The American Spectator : Time for One More Flip-Flop

Text Size

Time for One More Flip-Flop

By W. James Antle, III on 7.6.12 @ 6:10AM

Mitt Romney should admit his mandate was a mistake.

Mitt Romney has gotten himself into another jam. The verbally dexterous Republican nominee has decided to not just to call a spade a spade, but to call the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance a tax.

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s overtaken by the fact that the majority of the Court said it’s a tax and therefore it is a tax,” Romney told CBS News this week. “They have spoken. There’s no way around that.” Nothing Mitt can do about it being a tax. It’s John Roberts’ world and we’re just living in it.

Well, there’s one thing Mitt can do: castigate Barack Obama for imposing such a tax on the middle class. And castigate he properly did: “The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made — said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans.”

This proclamation directly contradicted senior Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom, who told the same network that the mandate was a penalty rather than a tax. While this was widely criticized as a gaffe even among Romney supporters, Fehrnstrom was plainly trying to do two things. First, align his characterization of the mandate with the Supreme Court justices who said it did not fall under Congress’ constitutional power to tax. Second, insulate his boss from charges of raising taxes as governor of Massachusetts, when he signed an individual mandate into law.

Romney nevertheless decided to go there, as the kids say: while Obama’s mandate was a tax, his state-level mandate was not. “Actually, the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates,” Romney explained. “They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the Legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.”

But congressional Democrats and the president called the federal mandate a penalty, and still do. Romney explained that states have police powers and the federal government does not, so federal mandates can only be found constitutional with trickery not required of state-level mandates. “And therefore Obamacare’s a tax,” Romney concluded. “Like it or not, it’s a tax.”

For those acquainted with the finer points of constitutional law, there’s something to this federalist distinction. And the absurdity is as much the Supreme Court’s as it is Romney’s. But the vast majority of Americans will have little patience for such nuances. To them, the Obama campaign’s response may well make more sense.

“First, [Romney] threw his top aide Eric Fehrnstrom under the bus by changing his campaign’s position and calling the free rider penalty in the President’s health care law — which requires those who can afford it to buy insurance — a tax,” team Obama said in a statement. “Second, he contradicted himself by saying his own Massachusetts mandate wasn’t a tax — but, Romney has called the individual mandate he implemented in Massachusetts a tax many times before. Glad we cleared all that up.”

There is one way to clear all this up. Romney should disavow his past support for the mandate, even at the state level. This is the one option that will allow him a clean shot at Obamacare without unconvincing verbal gymnastics about the Massachusetts health care law.

Romney hasn’t done this yet for two reasons. The first is that he still wants to claim credit for passing a bipartisan health care reform law in Massachusetts, one of his signature domestic policy successes. The second is that he doesn’t want to add to his already lengthy list of policy flip-flops or the public perception of insincerity that goes with it.

But Romney wouldn’t be the only candidate who flip-flopped on the individual mandate. Barack Obama opposed it in 2008 and actually made one of the pithiest arguments against it: “If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.”

Both candidates would then have flip-flopped on the mandate. But Romney will have moved toward a majority of the American people — as well as Obama’s 2008 position — while his opponent has moved away. Romney could simply say he tried mandates in Massachusetts as part of the federalist laboratory of democracy, they didn’t work, and he unlike the president had learned from his mistake.

This wouldn’t necessarily require Romney to repudiate his effort to reform health care entirely. He can still use it as an example of his concern about the uninsured, his desire for universal coverage, and his ability to reach across the aisle in working with an 87 percent Democratic legislature. Oh, and it was that legislature that took his original proposal that the uninsured post a bond to finance their care and turned it into an individual mandate.

It won’t change the past. The Obama campaign can dredge up his numerous old defenses of the Massachusetts mandate, plus some hints that he might have been open to a federal one. But the battle lines will finally be clearly drawn: There is one candidate who judges the mandate a failure and opposes it. There is a second candidate who defends the mandate and wants to keep it.

Then there is virtually no criticism Obama can make of Romney’s health care record in Massachusetts that doesn’t implicate his own policy. And Romney will finally be free to point to rising costs in the Bay State as evidence Obamacare is likely to fail at the national level.

Flip-flops have hurt Romney in the past because they have made him look like a phony. But here it is Romney’s current position that makes him look phony, while sounding stubborn and incoherent to boot. This is one Romney position where a long overdue change would do him good.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (95) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

aware| 7.6.12 @ 6:27AM

It's a long road to November, paved with endless conservative articles about what Romney "should" do. Vote Dole. Vote Bush. Vote McCain. Now vote Romney.

