Obama: Romney is just “pretending” his health care plan was different than mine

posted at 1:20 pm on March 22, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Just as conservatives have always warned, if the GOP nominates Mitt Romney for president, the current president will try to use him as a scapegoat for Obamacare. Proof:

“We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans, including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different,” the president said.

The Massachusetts plan served as a model for the Affordable Care Act, signed two years ago Friday. Romney, the state’s former governor, has since said the legislation was the correct course for his state but not meant as a model for a national overhaul. But the plan has proved a focal point of criticism aimed at the GOP frontrunner.

In Thursday’s interview, Obama said Republican opposition to the plan, including the Supreme Court challenge, is politically motivated.

Maybe “scapegoat” isn’t exactly the best word. In this interview, Obama was extolling the virtues of Obamacare and tying Romney to it, so maybe he was actually trying to share “credit” for the health care overhaul.

Either way, the only defense Romney has offered for Romneycare — still – is that he signed it into law at the state level. Ann Coulter has argued that that is an adequate defense.

But if for no other reason than that Romneycare included an individual mandate, it’s problematic. Sure, a mandate at the state level is constitutional, but, in case you’ve forgotten, a federal mandate to buy insurance is not constitutional. Moreover, once upon a time, Romney explicitly expressed support for a national mandate.

It’s been two years since the president signed Obamacare into law and, for two years, conservatives have known Romney would be in trouble for the way Romneycare connects him to the least-liked entitlement program in the nation’s history. Two years and I still don’t see how Romney gets around this issue.

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrohm says the campaign will clear its Etch a Sketch for the general election, but no magic and no messaging will erase Romneycare. It has been and will be his Achilles heel unless and until he completely disavows it.

Phil Kerpen is hopeful that Romney can win Obama in the “battle of the health care flip-floppers,” but I’m not so sure. Will undecideds who despise Obamacare look at Romney and see a clear difference? It’s the same question that’s plagued the Romney campaign from Day One. So, why won’t he do something about it and disavow Romneycare completely?

Tags: , , ,

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

Of course it’s relevant. You want to dump on Romney for implementing something a lot of conservatives embraced.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Horse hockey. Nobody is compelled to support something because other conservatives supported it. This is a typical, liberal non-argument.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

What’s comical is that Obama uses the 10th amendment for a defense of his inaction against addressing gay marriage but finds it acceptable to ignore it when it comes to healthcare reform, environmental reform, educational reform, etc, etc.

In this statement he acts like there’s absolutely no difference between federal and state action, where in reality his opposition and 200 years of American history have centered around that exceptional issue. Whoever employed him as a teacher of constitutional law (and obviously whoever voted for the man) is down right stupid.

Kriggly on March 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

And we want this guy to turn back all the damage that has been done to this country by the past couple of Administrations? Someone who couldn’t stand to his principles (yeah, I know) and do the right thing even if he didn’t have enough votes? This capitulation from the GOP establishment has got to stop at some point if we are to save this Republic. None of these guys have what it takes unfortunately.

pj

pj808 on March 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Romney ran on this as a major platform and was very pleased when it passed and is still pleased with it. It is his program at the federal and state level now. rObamaCare.

He supported Obama Care right up until he realized he could not win the 2012 nomination in 09. He is one big liar. He was never conservative. Ever.

Like now his friends are saying he lowered taxes in Mass. First of all he did not lower taxes over all he raised more than lowered. But he does not consider fees taxes is the real dodge he raised fees massively some by 1000% while creating all kinds of new fees. His budget increased by over 50% in four years. Like Obama Care not all the cost had showed up when he chose to not run for reelection as he would have lost by 60% he was polling 20% to 80%.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

How many times does Romney have to say it? Applying the plan to one state is different that applying it to the entire country.

nazo311 on March 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

And how many times does it take saying that this states’ rights argument may be accurate but a loser on the campaign trail. And the claim that he had no choice but to sign it because of all those mean liberals is not compelling.

Romney needs to take this issue head-on because most voters are not going to differentiate one from the other based on this idea of states’ rights. He needs to point out where Romneycare differs from Obamacare in specific detail. Most importantly he needs to discuss where Romneycare has failed instead of acting as if the plan has worked perfectly.

Happy Nomad on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

mazing that you’re so sure it’s unconstitutional.

cjw79 on March 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Is the Constitution really so hard for you to read? Are you telling us that you can’t read and comprehend the Constitution? Was it written in some sort of code? You need others to tell you what’s in it? You must LOVE Pelosi.

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

And even then the costs rose AT A LOWER RATE than the national average.

But let’s not confuse the ABRtards with facts.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

So what’s your problem with Obamacare. Why deny this awesome sauce to the other 56 states?

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Those last two paragraphs make more sense than anything an ABR or a Democrat has to say about how Romneycare and Obamacare are identical.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

And it’s an opinion piece. Like assholes, everyone has an opinion. Doesn’t mean they’re right.

Personally I trust the opinon of Jon Gruber who worked for both Romney and Obama and says they two bills are identical.

