Romney on Obamacare in 2010: Let’s “repeal the bad and keep the good”

posted at 6:45 pm on December 17, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Just when it seems every last shred of evidence against a candidate has surfaced, a new iteration of a troublesome past position will appear. This will just fuel those commenters who’re convinced I’m anti-Mitt, but it has to be posted. (I’d repeat again that I’m genuinely undecided but that would just feed those who’re convinced I have a secret bias in favor of a particular candidate that I refuse to reveal.)

When Obamacare passed in 2010, Mitt Romney didn’t exactly have the same reaction as, say, Tea Party protesters. He was less immediately concerned with what the law represented — that is, a massive overreach by the federal government, a total takeover of health care — than he was with the specifics of the law, with the question of whether they would work. And, on several occasions, he went on record in support of the individual mandate — the very mandate that might now be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

We already knew that Mitt Romney signed Romneycare — with its individual law and its taxpayer-subsidy-funded premium exchange — into law at the state level. If I had stopped to think about it, I might even have remembered that Romney’s original idea about Obamacare was to “repeal its worst aspects.” But that phrase — “repeal its worst aspects” — could be construed to mean Romney still thought the entire law was “bad.”

The sentence Romney utters in this video suggests he thinks parts of the law are “good.” As someone who on principle would oppose a federal takeover of health care even if it did lower costs and increase access, I’m not OK with that. Romney mentions “federal intrusion on the rights of individuals” in this video, but he never quite comes out to say that he thinks Obamacare should be repealed on that basis alone. I do like what he has to say about taxes and price controls, though.

Still, as a commenter at Ricochet put it, this is the real Romney. If he now says he wants to repeal the whole law, it’s only because he knows he has to satisfy the conservative base. Videos like this remind me why we’ll lose the potency of this issue in the general if either he or Gingrich, who is also on record in support of an individual mandate, becomes the nominee.

As you watch this video, remember: When Romney talks about an “incentive” to purchase insurance, he’s talking about the individual mandate and the fine that applies to anyone who violates it.

Update: I want to offer belated credit to Katherine Miller, who took the video in this post.


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 3 4 5

Supports the mandate: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO
Supports Gun Control: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO
Believes in AGW Scam: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO
Admitted Progressive: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO

That Mitt and Newt are the front runners is ample evidence that people are going by gut and not by looking at the records and stances of the candidates.

Unbelievable.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Supports magnets for illegals: NG-yes, MR-no, Perry-yes
Involved in crony capitalism: NG-yes, MR-no, Perry-yes
Electable in the general election: NG-no, MR-yes, Perry-bwahahahahaha! NO!

Unbelievable.

csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

A viable alternative? Hell no.

Terrye on December 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

The Romney haters act like whores. They move from candidate to candidate as each one loses popularity. Not one candidate, except Romney has maintained 25% in the polls. Most of them are below 10%…..-other than that crazy cranky old curmudgeon Ron Paul! rotflmao! The supposed “real conservatives” can’t even beat Ron Paul!

And they keep using the word “principled”. It’s clear by how they behave that they have no principles.

csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Man, pull your self together and look at the last two SCOTUS’s and think two more by the same moron! No matter what you think of Romney and I don’t care for him either think of your country first and your pride second. Or put a better way, the next time you see a vet with an artificial limb think of what he had to give up for his country. Also remember who it was that threw the military off of the campus at Harvard. Kagan! Do you really want two more like her and the wise latina?

inspectorudy on December 18, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I am no Romney fan, but I agree 100% with inspectorudy on this. Obama is intent on destroying the American way of life we once knew and loved. His supreme court nominations demonstrate that and are a major and, as of now, unshakeable step in that direction. Two more Obama supreme nominations mean with certainty that our grandkids will live like current Europeans. Romney’s worst supreme court nominations would be enormously better than Obama’s best nominations. That is the main reason I am horrified by people on our side who say they won’t vote if a certain Republican is nominated, although I feel that way myself about Ron Paul.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I can only speak for myself but my NOT-OBAMA survival instinct is much stronger than my NOT-ROMNEY ones. I’ll vote for Romney in the general in he wins the nomination. With Obama, you know for sure what you will get. With Romney, you may get Obama-lite, you may not.

That being said, I will devote every ounce of my energy to make sure Romney does not win the nomination. I didn’t believe Obama when he stated he would cut the deficit. I don’t believe Romney when he states he will repeal the individual mandate.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM

I see it as perfectly natural and inevitable that it would come down a choice whether to accept or reject Mitt Romney. If not him, someone else like him. He just happens to represent in a weirdly perfect way everything wrong and dysfunctional in the modern GOP which has forced itself on us for so long, forced us to this point of distress. He really is the “last temptation” of conservatism, and the choice will be fateful and final as to the future of the party. I believe it will also be very ugly and go to the wire at the convention.

rrpjr on December 18, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Take note of the polls that consistently show a Generic Republican winning against Obama – Gov. Mitt Romney IS THAT GENERIC REPUBLICAN (in more ways than one) Obviously, he lacks the electricity but when there is a clear choice and there will be a VERY CLEAR CHOICE between Obama and Romney – the majority of this country (both conservative and independents) will vote Romney. Select Newt as the GOP nominee and you will give the media every opportunity to make the 2012 election “all about Newt” and not about Obama’s massive failures. Romney will coast thru the campaign, not saying undisciplined sound bites that could be covered on a nightly basis unlike Newt. Romney, at best, will hammer Obama about the economy and jobs while Newt will be espousing “impeaching judges” etc. Obama’s failures are all around to see and we need a candidate who will not take the spotlight away from that. Granted, I relish the thought of a Gingrich/Obama debate but we already see what the “professor persona in the Oval Office” leads to but in the long run, Romney has the perfect resume for the presidency needed at this time in history. Please conservatives, don’t let this slip through our fingers.

