Posts Tagged ‘Romneycare’

Suicide By Romneycare, or Why Etch-a-Sketch Matters

Friday, March 23rd, 2012

Etch-a-Sketch Repeal?

I’ve warned conservatives for nearly as long as I’ve been blogging that to nominate Mitt Romney is to commit an act of electoral suicide.  I’ve told you that when it comes time to run the general election campaign, Romney will abandon all of this talk about repealing Obamacare because he will be toast on this issue.   Barack Obama knows this too, and it’s the reason every Democrat in Washington wants to see a Romney candidacy.  For once, we got a little insight into the coming Romney betrayals, when his longtime Campaign adviser and Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom on Wednesday likened Mitt Romney to an etch-a-sketch in terms of their ability to re-shape the campaign once the general election campaign begins.  This was an admission of what would really happen to all of his talk about being a conservative should Mitt Romney secure the party’s nomination.

I’ve urged the other candidates to hammer Romney on this point, and to their credit, they have, but without debates lately, they’re not making much headway in the media that largely favors Mitt Romney, so the point isn’t being made.  Consider it another gift, because now we get a little help from an unlikely source, who made mention of this issue, although not by name.  The source?  Barack Obama.

You see, he was being interviewed by Kai Ryssdal, for the Marketplace Morning Report for Thursday, March 22, 2012, and he was asked about his health-care reform, and I want you to pay close attention to what Obama implies about a Republican candidate, and says of a particular state:

Alternative content

From CNN, referencing the same interview, with a few pull-quotes, and a few explanations of context for Obama’s remarks:

“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.

He said state governors will have a difficult time explaining resistance to the law to their constituents.

“When people see that in fact it works, it makes sense – as it’s, by the way, working in Massachusetts – then I think a whole bunch of folks will say ‘Why aren’t we trying it as well?'” Obama said.

It’s important to understand the meaning of this audio clip in context of the “Etch-a-sketch” comment. Twice, in less than two minutes, Obama goes out of his way to mention a unnamed candidate(Romney) and the state he governed (Massachusetts) as extensions of his healthcare law.  Let that soak in, and realize that the one issue on which more than 60% of Americans agree, that Obamacare must be repealed, Mitt Romney will be completely neutralized in a general campaign.

Therefore, I believe that the Etch-a-Sketch is all about dumping his promise to seek the repeal of Obama-care.  He can’t.  He will be absolutely wrecked by Barack Obama and his campaign if he even tries that approach.  Romney is the one candidate among all of the Republicans who is least able to make the case against Obamacare, and it is the one issue that has united the American people against Obama like no other.  I cannot see how the Republicans defeat Obama without this issue, and yet if Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is precisely what he will be forced to do.

That “Etch-a-Sketch?”  Yes, that got to be shaken as soon as Romney captures the nomination, and when it is, part of the picture that will be erased will be the promise to repeal Obamacare.  Mitt Romney is being dishonest in this respect.  It will ruin him if he tries, and without it, he cannot win.  I think most of the readers of this blog have understood this all along, but there’s a segment of the conservative base that doesn’t follow the inside politics, and may not yet understand this. There is no candidate who will fare more poorly against Barack Obama than Mitt Romney.  All of this talk about his electability is based on a very generic sense conveyed by the media, but does not represent what the voters will see in the last six to eight weeks of the campaign.  This is just a sample of how Romney will be neutered on the Obama-care issue, and it’s going to mean Romney will simply drop all of the repeal talk once he has your  nomination.  Let me be blunt:

Nominate the Etch-a-Sketch, and you get four more years of Barack Obama.

The End.

Advertisements

Mitt Romney Caught Flat-Footed By Megyn Kelly

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

Oooops

Appearing on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, former Massachusetts Governor and putative GOP nomination “front-runner” Mitt Romney was caught a bit flat-footed when Megyn Kelly asked him about his support of a Federal insurance mandate. As Kelly pointed out, it’s going to be difficult for Romney to run away from this, although he’s been trying for months.  The truth, no matter how you slice it, is that Romney has previously stated that he thought the model he used in his home state for so-called “Romney-care” would be good for the entire nation. Kelly played a clip for Romney to attempt to refute, but the problem is that it’s basically irrefutable. This isn’t simply about insurance mandates, bad as they may be, but instead goes to the veracity of anything this candidate says or promises.

Take a look, H/T RightScoop:

One cannot argue in support of a Federal insurance mandate in the first instance, only to disclaim it in the second instance, but claim never to have said what one has clearly said.  It would be a different matter if Mitt Romney said that he had changed his mind on this issue, and no longer supported the idea, but what he is trying to do is say that he never supported the idea at all.  Clearly, that’s simply not so.

