The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Mitt Romney's ObamaCare Problem

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Mitt Romney's ObamaCare Problem

By Doug Bandow on 2.2.11 @ 9:52AM

Mitt Romney leads some polls in the coming race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination, but he continues to have a big ObamaCare problem. How does the man who once touted his role in passing RomneyCare, highlighted by an individual mandate to purchase insurance, in Massachusetts attack President Barack Obama, who applied the same principle nationwide? Especially when the courts have begun striking down the latter?

The putative candidate is attempting to run away from the issue, but his task is not an easy one. Reports ABC:

On the kick off to his "No Apology" book tour Mitt Romney is on message - refusing to apologize for the Massachusetts health care law that, like President Obama's federal legislation, requires citizens to buy health insurance.

"I'm not apologizing for it, I'm indicating that we went in one direction and there are other possible directions. I'd like to see states pursue their own ideas, see which ideas work best," Romney told me.

That stand seems to reject the advice of Karl Rove and others who say that Romney can't get the GOP nomination in 2012 unless he finds a way to distance himself from "Romneycare", but Romney did concede that his Massachusetts plan is imperfect.

As for "Obamacare"? It's a "very bad piece of legislation," Romney said, siding with the federal judge who ruled it unconstitutional and wrote in his decision that "it is difficult to imagine that a nation which began...as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

There is an important constitutional difference between a state and federal mandate--states have "police power" and thus are authorized to regulate where the federal government, which possesses only limited, enumerated powers, cannot. But there is no difference in substance, and so far candidate Romney continues to defend his handiwork.

Having gotten the issue so wrong when he was governor, just how would he handle health care if elected president?

View all comments (54) | Leave a comment

p-squared| 2.2.11 @ 10:36AM

There is no way Romney can slip this anchor. He should be saving his money and putting his energies into campaigning for someone else.

Bob Cotten| 2.2.11 @ 10:42AM

He would probably say that he "would like to see Carter, Clinton and Obama pursue their own ideas, see which ideas work best."

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 10:45AM

Doug,
Mitt is a fine man, with another 800 pound gorilla on his back.
There is simply a tinge of "religious elitism" in the Mormon world view that quietly turns broad swaths of Christianity off.
Mormons sorta' seem to want to "Out Baptist the Baptists".
(Many Baptists still harbor a similar elitism.)

If he were nominated...the communists, (pardon the shorthand), would surely make hay with that.

One of the most well known, well read Mormons in the country wrote an article "Get Serious, Mitt" (or words to that effect.)

james| 2.2.11 @ 10:46AM

Doug,

Many conservatives like me grow tired of the way conservatives like you play both sides of this issue.

Consider:

"The Heritage Foundation, one of the leading conservative think tanks — which has historically provided many of the policy ideas for the Republican Party, Republican administrations, and Republicans in Congress — has aggressively attacked President Obama’s efforts to reform health care in America. In addition to providing academic voices in the media to knock reform, Heritage has churned out blog posts and reports denigrating reform legislation for various reasons. And in recent days, Heritage has scrambled to mobilize a repeal effort of health reform, calling the law “intolerable.”

But before Democrats took up the mantle of reforming health care on the national level, Heritage experts boosted former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) health reform plan in the Bay State. In numerous pieces posted on the Heritage website before 2008, Heritage took a markedly different approach to health reform than it does now:

– Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Insurance Exchange: Creates a “de facto public option” by “grow[ing]” government control over healthcare.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]"

Should the Heritage Foundation also apologize Doug?

Doug, you and many of the bloggers that frequent here are make really bad arguments about Romneycare and continue to ignore the material differences that require us to separate Romneycare and Obamacare.

I have yet to see any of you "honest" conservatives disclose the facts that Romney used the line-item veto in Massachusetts to strike down all of the "good ideas" that the Obama administration used to create Obamacare. The MA legislature overrode Romney.

Where are the disclosures? The silence shows that some conservatives are no more honest and have no more integrity that Reid-Pelosi.

JPM| 2.2.11 @ 11:23AM

Of course Heritage should apologize and Romney should disappear from public life. He is a nonstarter as a presidential candidate. No Republican with a grain of sense wants to be in the same room with him, let alone on the same ticket.

