The American Spectator : Hindsight No Longer 20/20

Text Size

Hindsight No Longer 20/20

By Lucia Rafanelli on 7.14.11 @ 6:08AM

RomneyCare failed in Massachussetts. For the good of the nation, it's time for Romney to just admit it.

As recently as May, Mitt Romney refused to call his state health care legislation, Commonwealth Care, a mistake. When even the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination continues to defend an extensive government insurance program, it is far too easy for President Obama to stand by his own Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Despite growing evidence to the contrary -- including a Congressional Budget Office presentation that calls into question the act's cost-cutting ability -- Democrats repeat claims that Obamacare will reduce health-care spending. But those arguments appear all the less radical alongside Romney's continued justification of Commonwealth Care.

From the start, one of the main selling points of Obamacare was that it would curb costs, benefitting the economy and cutting down on wasteful government spending. In 2008, President Obama said that cost-cutting would be the "starting point" of his attempt at health care legislation, and initial CBO reports that Obamacare would shave $143 billion off the federal deficit made headlines.

But these same predictions of cost-cutting were made in Massachusetts about Romneycare -- and the current data suggests they were far from accurate.

Regarding his health care plan, Mitt Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced."

According to Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Heartland Institute, this claim was largely based on the thought "...that newly insured patients [in Massachusetts] would get care (including preventive care) in clinics and skip the emergency room."

This reduction in expensive ER visits was supposed to cut costs, but that never happened. "…costs are rising faster than thought. ER visits did not fall...and premiums are rising," Herrick elaborated.

Massachusetts' government expenditures on health care also increased under Romney. The CATO Institute reported that "public and private spending on health insurance have accelerated" under Romneycare, and that the "total new spending" under the policy (conservatively) exceeded $1 billion in 2008.

Romney, though, is unwilling to admit that these failures indicate an overall bad policy. Thus, Obama has little incentive to acknowledge that his healthcare law may exhibit similar failures or that this possibility should cause us to question its legitimacy. Romney has set a precedent of imperfect hindsight that Obama is only too happy to follow.

In fact, according to Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Obamacare will likely fail in the same way Romneycare did. Cannon said, "Romneycare supporters made phony-baloney claims that it would reduce health care costs, just as supporters of Obamacare are making phony-baloney claims that it will reduce health care costs."

Herrick, too, predicts that Obamacare will "cost far more" than Romney's plan did, because the national policy contains fewer restrictions on who can enter the public insurance exchange. He further points out that most of the forecasted savings due to Obamacare are slated to come from hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts "that many politicians (and the Medicare Chief Actuary) know [will] likely not occur."

Even the CBO's position has begun to waver: In a 2010 presentation to the Institute of Medicine, CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf said Obamacare "does not substantially diminish" the budgetary strain of growing health care costs. He further stated that a "sustainable" budget path "would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law…"

Although Jonathan Gruber -- advisor to both Romney and Obama on health care -- has correctly stated that Obamacare contains cost-cutting provisions not found in its Massachusetts predecessor, Americans are by no means off the hook for footing a growing health care bill.

According to Cannon, these cost-cutting provisions are unlikely to be effective. They include pilot programs in Medicare, which he said would "fail like pilot programs always do in Medicare."

Cannon further stated that price control regulations implemented to curb costs will likely be repealed, that increased access to preventative care will not reduce costs as expected, and that Congress will reverse some of the funding cuts included in Obamacare.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Lucia Rafanelli is an editorial intern at The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 6:54AM

It is too late for Romney to revise his position on RomneyCare. This one issue alone should ensure that he will not be nominated.

His campaign is as dead as Newt's, Huntsman's, Gary Johnson's, Tom Miller's, Ron Paul's and Vern Wuensche's. Of course, if Romney actually does nab the nomination, I would vote for him over Obama. It's just that he'd have a tougher time running against ObamaCare than any other candidate.

The sooner he drops out, the better. I'm betting the other Republican hopefuls will not be seeking his endorsement, either.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 7:19AM

According to the latest Dick Morris poll, taken "June 18th +19th, Congressman Ron Paul and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann are now surging ahead nationwide, catching up to Mitt Romney and diminishing the chances of all other opponents including Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.
Romney 23%
Romney has money, is stalled and some polling has him declining. He’ll make his stand in New Hampshire his home turf.