Rather than confront the issue head-on, he tries to weasel away from what he said in the 2008 primary season, and that simply won’t do.  Some in the media wonder why Mitt Romney isn’t catching fire with conservatives, and I strongly believe you need look no further than this exchange between he and Megyn Kelly.  He could have straightened it out, and he could have admitted he removed a line from his book about taking Romneycare nationwide, but instead, he’s trying to trick conservatives into thinking he didn’t say what he said and wrote.

This is a problem, because one must ask what his motive might be.  After all, under the pressure of public opinion, most candidates will back-pedal at least a little when presented the opportunity, but Mitt’s not doing that.  The problem is, he can’t claim it’s because he’s taking a “principled stand” on the issue, otherwise he would be more forthright about it.  He’d say he’s changed his view, suck it up, and move on.  He’s not doing that either, leading one to wonder why.

I have my own thought, and it goes back a few weeks to when Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was interviewed on the matter, and she as much as admitted she would be part of Romney’s program to take Romneycare nationwide as a replacement for Obamacare.  At present, he can still claim he never changed his mind, despite implying otherwise, but never really reversing himself. He wants to be able to go into the Fall election and promise only to replace Obamacare.  He won’t care about conservative opinion at all, at that point, because he will figure that he has them anyway. If he gets the nomination, he may have a point, because what will conservatives do? Will they stay home and permit Obama’s re-election, or as a matter of personal and familial self-defense, and in the defense of the nation, simply go pull the lever, or punch out the chad for Mitt Romney?

Romney is willing to bet it’s the latter, and his whole campaign is predicated on winning the nomination predominately in liberal locales and doing what he can in the South, but knowing that once he has the nomination, he can ignore the South almost entirely and focus on those swing states.  If this is his strategy, and it surely seems to be, then once he has the nomination in hand, what’s to prevent him from flipping back a bit on the issue of a national mandate for health insurance?  It will satisfy many Democrats after all, particularly those fatigued with Obama’s disastrous economic policies, and his gamble will be that he may pick up more around the middle than he will lose from the conservative base of the party.

I believe this may well be the reason he’s still hedging his bets on this issue.  It’s either that, or his ego won’t permit him to say he’s changed his mind, or some political strategist is telling him to capitulate on the issue will do him more damage than good.  Whatever is going on here, Romney isn’t credible simply because the facts and his own historical statements refute his current ones, but his current statements seem to contend his historical statements don’t exist.  If you can follow this, then you must see as I do that Mitt Romney is plainly lying.  I know not how others may choose to vote, but we already have one liar in the White House, and I’m not inclined to replace him with another.

Romney’s Lies and His Continuing Vulnerability on Romneycare

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

What We'll Be Facing

It has been my contention throughout this primary season that Mitt Romney will not be able to defeat Barack Obama because he will be unable to differentiate between himself and Barack Obama on the matter of Obamacare. It is nearly impossible to believe Mitt Romney on this issue, because when he claims that on the basis of federalism and the Tenth Amendment, he would never prescribe for the nation the same sort of mandate he imposed on the people of his own state of Massachusetts, the evidence contradicts his own words on the matter. I have shown you videos that demonstrate the point, but here is one more from none other than leftist Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC, who was offering a ‘warning’ to Romney.  Before the election is over, if Mitt Romney is the nominee of the Republican party, the left and their lap-dog media intend to make we conservatives rue the day, and it will be with Mitt Romney’s assistance.

I think it’s going to be worse than O’Donnell admits. I doubt whether the Obama campaign or Barack Obama himself will wait for Romney to make this into an issue. It’s my bet that he’ll do his best to avoid the issue altogether, because the left-wing media will not permit him to get away with the lies in the general that they have forgiven in the primary season. When Romney lies to other Republicans, the mainstream media won’t object, but you can bet that if Romney tries to pass off this same lie in the general campaign against Obama, he will never be permitted to get away with it.

Romney is vulnerable to defeat for this reason, and because his pronouncements on the campaign trail have to date promised repealing Obamacare, it’s going to be raised whether he likes it or not. The way it will be raised is by labeling Romney both as a liar and a hypocrite, two charges he surely seems to deserve in the matter. It will be done in the weeks leading up to the election, probably after the middle of October, and it will be used to massacre the Republicans.

More, I suspect that if he secures the nomination, Romney will try to walk back all of this “repeal Obamacare” talk almost immediately. He’ll talk about fixing it instead, and as I reported some time ago, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has let that cat out of the bag. What this means for Republicans is that once the party nominates Mitt Romney, they’re going to find themselves stuck with a clunker who probably will go down to defeat in November, not merely because of Romneycare, but because of Mitt Romney’s ongoing attempt to conceal it.

