link? I’d like to read it.

Thanks in advance

Rod on March 22, 2010 at 8:21 PM

There’re a million people in America right now who could do a better job as President than Ronald Reagan did. HE was not a fluke; the only fluke was that someone like him could infiltrate the media.

Okay… now you’re in whackjob territory.
atheling on March 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Of course I understand your point of view but, trust me: there are very, very many people in America today who aren’t on TV. And very many of them are conservative — in fact, the majority of them are.

Sarah Palin is a conservative, sure. I may not have the good fortune to personally know anyone who seems like a nicer person, but I do know a lot of people who are more conservative than she is.

I don’t have any way of guessing what I “haven’t heard” Sarah Palin say. But I’ve heard an awful lot; and none of it holds a candle to the things that Ronald Reagan said.

Ronald Reagan was a great man of his time. But this is not his time. He momentarily slowed the collectivisation of America, and that was monumental achievement. But an awful lot has happened between then and now. Today, holding the line will not save us — it won’t even be close.

We have to set the federal government’s growth back almost a hundred years. Has Sarah Palin ever said that? If so, can you please provide a link?

And, btw, I am being dead serious here. I honest-to-God would very much love to see that.

logis on March 22, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Dean is right here – even Ron Paul is now a more viable candidate for the GOP nomination than Mitt Romney is.
HondaV65 on March 22, 2010 at 8:21 PM

The only man in Congress who shows an understanding of Constitutional law that used to be the minimum required for a high-school degree…. And this guy spends precisely half of his time screaming about how black helicopters are stealing his brain.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe all of his conspiracy theories; I just wish he wouldn’t be such a God-damned hypocrite about them. It’s obvious that Washington is one giant Kabuki dance. The only crazy part is Ron Paul’s claim that HE is trying to put a stop to the spectacle — as far as I’m concerned, he’s the freakin’ star of the show.

Having said all that, though, yes: it is entirely possible that we could end up with Ron Paul – or someone even more psychotic – as President in 2012. That would be a decided improvement over the “status quo” that Barack Obama himself admits is the cause of all evil in the world. If nothing else, it would at least be more entertaining.

logis on March 22, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Romney has street cred on the issue of health insurance reform. He’s been there, done that, knows what works and most importantly knows what doesn’t. Obama has irresponsibly ignored the Massachusetts experiment. Not only that, he twisted it and perverted it into a tyrannical power grab that will oppress his own people.

Obama can only wish his bill was as limited as Romney’s. If only he had kept to 70 pages of legislation like Romney, maybe we would not be in for the collapse of the private sector.

Only Romney will know how to fix this and we don’t need rookies. A rookie president got us into this. Hang tough Mitt. The nation needs true healthcare veteran to turn this around.

Lori on March 22, 2010 at 9:29 PM

The only man in Congress who shows an understanding of Constitutional law that used to be the minimum required for a high-school degree…. And this guy spends precisely half of his time screaming about how black helicopters are stealing his brain.

logis on March 22, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Everybody thought Columbus was insane, too.

BobMbx on March 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Either it’s envy, stupidity or ignorance. Or a combination of all three.

atheling on March 22, 2010 at 5:55 PM

This affliction is quite common among a handful of folks here.

Mitt needs to admit to the failure of Romney Care, and appologize profusely… a little honesty could take him far.

kringeesmom on March 22, 2010 at 6:29 PM

This is what I keep saying, and I fail to see what he has to lose by doing so. So some MA voters will be pissed and vote for Obama instead? If they’re that impressed with govt-run healthcare, they’re probably voting for Obama anyway.

NoLeftTurn on March 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Everyone in the clip who name dropped Romneycare have almost sealed Mitt as the GOP challenger to Obama and have made him a reasonable alternative for Democrats and Independents to vote for in 2012.

Mitt is the only Republican that the Dem’s can’t tar and feather as a “do nothing, mean, wants people to die” Republican because he has brought healthcare to the citzens of his state.

Which BTW, Mitt has always stated that is where the power should remain…at the state level.

