-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Mitt Romney defended the individual mandate as “fundamentally a conservative principle” today. Erick Erickson makes the important point that just because Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution didn’t prevent Romney from doing this in Massachusetts doesn’t mean the policy is conservative. But the fact that Romney is defending the policy at the heart of Obamacare — which President Obama also defends on “individual responsibility” grounds — complicates both the legal and political case for junking the federal health care law.
View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/28/mitt-romney-keeps-defending-th
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 3:54PM
" Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, singled out Romney's Massachusetts health care plan as a primary reason why the national front-runner for the Republican nomination "clearly has difficulties" with members of the movement.
"He's attached to RomneyCare and has done a poor job of distancing himself from that," Meckler told reporters at a breakfast in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I think he probably squandered an incredible opportunity and was probably the best guy to say, ‘I tried this and it failed,' and he has not done a good job of that. So he has taken positions that are contrary to what the average Tea Partier would take -- positions on man-made global warming, positions on energy efficiency. So I think he's in real trouble with the Tea Party base."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
m| 12.28.11 @ 4:17PM
We are going to lose the election in 2012 if Romney is the nominee. Romney is not conservative. He doesn't support the conservatives and Tea Party. Romney is just like the liberal Democrat. Romney couldn't beat Obama.
Wayne| 12.29.11 @ 11:32AM
If elected he will form a coolition of democrats and establishment republicans. He will say he can better manage a huge government, but in no way reduce the size of it. He will keep ObamaCare and regulations that restrict individual freedom, and you will see cronies come out of the woodwork for special favors. Meanwhile once again conservatives would be marginalized.
Salt Lake Ken| 12.28.11 @ 4:26PM
Mitt is on a roll, going to win Iowa, winning big in NH and probably win in SC and Fla. Don't cave in to the Tea Party movement, they are a hindrance to you in the general election. Unite economic conservatives. social moderates, anti-Obama liberals and independents. Please stay away from right-wing kooks in general and specifically pro-life evangelical bible thumpers.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 4:35PM
So are mormons not pro-life?
What does social "moderat[ion]" consist of, by the way?
Finding some middle ground on flamers in the military? Allowing them to marry? What do mormons desire to see on that issue?
Where are mormons on school vouchers, where would the "moderation" be on that issue?
Or cloning? How do mormons suggest that issue be dealt with, and be dealt with in a manner that avoids those you deride as "bible thumpers?"
So "Mitt is on a roll?"
What does that "roll" consist of, barreling along to a heady 24% of nationwide support among Republicans?
Who is supporting him?
All I can see is that his surrogates have successfully targeted for destruction all legitimate opposition, leaving him wobbly but still on his feet.
JP| 12.28.11 @ 4:36PM
Yes, by all means don't cave. Mitt will ride his wave of liberals, progressives, and moderates right into oblivion. If you liked Obama, you will love Mittens!
Bill| 12.28.11 @ 6:50PM
If Romney wins in Iowa it's not because of anything he has done; it will be because of the failures of the other candidates. If Romney doesn't win BIG in NH, just one of his several "home states", he's in trouble. It's doubtful he will win in SC and polls show him behind in Fla.
Oldefarte| 12.28.11 @ 4:28PM
No, you are going to lose the COUNTRY if Obama is re-elected, so you had better decide which is more important, the election or the country???????????
JP| 12.28.11 @ 4:38PM
In a general election the choice between Mittens and Obama is one of degree and not kind. A vote for Obama is a sprint into the abyss; a vote for Mittens is a jog into the abyss. In short, we will be re-arranging the deck chairs, nothing more.
Wayne| 12.29.11 @ 11:34AM
I heard this same argument between Hubert Humphrey and Nixon. In fact every time a moderate GOP candidate runs we get the "lesser of two evils" argument. I for one don't buy it.