A state takeover of health care may be constitutional. State governments have much broader powers than the clowns in DC. But that doesn't make a state takeover of health care any more desireable than a federal takeover. Romneycare put the finishing touches on the destruction of the market for health insurance in MA. Sure he tried to use his veto to make the law a bit less pernicious -- knowing full well all the time that his vetos would be futile. Romney knew how obnoxious the law would be and he cooperated in putting it on the books anyway. Don't tell me he had no choice because he was governor of a lunatic state. He didn't have to run for that job. If he found the MA political culture uncongenial he could have moved to Utah and made a political career there. He chose to swim in a cesspool, it's his own fault that he came out reeking.

Romneycare, like Obamacare, eliminates all competition in the market for health insurance, determines what consumers must buy and insurers must sell and then fixes prices in an forlorn effort to contain costs. For any conservative this is as bad as government initiatives get. The fact that Romney still doesn't understand this simple point is more than enough to justify casting him into outer darkness. It's time to give up on his candidacy. It's dead Jim (sorry -- James).

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:18PM

james? Mike? Crickets. lol

james| 2.2.11 @ 10:48AM

Ken:

The best place for you is in an old Texas bar, drunk. That's where your opinions matter the most.

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:17PM

Your troll opinions don't matter at all.

james| 2.2.11 @ 10:54AM

Ken,

You wrote:
"There is simply a tinge of "religious elitism" in the Mormon world view that quietly turns broad swaths of Christianity off."

Every major religion believes that it is the only way back to God. Elitism is found

However, it is only the Mormon religion that can doctrinally claim that all people are sons and daughters of God and that not everyone is going to hell, even if they are not Christian, Muslim or Jew.

Within Mormonism is the highest degree of religious tolerance and "doctrine" that recognizes religious pluralism.

None of the Republican presidential candidates - Palin, Huckabee, Thune, Daniels, or Pawlenty - have that religious world view.

However, because of Romney's Mormonism, that kind of tolerance and charity for humanity is a part of Romney's moral convictions.

Ryan| 2.2.11 @ 11:02AM

"Doctrinally" according to Mormons. Such a claim pushes out the exclusivist claims of Christ:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; No man comes to the Father but by Me."

As well as John 3:17-18 - "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world, through Him, might be saved. For anyone who believes on Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because He has not believed upon the only begotten Son of God."

And there are plenty of religions - particularly Eastern ones - that are non-exclusivist.

And the Biblical notion that EVERYONE is condemned without the redeeming work of the Cross is pretty consistent. That's the whole reason for the Gospel.

If we weren't all condemned because of our sin, we wouldn't need Christ.

james| 2.2.11 @ 11:31AM

Ryan:

Mormons will definitely agree that "in the final judgement" no one can live with God without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

However, because Jesus overcame death, "death" can no longer determine the final "judgement."

There are millions and have been millions who have died without the Cross. Only Mormonism has an answer as to what will happen to these millions.

Other religions say that they "burn in hell" because God elected them to be "born" without access to the gospel.

This belief DIRECTLY affects the political beliefs of Christian candidates.

Mormonism claims the true nature and power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ - that not even DEATH can prevent someone from receiving the gospel after death.

This "doctrine" allows Romney a moral conviction that 1) Muslims, Jews, or Christians of another brand are still God's children, and that 2) they are not automatically going to hell, and 3) because of 1 and 2, he cannot dismiss them in any sense.

This gives Romney a pluralistic view that is connected to his moral convictions rather than a merely a political position.

Wayne | 2.2.11 @ 12:48PM

Ryan, you are reminding me of why I am no longer Christian.

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:20PM

Who gives a shit? At least Ryan won't try to behead you.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 12:23PM

James,
I don't want to fight.
...but in the Mormon view...if I drink coffee...and dont have enough of a family tree...and offspring...all of that is going to keep me from the "celestial realm" as quickly as faithful Mormons.
IE: Mormons are promised Godhood.

I will be happiest in the telestial realm at Jesus' feet , thank you very much....
...and after an eon or two, if Jesus asks me to re-up in a new world He created...and go do a job for Him....Cool.
Sorry, sir, apologetics won't work on me. I KNOW the Mormon theology and cosmology.
All of it is sure to come out were he nominated.

james| 2.2.11 @ 7:18PM

Ken:

I am not doing any "apologizing" but merely pointing out that all religions claim that they have the path to God which is an elitist view, and the Mormons have the "non-elitist" view since it's a very LARGE Kingdom of God in Mormonism.