BabysCatz on December 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Romney is soooooo electable. That’s why, in 17 years of trying and with essentially unlimited funds, he has won a grand total of 1 election.

Citizen-003528 on December 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I absolutely HATE these candidates! Every friggin’ day I get on HA to get some new news I get more and more disgusted with this sorry sack of Zeroes!

Not one of them has me excited for the future of this country…

/banghead

ManWithNoName on December 18, 2011 at 8:20 AM

History has shown that brokered conventions typically produce a great president. Maybe it’s time to just forget this current batch of “Zeros” and find a real conservitive?

Brokenheart on December 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM

…except Romney has maintained 25% in the polls…csdeven

Why can’t Romney break the 25% mark against a weak field? Your candidate has a problem, no?
Why are 75% jumping from one Not Romney to another? It’s like he has cooties.

BoxHead1 on December 18, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Translation: He’s Mormom, he’s handsome, he’s a squish, and it’s his turn, D@!nit! Oh, yeah. He speaks French, too.

kingsjester on December 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM

I don’t understand by what measure it is a 1 term governor’s turn. If we are going by whose turn it is, wouldn’t someone with a longer gubernatorial record or longer Congressional record have a turn first?

(I know you were being facetious, btw)

cptacek on December 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Bachmann can talk all she wants, but she has no executive experience to back anything up, so she is a major risk. In that way, she’s a right wing version of Obama. I’m for Perry because I can see what he’s accomplished, and I like it. And I just plain disagree with how you described his campaign.

AS for Bachmann, she has said she thinks gays have a “sickness”. I’m against gay marriage, but I think this statement is bigoted, and I won’t vote for her because of this and other reasons.

NbyNW on December 18, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Bachmann, Paul, Santorum, and Newt are all lacking in executive experience, unless you count Newt’s stint as Speaker, which may count as BAD executive experience.

cptacek on December 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Supports magnets for illegals: NG-yes, MR-nonot when he is running for President, Perry-yes
csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

cptacek on December 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM

The Romney haters act like whores.

csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:30 PM

The Romney supporters act like Democrats.

besser tot als rot on December 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Romney is still a wimp . . .America does not need another one in the White House!

Go Newt or Perry!

Pragmatic on December 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The Romney supporters act like Democrats.

besser tot als rot on December 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

THey are certainly as pernicious as Ron Paul supporters.

tom daschle concerned on December 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM

there will be another one in shortly. look at sarah’s interview today. she is not happy with any of the candidates. watch and wait

buck taylor on December 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM

… It is fundamentally not Obama nor Romney that must be rejected… but that which is responsible for them.

They’re symptoms. Unless and until that which is responsible for them is identified and rejected, they’ll keep being replaced with others like them -which is EXACTLY why we’re where we are.

We very much need:

(1) Enforcement of the law/Constitution -particularly the 9th & 10th Amendments (which, if done, wouldn’t pre-empted 99% of the BS that’s brought us to this point);
(2) A Balanced Budget Amendment;
(3) An Amendment for Separation of State and Economics (meaning: NO “government” control of the economy); and
(4) An Amendment for Separation of State and Ideaology (meaning: the “government” is forbidden, in any/all shape(s) and form(s), to tell people how to live (and to charge them for it).

NOTHING LESS can/will solve our problems -which are in fact symptoms of the failure to follow/institute the above…

If people would rally around these simple points/objectives/goals, we could have real reform. All of these points are easy to understand, argue and promote; and the failure to follow/institute these points IS the cause of the problems we have -the cause of “that which is responsible for these problems. And this can very easily be demonstrated to any honest rational individual(s).

It really is just that simple.

GuitarMark on December 18, 2011 at 2:42 PM

If I have to read another idiot on this blog layout an “electability” argument, I’m going to puke.

Romney is WEAKER that Newt in the general and I’m a Perry guy. I’m not quite sure what is not being conveyed here. The base will not vote for Romney, we’ll stay home.

We’ve had to endure the bullcrap of a RINO, McCain, in the last election, we’re not doing it again. What part of Romney’s pathetic, un-Conservative record leads one to believe he’ll do so well against obama?

Is it his list of “0″ Conservative accomplishments, or is it when obama will turn to him and say “thanks Mitt for helping me write obamacare, oh yeah, and for sending over those wacko officials that worked for MA’s environmental department, they work for me now. I’m glad you were on tape saying we should keep obamacare in place and tweak it.”

No one is perfect as a candidate, but wimpy panders will be filleted alive like the secret booby trap saw in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. What huge reforms does Romney support? A: NONE

Romney IS the status quo and for that I sit out if he gets the nomination. I don’t care what people’s replies are. If obama wins, thank the GOP for pushing another RINO. Our firewall is in the House and Senate.

M_J_S on December 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

As you watch this video, remember: When Romney talks about an “incentive” to purchase insurance, he’s talking about the individual mandate and the fine that applies to anyone who violates it.