Ron Paul 12%
Paul, the Tea Party favorite has a steady incline, raised 3 million in the last 15 days and is now leading in Northern New Hampshire.

Michelle Bachmann 12%
She’s not Sarah Palin! She’ll win in her home turf of Iowa, is raising lots of money but will struggle in New Hampshire."

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 8:18AM

It's a long way out, and I am not going on record as to whom will win, or even whom I would like to win. Only taking a bit of a stand here on who probably will not.

Oh, Hell, I might as well say what I would like to see. Perry, if he gets in, for President, Bachmann for Vice President, and Ron Paul for Treasury.

Perry seems like a stalwart fellow with a bit of flair. If he doesn't run, or doesn't win, Pawlenty would be my second choice. Bachmann also has flair, but needs a bit more seasoning. The Veep slot would be perfect.

As for Ron Paul, he would be most effective at Treasury, especially with Republicans controlling both houses. I believe he would start taking names and kicking asses on day one.

Secretary of State? One name: John Bolton.

Defense? Someone like Duncan Hunter or TommyFranks.

Commerce? Let Mitt have it.

Labor? Should be eliminated. Roll the functions into Commerce.

Interior? Sarah Palin or someone from the oil industry. (Incidentally, EPA and Agriculture should be subsumed under Interior and many jobs eliminated.)

Justice? Some moonshiner who hates the ATF and loves the 2nd Amendment.

Education? Should be eliminated. Until then, anyone with a GED and some common sense.

HHS? A good accounts payable clerk. All those people do is write checks, anyway.

HUD? Bob Villa, Norm Abrams or Tim the Toolman Taylor.

Transportation? The current NASCAR champion.

Veteran's Affairs? Defense should run these things.

Homeland Security? Jack Bauer. I hear he's available. (Actually, this is a whole layer of bureaucracy that should be "evaporated" with extreme prejudice.)

I guess that about does it. For now!!!

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 8:30AM

Don't recycle the losers. You have the typical Republican mentailty (actually beltway spoils system). Most of the losers you propose are the exact clowns that got us to where we are today. Not only that they will sublet their appointments and the ENTIRE cast and crew of the SS Titanic will be back on watch.
Handy, you are smarter than that. You seem to have a fairly decent handle on what needs to be done. Don't go wobbly on us now. We have to have new blood, people who are willing to spill some of that encumbant entitlement blood for the life of the Nation.

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 8:48AM

I am open to suggestions.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 10:33AM

President; Palin, Bachmann
V. P.; Bolton, Cain, Heinemann (Nebraska)
Sec. of State; Bolton
ATF; Wayne La Pierre (I am serious)
Sec. Defense: Petreaeus
Inclusive; Sessions needs to be somewhere, so does DeMint.
Exclusive; Anyone for ethanol, anyone who supports AGB, anyone who is against drilling, mining, fracking, refineries, or Nuclear Power.
Every single state must set aside the funding to build a refinery and a nuclear power generating facility
Governors of states who have balanced their budgets. No governors of states that have not balanced their budgets.
All Tea Party organizations should be polled as to providing "state" legislators of merit for consideration of any current legislator who votes to raise the debt ceiling.
NO ONE who was in the last Republican primary.

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 12:13PM

Not bad as far as you go. The only two I mentioned who were in the last primary were Mitt and Duncan Hunter. I am covinced you didn't really read my comment. What losers did I list?

Of course, Sarah hasn't announced, and I don't think she will.

Cain has said he is not interested in VP, although he would be good there. After thinking about it, I would prefer him at Commerce over Romney, because that department needs a major do-over, especially if it is to absorb Labor. Am not familiar with Heinemann at all. Bolton would be far more valuable at State than as Veep. He could weed out the fellow travellers that infest Foggy Bottom.

ATF is not a cabinet-level job. I would prefer the whole agency just became part of the Marshal Service. La Pierre could head up that section, but he is probably not willing to take the pay cut, and he is an insider's insider.

Nothing against Petreaeus, but he has been too long in Obama's employ. Pretty sure that no flag officers have gone on to be Defense Secretaries.