If you know Mormon theology (canon) and cosmology (canon) then you should know that Mormonism stands on firm philosophical and scientific grounds. It doesn't have to deal with the problem of Evil and an Omnibenificient God.

And who cares about this anyway? Conservative Evangelicals? Romney already knows that there isn't a vision or a sign from God that can convince those folks that Mormons are Christians too - so why should Romney even try?

In my opinion, Romney should skip Iowa, since Iowa is not serious about electing Presidents but putting forth candidates that closely align with their religious views.

So be it Iowa, but don't claim that your caucus is relevant anymore.

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:21PM

Myth isn't relevant anymore, dummy.

Boston12GS| 2.2.11 @ 10:59AM

James writes:

"I have yet to see any of you "honest" conservatives disclose the facts that Romney used the line-item veto in Massachusetts to strike down all of the "good ideas" that the Obama administration used to create Obamacare. The MA legislature overrode Romney."

James, did he sign the final bill, including all the legislative changes, or not? Are you claiming the MA legislature passed RomneyCare over his veto?

james| 2.2.11 @ 11:01AM

Doug:

You wrote:
"But there is no difference in substance, and so far candidate Romney continues to defend his handiwork."

This is one of the most ignorant comments I have seen in a very long time. Doug, don't quit your day job because your attempts to understand "substance" as legal expert or even a meta physician are over.

Doug, your assessment is a direct contradiction of what the Heritage Foundation said about "the substance" of Romneycare.

They said:

– Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

Doug?

james| 2.2.11 @ 11:09AM

Boston:

You wrote:
"James, did he sign the final bill, including all the legislative changes, or not? Are you claiming the MA legislature passed RomneyCare over his veto?"

You're headed for a fallacy here Boston. A little homework will clear this up. It was the Democratic congress that added back in everything we hate about Romneycare. The media has spun this to protect Obamacare.

It is a fallacy for Obama to thank Romney for Obama's best ideas - those ideas and items actually came from the Democrats that who overrode Romney's line-item veto.

Go back up and read what the Heritage Foundation said about the "substance" of Romneycare, specifically about the "mandate."

Legislating mandates IS consistent with conservative principles and it is reasonable.

Should the Heritage Foundation apologize?

Sean| 2.2.11 @ 1:26PM

So did Romney, "sign the final bill, including all the legislative changes, or not? Are you claiming the MA legislature passed RomneyCare over his veto?" No answer to that.

Anyone that thinks that an individual mandate is a good idea should not be President.

james| 2.3.11 @ 12:47PM

Sean:

Explain why an individual mandate is contrary to Republican principles.

Patriot| 2.4.11 @ 6:16PM

Growth of government is anathema to CONSERVATIVE principles. It's very telling that you even have to ask that question, and further cements my doubts about Mitt's Conservatism.

james| 2.5.11 @ 9:02PM

Patriot:

You're a dinosaur. Your opinions and approaches are outdated and don't take into consideration the changing culture and societal problems that Americans face.

Romney gets it right. Your line of thought is LIBERTARIAN, not necessarily conservative. We all want government to shrink, but Massachusetts CHOSE under its laws to deal with its rising health care costs and expansion of government in a unique way.

Now watch Patriot, you may want to talk LIBERTARIAN but you can't APPLY LIBERTARIAN in real life.

Go ahead, offer up a solution better to MA's health care crisis that is better than Romney's original bill.

This is where Libertarians and ultra conservatives loose the argument - they take talk a hard line, but they just can't come up with solutions to America's problems when they are stuck in the stone age.

We all want government to shrink, but we also want America's problems to be dealt with.

These are called "dilemmas" Patriot - life isn't as simple as a short "sound bite."

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:22PM

Big Government is outdsted to all patriotic Americans. You are a commie.

Cris Worth| 2.2.11 @ 11:43AM

Romney is making the same mistakes he made in 2007/2008. He views Evangelical Protestants, Social Conservatives and now the Tea Party movement as his political adversaries not Obama, the Democratic Party and liberalism in general. His recent foray into Evangelical Christianity has opened old wounds and his comment his wife wants him to run for president apparently as a spark to do so smacks of political charlatanism. His strength is business/economics, what are his policies to inprove the economy and reduce both the deficit and federal regulations? After four years on the campaign trail I still don't know.