I am not so sure about this…Romney has long supported tax incentives to buy insurance…in fact in his own plan he put in an opt out for the mandate, but it was the legislature that changed that and over rode his veto when he vetoed it..he has said since then that putting in a tax incentive to buy health insurance rather than penalizing people when they don’t is a better solution.

Romney has said time and again that he will work to repeal this bill and that he does not support it as it was passed. And if you really care about his views you can go to this link and get some more information.

But I don’t think Romney haters really care about the truth..they are too busy hating on the guy..never mind the fact that in 2008 he was supported by Beck, Rush, Levin and Laura…and never mind the fact that a lot of the complaints about this man are snarky little cheap shots taken by people who do not even have a real alternative to Romney…who will it be? Gingrich? Oh yeah…look at his record on mandates.

I don’t expect the indoctrinated and programmed people who spend all their time reading Hot Air and listening to talk radio to be fair or consistent..but it would be nice if they had an alternative candidate who could win and that they did not hate just as much as they hate Romney..but that is just too damn much to ask. They are like Mikey..they hate everyone..everyone running anyway.

Terrye on December 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM

And now BOB DOLE loves him some Romney….beautiful.

Progressive Republicans want to tell us what to do JUST LIKE THE DEMS!

Here is a perfect question for ANY GOP NOMINEE (on every ballot).

Mammy and Pappy have a truck and we have big 18″ tires. We took the truck into a LARGE retail chain for an oil change. They have a checklist and part of that list is CHECKING THE PRESSURE IN YOUR TIRES. Well now (UNDER FEDERAL MANDATE) if you have 45 psi in your tires they will drain the pressure to 35 psi to make sure you don’t have too much pressure in your tires and have a blowout and rollover. Even though the tires are made for 45 psi. Now we are driving around with squealing tires BECAUSE THEY THINK they know better than us.

Question for the candidates……would you support repeal of these type regulations and mandates on our citizens or does Nanny know better?

PappyD61 on December 18, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Do you guys remember how the Palin SuperFans were mocked for so emotionally attached to Palin?

Every candidate has fans like this though, and it pleases me to see that even Romney has SuperFans like Terrye and Ann Coulter.

You never hear them called Romneyistas, though. Wonder why that is. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Romney also makes it plain that he does not support a federal mandate..he is totally clear on that..

The interesting thing to me is that so many rightie bloggers who were outraged when liberals would twist Sarah Palin’s words or try to give them a meaning she had never intended..are just fine and dandy doing the same thing to Romney..no wonder so many of the old Hot Air people don’t come here anymore.

Terrye on December 18, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Here’s the deal. The country is on the verge of bankruptcy. BIG government has steadily gotten bigger and bigger over the years. Entitlement programs remain bloated. The economy sucks. Jobless numbers are higher than at anytime in our history. Crony Capitalism flourishes. In short, our Republic is going to hell in a handbasket, capitalism is under attack, and all we can hear from the Republican establishment is to urge conservatives to keep on giving them more rope to hang our country.

The Republican establishment, ruiling class, knows they cannot win anything without conservatives voting for them. So, election after election we dutifully contribute time and money and votes to elect them. What we get in return is what we have today, a country on the verge of collapse. Republicans have helped us reach the abyss. They have had their hand in the big spending, the growing us into a bigger government, and will continue to do the same. The two party system believes in socialism, spending and bigger government. The Democrats are open about it and the Republicans try to hide it.

The solution is to form a third party and quit voting for the Republicans. Oh, that will insure Obama’s reelection. Well, if thet’s the case, then why aren’t the ruiling class Pubs willing to change and become more conservative? It seems to me that if they know conservatives not voting for them will mean they do not get reelected or elected they would be willing to change. The fact that they are not, tells me all I need to know. They know we have been programmed to beleive that the Dems. are evil and Pubs. are the savior. The Dems. have used the same tactic with the blacks whom they keep on the democratic plantation. Well, the Pubs. have kept conservatives on the Republican plantation. I say to heck with the plantation Masters. I’m getting my freedom and am leaving the plantation. I will no longer serve the RINO Master. A RINO like Romney or Gingrich will never get my vote. NEVER!

We conservatives supported Haley, Brown, Palin and Christie and what did we get? Them supporting RINOS and the ruiling class, that’s what! Haley and Christie endorsing Romney. Palin endorsing and campaigning for McCain’s Senate reelection, and Brown voting with the two Rino Sisters from the North East.

they lie on December 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM

We conservatives supported Haley, Brown, Palin and Christie and what did we get? Them supporting RINOS and the ruiling class, that’s what! Haley and Christie endorsing Romney. Palin endorsing and campaigning for McCain’s Senate reelection, and Brown voting with the two Rino Sisters from the North East.

they lie on December 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM

I supported Jindal. I got an upgraded credit rating and $5B (17%) in cuts for FY2011.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Christie is truly only a budget hawk, he’s a moderate to liberal on most everything else.

Palin obviously wasn’t going to not endorse McCain since McCain did put her on his ticket.

Haley was endorsed by Romney, I think before anybody else. I’m not sure if a Romney endorsement really helped her much in SC since he only came in 4th there in SC despite campaigning harder than anybody else there.