You said no more entrenched guys. Sessions and DeMint are OK by me, but they would not seem to meet your criteria. If we are going to expand the circle, how about Cantor for something?

States need to set aside funding for coal and nuclear power? You sound like a Democrat. Just get the government out of the way.

The number of governors who have actually balanced their budgets is too few to mention.

The Tea Party organizations need to get busier on identifying incumbents who need to be dumped and candidates to replace them. In my state (IL), I want Mark Kirk (R) to be a one-term senator, but he is there until 2016. My congressman, Peter Roskam (R), seems to be doing OK, so far.

megapotamus| 7.14.11 @ 12:19PM

As far as foreign policy goes, installing Bolton at State would be the best development imaginable no matter what else happens. Maybe Obama could bring him on once he is free of a Clintonian challenge. Crazy? Hey, he kept on Gates and elevated Petreaus. With Romney as the supposed alternative that sounds more and more like electoral genius.

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 1:28PM

Bolton would never accept the job from Obama. Gates was a lap dog. Petraeus was promoted to CinC of Central Command before he was demoted back to Afghanistan. The honorable thing for him to do was to turn down the CIA gig and take retirement.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 1:35PM

Paul, Romney are pretty big "oops" to my way of thinking.

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 5:26PM

Michael L. Hauschild,

You should take some time to read before ejaculating reflexively. And, you don't set the agenda around here, BTW. You want Palin or Bachmann on top. Fine. Neither ran for the big banana in 2008, but neither did my two: Perry and/or Pawlenty. Both have loads more experience than either of your choices.

I at least gave you the benefit of my reasoning and not just a snide "...to my way of thinking." You sound as imperious as Obama.

If you are not going to make the effort to answer other posters' comments in a thoughtful, comprehensive and respectful manner, you probably shouldn't try at all. Responses like yours today are unlikely to get any attention from me in the future.

You seem not to know very much about the organization of the Executive Branch. Otherwise, you would have realized I was talking about cabinet-level positions, not the entire "Plum Book."

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 6:11PM

Pawlenty, Perry? You lost me buddy. Milque toast and open borders? Here, you are an idiot, there, has that helped firm up your decision as to whether you respond to me or not? (Don't respond.)

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 5:30PM

Sorry,
Forgot West, my bad.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 9:54AM

"Ron Paul overwhelmingly won the 2011 RLC Presidential Straw Poll, gaining 612 (39.69%) of a total of 1542 votes! Jon Huntsman came in second with 382 votes (24.77%), Michele Bachmann was third with 191 votes (12.39%), while last year’s winner Mitt Romney slipped to fifth with only 74 votes (4.80%)."

Dai Alanye| 7.14.11 @ 11:43AM

I'd like to congratulate Ron Paul supporters for managing to pack so many events with ringers, thereby giving a distorted impression of support for the goofy doc.

megapotamus| 7.14.11 @ 11:55AM

If we are going to credit these straw polls then the Paulians' organizational superiority counts. It counts in real elections. But everyone is acting like the election is in five months instead of seventeen.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 2:18PM

Tell Us How Supporters "packed" The Rasmussen Poll.

"Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. "

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 12:48PM

I am second to none in my admiration of Ron Paul on fiscal and most domestic matters. However, he totally disqualifies himself on foreign policy and national defense.

It would be nice if we could cut down on our permanent foreign deployments (Europe, S Korea, Japan, and now Iraq). Ironically, we could also provide more military capabilities by basing our troops here. The money saved by bringing them home would provide for better training than in congested Europe and for more strategic lift to get them when and where they are needed.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul would just defund defense, and disengage from the rest of the world. This, at a time when the challenges are more serious and complicated than ever.

Handy| 7.14.11 @ 1:08PM

Ron Paul was first in the 2008 RLC straw poll as well. The closest things we have to that during the primary process are the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. He finishd 5th in Iowa and a distant 2nd to Romney in the Silver State.

His appeal will wane the closer we get to the actual primary season and people become more attentive. I think he knows this, but just wants to keep everyone focused on the nationl debt problems.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 2:26PM

We Tea Party Patriots have changed The Dynamics of Electoral Politics, as The November 2010 Elections Demonstrated.