Chuck| 2.2.11 @ 12:08PM

Mitch Daniels has also antagonized conservative elements of the GOP letting independent voters know he won't be a lap dog of the Republican Party Right Wing. Hence another Romney type loser the Tea Party has to overcome.

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.2.11 @ 1:20PM

First of all Bando is possibly the least likely of any pundit to appear here to deserve credibility. Second Romney is an elitist, a hereditaty "political fixture" due to his wealth. I know nothing of Mormans other than working for one for several years, that particular Morman was a alarminst, conspiricy based lunitic. As for Ken, he is possibly the most lucid contributor to this site. I come here to get his take far more often than I log on to read what the typical "think tank" hack offers up.

james| 2.2.11 @ 7:23PM

MH:

Your comments are representative of the kinds of posts we see here on these blogs all the time.

You call Romney an elitist but can't tell us how. You call him a political fixture but he was a one-time Governor after 25 years in the private sector as a successful business man.

You just an entire religion based on one person that may or may not actually practice Mormonism (based on your description, that answer would be no.)

You make all of these errors plus you can't spell. And you want someone to take you seriously when you say that the Texican is the most "lucid?"

Patriot| 2.2.11 @ 10:15PM

James, I don't care that Romney is a Mormon, but I do care that he's a RINO. We ran a RINO in 2008; how did that disaster work out for us?

Romney will never escape the debacle that is RomneyCare. Sorry.

james| 2.3.11 @ 12:46PM

Patriot:

The charge that Romney is a RINO (Republiacn in name only) is the most ABSURD charge that a person can make, unless you believe that the only true kind of a Republican is an "ultra conservative." I suppose that this is your definition Patriot.

Such a declaration, like RINO, is an empty speech act. It means nothing - its merely a name that is false attributed to Romney.

For some the charge seems plausible because Romney was pro-choice at one-time. If you believe that being Pro-life "IS" the only criteria for being a "TRUE" Republican then you easily fall for this kind of name-calling.

Here's Romney's voting record on Abortion:
* Would welcome overturning Roe v. Wade. (Mar 2007)
* Opposes Roe v Wade, but won’t tamper with abortion laws. (Dec 2006)
* Vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims. (Jul 2005)
* Vetoed stem cell research bill. (May 2005)

With that kind of voting record, you cannot truthfully claim that Romney is a RINO.

Patriot, as far as Romneycare goes, and the attribution of "its debacle" is a media ploy to deceive Republicans into voting a nominee that can't beat Obama.

The Heritage Foundation claimed that what Romney did with Romneycare was "CONSISTENT" with conservative principles.

So, who are you listening to Patriot? It would seem that you're being duped by the liberal media's ploy to protect Obama's "UNIVERSAL" health care which is NOT consistent with conservative principles.

I find that most Tea Partiers haven't thought these issues through - that like they do on Sunday - they just latch on to any "speech acts" that are consistent with their preconceived prejudices.

Patriot| 2.4.11 @ 6:05PM

Sorry, James, I have thought this through, as millions of other Conservatives have. No way no how will Romney be nominated as a Republican POTUS candidate.
Romney's just another McCain, and we all know how well that worked out for us.

Your pathetic condescension doesn't do you or your boss any favors.

james| 2.5.11 @ 8:56PM

Patriot:

Millions of conservatives, moderates, and independants have thought this through and voted for Romney in 2008.

Millions will vote for him today. He's polling right now at the top or near the top and his campaign hasn't even begun.

In polls right now he's polling the highest to beat Obama.

And, if he is "like" McCain then he has a 100% chance of being the Republican Nominee. If he is the Republican nominee, he'll beat Obama.

Talking plainly to you Patriot isn't condescension. It's just straight talk.

You continue to just announce your prejudices against Romney that are mere talking points of the MSM.

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:15PM

There's nothing "plain" about you talk, moron. You're the king of delusion.

Victim politics is all you have.

Boston12GS| 2.2.11 @ 1:33PM

James writes:

"You're headed for a fallacy here Boston. A little homework will clear this up. It was the Democratic congress that added back in everything we hate about Romneycare. The media has spun this to protect Obamacare."