See here for more.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/romneycare-adviser-obamacare-is-the-same-f-king-bill/

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

This and the etch-a-sketch remark by Romney’s advisor vindicate all of the conservatives who voted against Romney in the primary.

lea on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Speaking of etch-a-sketch did you know that Richard got him a new one?

http://a.yfrog.com/img877/2138/l78wm.jpg

And he knows how to “reboot” it.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/KueLJZtDNjVdcN6DFdX3fw–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MDk7cT04NTt3PTUxMg–/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/5be987b12a0e94080a0f6a7067009ba8.jpg

Go Richard, the high tech candidate.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

So when Harry Reid says boo! Romney will give him everything he wants too. Wonderful.

Everything Reagan did was with a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY in the house. That’s what a leader does, he gets the other side to see things his way and work with him. He doesn’t just throw his hands up and give the other side everything they want.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Reagan’s record as Governor wasn’t exactly a model of conservatism.

Nick_Angel on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Based on comments above, it seems some people seem to be very confident that O-care will be struck down by the Court. I’m not. My prediction is 5-4 or 6-3 to uphold the core of the law. I would love to be wrong, but the Court is very wishy-washy when it comes to the federal/state divide.

McDuck on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I agree with this. I think Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and the chief will vote to uphold the law. Roberts won’t want to dissent in this case. I think there’s a not-insignificant chance Scalia joins the majority as well.

cjw79 on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Fleuries on March 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You can’t divorce Massachusetts health care from the federal programs. Massachusetts health care would not be able to function without federal funds.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Reagan’s record as Governor wasn’t exactly a model of conservatism.

Nick_Angel on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Reagan didn’t spend his time as governor giving hand jobs to every big government liberal idea; then calling them his own, either.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Romney strongly opposed the employer mandate and wanted an escape from the individual mandate — allowing people to instead be able to post a bond if they were uninsured and had big medical bills. When Romney signed the law, he believed it contained the escape hatch, but legislators removed it before final passage.

I, personally, see no fundamental difference between

Buy insurance, or else you will be in violation of the law!

and

Buy insurance or post a bond, or else you will be in violation of the law!

Some escape hatch that genius Romney advocated for…

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Of course it’s relevant. You want to dump on Romney for implementing something a lot of conservatives embraced.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Horse hockey. Nobody is compelled to support something because other conservatives supported it. This is a typical, liberal non-argument.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Yes we do.

Romney still supports this pile of excrement.

None of the others do. Most stopped believing in the mandate before Romney signed it into law in 2006.

Romney to the left of Kennedy then now and forever.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM

So ABR’s..who is you choice to beat Obama? What is it that makes you think any of the remaining candidates have a winning message..for the whole country?? WHO?

bluealice on March 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Is the Constitution really so hard for you to read? Are you telling us that you can’t read and comprehend the Constitution? Was it written in some sort of code? You need others to tell you what’s in it? You must LOVE Pelosi.

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I think it’s constitutional, but I can see the arguments on the other side. I doubt you can understand a viewpoint that isn’t your own.

cjw79 on March 22, 2012 at 2:15 PM

You want to dump on Romney for implementing something a lot of conservatives embraced.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You say that as if once a conservative embraces an idea they can’t change their position. Romneycare was enacted six years ago. Do you hold the exact positions now that you held six years ago?

Happy Nomad on March 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

So what’s your problem with Obamacare.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

You mean besides the fact that Obama is lying about this?

And besides the “death panel” in it?

And the fact that it was passed AGAINST the will of the American people.

And beside the fact that it was always intended to force EVERYONE into a single payer, government controlled system?

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Angryed
JannyMae
Gregor

We got it. You hate Mitt. You really, really hate Mitt. You’re not going to ever vote for him. Ever. And we who are going to vote for him -if he is the nominee- are really stupid, closet-squish-democrat Clinton fellaters. Got it.

No, really, we got it.

Now please burst into flames and die a screaming, agonizing death. Or, barring that possibility, just go away.

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Well lookie here

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/demint-time-for-selfreflection-from-romney-foes-118341.html

“I am very impressed by Romney and I always have been,” DeMint said. “There’s a lot to like there.”

bluealice on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Ann Coulter has argued that that is an adequate defense.

Absolutely. There are any number of things that a governor can do at the state level that cannot, and should not, be done on a national level. Gun laws for example, and abortion.

barack can bring it up all he wants and I am sure that Mitt will be able to throw it back in his face.

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

So ABR’s..who is you choice to beat Obama? What is it that makes you think any of the remaining candidates have a winning message..for the whole country?? WHO?
bluealice on March 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM

The guy running on the anti-porn crusade? You can’t say that isn’t a free ticket to ride to the White House.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

You mean besides the fact that Obama is lying about this?

And besides the “death panel” in it?

And the fact that it was passed AGAINST the will of the American people.

And beside the fact that it was always intended to force EVERYONE into a single payer, government controlled system?

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Yeah. Besides the fact that the same can be said around Romneycare.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

70 pages = 2200 pages

5 years in the making = 60 years in the making

Orders from the state capital and can not change = Orders from the White House and can change whenever they want in slow progressive increments not to create riots and new norms.

What page in the 70 does it say that employers must pay for birth control by decree with no way to go to elected members to petition them to remove it.

What page in the 70 does it say about use of aborted fetus brains in medical use.