Let The GOP RINO-CINO Element & Their Apologists Mess With Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul & Watch What Happens In The GOP Primary Season.

"Four years ago, Ron Paul’s libertarian views became divining rods for the brand of strident antigovernment activism that grew into the Tea Party movement. Now the Texas congressman is trying to make sure the energy of that phenomenon does not bypass his presidential candidacy.

Paul’s prescription for America has been consistent for three decades: shrink the federal bureaucracy, unshackle markets, cut taxes. An early oracle of bedrock Tea Party principles, Paul appears to be in a prime position to benefit from the movement’s growing influence."

Stormzeye| 7.14.11 @ 4:08PM

Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin all have important roles to play in the national discourse. They direct a lot of energy where it belongs on certain issues and they galvanize important segments of the electorate. However they are all unelectable. Like Calhoun, Webster, Taft and other important Senators of the past they deserve to be heard and should have a place in government but can never be elected in a national election for many reasons that a partisan cannot willingly see or understand.

Ed Hoy| 7.15.11 @ 10:16AM

I've been involved with the T.P. for about a yr now, and as good as Ron Paul sounds, I have never had the feeling that he would make a good or even adequate president. I don't understand why so many people think that he could make significant changes in our fiscal policies. I don't believe he's "strong" enough to get these ideas through. Romney is a RINO in sheep's clothing. Petraeus, as well as Gates, are basically "Yes" men. I do not see M. Bachmann as a threat to b.o., if she were to run against him. I truly believe that, Sarah Palin should run. And feel as though Herman Cain would make a good VP. She would kick a-- and take names, and Cain has the business acumen to work with the business community. Bolton would make a great Sec. State. Perry, I don't know a lot about, and I know people are pushing him to run, but don''t think he should, until he has a little more experience. One of my big problems, is WHY everyone seems to want Governors to run. I know there have to be people that have the experience and know-how, and political savvy to get into the ring, with b.o. (intentional lower-case, indicating no respect), and beat him, easily, if the Republican infighting would ever cease. I feel like Pawlenty is gonna be "Blowin' in the wind", and has absolutely no chance of being elected president. The same with Paul Ryan. Look at Alan West, he got elected, and I think he's come out once with any kind of assertiveness, on anything.

Have you considered| 7.14.11 @ 1:19PM

My picks at this point, though they are not currently in the race:
President: Jim DeMint
VP: Perry
SecState: John Bolton
SecDef: Allen West
SecCommerce: Prof. Walter E. Williams
SecTres: Ron Paul
SecInterior: Sarah Palin
SecJustice: Judge Andrew Napolitano
SecEnergy: Eliminate, No Art 1 Power
Sec Ed: Eliminate, No Art 1 Power
Sec HUD: Eliminate, No Art 1 Power
Sec Edu: Eliminate, No Art 1 Power
Sec Trans: Power is for Post Offices and Roads, any functionary will do.
VA: Under Defense
Homeland: Under Defense

Have you considered| 7.14.11 @ 2:11PM

I forgot....when R.B. Ginsberg retires, or goes to the great bench in the sky...

SCOTUS: Ken Cucinelli (AG Virgina) This guy absolutely ROCKS!

loulou| 7.14.11 @ 3:32PM

Yes, indeed--Cooch is the man!

old white guy| 7.14.11 @ 6:18PM

i agree. romney is just another liberal calling himself a conservative.

Occam's Tool| 7.14.11 @ 6:26PM

A Great Man admits his mistakes. Compare Romney and Pawlenty.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.14.11 @ 6:54AM

The real cost cutting in any government endeavor, and in particular social benefits, comes from only one force, the brute force of government.

Ironically, Romney has a valid excuse in Federalist paper 83 written by Alexander Hamilton:
"… it is not very probable the other States would entertain the same opinion of our institutions as we do ourselves. It is natural to suppose that they are hitherto more attached to their own, and that each would struggle for the preference. … it must be uncertain which of the States would have been taken as the model. It has been shown that many of them would be improper ones.”

This allows Romney to claim what would be good for one state would not be good for all under federal law.

However, Romney needs to acknowledge the poor results of the program.