Scott Brown was never a conservative.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM

But vaccinations with opt outs, like Gardasil, are simply rational, otherwise we would still be struggling with Small Pox-the only disease to be completely wiped out by a vaccination. That leaves you with in state tuition, which I understand your problem with, but that’s weak tea to paint him as a liberal, especially compared to the many, many, left wing sins of Newt and Mitt. Aside from that, you start with the false premise of a Governor having to be doing stuff to be good. Good governors get out of the way unless they’re needed. ala Coolidge. But Perry fought Obamacare, Obama’s EPA, cuts taxes, passed pro-life sonogram legislation, pro gun legislation and solidly defended the right to life as well as the right to bear arms. Newt and Mitt haven’t. He has the three legged stool of conservatism. Only Bachman and Santorum are also cut from this cloth. But they are unelectable.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Vaccines that the government rightly make mandatory are not comparable to government mandated vaccines with opt outs. The point of the rightly mandated vaccines is to protect the general population from contracting a casually passed on disease.

There is no justification at all for the government to mandate any vaccine that does not address a casually transmitted high risk of death/disability pathogen. None at all.

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Romney is WEAKER that Newt in the general and I’m a Perry guy. I’m not quite sure what is not being conveyed here. The base will not vote for Romney, we’ll stay home.

M_J_S on December 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Using what criteria.Just about any poll you read says otherwise.

If you don’t use polls its strictly “gut feeling” or andedoctal evidence both of which are strictly subjective.

gerry-moderate republican-moderate-having to counter the same inaccuratre argument over and over.

gerrym51 on December 18, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Romney also makes it plain that he does not support a federal mandate..he is totally clear on that..

The interesting thing to me is that so many rightie bloggers who were outraged when liberals would twist Sarah Palin’s words or try to give them a meaning she had never intended..are just fine and dandy doing the same thing to Romney..no wonder so many of the old Hot Air people don’t come here anymore.

Terrye on December 18, 2011 at 3:08 PM

In 2010, in the video above, he quite directly stated that the Obama Care Mandate was one of the several points in the law he agreed should be kept. So, how is it that you are able to say that this is twisting his words?

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Vaccines that the government rightly make mandatory are not comparable to government mandated vaccines with opt outs. The point of the rightly mandated vaccines is to protect the general population from contracting a casually passed on disease.

There is no justification at all for the government to mandate any vaccine that does not address a casually transmitted high risk of death/disability pathogen. None at all.

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Perry’s rationale was that only an opt-out provision would allow the insurance companies to cover Gardasil. The HPV vaccine will save lives. Perry saw an opportunity to save lives and betrayed his ideal of limited government. Is it right? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM

The right way should have been bringing the evidence to the people. Let them decide whether it was right for them. The heavy hand of government should never be used as a way to bypass convincing people of your viewpoint.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Christie is truly only a budget hawk, he’s a moderate to liberal on most everything else.

Palin obviously wasn’t going to not endorse McCain since McCain did put her on his ticket.

Haley was endorsed by Romney, I think before anybody else. I’m not sure if a Romney endorsement really helped her much in SC since he only came in 4th there in SC despite campaigning harder than anybody else there.

Scott Brown was never a conservative.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Christie, Haley, and Brown would not have been elected without the support and money contributed by conservatives both in their respective states and from out of state donors who were tpaty members and supporters. Palin owes her support and popularity to conservatives, not John McCain. He merely used her to get conservative votes. She owed him nothing as his campaign staff stabbed her in the back during and after the election.

Point is, none of these candidiates have shown conservatives any thanks in terms of supporting or endorsing conservative candidates. The election in SC for Governor was close, both in the primary and the general. Haley won because of conservatives and Tparty support. The election in Mass. was even closer and Brown won because of tpaty support in money and volunteers coming into Ma. to help him in the final month.Without it, he would have lost. Christie may be a moserate/liberal. Brown may very well be a liberal. Haley’s endorsement may or may not help Romney in SC. But, my point is that they have helped the establishment by endorsing Romney while giving the conservatives the proverbial finger. Which is what we usually get.

they lie on December 18, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Perry’s rationale was that only an opt-out provision would allow the insurance companies to cover Gardasil. The HPV vaccine will save lives. Perry saw an opportunity to save lives and betrayed his ideal of limited government. Is it right? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM

It only saves the lives of people who are too stupid to either not get it on their own, or those who do not go to the doctor and get the regularly scheduled checkups that they still are going to have to get to not get the same malady from other sources.

In other words, if you think that this mandate is good, then you must also be for the mandate of limited salt, fat, as well as the mandate for minimum amounts of exorcize and so forth. Right? Since it will save lives and all.

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

The right way should have been bringing the evidence to the people. Let them decide whether it was right for them. The heavy hand of government should never be used as a way to bypass convincing people of your viewpoint.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 4:00 PM

That I can agree with.
On the other hand, does a conservative usually try to convince the people to support progressive policy?

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Just saw some of Romney’s interview on Fox News. The man is at his best when he is talking about capitalist principles. And that is a winning message. He should hold up his record at Bain Capital as proof that he can successfully downsize the government and make this country successful again.

Romney has a bad case of rich man’s guilt, and he needs to get over it; he is at his greatest when he is telling hard truths about how free markets work. I’m still Anybody But Mitt, but I’m growing more comfortable with him at the top of the ticket if that is what it comes to. After watching Wallace’s interview, I feel like Romney has solid free-market instincts. His explanation of creative destruction was wonderful, and that is a message that America needs to hear. If he went off-script like this more, he wouldn’t be having so much trouble breaking his 25%-30% ceiling.

Lawdawg86 on December 18, 2011 at 4:22 PM

How do you support anythinhg close to RomneyCare if you have free market instincts.