What page in the 70 does it say of death panels or by the real name, Independent Payment Advisory Board to tell which medical services should be covered and which will not. Even if not covering it caused people to die. It saves money for the collective in the end to let them die.

tjexcite on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Buy insurance or post a bond, or else you will be in violation of the law!

Some escape hatch that genius Romney advocated for…

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I do the second exempts the rich people like Romney from the law.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Yeah. Besides the fact that the same can NOT be said around Romneycare.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

There, fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Reagan didn’t spend his time as governor giving hand jobs to every big government liberal idea; then calling them his own, either.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I agree. Romney is certainly no Reagan, but Reagan wasn’t a model of purity either. There isn’t one. If we have to draw some fine-line distinctions between Romney and Obama, so be it.

ABO for President. Reclaim Senate. Keep House. It’s the first step in a long process. Democrats successfully play the long game. We must beat them at that.

Nick_Angel on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

…after supporting them.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose — Mitt Romney, October, 2002

You sure you want to go there?

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The guy running on the anti-porn crusade? You can’t say that isn’t a free ticket to ride to the White House.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Ahem:

Flashback to 2007: Romney made pornography an issue in a campaign ad

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Obama: Romney is just “pretending” his health care plan was different than mine
Mar 22, 2012 1:20 PM by Tina Korbe

…says the… ” Present Pretender !”

KOOLAID2 on March 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

What page in the 70 does it say of death panels or by the real name, Independent Payment Advisory Board to tell which medical services should be covered and which will not. Even if not covering it caused people to die. It saves money for the collective in the end to let them die.

tjexcite on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Both bills let a panel decide these things or the Secutary of Health.

Romney Care does have Cost Containment (Death) Panels. In fact Planed Parenthood gets one person on Romeny’s panel.

Yes the laws are not exactly the same just almost exactly. There are technical differences only.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM

70 pages = 2200 pages

5 years in the making = 60 years in the making

Orders from the state capital and can not change = Orders from the White House and can change whenever they want in slow progressive increments not to create riots and new norms.

What page in the 70 does it say that employers must pay for birth control by decree with no way to go to elected members to petition them to remove it.

What page in the 70 does it say about use of aborted fetus brains in medical use.

What page in the 70 does it say of death panels or by the real name, Independent Payment Advisory Board to tell which medical services should be covered and which will not. Even if not covering it caused people to die. It saves money for the collective in the end to let them die.

tjexcite on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Sorry, but your post is way to complicated for the ABRtards. You will have to rewrite it to a third grade level for them to even have a chance of understanding it.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM

70 pages = 2200 pages

5 years in the making = 60 years in the making

Orders from the state capital and can not change = Orders from the White House and can change whenever they want in slow progressive increments not to create riots and new norms.

What page in the 70 does it say that employers must pay for birth control by decree with no way to go to elected members to petition them to remove it.

What page in the 70 does it say about use of aborted fetus brains in medical use.

What page in the 70 does it say of death panels or by the real name, Independent Payment Advisory Board to tell which medical services should be covered and which will not. Even if not covering it caused people to die. It saves money for the collective in the end to let them die.

tjexcite on March 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Speaking of Romneycare and abortion:

But, for Catholics and other pro-life voters, Romneycare holds a different problem. It explicitly provided government funding of abortion. The Massachusetts health care reform established a government funded program, Commonwealth Care, that includes coverage of abortion. Commonwealth Care was made available for free to everyone in the Bay State who was below the poverty line and subsidized participation was made available to those above the poverty line.

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I agree. Romney is certainly no Reagan, but Reagan wasn’t a model of purity either. There isn’t one. If we have to draw some fine-line distinctions between Romney and Obama, so be it.

No one is arguing for fidelity. That’s a strawman.

I tend to agree that Obama and Romney have some fine-line distinctions; but those lines are pretty damn fine for the most part. Marginally better is as good as it gets.

What, I think, bugs me about Romney supporters is that they cannot even see that they, in essence, agreeing with nearly everything Obama has done since he’s been in office, just by supporting Romney. If that’s where this party is, it’s time to get off the train.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Additionally, the Massachusetts health care reform law requires that one of the members on a newly created “MassHealth payment policy advisory board” be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts. The relevant section of the law reads: “SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Shut up! he said! ROFLMAO!!!!

What a pity it is, that your only argument against criticism of Romney, is accusing people of hating him.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Romney is same as Obama as far as healthcare goes.

antisocial on March 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

There, fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Curious. Did you know that MA is setting up their own death panels to ration care? Yet, you complain about this in Obamacare. Yet support Romneycare. Interesting.

That Romney’s mandate was a half step towards single payer, when democrats wanted a full step. In fact, if Romney had not been in office, no mandate would have ever been enacted at all. Democrats had wanted this system for decades but the business community balked. But since a republican was in office (their guy!), they had to shut up. So, really, Romney was a useful idiot. He got something thru, that could not have been passed had a democrat been in office. Ironic, no?

Romney’s plan is paid for by the federal government. American people had no choice to subsidize MA’s little socialist experiment. Thus, it was against their will. Yet, you don’t have a problem with it. But you do with Obamacare. Interesting.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Isn’t that the truth?

liberal4life on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Cant wait for the debates already!

liberal4life on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

….d e e p thoughts!…brought to you by…Hallmark

KOOLAID2 on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Reagan didn’t spend his time as governor giving hand jobs to every big government liberal idea; then calling them his own, either.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Well other than raising taxes by 30%, increased spending by 177%, signing off on CARB, giving public employees collective bargaining rights, blocking development on state land, and signing abortion legislation…yeah he was a real model of conservatism as governor.

