The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Conservatives and RomneyCare

Text Size

Conservatives and RomneyCare

By Philip Klein on 10.6.10 @ 12:15PM

Piggybacking off of this Politico article on conservatives attacking RomneyCare, Jon Chait asks why in 2008, "nearly all (conservatives) were fine with Romney's health care plan."

If you were reading the National Review -- which had a soft spot for Mitt -- I can see why you would have that impression, but the reality is a lot more complicated.

For starters, there were a lot of conservatives who did raise issues about his health care plan, and we published a lot of them here at the Spectator. I was a frequent critic of both Romney and his health care plan, as was Dave Hogberg, who devoted a column to the issue in 2007 called "Mitt's Biggest Flop." The Club for Growth, in its evaluation of Romney's record during the primaries, blasted RomneyCare, writing, "Commonwealth Care is a far cry from free-market healthcare. Besides the individual and employer mandates, the program expands Medicaid, does not deregulate enough, and will likely cost more than the current system..."

That said, I will agree with Chait that the Massachusetts health care plan did not hurt Romney as much as it should have, and there are a number of reasons why. For one thing, despite the impression given by Chait, Romney didn't run on his health care plan. He spent much of the primaries distancing himself from the plan by saying the liberal legislature ruined it, or that it worked well for Massachusetts, but he wasn't proposing it at the national level. Toward the end, he did begin to defend the mandates, but that doesn't mean that conservatives, by in large, were "fine" with his mandates. What happened was that the 2008 GOP field was deeply flawed, with no one candidate appealing to all constituencies of the conservative movement. Rudy Giuliani was unacceptable to social conservatives, Mike Huckabee was unacceptable to economic conservatives, and Fred Thompson, despite the initial fanfare, proved too lazy as a candidate. So, by the end of the campaign, you had a lot of conservatives rally around Romney as the best chance to stop John McCain, not because they were particularly fond of him. During a debate around this time, Romney defended health insurance mandates as conservative, and I asked while liveblogging, "Okay if conservatives have many problems with McCain, but seriously, are economic conservatives ready to rally around a candidate who believes that it is conservative to force individuals to purchase health insurance or face fines?"

There is another reason that Romney didn't generate more criticism among conservatives for his health care plan in 2008 -- most of the attention in the Republican primaries was on national security, social issues, taxes and immigration, because they were seen as more pressing at the time. And unfortunately, health care was viewed as a liberal issue, and conservative voters weren't overly concerned with the candidates' stances. So, during Romney's typical campaign stump speech, he'd talk about how he's an economic, social issues, and national security conservative; blast other candidates for being insufficiently conservative; talk about his management/economic expertise; and then, maybe, have a throwaway line like, "In Massachusetts, we found a way to insure everybody with a free market approach..." And a lot of people who didn't take time to study the details of his plan, gave him the benefit of the doubt. Others argued that he did the best he could in liberal Massachusetts. But what happened in 2009 was that conservatives became a lot more interested in health care policy, and a lot more aware of what Obama was proposing and how closely it resembled what Romney did in Massachusetts. And so that's why he's facing a lot more grief for it than he did in 2008. That said, he could still win the nomination in 2012 in a weak field -- as McCain did in 2008 in spite of immigration, campaign finance reform, voting against the Bush tax cuts, and a number of other deviations from conservatism.

View all comments (48) | Leave a comment

Eric Cartman| 10.6.10 @ 12:32PM

Sorry, Mitt is out. Please see "Comeback: How Conservatism Can Win Again Without Listening to Us!" below. Next!

Ursus| 10.6.10 @ 12:41PM

My position at the time was that MA could do whatever it wanted but that I would oppose the same plan at the federal level. Remarkably, I have the same position today.

NO ROMNEY!!| 10.7.10 @ 9:47PM

Romney will NEVER be POTUS! Mitt had his chance in 2008 and McLame beat him like a rented mule.

Too late, so sorry.

Dan| 10.6.10 @ 12:45PM

Why did we not attack him? Very simple.....The field of candidates was very weak and Mitt was the most conservative who actually acted like he wanted to win. (reference to Fred Thompson) In 2012, we will have an actual conservative who does not flip flop on the most important issues and I know who she is and will be voting for her and working for her. God bless you all!

SoCon| 10.7.10 @ 12:07AM

God bless you, too, Dan. From your lips to God's ears.

Also, I supported Mitt in 2008 because at the time he was pretending to be pro-life. Silly me--I believed him. I won't be fooled twice.