Did Romney sign the bill in its final form, including all the "bad stuff" added back in by the MA legislature, or didn't he? If he did, he owns it just as much as does the legislature. He can not escape responsibility for the legislation he signed as Governor, when he could instead of availed himself of his power to veto the bill.

Results of RomneyCare? From my very personal experience they are enormously increased health insurance costs, annual deductibles that have doubled or more (in my case from $2,000 to $4,000 a year before the insurance covers much of anything) for the same policy cost, and increasing waits to see doctors. For me, that means I pay in excess of $12,000 a year in policy costs and another $4,000 a year covering my deductible before my health insurance covers anything meaningful (I do get free flu shots, which would cost me $30 at the local CVS Minute Clinic).

Thanks, Mitt.

james| 2.2.11 @ 8:03PM

Boston:

Your argument is fallacious. The executive branch does not have to sign bills into law that have been overriden by the legislative branch. This is the sole purpose of a 2/3 majority- you don't need the executive branch.

So, in THOSE cases, no, the executive branch is NOT responsible for the "legislation" since the legislative branch overrode his "signature."

In Romney's case, his proposed bill had the "approbation" of the Hertiage Foundation. I have already posted some of the "approval quotes" from them.

So, Boston, if th Heritage Foundation found that Romney's bill was consistent with conservative principles, why do you claim something went wrong?

The escalating costs of Romneycare are not due to the proposals HE made but the items added to the bill/law AFTER he was overridden by Democrats.

But here's the kicker Boston. Should the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation apologize for approving of Romney's initial proposals?

Sean| 2.2.11 @ 8:47PM

Nice spinning james. Now did Romney veto the bill or not?

The Heritage Foundation is not the one who is going to be looking to run for President so who cares what they think.

james| 2.3.11 @ 12:31PM

Sean:

I find that those who oppose Romney because of Romneycare, actually oppose the elements that were voted into the law by Democrats

This is why the Heritage Foundation "could" praise Romney for the "conservative" elements.

Tea Partiers who "dismiss" Romney out of hand show their true colors - it is usually a disguise for religious bigotry. Romney isn't their brand of Christian and so they use the ROmneycare charge as a legitimate reason.

But, when we dig deeper, we find that the Heritage Foundation "praised" Romney and "approved" of what Romney did as CONSISTENT with CONSERVATIVE principles.

On what RATIONAL grounds do Tea Partiers then reject Romneycare?

Romney vetoed "ALL" of the elements of the bill (which is now law) that Democrats love and that the Obama administration copied.

This "vague" dismissal of Romney seems to be a disguise for something else.

Patriot| 2.4.11 @ 6:07PM

Stop playing the victim card--that's what the onerous liberals do. It won't work with us, moron.

james| 2.3.11 @ 6:08PM

No Boston, thanks your Democratically held government in MA.

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:13PM

Romney signed the bill, moron--he owns it.

ncdefector| 2.2.11 @ 1:40PM

Have we seen his birth certificate yet?

I Survived Arlen Specter| 2.2.11 @ 2:35PM

If "Helmet Hair" Romney is The Stupid Party's nominee for POTUS in 2012 Obama gets a second term. It's that simple. The Stupid Party lose every time they run RINOs for POTUS.
James, Ryan is correct. Faith & belief, in Jesus Christ, GOD's only son as the savior of the world who gave up His own life & took on GOD's punishment for our sins is THE only way to GOD, The Father & eternal life. Those who believe are not condemned. Those who have not believed are condemned already. There are no do-overs once this life ends. Also, GOD does not send people to Hell. They send themselves through unbelief. Jesus Christ's sacrifice of His own life, body, & blood have saved us if we choose to believe, become reborn through The Holy Spirit & follow Him. GOD will accept nothing less. Take care all & GOD bless!

james| 2.2.11 @ 8:08PM

Romney is the only Republican that can beat Obama. None of the potential Republican candidates can appeal to Independents or blue-dog Democrats.

And, remember, Ryan and I weren't debating whether or not one needs Jesus Christ for eternal life, we acknowledge that is the case, the "HARDER" question is concerning the millions of people who never had the chance to believe in Jesus Christ because they don't know about him or didn't for centuries because they lived in places were the knowledge of the Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ was no available.