It's a wonder conservatives have any credibility left.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.12 @ 6:28AM

Real conservatives were never behind the campaigns you mentioned.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 6:53AM

He's an idiot.

Quartermaster| 7.6.12 @ 12:48PM

TLP, you need to quit looking in the mirrror when you describe other people. You just get confused.

While real conservatives weren't behind any of those campaigns, we got blamed for them losing. The GOP establishment is as bad as the Democrats. they refuse to to take responsibility for their own idiocy.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 4:41PM

I get it.

But, he's still a Fcking Idiot.

What's the problem?

aware| 7.6.12 @ 6:29PM

That's telling me.

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 8:05AM

See?

aware| 7.6.12 @ 6:28PM

Bill, what exactly is a "real" conservative? Is Herr TLP, with his constant denigration of everybody(and repeated references to deviant sex acts)? I always thought the Left was master of personal attack. Of course neo cons are just Leftists mad cause their brother statists, progressives, won't let them be in charge, so maybe that explains it.

CJW| 7.6.12 @ 8:04AM

More brilliant analysis and advice.
Vote Carter, Vote Algore, Vote Kerry, Vote Clinton, Vote Obama, right?

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.6.12 @ 12:13PM

"Vote Carter, Vote Algore, Vote Kerry, Vote Clinton, Vote Obama, right?"

Clinton was better than the Bushes, Dole, and McCain combined.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.6.12 @ 12:20PM

which admittedly isn't saying very much!

George True| 7.6.12 @ 12:23PM

I guess it depends on how you define 'better'.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.6.12 @ 1:09PM

As a person, Clinton was amoral, but virtue IS its own reward: Carter was as good a person as any POTUS, but in the vicious world of politics, nice guys finish last. Carter was a good person who made a bad president (perhaps the worst), while a guy who "would have thrown Eleanor off a bridge if it would have helped his re-election" is on the obverse of the dime.

Warrior| 7.6.12 @ 8:37PM

Virtue? He was and is a criminal.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.7.12 @ 9:00PM

And what does it tell you? A decent guy such as Carter is a sucker, while Clinton is not.
It pays not to be a sucker, correct?

Occam's Tool| 7.8.12 @ 2:13AM

Carter was and is a vicious vermin. TR was a good man and a good President.

Warrior| 7.8.12 @ 9:50AM

I agree OT. Carter was a rabid anti-semite who hated and still hates America. He hid behind the aw shucks accent, soft voice and Alfred E. Newman smile. Even today he is more comfortable with communists and socialists than he is with average Americans.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.8.12 @ 6:28PM

"TR was a good man and a good President"

TR??
Who said anything about TR?

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 12:21PM

What Romney needs to do is tell the truth. Fehrnstrom was right that it was a mandate, not a tax, Roberts' Alice-in-Wonderland decision notwithstanding.

If we're going to hold our noses and vote for Romney (because of Robertscare), he needs to show us that he's different from Obama and the rest of the lying political class.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 5:00PM

You've gotta be kidding.

He has to PROVE that he's different than Obama?

He wasn't born to an Atheist/Communist Mother.

He wasn't born to a Muslim/Marxist Father.

He wasn't adopted, and raised, by a Muslim Step Father, in the Muslim Schools and Mosques of Indonesia.

He didn't kneel on a Prayer Rug, facing MECCA, and Pray to a God of Blood, Murder, Slavery, Butchery, and Subjugation, 5 times a day.

He didn't sit in a Black Racist's "Church" for 20 Years, listening to a White Hating, Jew Hating, America Hating, Farrakhan loving! Minister.

He didn't let this Racist Minister perform his Wedding, or Baptize his Kids.

He hasn't been friends with Unrepentent Domestic Terrorists, for 20 Years. He didn't make speeches at PLO Terrorist Recruiter - Khalid Rashidi's - going away party.

He never said that " The Muslim Call to Prayer is the most Beautiful sound in the world".

And, he never ATE his dog.

He just put him on the roof.

I don't know where YOU come from.

But, where I come from?

That's a HUGE MFing DIFFERENCE.

Get you're head outta your ass!

JmsA| 7.6.12 @ 6:49PM

Talk about inadvertently opening up a door wide enough for a train to drive through, and still not see the ongoing train wreck, though they harp again and again against the author of the misdeeds, yet aid him by continuously equating him to his opponent.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 8:39PM

TLP, We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 8:30AM

It has to be so awful to be you.

So Boring. So Unfulfilling.

