Romney: If the Supreme Court says the mandate’s a tax, then it’s a tax

posted at 2:11 pm on July 4, 2012 by Allahpundit

A GOP strategist predicted yesterday that Romney would flip on Fehrnstrom’s “not a tax” argument by next week. Either the campaign decided this couldn’t wait or they figured they’d time the flip for the holiday when no one’s paying attention.

Good enough? He’s not saying that he thinks the mandate is a tax; he reiterates that he agrees with Scalia that it’s a penalty. All he’s saying is that, as a matter of law, ObamaCare is now ObamaTax so The One will have to live with the political consequences. If he doesn’t like it, let him take it up with the left’s newest judicial hero, John Roberts. And if O turns around and says, “Well, that means the RomneyCare mandate was a tax too,” Mitt can always deflect by noting that only one of them has had a pronouncement from SCOTUS on the matter. Not the most convincing retort, but the goal here is to keep the ObamaTax talking point in play. I guess that’ll do it.


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 4 5 6

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Jeebus Cripes dude.. Get an effing life and take ddr with you. What a bunch of losers.

CW on July 5, 2012 at 7:53 PM

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Jeebus Cripes dude.. Get an effing life and take ddr with you. What a bunch of losers.

CW on July 5, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Good job with the ad hominem, CW! You didn’t even make an effort to conceal it this time!

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Good job with the ad hominem, CW! You didn’t even make an effort to conceal it this time!

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 7:55 PM

A hypocritical, pontificating, unapologetic loser like you who does nothing but put other people down, lecturing someone else about personal attacks? LOL I’d ask you if you are really that stupid, but, I know that I don’t have to – you’re not just psychologically disturbed, you are a through and through retard who cannot recognize his own reflection in the mirror.

PS hey gryphon, isn’t it about time to move on from the primaries and get over that your candidate of choice didn’t get the nomination? ROFL, you obsessed freak…

PPS Good job with the ad hominem, CW gryphon202! You didn’t even make an effort to conceal it this time! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 5, 2012 at 9:47 PM

So the headline means she wants a brokered convention, even though she’s not quoted in any source in saying “I want a brokered convention.” Unless you think that a headline from the Washington Post is a reliable indicator of the Republican body-politic.
gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I gather you don’t approve of what she did, thus the impetus for denying it happened. Is this good enough for ya?

“People who start screaming that a brokered convention is the worst thing that could happen to the G.O.P., they have an agenda,” Ms. Palin said in an interview. “They have their own personal or political reasons, their own candidate who they would like to see protected away from a brokered convention.”

Buy Danish on July 5, 2012 at 9:49 PM

gryphon202

Forgot the link. Gosh, why oh why did people get the impression she advocated a brokered convention?

Buy Danish on July 5, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Here’s an idea Mitt! Replace that moron of a spokesman!

MCGIRV on July 5, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Forgot the link. Gosh, why oh why did people get the impression she advocated a brokered convention?

Buy Danish on July 5, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Okay. One thing to say that a brokered convention wouldn’t hurt the GOP. Do you believe that’s advocacy for a brokered convention? Is that the same thing to you as saying “I hope we have a brokered convention?” Or was that simply an admonishment to her supporters that fear of a brokered convention should not be the driving force behind their electoral choices?

I mean, Jesus, *I* even believe that a brokered convention wouldn’t hurt the GOP. I’m not sure it’s the cure for what ails us by any stretch, but it’s not the end of the world. You take a vote. It’s inconclusive. So you take another. And another, if need be. Maybe some shells are traded between-times. That’s all that a brokered convention is, and it’s not a big deal to me. The odds of it happening were astronomical back then, and have only shrunk. I think by any realistic measure, it won’t happen. But I’d be totally okay with it if it did.

Now, anyone want to tell me if and why they believe that Mitt Romney has left his past as a self-proclaimed progressive behind? Or which position I took that was somehow “pro-Obama?”

/StillCrickets

gryphon202 on July 6, 2012 at 12:53 AM

gryphon202 on July 6, 2012 at 12:53 AM

She not only advocated it as a good idea, she volunteered to be the chosen one. This was not just a one time statement. It began in February and she continued to push this theme in March.

Now, putting aside your stubborn refusal to acknowledge she promoted this idea, I see you’ve concluded “it’s not a big deal”. Just a little horse trading, no harm no foul – totally ignoring the fact we’d have no time to raise money, to organize, to unite, to win – and this would come on candidates continuing to tear themselves apart. In short it would be disastrous. It was a foolish idea based on magical thinking, and you’re out of touch with reality to say you see no harm in it. I’m stunned you still think this fantasy is still a possibility, albeit a remote one. Oh well, hope springs eternal I guess.

As for being a “progressive” as I have also said many times, Romney’s father George was called a “Progressive”. No doubt Romney doesn’t think of it in terms of being a leftist, but through the lens of his father – who was a great man, notably in the arena of civil rights. Oh, and Santorum called himself a “Progressive” too (a pro-union one, to boot), so please can we put this tired refrain to bed? And as for you being “pro-Obama” where did I say that? I’ll save you the trouble of searching to back this claim up. The answer is: Nowhere.

Buy Danish on July 6, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6