The Hill: Mitt Romney (R) said Tuesday he wouldn't apologize for the healthcare plan he created as governor of Massachusetts.
Romney waged a defense of his state's healthcare plan, perhaps his biggest hurdle to clear if he hopes to win the Republican nomination for president, due to its similarities to President Obama's healthcare reform law.
"I'm not apologizing for it," Romney said on "Good Morning America."[...]
Romney said that while he might have constructed his plan differently if given a second chance, he was ultimately well within his rights as the governor of a state to enact it.
"I'm not going to apologize for the rights of states to craft plans on a bipartisan basis that they think will help their people," he said.
So Mitt Romney is going with the "States Rights" answer. That is a pretty slim reed to hang his hat on..
While Romney is correct to point out that States have certain rights that the Feds do not have, his answer doesn't explain how a so called "conservative" ended up supporting mandates in the first place.
Conservatives are suppose to be about the free market and individual freedom, how does supporting a big government solution like RomneyCare fit that bill? Romney's inability to answer this question is why I won't be voting for him this time around.
There are some serious things that will need to be undone from the Obama years and I certainly don't feel comfortable voting for someone to undo them who cannot consistently apply his conservative principles.
Judging from Romney's "States Rights" answer and his keeping a distance from the Tea Parties, I believe that Romney has settled on a nomination strategy that will bypass conservatives. This is why I am ringing the bell that conservatives had better get their game plan together and start thinking realistically about who they will support in 2012. Otherwise, Romney could very well end up being our nominee.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Hill
Via: Newser
Posts
29 comments:
What's he supposed to say? My big government socialized medicine "solution" in MA . . . um, wasn't mine? It's his. He's a socialist progressive, and if he plans on winning, he'd better run as one. I hear the sprogs are desperate for a new leader.
I am going to preface this by saying I am not a fan of his, but I think he is right.
First, if he did it he should stand by it. As person who grew up in New England I fully understand that they are very left leaning states that love, love, love big government. He probably did keep it from being worse than it already is. Fuzzi would have a much better idea of the dynamics of what was going on in the state at the time, since she lives there.
Second, this isn't going to change my mind, I am not supporting him in the primaries.
But, if by some bizarre chance he gets the nomination I will support him. I don't like him and don't want him, but he is far cry better than Obama. He will sign the repeal of Obamacare, and yes I do believe that. A strong congress will keep in him in line.
The appeal of him will be his business experience. He completely turned around the disasterous Olympics games. That is going to give him some cred with the squishy middle.
Very insightful.
...a nomination strategy that will bypass conservatives...
Hey, it worked for McCain in 2008, Bush in 2000, and Dole in 1996. But only 1 in 3 go on to get elected President.
Fuzzy Slippers:
You are correct, there really isn't anything he can say that will prove satisfactory. Which makes me wonder why he feels compelled to run this time round? If he runs and wins the nomination, there is a very good chance he will go into the general without full support from his base
JACG:
I agree he should own it (not that he has an option). I also agree that I have no intention of supporting him during the primaries. Should he become our nominee, yeah, it will be nose clip time.
Although, I really do believe if he does get the nomination, Obama will defeat him. I say this because, the left will transfer their Palin hatred to Romney and I have seen this guy under a light leftwing assault. It ain't pretty. He will never be able to withstand the onslaught.
Micha Elyi:
You noticed how the strategy was used before. Romney is counting on conservatives being unable to settle on a clear leader. So long as there is no single strong conservative, the RINO will win.
I've been speaking up about Romney from the moment I met him. He is a political chameleon. When he was running for president he was the converative. Now he is the moderate.
The fact that he doesn't reject mandates in Robomneycare, makes me suspect he believes he actually did the right thing.
Clifton, I'm curious as to who you're liking the most as a true conservative for 2012 at this point. Or is it too early to say? :)
Economy Politics:
The thing that scares me about Romney is that he doesn't seem to realize just how un-conservative mandate are. Where was his principles when that idea was floated around?
Should he become president, I think JACG is right he probably would repeal ObamaCare, but I doubt he truly understands why it should be done.
Lisa:
Who do I consider true conservatives for 2012? First, lets start by eliminating what I call fantasy candidates. These are people who fit the bill, but lets be real, there is no chance of them running. That would be Allen West, Marco Rubio, Rand, Paul and Paul Ryan.
Now that leaves people who are most likely to run in 2012. Of this I would say true conservatives are Palin, DeMint, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann (there is some noise of her running) and Herman Cain.
You will notice I left out Chris Christie. Sadly, it appears that Christie is clearly aligning himself with the establishment.
If there is someone else I forgot let me know.
Cliff;
You forgot Mitch Daniels. While he isn't a social conservative, he certainly is buget hawk. He would do an ok job. He has been a very effective governor. They adore him in Indiana. I realize that there will be people who won't call him a true conservative because he is moderate on social issues, but I don't think he is an activist about social issues. He will go along with the congress on those type of things and they are strongly pro life right now. So those issues would take care of themselves within in the legislature. I also happen to agree that if we have to put these on the back burner to get better fiscal policy, then so be it.
Is it RiNO season already? Where does the time go?
Hm, of true conservatives, that sounds about right. Agreed - Chris Christie, besides standing up to the unions, is disappointing. But whatever... onward.