One wonders how you keep the Gun outta your mouth.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.7.12 @ 2:16PM

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 4:18PM

It has to be so awful to be you.

So Boring. So Unfulfilling.

One wonders how you keep the Gun outta your mouth.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.9.12 @ 1:25AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.12 @ 6:33AM

Oddly enough, the way out for the Romney campaign is to tell the public the truth.

The mandate is neither a tax or a penalty. Taxes and penalties have consequences. If you don't pay the penalty/tax under Obamacare there are no criminal sanctions and the IRS, contrary to what Marc Rubio and Rush Limbaugh are telling you, has no plans to implement punishment on the non-payers.

Therefore, Obamacare is simply another seizure of wealth by the community disorganizer. Yada, yada, yada. You can yada, yada, yada Socialism.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 7:02AM

Excuse me, Bill.

His Majesty and Her Excellency, hired 5,000 New IRS Agents, and purchased Thousands of SHOTGUNS for said Agents, once his Cuban Health Care Plan was Rammed through This Infamous Congress.

And, you really believe that Black Jesus, and the Gun Runner at the DOJ, will NOT use their new Toys, to enforce their Diktats?

If you believe that?

I've got a pair of Michelle's Size 1 Skinny Jeans, I'll sell to ya.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.12 @ 8:09AM

The law specifically prohibits criminal sanctions. Without that it's all spit wads.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 9:32AM

I hear ya Bill, but remember what sits in the Oval Office.

The guy who let The Black Panthers Walk, put in place a Drilling Moratorium, using Forged Documents and after a Federal Judge denied his Requests for the Moratoriums, TWICE, and is in Contempt of a Federal Judge's Ruling, as we speak.

There's also that little thingy, South of the Border, with all those Guns, and Dead Mexicans, and Americans. You know. That Violation of U.S. Law, International Law, Mexico's Sovereignty, and an Act of War, to boot.

Can you say LIBYA?

Can you say WAR POWERS ACT?

That's a lotta "Spit Wads".

I find you're assumptions that this THING is bound by ANY LAWS that he doesn't feel like following, to be utterly amazing.

How long have you been asleep?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.12 @ 9:56AM

Those IRS agents will be used to investigate taxpayers and will have nothing to do with the health care act. In that sense it's precisely what I stated. Those who don't pay for health care now won't pay then and that's the point.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.6.12 @ 12:15PM

Watch out, TLP will eventually diss you with a remark about vaseline.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 5:02PM

Obviously, you're a lot Stupider, than you look.

Wake the Fck Up.

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 8:34AM

Maybe if explained - Why all the SHOTGUNS?

George S| 7.6.12 @ 12:04PM

There are no criminal sanctions now if you do not pay your tax liability. The IRS will garner your wages, freeze your bank accounts or padlock your business. But you won't go to jail -- unless you intentionally file a false return with the intent of defrauding the government by hiding incomes sources or other violations of the US Code. But not if you cannot afford to pay. So the question is: will all that not apply if you fail to follow the insurance obligations -- including detailed income analysis of family members -- on future filings? There is a difference between criminal and administrative proceedings. The former gives you due process, the latter is at the whim of the bureaucracy.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 5:06PM

You talk about DUE PROCESS, from a guy who RAN GUNS to Mexican Drug Lords, for the purpose of creating MASS MURDER, in order to push new Gun Laws in this Country?

How Fcking Stupid, are you?

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 8:59AM

Ya know what, George?

I apologize.

Maybe I'll just start taking Fridays off.

It's not easy watching your Country being purposely Destroyed. It's not easy reliving the fate of the people of Ancient Rome, as they watched the Visigoths gather, outside Rome's Gates.

It's just that so many people STILL don't understand WHAT we're dealing with.

They still don't understand WHO we're dealing with.

Everything about him is Wrong.

His Parentage. Where he was Raised. How he was Mentored. Who he has surround himself with, his Entire Adult Life.

"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a Mouth, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise Authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.

Read your Revelation. Then tell me that Everything in it, isn't happening RIGHT NOW, in the Middle East.

And I find it fascinating that the so-called "Missing Years" of CHRIST'S life, are the Same Years for this Creature, in the White House, that he keeps Locked Away in a Vault, on a Volcanic Island, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

The 2nd Greatest Story ever told is sitting in that Vault, and yet, NOBODY dares Seek it out.

Where's that DaVinci Code guy, when you need him?

Right. He's a Big Lib, and thus, not interested.

Fascinating.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 12:24PM

It's a penalty because they can confiscate your money as a punishment for inaction. The only way to avoid it is to make sure you don't have any state or Federal refunds on your returns.