This is what I don’t get about ROmney and his supporters. He’s supposed to be this hero of free markets yet he’s associated with the greatest overreach into our medical decisions by the government.

Prop him up if you want, but the drop the free market crap. It doesn’t fly.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Gingrich has said that he would ‘defy’ Supreme Court Rulings with which he disagrees.

I’ve had enough of a President who simply ignores the congress and uses executive orders to shove through whatever HE thinks is appropriate.

We’ve had enough examples of lawlessness in this nation. The Sanctuary cities are a very good example of people choosing to disregard any law that they find inconvenient or with which they disagree. We are seeing examples of that kind of lawlessness from the Executive office ( through bypassing congress and using executive orders and undermining the ability of federal agencies to enforce existing federal laws) to the city council members. Is it any wonder then that there is an increase of lawlessness among the population as well?

The rule of law must be reestablished in this nation. It is one of the few things that still unites us and binds the people of this nation together. Equality under the law. The founding principle that we are all equal under the law, and that the law applies to each of us equally. We are a nation of law and those laws must be enforce equitably without preference or prejudice.

How can we uphold and enforce the rule of law ( which includes the Law of the Land.. the Constitution) if we have a President who decided what laws he will obey, which laws he will enforce, and which laws he will choose to ignore?

Romney may want to go through the 2000 plus pages of Obamacare and selectively retain some of those laws and/or regulations, but at least he means to do it through due process and has a respect for the rule of law.

thatsafactjack on December 18, 2011 at 4:43 PM

How do you support anythinhg close to RomneyCare if you have free market instincts.

This is what I don’t get about ROmney and his supporters. He’s supposed to be this hero of free markets yet he’s associated with the greatest overreach into our medical decisions by the government.

Prop him up if you want, but the drop the free market crap. It doesn’t fly.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM

1. I’m Anybody But Mitt, and I have been long before you showed up around here. I think Romney is a political opportunist who cannot be trusted to defend conservative priorities when things turn downward. He will sell out conservatives on issues like guns, repealing Obamacare, and appointing conservatives to the court if the polls turn against him.

2. However, I do believe that he is a capitalist at heart. I look at his record at Bain and I see a man who understands the free market. I have attacked Mitt for many, many things here, but his record at Bain was an undeniable success.

3.) I’m not going to defend Romneycare. He did it because it was to his political benefit. Like I said, Romney is an opportunist who will readily sell out his beliefs for political benefit. That is why I am Anybody But Mitt. That being said, the man clearly understands capitalism better than other RINOs we have nominated (cough, John McCain, cough).

But we don’t have to settle for another RINO opportunist, anyone will beat Obama next year. Perry 2012!

Lawdawg86 on December 18, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Bachmann can talk all she wants, but she has no executive experience to back anything up, so she is a major risk. In that way, she’s a right wing version of Obama.

Give me a break. You don’t need executive experience to know Obamacare is wrong. You don’t need executive experience to know that amnesty is wrong. You don’t need executive experience to know that cap and trade is wrong. You don’t need executive experience to know you don’t let Mexican drug cartels get high powered weapons here in the U.S. Obama’s problem isn’t his lack of executive experience, it’s what he believes in.

AS for Bachmann, she has said she thinks gays have a “sickness”. I’m against gay marriage, but I think this statement is bigoted, and I won’t vote for her because of this and other reasons.

NbyNW

So then, you’re a bigot as well….and a hypocrite, lol.

xblade on December 18, 2011 at 4:51 PM

As you watch this video, remember: When Romney talks about an ‘incentive’ to purchase insurance, he’s talking about the individual mandate and the fine that applies to anyone who violates it.

I am not so sure about this…Romney has long supported tax incentives to buy insurance…in fact in his own plan he put in an opt out for the mandate, but it was the legislature that changed that and over rode his veto when he vetoed it..he has said since then that putting in a tax incentive to buy health insurance rather than penalizing people when they don’t is a better solution.

Romney has said time and again that he will work to repeal this bill and that he does not support it as it was passed. And if you really care about his views you can go to this link and get some more information.

But I don’t think Romney haters really care about the truth..they are too busy hating on the guy..never mind the fact that in 2008 he was supported by Beck, Rush, Levin and Laura…and never mind the fact that a lot of the complaints about this man are snarky little cheap shots taken by people who do not even have a real alternative to Romney…who will it be? Gingrich? Oh yeah…look at his record on mandates.

I don’t expect the indoctrinated and programmed people who spend all their time reading Hot Air and listening to talk radio to be fair or consistent..but it would be nice if they had an alternative candidate who could win and that they did not hate just as much as they hate Romney..but that is just too damn much to ask. They are like Mikey..they hate everyone..everyone running anyway.

Terrye on December 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Terrye, excellent comments. I think you are too informed and clear-thinking for the embarrasing, irrational Romney-bashers in the comments here.

Also, I’m disappointed to see the blatant misinformation in Tina’s pandering article.

bluegill on December 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM

How can we uphold and enforce the rule of law ( which includes the Law of the Land.. the Constitution) if we have a President who decided what laws he will obey, which laws he will enforce, and which laws he will choose to ignore?

thatsafactjack on December 18, 2011 at 4:43 PM

As opposed to a Supreme Court that chooses which part of the Constitution is living and which is dead? There is nothing wrong with hauling judges in front of Congress to explain their actions. There is nothing wrong with having terms for judges. Judicial independence is not judicial supremacy.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Romney also makes it plain that he does not support a federal mandate..he is totally clear on that..