In the first 3 years of Romneycare the only thing that kept it alive was federal assistance to the tune of 21 billion.

The state spends about 1.75 billion a year in subsidies and businesses about 750 million. Without federal assistance this program would have died already. Those figures alone indicate it's far from self sustaining.

The conservative Club for Growth claims that Romney should repudiate the program as a failure. This is the same conservative Club for Growth who stated in 2007:
“The bill that Governor Romney signed with a grinning Ted Kennedy in the background on April 12, 2006, has been the victim of much scorn from many economic conservatives. Some of those criticisms are valid. However, Romney also deserves credit for trying to move a terrible system towards free-market improvements.”

The explanation from Club for Growth?

“Four years ago, just as we are doing today, we fairly evaluated all the candidates based on their economic records – and as part of that we also evaluated Governor Romney’s Health Care Plan. Four years later, it is has failed to control costs, and even more distressingly, served as a model for ObamaCare. Back in 2007, we opposed the mandate, expansion of subsidies, and the exchange in RomneyCare and we oppose them today”

In essence, Romney has a lot of room to maneuver on the subject, but one thing is clear.

Romneycare is classic central economic planning and all central economic planning is doomed to fail.

POST American| 7.14.11 @ 6:58AM

Romney is an open borders Globalist, on board,
'Banker Bailout capstone Freemason CON-job and EYE-con.

--------------STEER CLEAR AMERICA!--------------

Intelligent Design| 7.14.11 @ 8:21AM

Romney would make an excellent running mate, for Obama.

9th ID| 7.14.11 @ 9:38AM

Spot on!

Grzmlyk| 7.14.11 @ 8:43AM

If Romney is the answer for the GOP, I'd like to know what the hell the question is.

He is EXACTLY the kind of Republican that got us into this mess by forever "reaching across the aisle" to the liberals and giving them exactly what they want a la George Bush and No Child Left Behind.

It's time for liberals to reach across the aisle.

Romney has proven himself a slick one-trick pony - a politician through-and-through - without an ounce of genuine conservatism in him.

We need a strong conservative leader - not Romney, and not Pawlenty, incidentally; his flirting with Cap-and-Trade ensured that I will never put a check mark by his name. From what I've seen so far, he seems to put the "feck" in "feckless."

I still like Palin. I thought she was terrific on Hannity last night. And she's already run the media ring of fire.

I also like Bachmann. Bolton would be a great Secy of State, but he'd never be confirmed.

I don't have a read on Perry yet, but the fact that Bush doesn't like him is a big endorsement in Perry's favor.

megapotamus| 7.14.11 @ 12:15PM

As I understand it the malice betwixt W and RP is purely personal. I wouldn't expect a sound spending policy based purely on spite. On spite, perhaps, but not purely so.

POST American| 7.14.11 @ 9:03AM

IF it's Romney or Perry and Bachmann
next election, make it the first election
in which you cast a blank ballot.

NO JOKE

megapotamus| 7.14.11 @ 12:14PM

I am dubious of Perry, another favorite of folks who think themselves conservative. He was a big Gore functionary, of all things. Aren't there any Natural Born Republicans out there?

9th ID| 7.14.11 @ 9:46AM

Just goes to show that once a Socialist, always a Socialist.

If Romney wins the primary, which I highly doubt, he will split off more of the conservative vote than McCain did and guarantee Obama's reelection. The mood of the electorate, as proved by the November "shellacking", is No More Votes For The Lesser Of Two Evils. Romney is Obama Lite.

If the GOP can replace the Whig Party, the Tea Party can replace the GOP. As with any major shift, there will be some pain involved, but the future of our republic is at stake. The leadership of the GOP is liberal, weak, and feckless...

Charles R. Williams| 7.14.11 @ 10:19AM

I, for one, would be happy to support Romney's candidacy if only he would repudiate Romneycare.