Occam's Tool| 7.8.12 @ 2:14AM

It is an involuntary requirement to engage in trade if you breathe. It is wrong and not within the powers of Congress to prescribe.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 6:52AM

It's a Tax.

Okay.

Now, where were we?

"It's the Economy, Stupid." It's Foreign Policy. It's The Arab Spring. The Iranian Nuke Quest. Syria, and Afghanistan.

It's The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya, in the DOD, the TSA, the FBI, Homeland Security, and in the White House - getting $1.5 Billion walking around money from HAMA'S DELIVEROR.

It's REAL Unemployment Numbers, REAL Losses in Wages, REAL Foreclosure Numbers, REAL Poverty Statistics, REAL Homelessness, and REAL Hopelessness.

It's Lawlessnessnat his "BLACKS ONLY" Justice Department. It's the most Political DOJ in the History of this Country with the Blood of Hundreds of Dead Mexican Men, women, and Children, on it's hands, along with the Blood of Two American Patriots. All of them MURDERED, on the Direct Orders of Barack Hussein Obama, and Eric Holder.

We've got the EPA + the NLRB + the Energy Dept + Interior + the Dept of Ag + the IRS + thousands of New Punative Regulations + this President and his Democrat Allies, in Congress. Which all adds up to NO JOBS.

Hopefully, someday, Roberts will pay for his Crimes.

In the meantime, throwing this Lying MFer's Skinny Black Ass out on the street, where he came from, is Job 1.

And, this TAX that he's given us, is just one Arrow, with which to Defeat Him.

And, a small one, at that.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.6.12 @ 12:16PM

Learn to speak Arabic, and brush up on your Spanish.

Appleby| 7.6.12 @ 6:55AM

"But mother," said the little boy, "the Emperor is naked!"

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.6.12 @ 12:19PM

But Mitt looks like a movie star- so he gets the nomination in a few weeks.
I'm voting for Obama because if TLP doesn't like him, then there must be something really good about Obama.

George True| 7.6.12 @ 12:28PM

Huh???

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.12 @ 1:39PM

Ignore Brooks. He has been planning to vote Obama since Nov of 2008

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 5:09PM

And he's a Pole Munching Douche, ta boot.

William L. Gensert| 7.6.12 @ 7:23AM

In the style of John McCain in 2008, we had Romney use a surrogate to float a trial balloon agreeing with Obama that the mandate is a penalty and not a tax...or was it? Obama has taken so many positions it's hard to keep it all straight. First, the mandate was a penalty, then it was a tax, and now it's a penalty again. With the Romney campaign, first it was a penalty and now it is a tax...I think.

For Mitt Romney to not be clear from the first was idiocy. It made him look weak and ineffectual. The Supreme Court made a decision that was bad for America, but it was a gift to Mitt Romney, who clearly dropped the ball by waiting days to agree that a tax is a tax is a tax.

Why did he keep silent? He was afraid that as the author of Romneycare, mentioning anything about taxes in the latter would open him up to accusations about taxes in the former.

Romneycare is a negative for the candidate, but, skip the self-indulgence, most people have never even heard of it, and in any case, be a man, stand up and say the program was a mistake. America can be very forgiving.

In this election, "caution" is a synonym for cowardice. People are looking for a reason to abandon Barack, if Mitt does not give them one, they'll either vote for Obama or stay home.

Read more of my article:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....z1zq8I7GPF

JayDick| 7.6.12 @ 9:29AM

I think you omitted an important voting option: a vote against Obama. For such people, and I think their numbers are very large, almost any reasonable candidate will suffice. It seems Romney is trying to be such a candidate. I don't particularly like this strategy, but I think it has a chance.

Frank Natoli| 7.6.12 @ 8:21AM

Romney has been on both sides of every issue of substance. He's pro-abortion; he's anti-abortion. He's anti-gun; he's pro-gun. He's for tax cuts; he's going to make sure that the "rich" pay their "fair" share. He's pro-state coercion in the health industry, and now you want him to be anti-state coercion in the health industry.

Who in his right mind would believe as sincere anything he says about anything at this point?

Don't get me wrong. Come Election Day, I'm voting for Romney, because he is infinitely better for my country than he whom our neighbors gave us four years ago.

But I don't have to like it.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 12:25PM

I agree. BTW, how do you do italics in this forum?

George True| 7.6.12 @ 12:30PM

I second Vernon. How DO you do italics here? Please let us know.....seriously.