Mitt will slay Obama in the debates. It will be like the guy who thinks he’s the smartest man in the room (Obama) versus the man who is the smartest man in the room (Romney). It’s gonna be good.

sheryl on March 22, 2010 at 10:26 PM

So.. where did she stab Steven’s in the back?

upinak on March 22, 2010 at 6:52 PM

When she put a spell on him and made him lose the election, of course. Duh. All of the other Republicans calling for his resignation and expulsion had nothing to do with it.

NoLeftTurn on March 22, 2010 at 10:34 PM

The difference between the two is she had it easy in a state that is not politically hostile.

Resolute on March 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM

WTH?

Are you crazy? Palin had the REPUBLICAN PARTY actively working together against her! She messed up a lot of their good buddies playhouse big time, and more than a few got fitted for orange jumpsuits!

The democrats were just so-so.

And yet, she won in a landslide and had the highest approval rating of any Governor in the country.

She is going to win big in 2012. Reagan in ’84 big. (49 of 50 states) I’m not even sure Obama will win Illinois.

gary4205 on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Mr. President, what’s the rush?
Obama could learn a thing or two about health care reform from Massachusetts. One, time is not the enemy. Two, neither are the Republicans.

By Mitt Romney

Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

(Now insured: Francisco Diaz of Boston consults with nurse practitioner Anna Hackett Peterson./Josh T. Reynolds for USA TODAY; Mitt Romney./AP)

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn’t a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

The cost issue

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year’s forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program’s cost is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.”

And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I’ve suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn’t add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.

At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don’t care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.

Try a business-like analysis

I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.

Republicans are not the party of “no” when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.

Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html

Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Does this mean that AP\’s guyfatuation with Mitt Romney has finally reached its heartbreaking conclusion?

cynccook on March 23, 2010 at 1:39 AM

Everybody thought Columbus was insane, too.
BobMbx on March 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM

I hate to break it to you, but not everyone who wears aluminum foil on his head and throws his poo is really a misunderstood genius.

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-03-22/

logis on March 23, 2010 at 2:39 AM

Mitt is the only Republican that the Dem’s can’t tar and feather as a “do nothing, mean, wants people to die” Republican because he has brought healthcare to the citzens of his state.

True. Repeal the bill won’t sale. Change the bill will.

PrezHussein on March 23, 2010 at 2:49 AM

Every time Mitt Romney’s plan comes up for discussion…I am amazed at how ignorant people are about the Mitt’s plan and the differences between Mitt’s plan and Obama’s plan.

I’m gonna address some common misconceptions about Mitt’s plan in depth. Let me address several issues:

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)

Here’s a link on everything that you would need to know about abortion and Mitt’s health care plan.

2. Federalism

It is very funny to me how many conservatives, especially on Hot Air, who sing praises to the virtues of federalism.

Yet,when a state, like Massachusetts, enacts a health care plan that they don’t like and flip flop on the idea of federalsim and attack Mitt’s plan.

Its funny how people get angry at Mitt when he’s doing something what the Constitution allows the states to do which is that every state has a right to make plans for their citizens.

How Federalism Works

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.

Each state is supposed to be a laboratory for experimenting with different approaches on how to resolve problems.

Thus, Massachusetts will have one approach to dealing with health care problems while California will have a different approach in addressing the same exact problem.

Furthermore, allowing the 50 states to run their own experiments is another way of allowing states to compete with one another.

For example, if you don’t like Utah’s health care plan, you can go to Kansas or any other state where you feel there is a better health care plan.

The founding fathers knew that while two states may be facing the same problem, they knew that no states are the same and as a result, the states must be free to address the problem based unique circumstances in those states.

Again, how Utah comes up with a health care plan will not be the same as Washington State or Massachusetts due to differences in demographics, economics and etc.

That’s the beauty of federalism.

3. RomneyCare is NOT the Same as ObamaCare

Here’s why:

Unlike ObamaCare, there is no single payer program. Those covered in Massachusetts are covered through the private sector, even the person receives financial assistance from the government in order to obtain coverage from the private insurer.