While President…granted amnesty, banned cop killer bullets. After presidency..supported ban on automatic weapons…

Hell, Gov Reagan was to the left of Jimmy Carter.

So yeah..no one is going to pass the conservative purity test this go around.

HumpBot Salvation on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Nick_Angel on March 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Using Reagan to justify Romney is both lame and ridiculous.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Now please burst into flames and die a screaming, agonizing death. Or, barring that possibility, just go away.

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I’m always intrigued with Romney supporters adopt the “shut up, he explained” tactics of the fascist left.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:29 PM

“Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims.
In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine. Known as Plan B, the drug can prevent women from becoming pregnant if taken within five days of intercourse.

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:29 PM

So yeah..no one is going to pass the conservative purity test this go around.

HumpBot Salvation on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Again. No one is suggesting fidelity. It’s a cute strawman, I suppose. I guess it helps bolster your case that Romney is liberal or something? Not sure the point.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I love how people here think Romney is the first republican to even deal with a mandate to buy health insurance.

Anybody familar with the Heritage Foundation?

Pcoop on March 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Anybody familar with the Heritage Foundation?

Pcoop on March 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Romney and Obama are the only two people on the history of the planet to say that government should force a private citizen to buy a product and enter a contract with another private party.

Cuba and Venezuela don’t even do this. ;)

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I love how people here think Romney is the first republican to even deal with a mandate to buy health insurance.

No one claimed that he was.

Anybody familar with the Heritage Foundation?

Pcoop on March 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

The same Heritage Foundation that has publicly repudiated health insurance mandates?

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:32 PM

The top five failed defenses of RomneyCare

Good read by Philip Klein. These are the five rationales he knocks down:

1. The Massachusetts plan was a free market approach, but ObamaCare is a government takeover:

2. It’s the Democrats fault:

3. It’s the best he could have done in Massachusetts:

4. He didn’t raise taxes to pay for it:

5. RomneyCare was right for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size fits all Washington solution

The bottom line: Political analysts keep saying that Romney will have to find a way to address the health care issue. But the reality is, he has no coherent defense to offer and it’s too late to disavow the law. As I’ve written before, Romney’s only hope is to simply survive the issue by attrition, hoping that the primary electorate’s attention is diverted elsewhere and that no viable alternative candidate emerges.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Reagan’s record as Governor wasn’t exactly a model of conservatism.
Nick_Angel on March 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Indeed. I can understand Tina’s desire to find dark clouds and, even desperately borrowing one from Obama here, but you can only imagine the woe is us’s, hysteria and hyperventilation had she been around back in the day and were a Ford cheerleader. e.g. -
Reagan’s Darkest Hour

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

And frankly, it’s all going to boil down to what the Supreme Court says. If they throw it out, then Obama has a much harder time defending it and RomneyCare isn’t much of an issue. If they uphold it, though, Obama’s hand is strengthened, as it would be against any of the candidates.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

This is just embarrassing.

lawya on March 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

This why Newt has been hanging around. Watch him take 2nd in La.

DanMan on March 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

People (apparently) do not understand that if there had been no “Romneycare” then Mass. right now would have a single payer state plan and private health insurance companies would be out of business in Mass.

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

He could have gone on record as refusing to be involved and if necessary not signing the paperwork. I guess he “took one for the team” as well. Lots of that going around, it seems.

If someone is elected as an “R”, then they should behave as an “R” and follow conservative principles.

Should, of course.

kim roy on March 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Right, Wrong, and Romney
His commitment to health-care statism makes him a weak candidate.

Andy McCarthy on page 2 re the 10th Amendment:

Nevertheless, some things are wrong everywhere. One such thing is a massive government infiltration into the private economy, one that coerces the purchase of a commodity (health insurance) as a condition of living in the state. For one thing, such an exercise in steroid statism establishes a rationale in law for government intrusion into every aspect of private life: If health care is deemed a corporate asset, then “bad” behavioral choices must be regulated, lest someone get more than his share. Romney portrayed Romneycare as a model, at least for other states, if not for the nation. But no free-market, limited-government conservative thinks this officious onslaught is a model to be emulated anyplace.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Ann Coulter is 100% correct.

I get that liberals, and many conservatives, refuse to accept the distinction. But, didn’t Obama teach Con Law at one of the best Law Schools in the country? Should he not know about the 10th amendment, being that it is actually within the Constitution (i.e., the subject of the course he taught), and that any Con Law casebook contains cases dealing with the 10th Amendment.

If Obama tries to say that non-sense, all Romney has to do is just play off what I just wrote. Just because Obama used something as a basis for what he did, does not mean that what is constitutional on a state level is constitutional on the federal level.

milcus on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Yeah, except for Romney saying he thought it should be implemented at the national level, and all that.

lawya on March 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

And it’s an opinion piece. Like assholes, everyone has an opinion. Doesn’t mean they’re right.

Personally I trust the opinon of Jon Gruber who worked for both Romney and Obama and says they two bills are identical.