You believe that God is omniciently good, but you claim that it is an act of goodness to intentionally place a soul where they will not have access to the gospel and then condemn them to hell because of it?

Sorry, but this is a blatant contradiction.

But my point was the Romney's Mormonism informs him that these people are NOT automatically condemned which allows him a view of human beings that is superior and more beneficial to the world than a person who claims that "its their tough luck" that they weren't born in the right place and the right time.

Patriot| 2.2.11 @ 10:26PM

Romney can beat Obama in 2012 about as well as McCain did in 2008.

Sorry, try as you might, you can't spin the reason we find Romney unacceptable.

james| 2.3.11 @ 12:26PM

Patriot:

No, Romney will do better against Obama than McCain: Age, experience, and Obama's weaknesses will propel Romney this time around.

But there is a larger issue here. You must have some vauge assumption that there is ANOTHER Republican candidate that can beat Obama.

I'd love to hear your arguments and evidence that another Republican can beat Obama.

The point isn't to make Romney "ultra" acceptable to you but to show you that there is something a miss in your logic, approach, and objectives.

I find that some of "you" whoever "you" are are unreasonable to the point of fanaticism. Such fanaticism is unreasonable and unjustified and will result in having Obama in office for another 4 years.

So Patriot, make your case. Show us which Republican can beat Obama other than Romney - which Republican candidate will appeal more to Independents?

This is where your arguments need proving.

Patriot| 2.4.11 @ 6:09PM

I'm not running for POTUS, fool! YOU need my vote, so YOU need to prove your arguments.

james| 2.5.11 @ 8:52PM

The argument has already been proven. Your irrational criticisms against Romneycare are nothing more than MSM rhetoric.

The mandate was already "approved" by the Heritage Foundation in 2006. it can't be called "Liberal".

And Patriot, "I" don't want "YOUR" vote. You're an unreasonable and highly irrational voter. You're a hater. Romney isn't going for you.

Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:12PM

We're Tea Partiers, moron--and Myth definitely needs our votes. lol

james| 2.3.11 @ 1:02PM

Newt Gingrinch responded to the Tea Party view of Romneycare:
• Romney is firmly committed to repeal of Obamacare
• It’s not accurate or fair to compare Obamacare and Romneycare
• Romney vetoed many provisions of the Mass bill and Romney was overridden by Democrats
• The original Romney bill was better and practical than what the liberal Democrats did to it
• The Democrats overrode Romney’s original bill on a whole series of items
• The issue is not as clear cut as Tea Partiers think or the liberal media has made the issue out to be

http://www.knrs.com/onair/Rod-.....ycare.html

Here are the facts about Romneycare:
• Mass employers have no mandates, but “requirements”
• Mass program relies on personal responsibility & the market.
• Mass health plan insures all without taxes or socialization.
• Mass reform focuses on individual responsibility (via fines).
• MA state health insurance plan lowered costs initially.
• Mandates on health insurance work in Massachusetts.

Romney’s voting record on Abortion:
• Would welcome overturning Roe v. Wade. (Mar 2007)
• Opposes Roe v Wade, but won’t tamper with abortion laws. (Dec 2006)
• Vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims. (Jul 2005)
• Vetoed stem cell research bill. (May 2005)

Romney on religion:
• Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
• I believe Jesus is savior of mankind & Son of God.
• Bible is the word of God; I don’t disagree with Bible.
• Every person of any faith has deeply-held values.
• We share a common creed despite differences in theology.
• Will serve no one religion, but will not distance himself.

Patriot| 2.4.11 @ 6:11PM

Plaster Conservative websites with your pathetic posts all you want, moron--it won't do Romney any good. The RomneyCare debacle has already sealed his fate. Sorry.

james| 2.5.11 @ 8:48PM

Patriot:

You wrote:
"The RomneyCare debacle has already sealed his fate. Sorry."

Yes, we know that YOU won't vote for him. So be it. I don't think Romney is going for "you". The swing voter is who Romney cares about not the irrational and unreasonable Tea Party nut job.

When voters realize that the Heritage Foundation approved of the MA Mandate in 2006, the Tea Party message against Romney will seem very strange indeed.

And, if Romney's "fate" is sealed Patriot, then why is he polling the highest among voters now?

See the contradiction between your view of reality and reality?