Oldefarte| 12.29.11 @ 11:42AM
'..... Only One Candidate Is Right On The Two Most Important Issues by Ann Coulter (more by this author)Posted 12/28/2011 ETUpdated 12/28/2011 ETIn the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.Similarly, if Obamacare isn't repealed in the next few years, it never will be.America will begin its ineluctable descent into becoming a worthless Western European country, with rotten health care, no money for defense and ever-increasing federal taxes to support the nanny state.So let's consider which of the Republican candidates are most likely to succeed at these objectives.In order to allow Democrats to indignantly denounce Republicans who said Obamacare would add to the deficit, the bill was structured so that no goodies get paid out immediately. That way, when the Congressional Budget Office was asked to determine if Obamacare was "revenue neutral" over its first 10 years, government accountants were looking at a bill that collected taxes for 10 years, but only distributed treats in the later years.Starting at year 11, those accountants will be in for a big surprise when the government starts paying out Obamacare benefits without interruption.Because of this accounting fraud, Obamacare can still be repealed. But as soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.The vast complex of unionized government workers managing our health care from Washington will fight to keep their jobs (for more on this topic, see the Department of Education), voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) -- and even if they don't, there won't be a private insurance market for them to go back to (for more on this topic, see IRS rules favoring employer-provided health care).The only way to stop Obamacare is to beat Obama in 2012, and repeal it before the health care Leviathan is born.Otherwise, starting in 2016, Republicans will run for office promising only to improve Obamacare. Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to reform it "right-wing social engineering."All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate.Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives -- one pro-life and one pro-choice -- can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.And yet, almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees' Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.Although wildly popular with Americans -- including Hispanic Americans -- the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.Jon Huntsman claims to support E-Verify, but also wants to give illegals amnesty as soon as the border is sealed -- as determined by someone other than us. Also, he gave driver's identification cards to illegal aliens in Utah. (You'd think a guy no one has ever heard of would be more careful about ID cards.)Following his latest guru, Helen Krieble, Newt Gingrich is for amnesty, combined with second-class status for illegals. Instead of giving illegal aliens green cards, Newt proposes giving them "red cards" so they can stay, take American jobs, have children, receive welfare benefits, attend public schools -- and eventually be granted amnesty. The Republican primaries will be over before most voters realize what Newt's "red card" scheme entails.Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.....'
Joe Sahyan| 12.29.11 @ 5:30PM
I've liked Coulter for a long time, but on this she's lost me. Consider: Romney will NOT reimplement Don't Ask Don't Tell; Romney *SUPPORTS* the tyrannical "individual mandate". I'd vote for anyone over Obama, except for Paul...and maybe, just maybe, Romney. You're in effect saying the only way to save the nation is to vote to continue Obamaite policies. "Just stop struggling; it won't hurt a bit...." Phooey.
Ed| 12.28.11 @ 4:48PM
Don't mistake "moral" for honest or smart. Harry Reid is a mormon after all. Perhaps Mitt's sycophants over at NRO will have a rational explanation? Nah, they'll just ignore it.
Osamas Pajamas| 12.28.11 @ 5:09PM
As usual, Romney has once again demonstrated that all of our politicans should be dragged into the street and horsewhipped until they are dead. A "mandate" means a "gun" pointed at the American citizen, which means --- that the American citizen must disarm Romney's armed-and-uniformed terrorist enforcers, and jam those guns up their rosy red rectums, and pull the triggers. Smash this dictatorial government!
sjccoach| 12.28.11 @ 6:00PM
This is more proof that Romney is Obama lite. If Romney is the nominee he loses in a landslide. Why should I vote for a Socialist when I can have a Communist as President instead. Given the above choice I'll vote third party or stay home. As to Oldfarte's comment above if either Romney or Obama is elected the country is lost.
Bob S| 12.28.11 @ 11:54PM
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The old joke was, who is G.H. Bush?
Bill Clinton with arthritis.
The new joke is, who is G. W. Obama?
Newt Romney on steroids with a suntan. (Same went for McCain).
The manipulations of the ruling class are getting a little too obvious, don't you think?
martin j smith| 12.29.11 @ 8:08AM
He does not want the nomination, ( Mitt Romney that is ). He knows he is unpopular and at best would receive tepid support.
Tony| 12.30.11 @ 8:35AM
His support of an individual mandate means support of a government run health insurance system. That alone should disqualify him for any freedom loving constitutional conservative.
He will never get my vote even if he is the last man standing. We already have a freedom hating statist in the White House.
Bradford Tiernan| 12.30.11 @ 9:06PM
So, in this surreal world of Republican politics, the government FORCING citizens to purchase a product is a "Conservative Principle"!
We now live in an Orwellian world where "Control is Freedom", and "Freedom is derived through government force!"
Anyone who argued against Obamacare and then votes for this RINO is a outright hypocrite!