Chuck| 7.14.11 @ 10:55AM

Romney is in a sweet spot. He has the air of inevitability as polls show...most Republicans think Romney will be the nominee. Because of economic chaos Romney has a second advantage, perceived as an economic guru and a third advantage and strident anti-Obamaism, meaning people who vote for any GOP candidate. Let me assure you, a President Romney will implement his "vision" meaning the same old stuff including expansion of social liberalism, appointing liberal federal judges, acceptance of Obamacare and the destruction of the Republican Party in the '14 election. It's a very sad situation.

megapotamus| 7.14.11 @ 12:12PM

What should be offensive to party men is that Romney has clearly decided to skip the primaries altogether and just start running for the general. Well, he didn't decide that, some payrolled genius decided it for him and he signed off. I guess it makes sense since Obama seemed to be running in the Republican primaries there for a while. Or perhaps his civic knowledge is so poor he doesn't know that he already has a position on the ballot as the incumbent, whatever that is.

Siegfried X| 7.14.11 @ 1:23PM

Yup. This is the classic Republican system. Last election's runner-up establishment candidate is the assumed winner of the next nomination, and the whole system helps him.

soxtory| 7.14.11 @ 11:36AM

Bachmann? From Oral Roberts law school? Have you seen/heard her husband yet?

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:36PM

Actually, it's called the O.W. Coburn School of Law.

And so what? Obama went to Harvard Law (oooooooooh!!! Hah-vurd!), and he's as dumb as a rock.

Bachman also has a Master's in Tax Law from William and Mary University.

Michelle Bachman is a highly successful tax attorney who has argued cases before the US Federal Tax Court, which is basically the Supreme Court for tax litigation. This means She's forgotten more about the Constitution than Obama ever bothered to learn.

Bachman is not the intellectual equal of Obama, though...she's his superior.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 2:43PM

Don't Jinx Michele.

We Tea Party Patriots Ain't Real Keen On Lawyers.

Congress Is Already Over-Populated With LawBoys.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Occam's Tool| 7.14.11 @ 6:28PM

Over 60% of HLS graduates graduate with honors. Elena Kagan, the Dean of Harvard Law School before becoming A Justice of SCOTUS, had fewer than 12 publications. HLS has no academic rigor. I'm sure that ORU's Law School was more rigorous.

Occam's Tool| 7.14.11 @ 6:29PM

When over 60% of your Law School class graduates with Honors, Honors have no meaning.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 7:46PM

" The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4, Scene 2

no name| 7.15.11 @ 1:35AM

George Orwell on obama "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Now, is that obama or what? Pure wind described as solidity.

Ed Hoy| 7.15.11 @ 10:32AM

Doc Right needs to be corrected ... It's Ha-vahd. But I just have a gut feeling, that however good Michelle is, she's gonna have a "foot-in-mouth" incident, which the "Lame-stream Media" will jump on, and never let go of. She is NOT tough, like Sarah. The public will judge, pretty much by what the media says, because a LOT of people do not follow news resources such as the Spectator. Although, they should. BTW, I'm from Cambridge, MA, and refuse to return to that Demonrat stronghold.

fmm| 7.14.11 @ 12:02PM

No need to read about RINO Romney. Get him the hell out of national politics.

megapotamus| 7.14.11 @ 12:09PM

From the other side of the Looking Glass, Romney stinks as bad. So if we do get Willard into office, then what? He claims Romneycare gives him the experience to properly defund and repeal Obamacare. What? I am shocked and appalled that the party I occasionally support (as opposed to the one I habitually revile) is pouring its lucre and applause on a creature like Romney. This guy never ripped a fart that wasn't focus grouped. He combines the vapidity of Obama with the (attempted) slickery of Bill Clinton, throw in the policy opinion and experience of Hillary and adherence to Conventional Wisdom as tenacious as McCain's. Mix it all in a bowl marked "President" that your father slammed down over your head every day, a la Al Gore and THIS is the result. If Obama is smoke Romney is an imperceptible whiff of Vanilla Cream room freshener. There is nothing to this man. Not a thing and that includes his religion. Does anyone think that Romney wouldn't be praying face down towards Mecca if it would give him a serious poll bump or a couple mil in contributions? This Generic Republican represents a poison pill for the party and even more for self-described conservatives. There is nothing.... not one damn thing conservative about this stooge except his rep. And that is leaking mightily. I will never vote for Romney, not without the full about face described in the art, and when will that happen? The 12th Imam of Never, that is when.