Mitt Romney’s Sorry Excuse for Romneycare

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Helping Obama Socialize America

Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted that the Tenth Amendment and the principles of federalism forgive Romneycare.  Many question this assertion, but to date, Romney has dodged and evaded it.  While the media continues to talk about contraception, Rush Limbaugh, and every evasion they can imagine, but none have asked Romney any question in opposition to this premise.  I want to know when the media will finally get around to vetting this, but it seems they have bought the lie that since Romneycare happened at the state level, it’s somehow different.  That’s not the case, and it never will be, but for the willing media that simply refuses to address this issue. In order to make this plain, I am going to explain once more why Romneycare is not excused and may not be forgiven on the basis of federalism.

The principle of federalism exists because of the way in which our nation was formed.  Our constitution is best compared to a contract in partnership among the several states.  In this sense, the states are superior to the Federal government they created, in precisely the same way that the individual retains sovereignty even after entering into a partnership.  A contract of marriage is another similar concept.  On the grounds of the marriage compact, one spouse does not gain the authority to coerce the other to an action.  When such things occur, there’s generally a dissolution of a partnership or a divorce in marriage.  Of course, the Civil War set a precedent in this regard with respect to the states, but the principle is sound even if our observance of it has not always been the most faithful.

What Mitt Romney argues with respect to his health insurance reform plan in Massachusetts(hereafter: Romneycare) is that the state of Massachusetts is eligible to do to individuals that which the Federal government may not.  The problems with this argument are many, but let us focus on just a few.  First, the Tenth Amendment doesn’t offer protections solely to the states, but also to the people.  In fact, one could also argue that  the Ninth Amendment, also applies. Here are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

  • Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These are important parts of our Constitution, and while many of our children will study the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth, sadly, the others are frequently neglected.  The Ninth simply states that just because a right wasn’t specifically addressed in the  Constitution does not mean it does not exist.  In effect, citizens could rightly claim all manner of other rights under the auspices of the Ninth, and they have.  The Tenth is considered to be a strong pro-federalism Amendment, reserving power over all matters not specifically mentioned to the States, or to the people.  What this means is that the Federal Government cannot come along and create whatever laws it wants, without respect to the sovereignty of the individual states, or to the individual people residing in them.

To be perfectly frank about this, if we applied the Tenth amendment more strictly, as should have been the case, many Federal laws now in existence would be tossed out as violations.  That said, what Romney claims is that the State can do to individuals that which is forbidden to the Federal Government.  Again we return to the Civil War as a precedent, but we needn’t go that far. We need only go back to the 1960s, when Kennedy sent the Feds to enforce the rights of individual citizens against the State government in Alabama, led by Governor George Wallace.  Notice that the Tenth Amendment had no application there, since the rights being protected were recognized by the Federal Government, and disparaged by the State.

Here starts the trouble.  Romney argues that unlike the Federal Government, that must abide by a commerce clause that forbids the Federal Government from interfering in intrastate commerce, by enumerating interstate commerce alone, the state of Massachusetts is under no such restriction, and in fact is merely exercising its authority over intrastate commerce.  Romney, his shills and his supporters all claim that this is just like automobile insurance.   Most states in the United States mandate some form of auto insurance, but this is a deception too.  The states may not compel anything beyond liability insurance.  They cannot force drivers to purchase collision insurance, comprehensive insurance, road hazard insurance, or anything of the sort.  They may only compel the purchase of liability insurance(and most states permit a liability bond of self-insurance,) and only because the vehicles to be operated are to be operated on the  public roadways.  On your private property, the state has no such authority.  Therefore, the authority of the state to compel the purchase of insurance(or posting of bond) is contingent upon your use of the public roadways, but their ability to compel is limited to liability insurance.

Once you understand this, the argument of Mitt Romney evaporates.  The mandate in Romneycare compels the individual to purchase insurance that he may never use, but most importantly, insurance to cover his own injury or loss.  This is the equivalent of forcing you to insure your lawn-mower against losses that only you might incur(damage, theft, etc,)  or insuring your car against yourself with a sledgehammer in your driveway.  The State cannot compel the purchase of such insurance, and the reason is simple:  The government has no interest in it, and thus no standing.  The claim of Romney and other statists is that the state does have an interest, by virtue of the fact that you might show up and demand healthcare irrespective of your ability to pay.

This is a result of the legal requirement by the Federal Government that an emergency room cannot turn persons away for lack of ability to pay. Effectively, what Romney and those like him argue is that because the hospitals may be coerced to take non-paying patients, that this then gives the state the authority to compel all to insurance.  This is like arguing that because some people commit robberies, we ought to be compelled to purchase pre-paid legal services, one and all, or that because some people may be bitten by rattlesnakes, we all ought to carry around a snake-bit kit, and redistribute the costs on a uniform basis.