Terrye

And if he didn’t already have one health care mandate under his belt, people might actually believe him.

xblade on December 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM

I find Romney to be detestable. I’m hoping that early primary republican voters ignore the chattering class and those in the endorsement business and vote for Perry or Santorum against this mild mannered republicanism that has infected the party. People do what they intend to do, so if Romney wins the nomination, then we know that a limited government movement will never gain momentum. If the choice to say NO to big government won’t occur now under these set of circumstances, then it probably never will. I’m holding out hope that the early primary results will prove that the people understand what party men and their sycophants never will.

Spirit Crusher on December 18, 2011 at 5:04 PM

I’m tired of playing the GOP’s game. Give me someone to vote for (i.e. not Romney or Gingrich), and not against, or I’m either staying home or writing in George S. Patton!

Dunedainn on December 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM

ZGMF_Freedom:
There is a vast difference between ‘hauling judges up before congress’ etc. to face an impeachment or censure, and simply ‘ignoring the Supreme Court rulings’ that one might disagree with and that is my point. IF, as you’ve suggested, the rule of law is observed along with due process, then I have no problem with nailing any judge or justice who legislates per their personal preferences, or attempts to do so, from the bench. However, I have no tolerance for any public elected or appointed official who decides to ignore any law that they find inconvenient, or with which they disagree. Gingrich made it clear that he is prepared to take the law into his own hands and determine which laws he would choose to enforce or obey and which he would ignore. That is an intolerable modis operandi, particularly in a President.

thatsafactjack on December 18, 2011 at 5:16 PM

The HPV vaccine will save lives. Perry saw an opportunity to save lives and betrayed his ideal of limited government. Is it right? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

ZGMF_Freedom

Wasn’t he also going against the will of his party and the sentiments of his constituency? That part scares me. Perry is not off my list but there are a few things he’s done that . . .

BoxHead1 on December 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM

ZGMF_Freedom:
There is a vast difference between ‘hauling judges up before congress’ etc. to face an impeachment or censure, and simply ‘ignoring the Supreme Court rulings’ that one might disagree with and that is my point. IF, as you’ve suggested, the rule of law is observed along with due process, then I have no problem with nailing any judge or justice who legislates per their personal preferences, or attempts to do so, from the bench. However, I have no tolerance for any public elected or appointed official who decides to ignore any law that they find inconvenient, or with which they disagree. Gingrich made it clear that he is prepared to take the law into his own hands and determine which laws he would choose to enforce or obey and which he would ignore. That is an intolerable modis operandi, particularly in a President.

thatsafactjack on December 18, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I personally want to haul O’Connor in front of Congress to have her explain her limited duration magic trick. Apparently diversity is Constitutional Right only for 25 years. Somehow it magically appears in the Constitution and disappears in that time frame.

The only people who are “ignoring any law that they find inconvenient” are the judges themselves. Accountability must be brought upon the judicial branch.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 18, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Let’s be practical folks. Romney is still our best bet to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

airway2000 on December 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM

despair. Who will save us now? Newt has done los’ his mind. Not that he didn’t already prove some years ago that he can RUIN EVERYTHING.

There has to be someone out there. Lynn Cheney? Anyone?

SarahW on December 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Mitty is about an inch to the right of the incumbent.

Fantastic.

CorporatePiggy on December 18, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Electable in the general election: NG-no, MR-yes, Perry-bwahahahahaha! NO!

Unbelievable.

csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Yep, to think that NG is unelectable is hilarious.

You’re a joke.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

GRAMMMY!

ABDICATE!!!!

fossten on December 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I still don’t know why the fact Romney worked at Bain Capital is proof he’s some kind of free market champion.

A lot of liberals have success in the private sector, like Michael Moore and Joe Corzine. They aren’t advocates of free markets and liberty and capitalism though.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 6:04 PM

If Romney wins as a moderate, he will govern as a moderate.

Whatever his flaws, Gingrich will have more incentive to govern as a conservative b/c he will only secure the nomination because he’s perceived as to the right of Rommey by most conservatives.

If you think ROmney will be some Trojan horse of conservatism, expect to be disappointed.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 6:06 PM

How about some credit to Mitt for calling Obama “The Great Divider” today. A line that should become a standard part of his stump speech.

Everyone knows politics is broken and this indicts Obama as a big reason for it. In politics, a bumper sticker beats an essay … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on December 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM

I wish Romney would just go away . . .he’ll NEVER get my vote!

Pragmatic on December 18, 2011 at 6:39 PM

But vaccinations with opt outs, like Gardasil, are simply rational, otherwise we would still be struggling with Small Pox-the only disease to be completely wiped out by a vaccination. That leaves you with in state tuition, which I understand your problem with, but that’s weak tea to paint him as a liberal, especially compared to the many, many, left wing sins of Newt and Mitt. Aside from that, you start with the false premise of a Governor having to be doing stuff to be good. Good governors get out of the way unless they’re needed. ala Coolidge. But Perry fought Obamacare, Obama’s EPA, cuts taxes, passed pro-life sonogram legislation, pro gun legislation and solidly defended the right to life as well as the right to bear arms. Newt and Mitt haven’t. He has the three legged stool of conservatism. Only Bachman and Santorum are also cut from this cloth. But they are unelectable.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Vaccines that the government rightly make mandatory are not comparable to government mandated vaccines with opt outs. The point of the rightly mandated vaccines is to protect the general population from contracting a casually passed on disease.