When you list out the true conservatives that are actually running I get nervous. Sheesh...
P.S. I'm loving Herman Cain. Love his business experience. Great speaking skills. He's my #1 pick right now.
JACG:
I left off Mitch Daniels for the very reason he isn't a social conservative. Many conservatives are looking for the full package. If Daniels is only fiscally conservative, then he is pretty much in the same boat as Chris Christie.
I tend to think social conservatism is important. I say this because so much of the spending we do, has its roots in social issues. A socially liberal conservative might be willing to go along with more spending under the guise of "compassion".
The Vegas Arts Guy:
When isn't it RINO season? LOL
Lisa:
Don't get nervous. Remember it is still very early and none of those I mention have even announced. What will help is to start doing your homework on these guys now. Learn everything you can about each candidate and keep close tabs on all political developments. This way the primaries start you can make a quick and firm decision.
Lisa:
I am loving Cain too. I am trying to learn everything I can about him. The only trouble I have with him so far, is that he has zero political experience.
The left is going to throw the kitchen sink at whomever the GOP nominee is (they have too, Obama cannot run on just his record), there is just no way to tell how Cain will handle that. That is a little scary for me.
Excellent point re: Cain. Also there are some who think our nominee isn't really even on the radar yet so who knows. I just cannot imagine another 4 years of this joker. I live in CA and know how dumb voters can be. :)
The shining neoconservative of Moroni -- is the right candidate for the postmodern era. Let the nomination go to him, to compliment the cliche and insincerity. Massachusetts is another component--on the East Coast of Leftism.
Zero political experience has more appeal than a lot of the "lifers" in D.C.
@JACG, yes, I was here when he was governor (and before), and I can tell you that the budget discussion related to RomneyCare went something like this: let's lower costs by forcing everyone to buy health insurance (at risk of a penalty, fine) so they can pay for everyone else's health care. Yay! Do a little YouTube surfing for his "victory" speeches after that socialist horrorshow was passed. There's one, too, when he was still "pitching" it around in which he sounds . . . gasp . . . just like BO on the ObamaCare stump.
I also watched him let bloated, wasteful state spending stay in place, while he cut (though he now denies it, but Google it, both the Globe and the Herald covered it) some teacher, but mostly fire and police. No, he didn't tackle union contracts, he just cut funding and closed entire fire departments in smaller MA towns.
I don't care what he says, look at what he did. He did exactly what he wanted to do, and if you think that "well, geee, it's MA" is an excuse on the national stage, think again. Do you think that this country needs a "Massachusetts Republican" at this time? Romney is a sprog, no doubt in my mind; Brown, definitely a RINO, not sure how socialist and/or progressive he is yet (but some of his "throw money at the problem and it'll go away" votes are troubling.). As to supporting Romney in 2012--that's obviously up to everyone to decide for themselves, but there is nothing about him that is conservative, no position he hasn't changed based on polls (abortion, drilling, hell, even smoking fgs). He's a wishy-washy phony, and there is absolutely no way to pin that on geographical region or on the voters in MA. He's got no principles, not one that he wouldn't sell or trade for a vote.
Lisa:
While I do love the idea of someone fresh who is not a professional politician, I do believe that in order to beat Obama, our candidate must have some experience with campaigning. Particularly fighting a dirty campaign. 2012 won't be pretty.
I often thought that an unknown would emerge from the Tea Parties. It can still happen, but time is running out.
I lived in NYC for most of my life so, I too am no stranger to dumb voters.
Whitey Lawful:
Yes, fickle candidates do appeal to our fickle Republic. Mass. is pretty much a lost cause.
Janelle:
Zero political experience is very attractive, but as I said to Lisa, campaign skills will be very necessary for 2012.
Fuzzy:
Now that is the kind of info that is needed to be known for all candidates in 2012. Knowing their past deeds is a good indication of how they will govern.
I never got the feeling that Romney believed in anything other than himself.
Keep in mind, too, that his residency was challenged when he first ran for MA gov. Why, one might ask, if he's such a conservative, didn't he just run in Utah, a red red red state? Because, I answer, he's NOT a freaking conservative. Heck, he didn't even join the Republican party until he tried to take out Teddy Kennedy back in the 90's. No need to point out that was a political calculation, not an identification with conservative values or principles.
You noticed how the strategy was used before. Romney is counting on conservatives being unable to settle on a clear leader. So long as there is no single strong conservative, the RINO will win.
That may be so, but right on que here comes Jon Huntsman to do the same thing to Mittens and the RINO vote. Ahhh, schadenfreude, how I love thee.
I am of course--out of place as a paleoconservative; but after reading the comments i realise that the term r.i.n.o. is bogus. It does not take much to assert what Republican means; especially since the exodus of paleoconservatives to third party's in the 90's. Plus the Rockefeller-Goldwater paradigm is absent since then. Leaving Ron Paul and Rand Paul and a few others whom are being desecrated by Libertarians that do not upper-case their L's. Also neoconservatives are the conservatism of the mainstream. Those that have a problem with the mainstream -- have a problem with themselves. Unless you are marginal and reactionary then the politics as usual -- should suit you fine. Thanks for reading my paleoconservative case and may you join me on the fringe.
Post a Comment