Frank Natoli| 7.6.12 @ 12:43PM

HTML. Prefix the italicized text with left widget [less than sign], lower case "i", right widget. Suffix the italicized text with left widget, then slant-lower-case "/i" , then right widget.

RCV| 7.6.12 @ 6:23PM

WOW Thanks!

Frank Natoli| 7.6.12 @ 8:05PM

http://www.w3schools.com/tags/.....ibutes.asp

I don't know how many HTML "tags" TAS allows commenters to use, but obviously italics is OK, and probably so is bold, underbar, etc.

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 4:22PM

Great.

Now you can talk Bullsh*t, with Style.

You must be so excited.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 8:42PM

testing

Cool, it worked. Just using the old HTML stuff.

Thanks

Mike Rogers | 7.6.12 @ 8:49AM

I have said many times that Romney should repudiate MassCare as a perfect example of good intentions gone wrong - costs are up, waiting times are up, hospitals are under pressure.... The problem to date is that Romney thinks we are stupid if we do not agree that it is a brilliant solution which costs the state very little.
Disavowing MassCare, especially on the clear and simple argument that he proposed that those who could afford healthcare but opted out should post a bond, whereas the legislature turned it into a mandate/tax, could be a winner.
Meanwhile, Eric Fehrnstrom needs to be shaken like a balky Etch-a-Sketch!

Truncheon| 7.6.12 @ 8:52AM

"For those acquainted with the finer points of constitutional law, there's something to this federalist distinction."

Finer points and nuances? Spare me. Only a rank partisan would characterize the 10th amendment as a nuanced "finer point".

What Romney said was precisely right. While everyone knows that, in reality, Obamatax was a regulatory action "justified" under the Commerce Clause, it is now legally ... and therefore actionable only as ... a tax.

Yes, it would surely be nice if Romney would admit that Romneycare was statist, top-down move that rejects Conservative wisdom.

However it is difficult to come away from this article with any notion larger than that the author is still chewing the sour grapes, and pining for his preferred primary winner.

Sorry. It's over now. Ron Paul is retired, Santorum loses, Gingrich loses, Romney is our nominee.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 5:12PM

Exactly.

Red Pill.

Blue Pill.

This ain't Quantum Physics.

Thom| 7.6.12 @ 9:35AM

A government mandate is a government mandate. Only lawyers and academic nitwits argue there is a real world distinction and a difference between a penalty and a tax.

Once you abandon a principle, such as those enumerated in what was the Constitution of the United States all you have left are emotional arguments and Mob rule.

As Dr. Sowell so apply put it these kinds of absurdities and catastrophic outcomes aren’t created by the village idiots. Mankind has a long and proud history of creating deities in the image of man and granting them powers that all sorts of unintended consequences spring from that even the village idiot won’t go near.

Romney’s defense of MassCare’s mandate and his claims ObamaCare is not the same is truly a distinction without a difference. Like the Gods, such men can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong. I suspect the few “good men” left in this nation are making arrangements to catch the last train out. If ObamaCare stays in place, even Mitt Romney will find a stubborn economy waiting for him in 2013 and beyond.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 12:29PM

There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, and it's just know-nothingism to say there is no "real world" distinction between them.

Thom| 7.6.12 @ 1:23PM

As I said Vern, only lawyers and academic nitwits argue there is a distinction and difference between a penalty and a tax. Make your nitwit arguments to those that have to pay an un-insured motorist fee to the state for not having automobile insurance and want to drive. Sound familiar? No one calls that a “tax”. You think their wallet knows the difference there Vern? The “state” takes the money in both cases. People pay “fines” all the time to the “state” for noncompliance with the law and it will operate identically to how the individual mandate will. Silly arguments won’t change the taking of money from people for the non-compliance with economic activity they choose to not engage in.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 4:15PM

A tax is for raising revenue. A penalty is a punishment. That's night and day.

You are just providing the same silly argument that Roberts did, an inability to make fundamental legal distinctions.

Thom| 7.6.12 @ 4:50PM

Uninsured motorist fees are not taxes and no one is penalized by being forced to pay them. They raise revenue to cover state liabilities not covered by the individual insurance policies. Why do billionaires and millionaires need automotive insurance? Every dime of money flowing to the government is revenue. The silly word game you are engaged in here has no meaning to the millions that pay “fees”, “licenses”, “penalties” or “taxes” to fund the government. It only matters to lawyers and academic nitwits who cannot see the forest for the trees.

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 4:24PM

We're talking about being TAXED, for NOT buying something.

Are you really this stupid?