This is absurd, and in fact, this is the root of the Romneycare scam, and what you have is really the result of an unjust law that requires some people to provide services to others irrespective of their ability to pay.  Imagine somebody walking into the grocery store and filling their cart or basket and then walking out without paying on the basis that everybody needs to eat.  Of course, we’ve short-circuited this too through the foodstamps program. In truth, with medical care, we’ve short-circuited this with Medicaid and Medicare, and much of the unpaid medical bills are generated by people who find themselves uncovered by situation.  All of it is really socialism, writ large, and Mitt Romney’s attempt to pretend otherwise is a shame, but the fact that the mainstream media permits him to evade the subject with talk of federalism and “states’ rights” is a damnable scandal.

Pam Bondi Admits It: Romney Will Push Romneycare

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

A Job in Mind

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said a mouth-full in an interview with Greta Van Susteren On the Record. She effectively admitted that Mitt Romney will only seek to repeal such parts of Obamacare as are in conflict with his own ideas, so that we’ll see a push for Romneycare nationwide. She makes several dishonest arguments, but one thing that is certain is that she already believes she has a job lined up in a Romney Administration. After all, she helped deliver the critical Florida primary. After all, where would Romney be now if he had lost in Florida?  Voters in Michigan and Arizona beware!  Romney is who so many have suspected all along: A big-government liberal from Massachusetts.  Watch the video here:

It’s bad enough to be ruled by Barack Obama and his friends in the Democrat party and throughout the far-left establishment, but to find that Republicans have the same notions is simply despicable, and here, Bondi confirms it.  While she pretends this is a states’ rights issue, it’s nothing of the sort.  This isn’t about federalism, but about the nature of one’s right to one’s life and liberty.  To attempt to push this line explains why Romney wouldn’t back away from Romneycare, and used the same poorly-formed argument to excuse it:  He intends this for all of us.

Rather than talking for two weeks about contraception, perhaps we should have been spending a little more time vetting Romneycare and Mitt’s intentions, but then again, maybe mis-direction has been the point.

What Obama Did to the Catholics? Romney Did It Too!

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

Telling You How It's Going To Be

As it now turns out, back in 2005 when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he forced religious institutions including Catholic hospitals to dispense the so-called “morning after pill.”  This is another bit of evidence as to how Mitt really isn’t a conservative, and how he really doesn’t care about religious liberties.  I am exhausted with his posturing as a saintly man who abides his faith, but to put his stamp of approval on a law that deprives others of their recourse to conscience is a disgusting breach of the the Constitution.  I don’t care to hear his pathetic states’ rights arguments, as they don’t apply in this situation, irrespective of his nonsense to the contrary.  There’s something fundamentally wrong with a politician who thinks it’s his role to shove such provisions down our throats, irrespective of our wishes, and irrespective of the matters of conscience that collide in these issues.  He’s only too happy to command you.

This bit of information merely confirms the worst of my fears about Romney: He’s not merely Obama-Lite.  He’s Obama with an “R” next to his name instead of a “D.”  This sort of state interference with the rights of religious practice and conscience is precisely the sort of monstrosity people of faith have suffered endlessly under the  Obama regime.  We shouldn’t be in the business of nominating a candidate who is substantially more like Obama than unlike him. I hope my fellow conservatives and Tea Party folk will understand that this isn’t merely about abortion, or morning-after pills, or anything else of the sort.  This is entirely about the ability of people of faith and the organizations they create around their shared faith to determine for themselves in which activities they will participate.

This is precisely the same thing Obama is now doing with respect to the coercion of religious organizations, including the Catholic church, to provide insurance to employees that includes contraception.  Once again, government is interfering in the relationship between employers and employees, and their insurers.  This is a scandalously tyrannical abuse of authority, and the fact that Mitt Romney participated in much the same thing disqualify him in my view. Whatever your views on the divisive issues, there can be no ignoring that even if it is not your faith under attack in this case, your turn will come eventually.

I cannot now and will not ever vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances I can now imagine, and I can imagine plenty.  Feel free to make of that what you will.  In fact, make the most of it, but I will not be bullied on the matter.  That he actually imposed such a thing on the people of Massachusetts is simply unforgivable in my book.  I will have no part in merely replacing Barack Obama with another who shares his despotic reflexes.

 

Romney Caught in Lie? (Video)

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Caught Again?

Once again, at issue is Romneycare, and this time, it’s a piece of video that asks the question: “Is Mitt Romney a Liar?”