See here for more.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/romneycare-adviser-obamacare-is-the-same-f-king-bill/

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Well, Ed, except for all the facts presented in that American Spectator piece, you’re right!

BTW, Jonathan Gruber, the “Romney advisor” quoted in that Daily Caller piece you link to, was described as “the Democrat Party’s most influential health care expert” by the Washington Post in 2007.

Democrat. Democrat talking points. Obamacare = Romneycare. Because Jonathan Gruber couldn’t possibly have skin in this game, could he?

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

What, I think, bugs me about Romney supporters is that they cannot even see that they, in essence, agreeing with nearly everything Obama has done since he’s been in office, just by supporting Romney. If that’s where this party is, it’s time to get off the train.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense. Why would supporting Romney (and by your logic that means supporting Obamacare) would equate into supporting everything that Obama has done in the last three years?

What bugs me about Romney supporters is that they have inadequate answers to some serious questions about Romney’s positions and I’m not talking strictly healthcare. Romney has a credibility and trust gap with some of his base (made worse by yesterday’s etch-a-sketch gaffe) and that isn’t going to be erased by the “asked and answered” objections of Romney’s supporters.

Happy Nomad on March 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

This why Newt has been hanging around. Watch him take 2nd in La.
DanMan on March 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I doubt it, he was last month’s not-Mitt. This month it’s Santorum’s turn.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

This why Newt has been hanging around. Watch him take 2nd in La.

DanMan on March 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

And if he doesn’t is it finally time to tell him to go home?

Happy Nomad on March 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Those last two paragraphs make more sense than anything an ABR or a Democrat has to say about how Romneycare and Obamacare are identical.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

You just posted a boatload of info, all of which will sail by the average voter. They will hear ‘Romneycare is the father of Obamacare’, and it is. It sucks…hard.

Lightswitch on March 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

How does Reagan signing that CA abortion law justify Romney? Unlike Romney and RomneyCare, Reagan decided what he had done was wrong–and while he was still governor of CA.

You’re also ignorant of the issue during the 1976 campaign when he was running against Ford. Reagan was the pro-life candidate.

1. Lou Cannon in his book Governor Reagan His Rise to Power mentions on page 213, that in 1970 Reagan successfully opposed legislative attempts to further liberalize abortion law.

2. On a Marxist website, in an article titled Our Bodies! Our Choice! Winning the Fight for Reproductive Rights by Evelyn Sell, she writes:

For example, an abortion rights rally was set for March 10, 1973, in San Francisco to protest Governor Ronald Reagan’s statements against abortion.

3. TIME Magazine, Uproar over Abortion, February 16, 1976, discussing Carter, Reagan and Ford on abortion:

Ronald Reagan has come out flatly against abortion on demand and in favor of the constitutional amendment outlawing abortion except in rare cases posing a clear risk to the woman’s life.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

It’s been two years since the president signed Obamacare into law and, for two years, conservatives have known Romney would be in trouble for the way Romneycare connects him to the least-liked entitlement program in the nation’s history. Two years and I still don’t see how Romney gets around this issue.

This is how we know that NO RonMe supporter is at all conservative, and that they want 0bama to win in 2012.

DannoJyd on March 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

And, Romney is only pretending that he will push for the repeal of obamacare if elected.

As Romney’s team reminded us yesterday, Romney is fully prepared to change all of his conservative positions if he is nominated.

Romney is a disaster. Romney cannot be trusted.

Pork-Chop on March 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM

No one is arguing for fidelity. That’s a strawman.

I tend to agree that Obama and Romney have some fine-line distinctions; but those lines are pretty damn fine for the most part. Marginally better is as good as it gets.

What, I think, bugs me about Romney supporters is that they cannot even see that they, in essence, agreeing with nearly everything Obama has done since he’s been in office, just by supporting Romney. If that’s where this party is, it’s time to get off the train.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Can we agree that the term “strawman” is overused on this site? There are other fallacies out there! haha

True. No one on this thread made the statement that Reagan was the perfect conservative; however, he represents that conservative standard against which many candidates are measured.

Romney, with a more conservative (hopefully) Congress, is not the same as Obama. Obama is a pure ideologue who likes to work around Congress. As I said, ABO. I think the mistake is abandoning the party. That Reagan Revolution, the Contract with America, and the landslide of 2010 did not happen because conservatives hopped off the train.

Nick_Angel on March 22, 2012 at 2:44 PM

When Romney was running in Massachusetts, he asked an aide to write down every single campaign promise he made. There were a little more than 70 of them. In office, he checked off each of them…..and before he left, he kept every one.

A politician who keeps his word…..what a concept!

Yup! What a concept.

How is Obama doing on his promises?

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PMlorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

C’mon Lorien-speaking of a strawman argument. I dont support Obama on anything he has done in office thus far-nothing! I dont support Romney because of what he did w/ “Romneycare”. But, I can’t see anyone other than him at this point beating Obama in November. I like Santorum, but this guy is such a whiner about how much money Romney has spent in this campaign. If he is the nominee, what will he say about the billion dollars that will be thrown at him. The Supremes “hopefully” will strike down Obamacare and the election will be decided on how best to get our country going economically. That MUST be the narrative-everday-until Obama is beaten. At that time Romney must produce.