Let me make the difference real clear:

ObamaCare provides coverage to the citizens via the Unites States Government.

RomneyCare provides coverage to the citizens via private sector even if government pays for it.

As it stands right now, the taxpayer is being forced to pay for the healthcare of everyone who doesn’t have insurance.

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

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

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.)

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

Wasn’t RomneyCare altered by the Mass Dem Congress? It really wasn’t what Romney envisioned at all at the beginning? Anyone from Mass care to let us know the sordid history?

JAM on March 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM

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

Conservative Samizdat on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Conservative Samizdat on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Very good info there, thanks. This is a key item which should have been allowed to stand and is most definitely not part of ObamaCare: The legislature also rejected Governor Romney’s proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

I also like Paul Ryan’s plans. I’m open to anything which uses the free-market to control costs and offers consumers the right to choose what best suits their needs and budgets.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Mitt is the only Republican that the Dem’s can’t tar and feather as a “do nothing, mean, wants people to die” Republican because he has brought healthcare to the citzens of his state.

sheryl on March 22, 2010 at 10:26 PM

That’s true, provided Mitt endorses BarryCare, which is based on the program that he still endorses in MA. If he continues to call for BarryCares repeal, the Democrats will not only rip him as someone who wants babies to die, but will rightly label him a hypocrite as well.

MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 8:08 AM

True. Repeal the bill won’t sale. Change the bill will.
PrezHussein on March 23, 2010 at 2:49 AM

Meaning, your crew won’t sell it. So, those of us who want it sold, should pick a different sales force.

I also like Paul Ryan’s plans. I’m open to anything which uses the free-market to control costs and offers consumers the right to choose what best suits their needs and budgets.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2010 at 7:35 AM

How about the Balsz plan, which costs $0 for the federal government to administer, requires an average of 0 hours of compliance reporting every quarter, and hires 0 new federal employees? It’s simple: the federal government doesn’t interfere with state regulation of insurance plans.

I’m gonna address some common misconceptions about Mitt’s plan in depth. Let me address several issues:

1.Abortion

How is that a “misconception”? If anybody who read the Court reports since 1981 knew that a state health plan would require abortion funding, how is it a “misconception” to blame Mitt for funding abortion by creating a health plan? There was an absence of such abortion-buying health plans when he took office, was there not? There was such funding when he left, wasn’t there?

Again, how Utah comes up with a health care plan will not be the same as Washington State or Massachusetts due to differences in demographics, economics and etc.

That’s the beauty of federalism.

First off, we just discussed how Massachusetts violates human rights by funding abortion. I don’t know that the Founders were down with infanticide.

Secondly, how does it come about that California has different laws than the state of Massachusetts on the same issue? Do they really wander alone through the fog, creating themselves unaware? Isn’t it quite likely that Massachusetts residents in 2000 decided that California was sick in the head and their insurance scheme would deliberately not look anything like what those wackos were doing? Criticism of other states and their backward ways is inherent in our federal system–not contradictory.

Third, Romney thought a national plan modelled on his state plan would be a good idea. See above cite.

Fourth, its a damn odd way to campaign for president:
Q: Who is Mitt Romney?
A: The next President of the United States.
Q: Why is Mitt Romney qualified?
A: He was successful as governor of Massachusetts.
Q: How is Massachusetts governed?
A: None of your business.

Unlike ObamaCare, there is no single payer program. Those covered in Massachusetts are covered through the private sector, even the person receives financial assistance from the government in order to obtain coverage from the private insurer.

Let me make the difference real clear:

ObamaCare provides coverage to the citizens via the Unites States Government.

RomneyCare provides coverage to the citizens via private sector even if government pays for it.

As it stands right now, the taxpayer is being forced to pay for the healthcare of everyone who doesn’t have insurance.

You really gotta update the talking points.

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

Actually, premiums are calculated to get more out of you than you’ll use, so the company can cover other people’s claims.

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

Nothing! That’s why the Balsz plan calls for cash-on-the-barrel health care. None of this paying $500 a month for no reason!

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.)