Ryan| 10.6.10 @ 12:52PM

One, the economic complaints of Huckabee were overstated. I personally defaulted to him because the rest of the field was so unimpressive and he ran a VERY good campaign.

Two, Mitt is trying to buy the frontrunner's spot right now. At the Southern conference, he won because he was buying votes (Paul came in second for the same reason).

Mitt is going to fall into that Bush-style "compassionate conservative" camp that appears conservative but is more about big government.

Dave| 10.6.10 @ 1:00PM

To many, being is a political conservative is all about having a small federal government and letting the states generally do as they please when it comes to intra-state matters

Curly Smith| 10.6.10 @ 1:00PM

From the standpoint of our Constitutional Republic I'm fine with RomneyCare. If the people of Massachusetts want to enact idiotic legislation, and they did by a very large margin, then that's their prerogative. ObamaCare, enacted on the nation, is something altogether different. RomneyCare is clearly within the purview of State Government, ObamaCare is clearly outside the Constitution.

That being said, Romney is a moron. If he didn't understand that the liberals would ruin his fine plan then he's disqualified himself from higher office. Additionally, if he actually thought his was a fine plan then he's disqualified himself from higher office.

FastFacts| 10.6.10 @ 1:07PM

It is interesting how the media wants to keep people ignorant of what Romney was trying and did with RomneyCare and how it was actually the Dems that destroyed the plan as it should have been.
There was plenty of uproar over Romney's health care and there was a lot of garbage spread about it.
I tell anyone that truly wants to know what RomneyCare was all about to go to two sources:
1. READ THE BILL: http://www.malegislature.gov/L...../Chapter58 (Proves that the issues that conservatives have problems with, Romney vetoed from the bill and it was late reinserted by the 88% Dem Congress.
2. Or go to the source of the bill (Heritage Foundation, Reagan's think tank, authored the original RomneyCare bill): http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....rforpring=

Ryan| 10.6.10 @ 3:12PM

Hey, a Romney staffer!

Paul| 10.6.10 @ 8:51PM

Yeah, when he and Teddy and the rest of lefty hacks were having their photo op signing of the 'Historic Bill', Mitt looked real pained. And then he makes a request to make sure in his official portrait that the bill is painted/represented.

He couldn't hug his socialist tar baby of a bill any closer. It's his, all his.

Warrior| 10.6.10 @ 10:52PM

Romney is a conservative like I'm a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader.

SoCon| 10.7.10 @ 12:08AM

Let me see your legs, so I can decide!

Boston12GS| 10.7.10 @ 12:29AM

The reason Romney is being held accountable for his lousy healthcare bill in MA (and I'm living under it and feeling the pain) is that TO THIS DAY he continues to defend it, and refuses to refute it. It is a catastrophic failure. He owns it precisely because he refuses to un-own it.

The day he stands up and states explicitly that his MA health care reform is a disaster and a terrible mistake and misjudgment is the day I'll give his opinion two-cents of attention.

Even then, the inexcusable delay in him making this confession taints him permanently.

And, yes, I voted for him for Governor.

Al-Ozarka| 10.6.10 @ 1:14PM

Whenever I would bring this up during the campaign of '08, I'd be accused of being a bigot.

Same thing when I would bring up his support for abortion rights.

Siegfried X| 10.6.10 @ 1:21PM

John McCain ran in favor of cap & trade in 2008, and he still won the nomination. He spent the prior decade as "maverick" RINO helping the Democrats pass their legislation, yet he still won the nomination.

So I don't see why we needed more talk about a health care plan resolution which Romney promised NOT to try and pass nationally. Everyone knew Romney had been left-wing in the past, so there was no reason to emphasize his health plan.

Siegfried X| 10.6.10 @ 1:47PM

This shows how much the Republican Party has changed in the last two years. Back then, everybody "held their noses" and voted for McRino.

But now, two years later, nothing but absolute libertarianism is good enough. Anyone who ever voted for a big-government bill, anytime in their life, is ineligible for office.

SoCon| 10.7.10 @ 12:10AM

I don't think Conservatives or RINOs have changed a bit--we've just got them on the run this time.

garrettc| 10.6.10 @ 1:26PM

Because only Massachuttes conservatives (are there any?) have standing in this discussion. If Romnney wants to take his show on the road for National application, it is a whole different kettle of fish. States can and should experiment with social services, to the extent that their populations allow. So far the MA experiment in state controlled healthcare seems to reaveal all the expected flaws.