TLP| 7.7.12 @ 4:25PM

Apparently.

Nancy in NC| 7.6.12 @ 9:38AM

Does Romney remind anyone other than me more of McCain everyday? Only an idiot could lose this election. Maobama has given the GOP so much ammunition it's unbelievable. Is the only thing they can do with it is to shoot themselves in the foot?

Cobalt| 7.6.12 @ 11:18AM

Romney is not McCain.

Perhaps, it should be Romney is not as bad a candidate as McCain was.

No way Romney will let them put a Dan Quayle or a Sarah Palin on the ticket with him. Also, I think Romney wants it a lot more than McCain did; not that that's saying much.

At this point it's either Romney or Obama.

We either elect Romney President, inspite of Democratic voter fraud, etc., or we get four more years of this Marxist, or Trotskyist, or Oligarchical Collectivist or whatever the hell you want to call him.

We only have four months before this country decides who will be President. Four months before we know whether or not Obama, Moochelle and her mama, Valerie Jarrett and others in the gang will have to find another house to rent.

Al Adab| 7.6.12 @ 11:38AM

Romney is not McCain, true. He is to the left of McCain and McCain was no Conservative. They along with many other accomodationist republicans simply follow the long line from Tom Dewey who first accepted the legitimacy of the Welfare state and the big government which it requires. These republicans have led the party to failure time and again. Until the Conservative Movement once again predominates in the GOP, failure will follow.

Quartermaster| 7.6.12 @ 12:53PM

Conservatives have never dominated the GOP. They were able to get Reagan across teh finish line in 1980, but he was not a conservative either.

The GOP has always been a leftist party. The first progressive president was Lincoln, a disciple of Henry Clay. POTUS, with a very few exceptions, have been statists since then.

Bob Grant| 7.6.12 @ 10:18AM

Let's break this down to it's elements.

Two candidates (A-Romney, B-Obama) with albatrosses around their necks (Romneycare, Obamacare); one at the state level (A), one at the national level (B).

A's albatross is a little older, fully implemented, and to date has experienced mixed results. B's albatross is in it's infancy, only fractionally implemented with no results yet to analyze except for adjusted cost projections which are exponentially higher than previously thought (like all good federal government programs).

A's albatross, at maturity, will only be 1/50th (or in obama's world, 1/57th) the size of B's at maturity.

Romney's only option moving forward is to CONSTANTLY point out the fact that the two plans are diametrically opposite one another vis-a-vis: constitutionality (pre Roberts); COST; size; consumer options to a citizen of a STATE as opposed to a citizen of the NATION; and the overall economic impact of a plan implemented statewide opposed to nationwide....

Romney can argue that as governor he had the flexibility of experimenting with programs he wouldn't dare attempt as president.

cont...

Bob Grant| 7.6.12 @ 10:19AM

...cont...After he makes this argument, THEN he can proceed make an honest - and public - assessment of the pro's and con's of Romneycare.

This will work. It will make him appear (a) action oriented, (b) honest in the eyes of the electorate, and (c) A TRUE LEADER WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS PAST ACTIONS AND IS WILLING TO BE STRAIGHT WITH AMERICA...ABOUT ALL THINGS!!!

...Something our current president lacks in spades. And America knows this!!

This is the plan for Romney.

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.12 @ 11:06AM

I like it, but do you think the American Idol masses will buy it?

George True| 7.6.12 @ 12:46PM

Bob, I wish you were Romney's chief adviser. The above strategy would strike the average voter as surprisingly refreshing - a politician who speaks honestly and candidly, admits his past mistakes, and tells it to us straight. Unfortunately, I don't expect him to do it.

Don't get me wrong. I would still be wiling to crawl on my hands and knees over broken glass for miles to vote for Romney. Any RINO would be orders of magnitude better than the organized crime boss we have in the white house now.

TLP| 7.6.12 @ 5:19PM

Nice job, Bob.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between The Powers of the States, and those of the Federal Government.

The Constitution is a Document of Negative Rights, aimed right at the heart of The Federal Governmet.

Anyone who has read the 10th Amendment - in my opinion, the Most Important Amendment - knows this to be true.

There's a knock at the door.

It's the Visigoths.

And, time is running out.

Jeffrey| 7.7.12 @ 1:10AM

Bob - Excellent piece, please send your thoughts over to the Romney camp, they seem to be keeping thier heads in the clouds and missing the picture we people on the ground see every day.

Bill84728| 7.6.12 @ 10:56AM

If it's a tax, we can be sure that the door is now opened for Congress to tax other forms of inaction.