There is no justification at all for the government to mandate any vaccine that does not address a casually transmitted high risk of death/disability pathogen. None at all.

astonerii on December 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

So now you are okay with compulsory vaccinations with an opt out? Oh, but you get to parse what you consider to be casually contracted diseases. Well, if you are a parent, you know very well the danger of your child having sex at any time, without your knowledge and notwithstanding your best efforts, is very real. So, for many kids it is a very casual thing. Kids aren’t mature enough to make a life effecting decision like refraining from sex. In fact, you could wait until you marry and get it from your one and only partner who didn’t even realize they have it. That’s the thing, you don’t have to be promiscuous to get this disease and then die from cancer. Perry did the right thing, the rational thing , the conservative thing. This is such a weak line of attack compared to the huge left wing sins of the two front runners. I wish you would really ponder that you have been reduced to a hoopla over vaccine and one in state tuition bill as your only means to hammer Perry’s conservatism. Compare that to the two frontrunners.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Supports the mandate: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO
Supports Gun Control: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO
Believes in AGW Scam: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO
Admitted Progressive: Newt-YES, Mitt-YES, Perry-NO

That Mitt and Newt are the front runners is ample evidence that people are going by gut and not by looking at the records and stances of the candidates.

Unbelievable.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Supports magnets for illegals: NG-yes, MR-no, Perry-yes
Involved in crony capitalism: NG-yes, MR-no, Perry-yes
Electable in the general election: NG-no, MR-yes, Perry-bwahahahahaha! NO!

Unbelievable.

csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

That’s a pretty weak and insincere response. Just because Romney is talking e talk on immigration now doesn’t mean he is sincere. I doubt you are buying Romney’s deport everyone bravado ; I doubt anyone but the most in the take Romney supporter does. And you couch the in state tuition law Perry signed as him supporting immigration magnets. Come now. He signed a bill that his legislature passed nearly unanimously, that benefited many legal immigrant children who were born or at worst had made it through federally mandated K-12 education that Texas has no choice over. To take that one issue with all the mitigating ancillary issues and try to paint Perry as open borders is plain dishonest. Stop it. The crony capitalism smear is just that; a smear. It’s not a fact. Unless you can point to something unethical or illegal, what you are doing is no better than smearing Romney over Bain Capital. Finally, Romney has won ONE election is his life time of a small state where he had to promise to to protect abortion, promise to have strict gun control and institute socialized medicine. Perry has been elected multiple times to state wide office of the second largest state in the country. He was recently re elected in 2010. Your gun grabbing, pro abortion Ted Kennedy collaborating say anything politician Romney didn’t even Try to run for re election because he wouldn’t have won. Never, never forget that you back a guy who supports socialized medicine . I, do not.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Just a reminder, if you are a social conservative, that Romney-

Actually gave money to Planned Parenthood.
Promised to not touch abortion on demand in Mass.
Campaigned as pro-abortion for governor.

He also:

Promised to leave mass super strict gun laws alone.
Signed a law banning permanently banning semi automatic weapons.
Supported the Brady Bill’s waiting period.

Newt
voted FOR the Brady bill
Refused to oppose republicans that supported infanticide.
Believes life begins at implementation, not conception.

How can you support these two if you are a social conservative? I know there will be not a single of their supporters that will address these issues, unless they are social libs, that is.

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Bachmann can talk all she wants, but she has no executive experience to back anything up, so she is a major risk. In that way, she’s a right wing version of Obama.

Give me a break. You don’t need executive experience to know Obamacare is wrong. You don’t need executive experience to know that amnesty is wrong. You don’t need executive experience to know that cap and trade is wrong. You don’t need executive experience to know you don’t let Mexican drug cartels get high powered weapons here in the U.S. Obama’s problem isn’t his lack of executive experience, it’s what he believes in.

xblade on December 18, 2011 at 4:51 PM

I’m not sure of your point here. I never said Bachmann didn’t have conservative views.

As for Obama, he appears to be totally overwhelmed by the presidency, and a big factor is his lack of executive experience. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. That is a factor separate from his extremely harmful policies.

NbyNW on December 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM

AS for Bachmann, she has said she thinks gays have a “sickness”. I’m against gay marriage, but I think this statement is bigoted, and I won’t vote for her because of this and other reasons.

NbyNW

So then, you’re a bigot as well….and a hypocrite, lol.

xblade on December 18, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Oh really? Why is that? Is it because I’m against gay marriage or you’re not? If so, then you’re intolerant of those that don’t agree with you. It’s quite leftist to call those against gay marriage “bigots”.

However, I’m not running for office. Bachmann is, and she has said that gays have a “sickness”. Sorry, that’s too much for me. Apparently not for you.

NbyNW on December 18, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Homosexuality isn’t a sickness, but is a physiological abnormality, like epilepsy. I cringe when gay advocates say it’s just as normal as being heterosexual just b/c it occurs with some frequency. Diabetes, epilepsy and other deviations from what is normal also occur with some frequency but it’s not the normal state of man or woman.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Romney is soooooo electable. That’s why, in 17 years of trying and with essentially unlimited funds, he has won a grand total of 1 election.