Is that the same majority that voted for John Kerry?
What would really highlight that poll would be knowing whether more people moved to Massachusetts since 2000, than left it. I suppose they’re not actually walking in a stream of refugees with wheelbarrows stacked with furniture, but still…if you really hate what MA does, there are 49 alternatives.

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

Conservative Samizdat on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Wait, you just told me 68% of Massachusetts loves it. They love the mangled remains of Romneycare or they love Romneycare?

You better get a hold of Mr. Romney and inform him its not really his baby…he seems confused about that.

Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 8:29 AM

I am not a Mitt fan however there is a difference between Romney care and Obama care. Romney care became law in a very liberal state and does not require other states to pay for it. Obama care became law in right of center nation and favors some states over others. Any staate can choose how to deal with any given problem. The federal government does not have the right to dictate to the states, see the 10th amendment.

TomLawler on March 23, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Let’s face it, the left want Romney to run for Prez. They would be equally delighted, if not more so, if Romney were the nominee. Check off every pro and con box you can think of. But what the left doesn’t want is John McCain pandering to Republicans or, spilled bong water forbid, Conservatives. The new Liberal Lion of the Senate must go back to his reach across the isle and get your arm broke by Dems ways.

The true exit question is how does Scott Brown feel about his political foundation (spurred by McCain and crafted by Romney) now?

FeFe on March 23, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Scott Brown didn’t distance himself from Romneycare when running for the senate. Neither did Coakly. Romneycare isn’t a campaign killer for Mitt.

Idealogues are going to have to come of that mountain sooner or later.

Obama and the Democrats most certainly do not want to run against Mitt. Why would they go out and announce that their beloved health plan was simply a copy of Romneycare?

Which essentially gives Mitt exclusive rights as the brains behind Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment.

That’s all those folks just did in that clip. They validated that Obamacare is really just Barack pilfering off Mitt’s brilliant idea.

Mitt’s campaign can say I did it first, better and I’m the most capable of fixing Obamacare by repealing it, changing it, improving it, whatever.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Mitt better get his talking points together as to what went wrong with Romneycare. That’s if he thinks it went wrong or he’s burnt toast.

moonsbreath on March 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Which essentially gives Mitt exclusive rights as the brains behind Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment.

That’s powerful leverage to aid Mitt in becoming Obama’s successor.

For the Democrat nomination.

Mitt’s campaign can say I did it first, better and I’m the most capable of fixing Obamacare by repealing it, changing it, improving it, whatever.
sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Wake me when he picks one.

Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Romney never was, and never will be, the answer.

curved space on March 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Mitt’s campaign can say I did it first, better and I’m the most capable of fixing Obamacare by repealing it, changing it, improving it, whatever.
sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM

And that is the problem, Mitt dances with socialism thinking that he is different that he can dance without the oaf and powerful socialism partner stepping on his toes or anyone else’s toes. And apparently you do to.

There is little difference between Romney care and Obamacare in their infant state, but like all government programs they grow and grow into great dragons that consumes and are impossible to kill.

Conservative Voice on March 23, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I will endeavor to be fair and objective to Mitt Romney and his chances of winning the GOP nomination in 2012.

Mitt Romney ran for POTUS in 2008 and didn’t make it across the finish line as many that have gone before him haven’t. So that should not be used as a pejorative against Romney. At least he tried. And because Romney ran in 2008, I believe based on my personal observations watching from afar that Romney will be a better candidate if he runs in 2012, simply because he has run the marathon once before. How much better a candidate in terms of presentation and performance he will become is certainly up for debate, I admit that. He will not make the same mistakes as he made in 2008. He will allocate his resources better.

And to the other advantage Romney has. He is now touted as “the next one” by the GOP pundits, as the GOP has a history of choosing the candidate who finished runner-up in the last election cycle (Romney finished 2nd in primary vote but third in the delegate count to Huckabee who finished 2nd?. And reputedly Romney has the entire GOP establishment behind him (perhaps an exaggeration)and is being touted by MSM as the current frontrunner. And several polls lately have also suggested this. If this were fall 2011, I would give Romney a high probability of winning the nomination.