This must absolutely be stopped. The only way is a Constitutional amendment prohibiting such taxation. We'd better get started accomplishing that.

We can mince words and parse Obamacare later.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 12:32PM

I'd prefer that Congress impeach the fool Roberts as unfit for the office of judge on the Supreme Court. Then tar and feather him, and ride him out of the country on a rail. That would be a more satisfying punishment.

Bill84728| 7.6.12 @ 12:53PM

Okay, now there's two of us on the tar-and-feathering-ride-out-of-town-on-a-rail front. Cool.

Oldefarte| 7.6.12 @ 11:16AM

Quit writing about this triviality concerning flip flopping etc and instead about whats important. This country is dying a nd these edorial hit pieces are not helping the critical importance represented by this upcoming election. IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.6.12 @ 12:47PM

Try writing articles concerning this instead of taking pot-shots at Republicans:
'.... Breitbart.com....Poor Eric Holder. If it’s not one thing (like contempt of Congress), it’s another. Consider the Justice Department’s challenge to Texas’s new voter ID law. It’s set to be heard on January 9 in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Thursday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent Holder a letter pointing out that DOJ has hired an “explicitly partisan Democratic data company, Catalist, to provide the data by which it is justifying its decision to block implementation of Texas’s voter identification law.” Catalist, whose website says it is dedicated to “serving the progressive community,” is headed by Harold Ickes.... formerly Bill Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff. According to Smith, Catalist is “really an agent of the Democratic Party” that “might prefer that Texas’s election laws favor Democratic Party candidates.” Smith isn’t the only one to identify Catalist as a partisan operation. The Atlantic described the firm as “a big Democratic data warehouse” that was intimately involved with President Barack Obama’s 2008 voter turnout effort. It was, according to The Atlantic, “the conductor for a data-driven symphony of more than 90 liberal groups, like the Service Employees Union – and the DNC – and the Obama campaign.”.....'

Oldefarte| 7.6.12 @ 2:22PM

Maybe some of the apparently anti-Republicans here prefer this instead:
'....Today, Jay Carney fell into the unfortunate trap of attempting to explain President Obama’s view of Obamacare. If it’s a tax, President Obama’s signature plan is legal, but violates Obama’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 in a major way; if it’s a mandate, it’s illegal under the Supreme Court ruling. But the Obama administration wants it both ways: it’s a tax for purposes of legality, but a mandate for purposes of politics. Here’s how Carney expressed that ridiculous perspective:But if I could just add as a matter of policy, it is simply a fallacy to say that this is a broad-based tax. That's not what the opinion stated that was authored by the Chief Justice. The Affordable Care Act is constitutional under Congress's taxing authority, but this is clearly a penalty that affects less than 1 percent of the American population.This is asinine. Only taxes are authorized under the taxing authority of Congress. Mandates aren’t. The power to declare war isn’t. Taxing authority gives authority to levy taxes. Of course.But Obama’s now stuck between a rock and a hard place. It took Mitt Romney a while to recognize the political opportunity in this, but he finally did yesterday when he labeled Obamacare a tax. Now Obama will be held to one standard or another. Either way, he loses......'

Eduardo| 7.6.12 @ 11:18AM

Tax, penalty, whatever. It's still the law. Having said that, and for what it's worth, I now see any one of 3 things happening in November, and 2 of them are bad.
1. Obama is re-elected, maybe by a smaller margin than 2008 but retains office nonetheless. Obviously, this is BAD. REALLY BAD.
2. Like with Reagan - Carter in 1980, the race stays close up to nearly mid October and then breaks hard for Romney. This is not impossible but probably not likely. If Romney - with a straight face - can call his victory a "mandate" (no pun intended), he does what he says and starts to dismantle Obamacare if he has a cooperative House and Senate.....if that's both possible and necessary. Obviously, this would be VERY GOOD.
3. Romney barely squeaks by and claims the White House in an election so close there is potential litigation, etc. If he ends up President with an extremely narrow margin of victory, I can see him (in the spirit of "healing our divided nation") not pursuing the take-down of Obamacare because he won't have the stomache for it and won't want to antagonize the left. Obviously that's BAD but still not as bad as #1 above.
I'm probably full of sh*t, but there you go.....

rightasrain| 7.6.12 @ 5:55PM

I like a man who admits he might be full of sh*t. Wish Mitt would have done the same about Romneycare.

thirteen28| 7.6.12 @ 12:03PM

A "flip-flop" can be justified by facts, and the facts definitely support Mitt admitting he made a mistake with Masscare. This is one change of heart that conservatives and even a lot of independents will probably forgive him for having, especially given that 52% want the monstrosity of Obamacare repealed.