Citizen-003528 on December 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Exactly!

bitsy on December 18, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Homosexuality isn’t a sickness, but is a physiological abnormality, like epilepsy. I cringe when gay advocates say it’s just as normal as being heterosexual just b/c it occurs with some frequency. Diabetes, epilepsy and other deviations from what is normal also occur with some frequency but it’s not the normal state of man or woman.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 8:39 PM

I don’t pretend to be an expert on homosexuality or gender, and certainly homosexuality doesn’t appear to be “normal” on its face. But what I have read about gender indicates that it isn’t really binary. Most people are undeniably either male or female, but some people are some combination, and it can get complicated in some cases. Very interesting subject, actually.

NbyNW on December 18, 2011 at 9:41 PM

I learned in college that most people are either straight or gay, bisexuality is extremely rare.

This was a pyschology professor saying this.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I haven’t read the thread. Did anyone point out Newt said the same thing? He said he liked stuff on about 300 pages which is about 14%. There’s a link up at Ricochet.

Basilsbest on December 18, 2011 at 11:11 PM

I learned in college that most people are either straight or gay, bisexuality is extremely rare.

This was a pyschology professor saying this.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me, but I’m not talking about “sexuality”. Genetically, most people are either mostly male or female, but there are some people who aren’t exclusively either. As one example some people have a trait called mosaicism where some of their cells have XX or female chromosomes, and some have XY or male chromosomes.

As I said, it gets complicated.

NbyNW on December 18, 2011 at 11:41 PM

I haven’t read the thread. Did anyone point out Newt said the same thing? He said he liked stuff on about 300 pages which is about 14%. There’s a link up at Ricochet.

I know without looking that Ricochet supports Romney.

Dr. Tesla on December 18, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM

1) Reduced tuition IS a magnet for illegals to bring their kids into Texas.
2) Gardasil
3) I forgot.

In addition, his religious pandering is sickening. He sent a bigot out to call Romney’s faith a cult and now he has made a “I’m a Christian” ad that clearly is trying to make a bigoted distinction between evangelicals and Mormons. It is especially despicable because Mormons are Christians.

Never, never forget that you back a guy who is a bigot and a dumb@ss. I, do not.

csdeven on December 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Exactly!

bitsy on December 18, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Yeah, that’s right….ignore current scientific polling. That is certainly the way to make your point.

lol

csdeven on December 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Exactly!

bitsy on December 18, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Yeah, that’s right….ignore current scientific polling. That is certainly the way to make your point.

lol

csdeven on December 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Polling on electability at this point is unreliable and pretty much useless.

NbyNW on December 19, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Malachi45 on December 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM

1) Reduced tuition IS a magnet for illegals to bring their kids into Texas.
2) Gardasil
3) I forgot.

In addition, his religious pandering is sickening. He sent a bigot out to call Romney’s faith a cult and now he has made a “I’m a Christian” ad that clearly is trying to make a bigoted distinction between evangelicals and Mormons. It is especially despicable because Mormons are Christians.

Never, never forget that you back a guy who is a bigot and a dumb@ss. I, do not.

csdeven on December 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM

1. The proper term is “Tardasal”.
2. Perry didn’t send anyone out to attack Mormonism. Though he did sign off on having this particular pastor introduce him at an event, he didn’t choose him. He’s also not responsible for what one of his supporters says to the press. He has said he doesn’t believe Mormonism is a cult. He has no further obligations on that front.
3. I admire him for making a stand for Christians, in spite of the fact that it opens him up to criticism from people like you. I’m not as open about my faith, but I don’t have a problem who think differently than I do.

NbyNW on December 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Romney has said time and again that he will work to repeal this bill and that he does not support it as it was passed.

Terrye on December 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM

That’s the problem. No one believes what he says. He has pandered to so many liberal/conservative groups so willfully and earnestly, that his positions are completely inconsistent. He has done it to himself. He is an empty man.

EnderWiggins on December 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

I don’t expect the indoctrinated and programmed people who spend all their time reading Hot Air and listening to talk radio to be fair or consistent
Terrye

Project much?
Romney is a liberal and he’s said as much and backed it up with his actions. Those of us who are sane and understand he’s a phony want someone else.
Little FYI, I don’t listen to talk radio and I actually research the candidates. I see their records for what they are and don’t pretend they are something they aren’t. It would be nice if you did that too.
CSdeven is his usual troll self. Big surprise.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Rick Perry
No flip floppy record
No scandals
Actual executive experience
Actual record of success delivering conservative government
AND IN CASE YOU PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO VOTERS!!!!!!
JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS…. Romney is the only one that wants to talk about anything and everything else because he loses if we don’t get all caught up in immigration or social security or who hates Mormonism. He wants you to forget one very important detail……………..

Rick Perry has the best jobs and economic record in the country. Come on people get your heads out of your asses and let’s actually win this election. Forget the rhinos, nut jobs and wanna be’s. Rick Perry is our guy.

Perry 2012 because 2016 will be to late.

iidvbii on December 20, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Electable in the general election: NG-no, MR-yes, Perry-bwahahahahaha! NO!

Unbelievable.

csdeven on December 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

We must go as moderate as possible to be electable. Support John McCain in the primaries; he’s the only one that can win. McCain is great.

Oh, wait… it’s 4 years later. Who is the mushy moderate we must push now to follow the McCain/Dole success express?

Ah yes, Vote Romney, he’s as electable as Bob Dole and John McCain… how can we lose?

gekkobear on December 20, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5