Boston12GS| 10.7.10 @ 12:30AM

Yes, I'm one.

Maybe the ONLY one. :-)

anon| 10.6.10 @ 1:48PM

Romney also sorta "lost" the nomination.

Reg| 10.6.10 @ 1:54PM

There are no concervatives in MA.

Boston12GS| 10.7.10 @ 12:31AM

Not true.

There just aren't very many of us.

Yes, it's sad. :-)

shar| 10.6.10 @ 2:00PM

I would have commented had I known about it. I live in Michigan... we got our own issues.

Rob | 10.6.10 @ 2:29PM

The Romneycare includes written requirements that representatives from the Planned Parenthood abortion business be included among the administrators of this policy. Also, Romney was not ordered by MA's Supreme Judicial Court to take any action after the court ordered the state legislature to make same-sex "marriage" legal, but acted on his own to change the marriage licenses to "Party A" and "Party B" (though the law says they should read "husband" and "wife"). He pretends to be against abortion and same-sex marriage, but acted as the strongest supporter of both as Governor, notwithstanding lip-service to the contrary.

Tom| 10.6.10 @ 3:56PM

Jon Chait wasn't paying attention in 2008! Besides, Romney wasn't the nominee, but would have lost even if he had been. I further predict he won't be the nominee in 2012.

Siegfried X| 10.6.10 @ 4:13PM

"... he could still win the nomination in 2012 in a weak field ..."

The system is rigged to elect RINO candidates. Unlike the Democrats, who award delegates the proportional way that the citizens voted, Republicans use winner-take-all rules. That allows the RINO candidate to get huge blocks of delegates by Democratic cross-0ver votes in the large blue states like CA and NY.

If we had been using Democratic rules in 2008, then Romney would have been AHEAD in delegates on the day where, under Republican rules he was so far behind that he dropped out.

Siegfried X| 10.6.10 @ 5:01PM

Why are Republicans falling in the trap of attacking our candidates for NEXT election, instead of the Democrats we need to beat in 4 weeks?

ertdfg| 10.6.10 @ 5:14PM

Because that was how these things are supposed to work in a Federalist society.

Taxachusetts wants to a an economically destructive liberal policy? Taxachusetts should get to try this policy.

If it works, shock and amazement from me aside, then it's a policy other states will look at considering.

If it bankrupts the state and people and businesses "vote with their feet" to get out from under it? That is also a valuable lesson.

I don't live in Taxachusetts, and from the name I keep giving the state you can assume I'm not interested in moving there... why would I stop them from showing an example that I believe would be instructive?

NoBama| 10.6.10 @ 6:09PM

It is not fair to call it Romneycare. The legislative branch of government, at the state or federal level, writes laws. The Massachusetts legislature was overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. In fact, Romney’s veto option was useless.

Conservatives should acknowledge the liberal legislature that Romney had to work with.

We should also acknowledge that the reform passed in Massachusetts was done at the state level – and that is what conservatives support.

And thirdly, the current governor of Massachusetts is a very liberal Democrat. I think it’s fair to point out that he has not been a good steward of the state.

c. j. acworth| 10.6.10 @ 6:47PM

Romney's excuse is that the Dem. legislature ruined his plan, but I have memories of photos of the signing ceremony. Wasn't that Mitt with the pen in his hand? Wasn't that Ted Kennedy standing right behind him, surrounded by all those Dem. legislators who made such hash of the bill? Why is Mitty smiling? He didn't look like his greatest legislative initiative had been ruined. Sorry. Until he stands up in front of the people of Mass. and apologises for going along with that monstrosity he is not to be trusted.

Paul| 10.6.10 @ 8:55PM

"The artist had two sittings with Romney. The first was at his summer home in New Hampshire, where Whitney experimented with poses and did a color study in oils. The second was at the Governor's office. Consulting his photos and a color study as a writer would consult notes, Whitney then worked several months to create the finished portrait. Romney made three requests of the artist: One, that a picture of his wife, Ann, be included in the portrait, something that had not been done by previous Governors. Two, the background should be similar to what it was when he was Governor. Three, he wanted the gold symbol representing his health care program to be shown somewhere in the portrait. "

http://www.art-21.org/Docs/view.asp?ID=13

SoCon| 10.7.10 @ 12:12AM

Ouch!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.6.10 @ 6:46PM

Sadly,
as a Mormon...Romney wears magical underwear.
He is unelectable.