Just admit it Mitt, say it was a mistake and follow that up by saying you won't let the mistake be repeated at the federal level. It's not so hard, is it?

Who Knows?| 7.6.12 @ 12:21PM

Mr. Antle III---

Well put.

I couldn't have said it better.

Tom Kyba| 7.6.12 @ 1:12PM

Romney better have some plan to address this, because he's going to be flogged from now to November with scorn from Dems and the media(also known as the other Dems), along the lines of "hey this whole idea was started by you so now you can't complain about it".

Reggie Love| 7.6.12 @ 4:31PM

He likes mandates.

rightasrain| 7.6.12 @ 5:50PM

Last year there were many, many articles wishin', hopin' and prayin' that Romney would repudiate the Romneycare mandate. Instead he just doubled down on touting his "signature piece of legislation." We all know about the differences between RC and OC and that technically Romney's right that the mandate is probably constitutionally okay on a state level. But that doesn't mean that mandates are okay. I fear that Mitt's stubborness will cost him and us the election. Obviously, he thought it better to be perceived as a soul-sucking, freedom-killing socialist than as a flip-flopper. Bad move, Mitt.

cris| 7.7.12 @ 6:08AM

Precisely what I have been saying for the last year! Good job James

Mike Daly | 7.8.12 @ 3:08PM

There's no criticism of Romney that Obama can make that doesn't implicate his own regime, period. Romney remains alone among the two candidates who has actually CREATED jobs and CREATED wealth.

ReaganConservative4ever| 7.9.12 @ 4:33AM

Romney has no idea what to do, because his plan for healthcare was Romneycare, the precursor to Obamacare, which is what he is trying to run on- the repeal of his own plan. Talk about hypocrisy and irony..

Romney is basically a man with no plan. For someone who wants to be President, he has a severe lack of direction, vision, and concrete plans, as the United States of America, Domestically and Internationally, is not the State of Mass.., nor is it the State of impromptu policy.

We tried to warn the Republican voters in the Primaries, but no, they refused to listen to us, instead they listened to Romney's 24/7 carpet bombing Neg Ads.. and now look at what we have to face Obama with.. Romney's hypocrisy and irony of Romneycare.

Dwimby| 7.9.12 @ 8:49AM

Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. The reason Romney should not admit anything being suggested in the article is because his Mass. Romneycare dealt specifically with those who needed coverage. A small percentage of Mass. citizens. Romneycare did not usurp 1/6th of the Mass. economy to accomplish, essentially, a governmentally sponsored takeover and huge anti-American intrusion cum mandates forced upon the American (Mass.) people. There is a HUGE difference between the tax heavy public encumbering and suffoting of Obamacare rules and what Romneycare did in Mass. We have go to get this straight, the sooner the better. Had Obama dealt only with those who needed insurance and aimed to find a way to help them (creatively and not with hamhock fists), like he did for Wall Street and big banks and giant auto concerns, then Obamacare would be much less, and much less justifiably, villified. The devil is always in the details and there are legions of devils in Obamacare, regiments of devils, where there are few in Romneycare, and none in Romneycare that alter the basics of how we do things in America (i.e., non fascist). Let's get this straight once and for all. I am open to all corrections and assaults! The important thing is to get this cleared up now.

PHILLIPBERNAL| 7.10.12 @ 6:54PM

Regards healthcare, how about everyone pay for their own healthcare? Stop telling me that I must pay for someone else’s healthcare. It is morally wrong for the government to mandate that I or even my employer pay for another person’s healthcare. Regards the so-called poor, which is a euphemism for minorities, well guess what? This is America. Get an education, get a job, and pay for your own damn healthcare. It is called personal responsibility. What about old people? Well, they had an entire lifetime to arrange their healthcare. We are free citizens with rights AND RESPONSILITIES. I am obligated to take care of me, my spouse and children, and my parents in their old age. You want a solution? Get the government out of healthcare. My healthcare is none of the government’s business, period. The only place for government in healthcare is for the armed forces. Everything else will fall into place when the government is out of healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid will go away. Trillions saved right there. Government interference, incompetence, corruption, and non-accountability cease. Government will no longer regulate the health insurance industry. Health insurers will be thrown into a real free enterprise arena. Sink or swim baby. Churches will once again take their rightful places as providers of healthcare for the “poor”, “old people”, and the truly mentally or physically infirm as they once did before the gubmit got involved.

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?