Static21 on March 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Oh, oh.

DeMint giving advise to Richard and Newton.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/demint-time-for-selfreflection-from-romney-foes-118341.html

LOL!!!

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

People (apparently) do not understand that if there had been no “Romneycare” then Mass. right now would have a single payer state plan and private health insurance companies would be out of business in Mass.

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

This is not true. There was no broad based legislative support for a single payer system in 2005-2006.

Just Sayin on March 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM

BTW, Jonathan Gruber, the “Romney advisor” quoted in that Daily Caller piece you link to, was described as “the Democrat Party’s most influential health care expert” by the Washington Post in 2007.

Democrat. Democrat talking points. Obamacare = Romneycare. Because Jonathan Gruber couldn’t possibly have skin in this game, could he?

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Can you please explain, then, why he was given such a significant role in the development and implementation of RomneyCare?

Just Sayin on March 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

He could have gone on record as refusing to be involved and if necessary not signing the paperwork. I guess he “took one for the team” as well. Lots of that going around, it seems.

If someone is elected as an “R”, then they should behave as an “R” and follow conservative principles.

Should, of course.

kim roy on March 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM

You bought into crosspatchs lie. That is complete BS. Mass had tried to get this forever with no success. This is the best they could get and Romney was their weapon to achieve it.

What is the difference anyway. Romney care Government decides rates, coverage, qualification everything that matters. All the
“private” provider does is collect the premium and pay the bills. How it this different that if Government did the last two? Well actually the insurer can offer extras but Obama fixes that by penalizing that a lot.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM

This is not true. There was no broad based legislative support for a single payer system in 2005-2006.

Just Sayin on March 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Are you saying that the Democrats didn’t want a single payer plan?

Have you ever heard of “Hillarycare”?

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:53 PM

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM
How does Reagan signing that CA abortion law justify Romney?

Not justifying anything – just pointing out the fact that if you’re out hunting for dark cloud, you’ll always find at least one.

You’re also ignorant of the issue during the 1976 campaign when he was running against Ford. Reagan was the pro-life candidate.
INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Actually, some of us were there to recall those days. But you inadvertently added another point; flip-flop.
Woe is us and all that or something.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:53 PM

OMG we can now figure out who the democrat/Michael Moore crossovers are voting for in the republican primaries and who they want to go up against Obama. The only one who is the most similar to Obama on the republican side. Guys, we are SCREWED if we don’t change course from this Titanic/Romney voyage we’re being coerced into. Louisiana and Wisconsin, we need you next!

mozalf on March 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Similar is not identical. In spite of the similarities, there are multiple and major differences in detail, scope, and intent between MassCare and PPACA. Now, we find that conservatives who give Romney the blame, and Obama trying to wash off the stink by giving Romney the credit, are saying the same things.
So now, how do Santorum supporters clearly distinguish themselves from Obama supporters?

Confutus on March 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

see above

mozalf on March 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Hey, give her credit…it took them until after 1 to get the first of today’s bash Romney posts up. Progress. /

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

How exactly is this “bashing” Romney. Romney has embraced his past and there’s no way he can run from how many videos? It’s fact and it’s really hard to defend the grandfather of Obamacare.

Obamacare is the final nail in the coffin of liberty, and Mitt Romney helped forge that nail. No running from that.

Is Romney also like Obama in that you state facts about him and it’s “bashing”? Like stating facts or quoting his personal beliefs is biogotry?

Portia46 on March 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM

What is Wrong With the Individual Mandate?
Paul A. Rahe (History professor who holds the Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College).

Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government. The former presupposes that state governments have the right to tell us how we are to spend our own money, and the latter presupposes that the federal government has that right as well. Both measures are tyrannical. They blur the distinction between public and private and extend the authority of the public over the disposition of that which is primordially private. Once this principle is accepted as legitimate, there is no limit to the authority of the government over us, and mandates of this sort will multiply — as do-gooders interested in improving our lives by directing them encroach further and further into the one sphere in which we have been left free hitherto.

Managerial progressives see only the end — preventing free-riders from riding for free. And they ignore the collateral damage done by way of the means selected….

…Politically, he [Romney] is tone deaf. He seems constitutionally incapable of grasping the argument, he insists that the individual mandate is consistent with conservative principle, and he will not back off.

Raising taxes to reward free riders is, of course, objectionable. We should oppose it on principle. But it does not in and of itself narrow in any significant fashion the sphere of our liberty. It is a question of the proper use of the public purse. The individual mandate sets a new precedent. It extends government control to the private purse.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM

That Romney’s mandate was a half step towards single payer, when democrats wanted a full step. In fact, if Romney had not been in office, no mandate would have ever been enacted at all. Democrats had wanted this system for decades but the business community balked. But since a republican was in office (their guy!), they had to shut up. So, really, Romney was a useful idiot. He got something thru, that could not have been passed had a democrat been in office. Ironic, no?

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

A succinct statement of why a progressive Republican can be more damaging than a progressive Democrat.

I’m opposed to Obamacare. Why should I vote for the Romneycare guy?

tom on March 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Similar is not identical. In spite of the similarities, there are multiple and major differences in detail, scope, and intent between MassCare and PPACA.

Confutus on March 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Details such as?

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Bigotry. Sorry.