This one is going to be problematic for Romney, on the facts, and the idea that he claimed Romneycare is not like Obamacare given the interview with one of his advisers on the legislation, who also worked on Obamacare, is going to make this stick.  What is clear is that Romneycare is substantially the model for Obamacare, which raises all sorts of questions about Romney’s integrity on the issue.

Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Caught!

It’s horrible when you realize that one who you had thought had been conservative makes a point of proving your belief wrong, while insisting otherwise.  The meaning of the word “disappointment” hardly covers what has gone wrong with Ann Coulter’s writing over the last year, but when you realize that she has sidled up to the GOP establishment, the truth becomes undeniably clear.  Proving that Ann Coulter is willing to forsake all her principles in favor of the latest establishment candidate, she has written a piece that is not only manipulative, but purposefully omits several important facts.  Worse still, at one point, Coulter flatly lies, and no excuse of incomplete information can possibly cover it.  Coulter wishes Three Cheers For Romneycare, but I know her cheers are really for Mitt Romney, and this cobbled-together nonsense constitutes a lie Ann Coulter ought not to have told.

Coulter couldn’t wait to posit the lie, but it’s such a well-known lie, she buried it at the end of a paragraph leaning on Rick Santorum for out-of-context, irrelevant support:

“Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.”

This is demonstrably untrue, but what is stunning about this claim is the un-writing of history it proposes.  My readers will doubtless remember the flap over the line pulled from the second printing of Mitt Romney’s book, where he originally made this very argument.  This was of such controversy that it has been mentioned in the debates, so how is it possible that Ann Coulter ignored this while depositing this steaming pile in your midst.  The original text of Romney’s book(H/T ABCNews) included the following text:

We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” –No Apology – Mitt Romney (emphasis added)

As you can plainly see, Ann Coulter lied, and it angers me that not only did she lie, but that I was forced to dig up a link from the ABCNews site to prove it.  This also demonstrates another point, and it’s an important one you should note:  While Ann Coulter tells lies on Romney’s behalf, the radical left will give him no such pass in the general election should he become our nominee. Shame on Coulter for this lie in obstinate denial of well-known and widely-viewed fact. If Coulter doesn’t know this, I can only wonder how, since it’s clear that she reported watching the debate in which Governor Rick Perry(R-TX) raised the issue.

“No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.”

Really?  I am claiming it.   I am.  Several states and individuals are suing over this requirement of Obamacare. That Coulter doesn’t seem to notice that many Americans aren’t claiming a right not to buy it, but that this is the result of the opposite concept – that government has no authority to force us to buy it – makes it perfectly clear that Coulter now holds a view of individual liberties perfectly compatible with Barack Obama’s views on so-called “negative rights.”   That Coulter is now reduced to making the backward argument of leftist filth-mongers should tell you all you really need to know, but I am still shocked by it.  Nevertheless, unable to deal with reality, she throws out this laughable tripe:

“The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.”

One might wonder what is controversial in conservative circles about the idea of the unconstitutionality of an individual mandate, except for the fact that Ann now seems to support the notion.  I almost cannot believe that Coulter has written this, as she urges the nomination of Mitt Romney as our only chance to repeal Obamacare. Why?  Why repeal it, Ms. Coulter?  Her article suggests she has absolutely no problem with it.  I’ve told my readers over the last few days that I believe the GOP establishment doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, and that Mitt Romney is the Trojan horse to make sure repeal never happens, but now Coulter comes along to virtually flaunt this in our faces.

Incredibly, she concludes her article after paragraphs of misdirection, manipulation, and at least one flat-out lie with the following:

“The problem isn’t health insurance mandates. The problem isn’t Romneycare. The problem isn’t welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.”

The problem is the health insurance mandate.  The problem includes Romneycare.  Democrats are indeed a party to this problem, but by this incredible piece of dishonesty posted under the banner of what had been thought to be a conservative writer, what we now know the real problem is that we can no longer tell how Ms. Coulter is any different from those who would rule over us.  If this is Ann Coulter’s version of conservatism, she can keep it along with the rest of her lies.

It’s getting so that we can no longer discern when Coulter is telling the truth or a lie, since she now carries Romney’s water in ludicrous pieces like this one, but less than one year ago, before Christie bowed out, Coulter insisted to us that Mitt Romney could not win.  Take Coulter with a grain of salt. This episode makes me question all the things she has ever written, never mind what she’s said.  I remember her attacks on Sarah Palin, but at least we now know why, don’t we?  Of course, I did believe she meant it when she implied that the Tea Party consisted of emotionally driven morons.  Coulter has a sad obsession with the GOP establishment, but we have known that for some time.

Do I believe you, Ms. Coulter?  No, I must state emphatically now that the real problem we face as conservatives lies also in part with you.