Sad, because he is a fine man...but there it is.

Allouchsit| 10.6.10 @ 9:47PM

Do you judge all candidates by their underwear? Why would you think that such a thing is the least bit relevant to the national discourse?

SoCon| 10.7.10 @ 12:14AM

Romney is unelectable because he's a RINO, Ken; his Mormonism means nothing to me. I agree that he's a good man.

Nora| 10.6.10 @ 9:59PM

Romney is a jackass in an elephant costume. I don't know where this person was, but conservatives wanted no part of Romney or his Romneycare, or his ENDA and gay marriage fostering, or his so-called "former" pro-choice stance. Romney is a RINOs only deal.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.7.10 @ 12:04AM

" ... He spent much of the primaries distancing
himself from the plan by saying the liberal
legislature ruined it, or that it worked well for Massachusetts ...."

" ... liberal legislature ruined it ...."

Huh?

Some months back AS presented an incisive
analysis which included a memorable photo of a smiling Romney at his desk surrounded by a political crew - of what, well-wishers? - including olde teddy-care teddy-edu teddy-bork kennedy standing behind him with a gator smile and perhaps a gleam or two in his eyes.

So, olde Romney now peddles he couldn't size up
that political tableau, with teddy-care teddy-edu teddy-bork kennedy looking over his shoulder, as a political premonition of Leftoid 'mischief' to come - once his signature was captured?

Not very astute/forward-thinking on the part of Romney!

What else is Romney not astute/forward-thinking about?

Romney ain't even gonna be no 2012 dark horse candidate cause he made himself a political gelding when governor of Mass by his astute/forward-thinking leadership.

And Schmuckabee has the yoke/spectre of 4 dead police officers about him.

And Pawlenty is from Minnesota - same state that vouchsafed Frankenstein to the US Senate.

And ....

Long Ben| 10.7.10 @ 7:06AM

I'm pretty sure that the LDS is not supportive of innocent babes being made to pass through the fire or as it were (and is ) saline or intrauterine cuisinart to the god Mammon , nor same sex marriage either or any other special right for homosexuals . For any man to blithely throw right principle aside for the sake of elective office very much calls his character into question .
Who is a good candidate to appeal to all the various elements of the Repubican-Tea party coalition ?

Proud Mormon| 10.7.10 @ 10:42AM

To all you Romney naysayers Mitt has history on his side. Republicans tend to give their losers a second chance and economics will be front and center in 2012 a huge plus for Romney. Also another weak field will places Romney as front runner. The key to Romney's nomination is simple; win Iowa and New Hampshire he coasts home with wins in Florida, Michigan and California. A split, he is still the favorite but the nomination will be much tougher, lose both he's out. So all those opposed to Romney you better beat him in BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire.

Patriot| 10.7.10 @ 1:29PM

Sorry, this isn't a RINO election cycle; I'd be shocked if Romney got the nomination. I'll never vote for the flip-flopper again.

It's delusional to claim that economics is a plus for Romney after he bankrupted Mass. with RomneyCare.

cb| 10.7.10 @ 5:30PM

The headline of this piece is exactly the type of headline that would attract Romney’s detractors. And negative people are always more eager to post critical comments. I think Romney would be an awesome president. All the prospective candidates have baggage – but Romney is the best choice.

NO ROMNEY!!| 10.7.10 @ 6:16PM

Romney's campaign will give you a little bonus in your next paycheck, troll.

We didn't doom Romney, RomneyCare doomed Romney. Get used to it.

Julie| 10.7.10 @ 7:33PM

Romney's chief competitor is Governor Christie. But he has no personal appeal...he's too fat so I'm voting for Mitt.

Chumley| 10.7.10 @ 9:39PM

Christie may be fat but he also tells the truth--something Mitt doesn't.

Sorry, but a pretty face and perfect hair just aren't enough this time.

NJ Kay| 10.7.10 @ 11:14PM

Maybe fat? Brother I got a closeup look at the governor. The man is immense therefore I'm voting for Romney too. Women want their president to have bulging biceps not a bulging wasteline.

NO ROMNEY!!| 10.7.10 @ 9:44PM

Romney will NEVER be POTUS regardless of what his braindead followers say. Romney's time was 2008 and he got beat by McLame--his time is over.

James| 10.7.10 @ 11:25PM

This is an absurd argument. You can't name a better candidate than Mitt Romney that can appeal to the whole range of voters - Conservatives, Independents, and blue dog Dems.