Portia46 on March 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 2:53 PM

There is a huge difference between a flipflop for political expediency and having a genuine change of mind on an issue. Reagan was troubled about it from the start and began to move towards a vocal and visible pro-life stance from which he didn’t back away.

Romney is the flipflopper who changes his statements according to the political winds.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The KEY difference between the Massachusetts health care law and Obamacare is that the broad majority of the people of Massachusetts wanted that law passed and the broad majority of Americans did not want Obamacare passed and they still want it to be repealed.

IF you recall, Obamacare was passed in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve. The Democrats had literally bent the rules to the point of breaking, they had dredge up every arcane and nefarious means at hand to try and pass that bill, including even considering ‘the Slaughter Solution’ AKA “Demon Pass” or “Deem and Pass”, which was finally scrapped as going too far, even for them. They did, in fact shatter “The Byrd Rule” and used Reconciliation for a non-budgetary piece of legislation. We recall that the Democrats across the board ended up voting in lock step for passage of Obamacare. It exposed the myth of the “Blue Dog Democrats” and the “Pro Life Democrats” and the “Moderate Democrats”…. all proven to be mythical creature who, in the final analysis, didn’t really exist. ONLY the Progressive Democrats existed after the passage of Obamacare. The midterm election results would bear this out. Further, the Obama Administration double counted saving and then used them as expenditures to make it appear that this legislation would save money over the course of a decade. It was a fallacy. The cost, according to the CBO, is at least double what those numbers used to pass the legislation so dubiously reflected.By all projections, the cost after the first decade with expand exponentially, costing this nation far more than if no legislation was passed at all. $675 BILLION was cut out of the backs of seniors to pay for putting 30 million healthy, working age, younger adults on government health care. The IPAB was created to insure steep rationing of health care to those on Medicare through reduction of reimbursements to physicians and providers for certain services and treatments. the accounting deceit used to pass Obamacare would have made Bernie Maddow blush for shame as a Piker. You’ll recall, too, that NO ONE HAD READ THE OBAMACARE BILL… all 2000 plus pages of it. Nancy Pelosi actually had the gall to smugly say “WE won’t know what’s in it until we pass it.” All thought the process, in marches and rallies and townhalls across this nation, Americans vociferously voiced their opposition to the passage of Obamacare. Those who did so were vilified, defamed, libeled and slandered by Democrats and the mainstream media as ‘un-American’, ‘racists’, unpatriotic, and even, ‘Nazi’s’. Still, the Obama administration in tandem with the Progressive leaders of the Democratic party forced the passage of Obamacare over the course of 14 brutal months.

In the case of the legislation that was passed in Massachusetts, Romney was the Governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation. He believes in the Tenth Amendment. If the people of Massachusetts wanted this legislation passed, as Governor he was obliged to let them have it. Those people have a right to govern their state the way they see fit so long as they are not breaking federal law to live the way they wish. Romney has already repeatedly said that what was right for Massachusetts is not right for the rest of the nation. He is keenly aware that the majority of the rest of the nation does NOT want the same kind of health care law that Massachusetts wanted and has promised to repeal Obamacare.

thatsafactjack on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Similar is not identical. In spite of the similarities, there are multiple and major differences in detail, scope, and intent between MassCare and PPACA.

Confutus on March 22, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Details such as?

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Yes.

Call them on their lies.

Still waiting for anything conservative Romney ever got into law.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Angryed
JannyMae
Gregor

We got it. You hate Mitt. You really, really hate Mitt. You’re not going to ever vote for him. Ever. And we who are going to vote for him -if he is the nominee- are really stupid, closet-squish-democrat Clinton fellaters. Got it.

No, really, we got it.

Now please burst into flames and die a screaming, agonizing death. Or, barring that possibility, just go away.

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Or, you can go fluke yourself.

Lightswitch on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Republicans probably should have preferred Rick to Mitt because of this, but (barring a miracle) it’s irrelevant now.

You go to the general with the candidate you have, not (etc.).

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

thatsafactjack on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The biggest difference is the Democrats got an Idiot (Romney) to head the effort to get their bill passed.

Obama got no Republican for his bill and had to pass it in the dead of the night.

But now we should let this Idiot (Romney) do the same to us that he did to Mass.

Why?

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Are you saying that the Democrats didn’t want a single payer plan?

Have you ever heard of “Hillarycare”?

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I was responding to an assertion that the Massachusetts legislature was going to enact single payer had it not been for Romney. This was not the case.

Just Sayin on March 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Poor Sketch. I almost feel sorry for him if he wasn’t so dislikable and phony. If he does become the nominee, it will be kind of fun to watch him get taken down as he tries to twist himself into a pretzel and the democrats eat him alive. And the only consolation of another 4 years of Obama will be that it’s Romney who loses and then maybe the republican party will finally wake up! But somehow I doubt that.

mozalf on March 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

You bought into crosspatchs lie. That is complete BS. Mass had tried to get this forever with no success. This is the best they could get and Romney was their weapon to achieve it.