Rick Santorum Says Romney Disqualified

Monday, January 16th, 2012

Santorum Points the Way

Hallelujah! Finally, one of the non-Romneys has noticed what I’ve been saying in various forms for some time, and something I repeated Sunday: Mitt Romney’s Romney-care plan disqualifies him because it robs Republicans of the biggest issue they have on their side.   More than 60% of Americans are opposed to Obama-care, and Romney’s own Massachusetts health-care reform was the model for Obama-care.  Congratulations to Rick Santorum for recognizing this important truth.

Said Senator Santorum in an interview with Fox News on Sunday:

“Romneycare is a real scarlet letter here,” he said. “We can’t have a nominee that takes away the most important issue in this election, which is an explosion of the federal government and robbing of people’s freedom on the federal level with Obamacare.”

Senator Santorum gets it.  I am ecstatic that one of these candidates understands how critically important the issue of Obama-care will be to defeating Barack Obama.  He is right to suggest that giving away this issue is political “malpractice.”  Unless and until the conservative base of the party realizes this, and walks away from Romney as they should, they’re doomed to repeat 2008 in 2012, only worse.

 

Why Romney Can’t Win: It’s Obama-care, Stupid!

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

Romney Will Do His Dirty Work

One of the problems with our current Republicans field is that its putative front-runner effectively nullifies the entire issue of Obama-care as an effective election issue on which to defeat Barack Obama.  This is because Mitt Romney’s own Massachusetts health-care reform law, known widely as “Romney-care,” is essentially the forerunner of President Obama’s own signature legislation, known widely as Obama-care.  I need Republicans to listen closely:  If you want to defeat Obama in November, and have any chance of repealing Obama-care, you need to focus on this as an electoral issue in the primaries.

You can talk about the economy, jobs, and all the rest, but there is no single issue on which you have more clear-cut support, and no other issue that has two-thirds of the American populace behind you.  To nominate Mitt Romney is to mute yourselves on this issue, because Romney-care is essentially the same thing.  You won’t win with this lousy contradiction stalking your every step, and until you confront the fact that your best winning issue is Obama-care, you’re doomed.  If in 1992, as James Carville then said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” then in 2012, the refrain must echo in the rafters, if Republicans are to win: “It’s Obama-care, stupid!”

Of course, as Doug Brady over at C4P writes, there’s reason to believe that some in the GOP establishment are increasingly comfortable with the idea of Obama-care remaining the law.  Once you consider that companies contributing to establishment Republicans are happy with the arrangements provided under Obama-care, you start to realize how the fix might well be in.  Ann Coulter has offered that repeal of Obama-care will never happen if Obama is re-elected, and she’s right, but she offers this as rationale for why you should support Mitt Romney.  The problem with this argument on her part is that it is precisely the Romney-supporting establishment wing of the GOP that really wouldn’t mind if Obama-care went into full effect.  Even if they did oppose Obama-care as thoroughly as do most Americans, Mitt is the wrong person to make this case since he actually implemented a plan on the state of Massachusetts that is every bit as crippling to that state’s economy as Obama-care will be to the entire nation, and similarly dictatorial with its individual health insurance mandate.  How will Romney argue with Obama over this?  The simple answer is that he won’t. He can’t. He’s neutered on the issue, and if you pick him as the party’s nominee, it’s over.

Some of you are hoping the Supreme Court will ditch Obama-care, but as Brady links to an article by Andrew McCarthy, it was McCarthy who pointed out back in November that Obama-care may well pass muster before the Supreme Court.  If that disaster occurs, then there will be only one way to overturn that piece of tyrannical legislation and it will be by full repeal by Congress, signed into law by a president.  If that President is still Obama, you can forget it, and if the program stays in place through its full implementation, you can forget it, because nobody will repeal it seven years after-the-fact, just like there was no stopping the other entitlement programs once they were up and running.  This truly is your last chance, and it will depend upon defeating Obama this coming November with a candidate who is a credible opponent to Obama-care, and who will make that a focus of the campaign. Anything else will leave the GOP picking around the margins of a host of issues, but if any of them happen to break in Obama’s favor, he’ll win the day.