But alas for Romney it is not fall 2011. And we now have the passage of Obamacare. The $64 question is whether Romney’s association with government run healthcare in Massachusetts will influence potential GOP supporters/voters to defect from him and choose someone else or might it prompt the GOP establishment to seriously consider backing someone else, a dark horse they can put in the bullpen in case Romney falters. These are valid questions, and honestly I don’t know. But I have gone on record, unlike more conservatives, and not necessarily written Mitt off. And the reason I haven’t is twofold-whether Huckabee will run or not and whether a viable dark horse will emerge to bleed votes away from Palin so Romney can win some states in close 3 or 4 way contests. And of course if Palin doesn’t run, I believe Mitt is home free.

The way I see it, it is in Palin’s best interests to stoke the fires of passionate disapproval and resistance to Obamacare and it is in Romney’s best interests for the anger, indignation and outrage on our side to cause it to subside so that Mitt can argue reasonably that he will repeal Obamacare and only he can do it because only he is electable. Will the conservative grassroots and the Tea Party activists abandon Palin’s rallying cry to take back America in favor of Romney’s reassuring approach? After all these folks are conservative, which means status quo. By their very nature and personality traits they may turn to Mitt, even though they may feel he may be tainted by Romneycare, thinking he may be able to overcome the issue, especially again if the entire GOP establishment comes out for him and says what a good guy he is.

But as for the 2012 election, I only give Romney a chance to win if he somehow is running against Biden or Hillary Clinton, which is a very remote indeed. This is an objective assessment-I do not like the matchup between Romney and Obama. I see Romney as a little bit like McCain-too gentlemanly to take off the gloves and go toe to toe with the Messiah. Romney will let too much pass and allow Obama, with the help of his trained seals in the media, to define him and the GOP. I can see Romney offering America his business experience and his devotion to fiscal responsibility, I can see Romney picking a strong conservative male VP candidate like Jim Demint, and I can see Romney holding his own in debates with Obama, but where the Messiah has a clear edge is on the campaign trail and his ability to offer sound bites that rally his supporters and put the GOP in the worst possible light.

And what about the social conservative vote? I can see Romney holding onto most of it but some it will go 3rd party or out of religious principle simply stay home as they did for McCain. That will be the difference in the election. I see a similar result but a narrower victory for Obama-perhaps 50%-47% and Obama just clearing 300 electoral votes, and the difference being the Messiah was able to like in 2008 win 3 states in the Deep South, including Florida.

In summary Romney in 2012 will be a better candidate than McCain but he will not have enough to oust a sitting POTUS.
Think about the men who have ousted elected sitting presidents in the last 100 years-Wilson, FDR, and Clinton-what did they all have in common besides being Democrats? They were all superstars and their opponents Taft, Hoover, and George HW Bush were not. Mitt Romney is no superstar and Barack Obama is. As the old expression goes you can’t beat something with nothing.

technopeasant on March 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Well I think it’s fair to say that Clinton had a lot of help from Ross Perot.

Nonetheless you make an interesting argument.

Yes Romney doesn’t have a superstar persona. Mitt’s never going to win over the Hollywood/college/Che t-shirt/hipster crowd. Obama has them, he is their ultimate rockstar.

No one is ever going to eclipse that except Obama himself. He has to peter out himself. And he already is petering out at a fairly steady pace.

And when he does, this country isn’t going to be interested in another rockstar. As Krauthammer said a few weeks back that this country will probably be craving someone who’s in fact the exact opposite of a rockstar……that would be Mitt Romney.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:05 PM

And when he does, this country isn’t going to be interested in another rockstar. As Krauthammer said a few weeks back that this country will probably be craving someone who’s in fact the exact opposite of a rockstar……that would be Mitt Romney.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:05 PM

No, people are going to be craving someone who’s the exact opposite of Obama. Mitt’s boringness isn’t appealing in itself.

ddrintn on March 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM

“Wake me when he picks one”

Being snarky and a small tent idealogical purist isn’t going to win Conervatives any elections.