What is the difference anyway. Romney care Government decides rates, coverage, qualification everything that matters. All the
“private” provider does is collect the premium and pay the bills. How it this different that if Government did the last two? Well actually the insurer can offer extras but Obama fixes that by penalizing that a lot.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I didn’t buy into anything. I presented a counter argument to his point. He can present whatever he wants – the fact is Romney had choices and we are discussing some of his bad ones.

kim roy on March 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Angryed
JannyMae
Gregor

We got it. You hate Mitt. You really, really hate Mitt. You’re not going to ever vote for him. Ever. And we who are going to vote for him -if he is the nominee- are really stupid, closet-squish-democrat Clinton fellaters. Got it.

No, really, we got it.

Now please burst into flames and die a screaming, agonizing death. Or, barring that possibility, just go away.

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM


I feel the need to include myself in your little list of people serfs you wish dead.

Ohhh we’ve graduated to wishing for the killing dissenters. Scratch a RINO, find a Totalitarian. Who’d have thunk.

PS: Speaking for myself, you really should bring multiple body bags if you are going to try and set me on fire, I won’t go quiet-like and I am armed 24/7.

PPS: I am going nowhere.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

the republican party will finally wake up! But somehow I doubt that.

mozalf on March 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I pray.

I know only GOD can save this evil country.

America can be good but not with evil leaders like Obama or Romney.

Steveangell on March 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

But what does Jim DeMint know anyway…

“I can tell conservatives from my perspective is that, I’m not only comfortable with Romney, I’m excited about the possibility of him possibly being our nominee,” DeMint said. “Again, this is not a formal endorsement and I do not intend to do that right now but I just think we just need to look at where we are.”

DeMint’s comments came the same day Romney met with influential Republicans on Capitol Hill, including House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Like DeMint, Ryan has not publicly backed a candidate in the GOP race, but is considered a prized endorsement for the White House hopefuls.

DeMint said Thursday he was “impressed” after his meeting with Romney.

“His leadership skills, the fact that he hasn’t lived his life in Washington. There’s a lot to like there,” DeMint said.

The other candidates in the race – including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum – need to make an honest assessment of where the race currently stands, DeMint said.

“I don’t have any immediate plans to do an endorsement but I think we all need to look at this presidential primary and encourage the candidates to do a little self-reflection here — what’s good for our country,” he said. “The sooner we can make a decision, I think the sooner we can focus on the real problem which is Obama.”

Yeah, that Jim DeMint, he’s just a RINO squish…

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Tina’s a hack. Isn’t it time for another slobbering peice gushing over dick sweatervest?

Meow on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You go to the general with the candidate you have, not (etc.).

David Blue on March 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

No, I am not going to the election with this crap being shoved down my throat. I and my family will stay home, our money will stay in our pockets, and the Republicans can burn in hell.

We are conservatives.

Not Republicans.

No conservatives – No VOTES.

The RNC can stick that in their pipe and smoke it all the way to HELL.

Once Romney looses it’s time for a new political party. This is the last betrayal my family and I are willing to tolerate.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 3:10 PM

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Spare me the melodrama, you @#$%-talking poof.

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM

In the case of the legislation that was passed in Massachusetts, Romney was the Governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation. He believes in the Tenth Amendment. If the people of Massachusetts wanted this legislation passed, as Governor he was obliged to let them have it. Those people have a right to govern their state the way they see fit so long as they are not breaking federal law to live the way they wish. Romney has already repeatedly said that what was right for Massachusetts is not right for the rest of the nation. He is keenly aware that the majority of the rest of the nation does NOT want the same kind of health care law that Massachusetts wanted and has promised to repeal Obamacare.

thatsafactjack on March 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Taking your argument as is (ie, not buying into it necessarily), your point fails because anyone who has an “R” behind their name should not be signing these kinds of laws. It goes against conservative principles. If the people of Mass wanted a Democrat, then they should have voted for a Democrat. He should have governed as an “R” as that’s how he marketed himself.

kim roy on March 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM

The people that hate ObamaCare are not going to vote for Obama, that should be common sense. It doesn’t matter how many times Obama tries to say they’re the same, they’re not and Romney has promised repeal.

Romney will run against all the tax increases, subsidies and regulation of ObamaCare (plus the gutting of MEdiCare to pay for it), and how a one size fits all approach doesn’t work.

Personally, I find the mandate the least offensive part of ObamaCare, and conservatives didn’t make a peep about the mandate in 2008 when Romney ran for President. In many circles, it was considered a conservative solution to the “free rider” problem.

Would I prefer had Romney been pure on this issue? Of course, but the alternative candidates were jokes, with Newt being in the same boat as a consistent supporter of mandates.

BradTank on March 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM

There is a huge difference between a flipflop for political expediency and having a genuine change of mind on an issue.
INC on March 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

It’s the half-full/half-empty glass paradigm. If a person likes a given politician it’s a “thoughtful reversal”, if a person dislikes the politician it’s a “flip-flop”. Just human nature at work in trying to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

whatcat on March 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Yeah, that Jim DeMint, he’s just a RINO squish…

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Is your only mode of argumentation to focus on individuals, rather than ideas?

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I find the back story for Obamacare irrelevant. The story for this election is…Obama wants to double down on Obamacare and Romney says he would repeal it.

At this point thats all that matters.

alecj on March 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

actually his campaign has stated he wants to keep the “good parts”

and he is offering each state a waiver …. not repeal ….

conservative tarheel on March 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4