There’s no way around this: If you select Romney as the nominee of the Republican party, not only will you never repeal Obama-care, but you will never win the election in November.  Obama has it in his power to rig job numbers, and the expected vote fraud of his legions of illegal immigrants will undoubtedly help him in the fraud at the polls.  Romney will not be able to make the argument against Obama-care, and by last measure of which I am aware, over 60% of the American people want it repealed.  Nominating Romney is Obama’s great hope, because it enables him to neuter the Republicans across the board.  He may even re-take the House, since a losing Romney would certainly offer no coat-tails.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to shake the trees and rattle the cages: If Mitt Romney is permitted to win the nomination, the country is over.  It’s really as simple as that, and the sooner you grasp how badly Obama wants Romney to be the nominee, the better the chance you will be able to change that outcome, and give Obama something he does not want:  A candidate who will be able to oppose him effectively on his signature legislation, that the vast majority of the American people hate, and want repealed. Just as we shouldn’t permit 20-30% of political thinking in the country dominate our health-care choices, neither should we permit 20-30% of the thinking in the Republican party dominate our electoral choices.  It’s time that we stand up to the threat posed by Romney’s timid, evasive posturing as a conservative, and remind the establishment of the GOP that we are the deciders.  Not them.  No to Obama-care, and no to Romney.  The two go hand-in-hand.

Or hand-in-glove…

European Downgrades Imminent(Updated)

Friday, January 13th, 2012

The Beginning of the End?

As I have discussed at length over the last few months, the Euro currency is in trouble, and the member nations who make up the Euro are all facing potential credit rating downgradesDrudge is linking the CNBC report that France has been downgraded by S&P, while others are sure to follow in the short run.  At present, Germany and the Netherlands aren’t among those under immediate threat of downgrade, but the effects have been immediate as stocks have slumped throughout the morning on fears over the blow-back in financial markets.  This is going to continue to threaten the global economy, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see a way out of this mess.

Meanwhile, there is no deal yet on Greek debt, which is a part of the trouble:  Sovereign debt is destroying Europe, and as this occurs, we’re mimicking the levels of expenditure that got Europe into all of this trouble. It’s now clear that during a single term, Barack Obama will have added $6.2 Trillion to the national debt.  That’s an extraordinarily dangerous growth in public debt that threatens the economic future and the political stability of the nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, this level of borrowing and expenditure cannot be sustained, and I cannot imagine how somebody like Mitt Romney will do anything to change this.  He’s a timid politician in most respects, and he has no record of making cuts in issues where there is substantial political difficulty.  In fact, the truth is that he’s added to the future liabilities of the state of Massachusetts through his health-care program, that is even now bankrupting that state. In this respect, Romney offers nothing substantially different from what another term of Obama promises to provide: American decline.  It’s time to look closely at all of these candidates to see if any have a record of real cuts, because our nation’s future will depend on it.

Update: Before I could even get this posted, the situation is fluid, and it is being reported that five nations have been downgraded, including Italy, Spain, and Portugal by two notches each, while France and Austria were each dropped a single notch.

 

Mitt Romney Is a Big Government Stooge

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

What to Wear When You're Shoveling BS

I’ve had just about enough of those who would like to pretend that Willard “Mitt” Romney is anything but a big government stooge.  American conservatives should run from this man as if they’d stumbled upon a leper colony.  There’s simply no excuse for the pretense we here from those in the GOP establishment that this man is a conservative.  In this video of an interview with Romney on Wednesday, what is revealed is that he still favors governmental mandates for health insurance.  Once again, Romney argues that his is a position of fiscal responsibility, and personal responsibility, and therefore conservative.  If you believe this is what constitutes conservatism, you’ve been horribly misinformed, or you’re dishonest, and I will not permit this lie to go further.  Let us be clear that when government mandates anything upon the individual, it is fundamentally restricting their rights, and arrogating to itself the choices people ought to be able to make in a free market.

What Romney offers here is just socialist bilge, clothed in a statist’s lies, and it’s time to put an end to it.  Watch the video, H/T Rich Lowry at National Review:

Hogwash!  Let’s consider briefly what he has said in this interview.  Romney offers that since the people of Massachusetts still favor his healthcare plan by a ratio of three-to-one, we should assume this is a good program.  In a state where more than 60% of the electorate leans Democrat, and only 26% lean Republican, what Romney has just admitted is that Democrats in Massachusetts support his healthcare plan, because 60-26 is already more than two-to-one.  This would be fine if he were challenging Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination, but it is entirely unbelievable unacceptable for a candidate seeking the Republican nomination.  Who expects Willard to repeal Obamacare?  Not I.  No approximately conservative person can view his justification of the Massachusetts mandate and fail to notice that it is merely another socialistic, big-government, welfare-state solution.

He spends most of this clip trying to explain why a mandate is a conservative idea.  It’s not.  A conservative knows that government has absolutely no role in healthcare whatever, unless its for soldiers or veterans.  That’s a conservative reality.  What Willard hopes is that by making this contextual shift, you won’t notice what he’s done in making this claim. He constructs it this way:

Proposition: It is right for individuals to pay their own way.

Conclusion: Then it is right for individuals to be compelled to pay their own way.