And if you are not apart of the solution then that means you are part of the problem. Good luck with that.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

“There is little difference between Romney care and Obamacare”

There are a number of difference but the most glaring one is how Mitt accomplished his achievement versus how Obama did.

Mitt rallied both Repubicans and Democrats. He worked to form a coalition of businesses, doctors, insurance companies and the Heritage Foundation to help pass this legislation and had only 2 dissenting votes.

He did what the citizens of MA wanted and what he thought was right.

Helping poor and sick people via the government isn’t the definition of socialism.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Helping poor and sick people via the government isn’t the definition of socialism.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

I am interested in how you define socialism then, hint the glaring key word phrase is “via the government”

Conservative Voice on March 23, 2010 at 10:39 PM

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Is he going to argue the process or the end result? Because if its end result, all Obama has to say is we agree, my health care plan is no different.
If its the process, all Obama has to say is he is helping Mary Joe sob story with her healthcare, why are you arguing the politics of the past and being divisive when we need to move forward.

Conservative Voice on March 23, 2010 at 10:47 PM

He did what the citizens of MA wanted and what he thought was right.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Great. So he can run on that then. Good luck, Mitt. LOL

ddrintn on March 23, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Romney’s done. If Palin doesn’t run (anytime soon), I hope Santorum throws his hat in the ring.

ddrintn on March 23, 2010 at 10:51 PM

I don’t want a luke warm pseudo-conservative. Mitt, unless you denounce Romneycare and show true remorse, you’re done.

Conservative Voice on March 23, 2010 at 11:21 PM

WHAT EVER ALLAHPUNDIT.

CRAZY REPUBLICANS LIKE MITT ROMNEY MUST GO!!!!!!!!!!!!

SARAH PALIN ROCKS 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheAlamos on March 23, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Mitt’s boringness isn’t appealing in itself.

ddrintn on March 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM

You know…a candidate’s personality means squat. I don’t care if the Presidential candidate is exciting, boring, rock star, or a regular dude.

Obama is a great example. He’s an exciting politician and people like his personality…but he’s completely incompetent.

I fear that that conservative/republican voters are falling for the same problem. Many are more concerned about how “exciting” a candidate is.

People forget that many of our great founding fathers were boring and unexciting men but were extremely competent for the offices they held.

I just want my candidate to get the job done. That’s it.

Conservative Samizdat on March 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM

And if you are not apart of the solution then that means you are part of the problem. Good luck with that.

sheryl on March 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

That’s how I feel about Romney and other liberal Republicans.

Chris_Balsz on March 24, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Conservative Samizdat on March 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM

I wouldn’t put Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson as boring or unexciting…just saying

Conservative Voice on March 24, 2010 at 3:41 AM

Conservative Samizdat on March 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM

other than that, we agree :) Don’t care about the Christmas wrapping paper, more interested in the item inside the box.

Conservative Voice on March 24, 2010 at 3:44 AM

The RNC better come up with some legitimate counterarguments to this stuff quickly because I fear it will have traction with the midless sheep that voted these clowns into office in the first place. Unfortunately there is truth to their statements – it is bipartisan in as much as the so-called conservatives of late have been big spending liberals in disguise. Hope they will simply state facts regarding MA’s wonder of bipartisan architecture: Commonwealth Care is now unfunded and unsustainable after just 4 years. We have the highest insurance premiums in the nation and our average rate of premium increase is among the top nationally as well. Working great.

Huckabye-Romney on March 24, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Commonwealth Care is now unfunded and unsustainable after just 4 years.

Not true.

Conservative Samizdat on March 24, 2010 at 12:10 PM

I wouldn’t put Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson as boring or unexciting…just saying

Conservative Voice on March 24, 2010 at 3:41 AM

I didn’t say all the founding fathers were unexciting. Some of them had boring personalities and others didn’t.

But you’re right. The wrapping paper isn’t as important as what’s inside the box.

And too many Conservatives are falling for the same trap that the Democrats did with Obama: they focused on the wrapping rather than the inside of the box.

Conservative Samizdat on March 24, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4