Ed Hoy| 7.15.11 @ 10:36AM

Amen!!!!

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:28PM

I have to laugh when I keep hearing and/or reading about Romney as "the front-runner".

It's JULY!!! No one is seriously paying attention to the 2012 GOP nominees except for die-hard politics junkies and media folks.

A lot will happen between today and next Spring.

I predict that Romney will NOT be the nominee. Sorry, but I think the Repubiks might actually be reading the "Tea Leaves" (pun intended), and realize that if anyone even remotely perceived as a RINO gets the nod that steadfast Tea-Party loyalists will desert the Party in droves.

In that regard, I predict that the nominee will either be:

1. Sarah Palin,
2. Michelle Bachman, or...
3. Rick Perry

And Obama will lose.

Occam's Tool| 7.14.11 @ 6:31PM

Dr. Right:

"From Your Mouth to G-d's Ears." Of those three, I most like Bachmann. I think it's time her Campaign Turned into Overdrive.

Dave Williams| 7.14.11 @ 12:42PM

Mega, I agree with EVERYTHING you say, and dislike the Mittster as much as anyone alive...but if it's a choice between him and King Zero, ya gotta join me in (ONCE AGAIN) holding our noses and pulling the lever for him. The GOOD news is that it doesn't have to come to that...we have an embarrassment of riches in terms of highly qualified alternatives. Me, I'm a Cain man, although he doesn't have a prayer....and from the little I know about Perry, I like him as well. So, to prevent that choice between Evil and Lesser Evil, let's get out there and work those primaries, folks!

Siegfried X| 7.14.11 @ 1:41PM

The biggest advantage Romney has is the Republican's winner-take-all rule. That lets Democrats is the big Democratic states cross over and give all those delegates to the most left-wing Republican candidate. Just like John McCain, that lets the establishment RINO win.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 1:42PM

Sorry Dave, the only two who are holdong the line are Palin and Bachmann. All the rest are capitulating and are out of touch with 69% of the country. I will write in one or the other. This is not the country I fought for, and the rest are not going to reverse anything. You are on your own.

somnolence| 7.14.11 @ 2:16PM

My choice is Bachmann/Cain for 2012. All others need not apply at this time. If Sarah is that confident, what is stopping her? Michele Bachmann DOES have a titanium spine, as she heralds at every opportunity, and if need be, will be in the faces of both Chris Matthews and Anderson Cooper, making both look ever surer the asses they really are. Rubio has expressed his intent to fulfill his Senate term, so Cain to me seems to be a viable choice there.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 3:21PM

We Tea Party Patriots would like Sarah Palin to throw her hat in the ring.

"Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says she'll announce her intentions for the White House in late August or early September.
Palin says she would campaign for a candidate with "good executive experience" and a "servant's heart" who wasn't so "obsessively partisan that they can't just do what's right." At the moment, though, she says she doesn't see that candidate in the Republican field."

SuffolkVA| 7.14.11 @ 4:46PM

If the Republicans nominate RINO Romney in 2012, I fear for the nation regardless of who wins the election then. We need a TRUE conservative, not a business as usual, finger in the wind, type like Romney.

God help us!

No Mittens| 7.14.11 @ 6:20PM

There is no way in Hell I vote for Mitt

e pluribus unum| 7.14.11 @ 11:25PM

As a businessman I am sure Romney could see any business mistakes and change course to correct them. That's good business. Why he won't do the same with health care politics is bewildering. It's not flip-flopping when you are trying to right a ship and get on the correct course. But the press would paint it that way.
He was in a blue state with a Democrat house and senate-not a place to make conservative decisions. It was the legislature that passed the law after all, not him twisting arms for them to accept some radical Republican plan.

megapotamus| 7.15.11 @ 11:08AM

Ah, yes the legislature passed it. Was Romney just a wig-head? No. And he didn't merely sign a bill under duress. He formulated it, favored it and saw it through to implementation. If you don't know that, brother you don't know much. They don't call it Romneycare for nothing.

Charles Martel| 7.14.11 @ 11:39PM

Stick to your guns, Mitt. There are too many in the party who still think we need you. This should finally convince them otherwise, and we can get on with picking a non-McCain to win in 2012.

+++