This is a ghastly lie. Let’s look at the real logical constructs underlying Mitt’s grotesque characterization and definition of conservatism as applied to this context.  What Romney here pretends is that the government has no choice but to provide goods and services, in this case, health-care, to any who desire it, or who can make some claim of need.  That is a lie. Government may say “no,” at least until people like Mitt Romney run it.  What Romney pretends is that you will be compelled to have insurance so that if you need healthcare, it will be paid for and you will thus not become a burden on tax-payers.  Let us be blunt: The only reason people are permitted to become a burden on tax-payers is because governments and tax-payers(or voters) allow it.  The real conservative solution is not to mandate healthcare coverage, but to begin the much more important and difficult chore of telling people “no.”

When Romney pretends his healthcare mandate is “conservative,” he’s lying, and he knows it.  I will not support Mitt Romney for any office, whether dog catcher or President, because he is a liar.  When you see politicians making these sorts of statements, you know they are avoiding something, and in this case, it is the real underlying question: Why do you think anybody ought to pay for your healthcare?  That is the first question an actual conservative must ask, and any jack-ass in a suit can propose mandates in the face of false suppositions about who ought to pay.

Health-care mandates aren’t conservative.  What they are is a method by which to get some who use little healthcare to pay for the healthcare of those who’d rather not pay, but it’s been all dressed up in the costume of personal responsibility.  Here’s personal responsibility:  No pay? No healthcare!  That’s conservatism.  That’s the free market.  That’s what I expect politicians to tell people, because it’s the truth.  Anything else is a lot of tyranny, and we have too much of that as it is.

Romney is no conservative, and I each time he claims to be one, I am going to point this out as another reminder of why he is nothing more or less than a big government stooge.   Romney’s healthcare mandate in Massachusetts is one reason conservatives must not support him, but the greater and more important reason to reject Romney is because he’s lying.   Conservatism doesn’t use pretenses like this to sell bad ideas that destroy liberty by their implementation, and actual conservatives know better.  At least, this one does.

 

Romney Admits He Will Only Tweak Obamacare

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Mend it, but don't end it?

In what must be considered a statement of intent, Mitt Romney explained that he would only amend of some parts of Obamacare.  That’s simply unacceptable to conservatives.  Romney’s insistence on striking a moderate pose in this primary season is the one thing that promises to derail him.  The idea that a candidate claiming to be conservative would keep any part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) is laughable.  Romney is stuck with this clunker is because he signed very similar legislation while serving as governor of Massachusetts, and the problem is that when Romney offers to tweak this horrid legislation, he admits that he intends to abandon one of the core reasons to elect a Republican.  Republicans cannot win without including a repeal of Obamacare in the laundry list of reasons to elect them, and roughly 65% of American still oppose it and want it repealed.

Watch the video of Willard “Mitt” Romney explaining his intention to modify Obamacare, rather than outright repeal:

This is another reason conservatives don’t trust Romney.  Obamacare is terrible legislation, and it offers to ruin our healthcare system in the long run in favor of a top-down system managed by government in its entirety.  Private health insurance providers are already being squeezed out, and Obama is already robbing Medicare to pay for it.  There are very good reason to want Obamacare repealed, but perhaps the most important is the individual mandate, that will impose fines on those who do not purchase insurance.  As others have pointed out, there is going to government rationing of care through refused reimbursements, and eventually, denied treatments based on considerations of cost.

This is anathema to a broad majority of the American people, and their firmly held notions of liberty, and it’s time Mitt “manned-up” and said so, but he can’t.  He’s stuck because he inflicted a similar system on Massachusetts that is now under severe financial strain as the  economy is weak and tax revenues are down.  In short, it’s another big government program that is destined to fail and will likely drag the entire healthcare sector into the ground with it.  Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare, prompting one to wonder how he expects to sell mere tweaks to Americans who want Obamacare scrapped altogether.  In addition, how will he differentiate himself from Obama if his only claim is to be willing to tinker around the edge’s of Obama’s signature legislation?  That’s not a compelling argument to replace Obama, particularly since Americans are apt to see him as a weak imitation.

If this is what Republicans want, by all means, they should vote for Romney.  I have no intention of supporting any candidate who thinks this sort of program has any business being implemented by any level of government.  Romney’s repeated statement about offering waivers to states that want them is garbage.  I don’t want a waiver, and I’m not sure waivers are actually legal anyway.  It’s time for full repeal before we get saddled permanently with this garbage.  Ann Coulter is on record as saying that if Republicans don’t capture the White House in 2012, we’ll never get rid of Obamacare.  I agree, but unfortunately, the squeamish candidate Ms. Coulter supports won’t get rid of it either.