-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
There he goes again.
I’m sure Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom is a nice guy. Doubtless he loves dogs, cats, family and colleagues.
But for the second time in a matter of months Mr. Fehrnstrom has managed to shoot his candidate in the foot — by flatly contradicting Governor Romney’s message.
The last time, under intense scrutiny by conservatives that prompted the Governor to show up at CPAC and proclaim himself a “severe conservative” — Fehrnstrom took to the airwaves sometime later to say that well, no. Once Governor Romney was nominated he would morph into an “etch-a-sketch” candidate.
Ouch.
There was the inevitable rush of apologies and, predictably, the story vanished.
Now comes yet another Fehrnstrom story. Worse …infinitely worse…than the first.
There was a small matter of a Supreme Court decision. In which, infamously, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with liberals to uphold ObamaCare — by declaring the mandate a tax.
Now let’s recall the zillion times candidate Romney insisted — under withering criticism — that his views on health care (“RomneyCare”) for Massachusetts did not, would not, could not — not a thousand times ever and ever — apply to America as a whole. No sireeeeeeeeeeee Bob.
Then, literally within days of the Supreme Court decision that by a 5-4 vote say the mandate is a tax, not a penalty, there is Mr. Fehrnstrom on MSNBC to directly contradict his own boss.
Here’s the key conversation between Fehrnstrom and MSNBC’s Chuck Todd:
TODD: Okay. Which — so I guess — we’re — I think we’re talking around each other. The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.
Got it? Now the Romney campaign is not only agreeing with President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they are saying exactly the opposite of what the Governor said in the primary. Which was that “the last thing” he would ever do was “to take what we had done for one state and impose it on the entire nation.”
Now, it seems, while the idea of the mandate was seen by Governor Romney as a penalty in Massachusetts — lo and behold — according to Mr. Fehrnstrom, Governor Romney now believes it applies in exactly the same fashion in the nation as a whole! What was a penalty in Massachusetts must now be seen as a penalty for the entire nation — not a tax!
Which is to say, either Governor Romney spent the whole season fibbing to Republicans when he said what applied in Massachusetts did not apply nationally — or… well… or?
Is this really true?
Is Team Romney suddenly being gifted with one of the greatest gifts in presidential campaign history — only to deliberately kick the ball away?
Or, was the Governor never a believer all along in his well-stated opinion that there were two rules on health care —one for states and one for the country?
Did Governor Romney really never believe that what applied to the states — in this case that the mandate was a penalty — should never be applied to the nation as a whole?
And has he now changed his mind, disagreeing with the Chief Justice who has now said, quite plainly speaking for the majority of the Court, that the mandate is a national tax.
By the grace of the Fourth of July holiday this latest Fehrnstrom contradiction may — may — vanish into the holiday ether. But it will kick around forever somewhere. As a reminder that the next time Mr. Fehrnstrom shows up on television it should be somewhere after President Romney gives his second-term farewell address.
And it’s also a reminder that:
1) Presidential nominees need to coordinate their message with the Congressional leadership of their party (leaders Boehner, McConnell and Ryan were all well out there on the tax message); and;
2) If Governor Romney has in fact moved from position (A) — that what applied at the state level doesn’t apply at the national level — to position (B) —that, well, he was just misinterpreted and that he’s now a big believer that what happened in Massachusetts shouldn’t stay in Massachusetts then there is….
A problem. A big one.
And in the public discussion of this problem, Eric Fehrnstrom should be anywhere but within reach of a television camera.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/03/take-eric-fehrnstrom-off-telev
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Ross Kaminsky| 7.3.12 @ 9:09AM
Truly one of the worst cases of foot-in-mouth that I've seen in politics in a long time. Now we have to see if Romney comes out and says his advisor was wrong. The problem is that Romney has the Romneycare albatross around his neck: If Obama's mandate is a tax, then that means Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts -- which is also not something he wants to say.
solidground| 7.3.12 @ 9:10AM
The guy has to be dumb as a rock to go on MSNBC in the first place. That's like a black person appearing at a KKK rally. Talk about a zero sum game. Not one word he could have said in any regard would have changed the thinking of the vitriolic, rabid MSNBC audience. What was he thinking? Obviously he wasn't.
Dai Alanye | 7.3.12 @ 10:01AM
Is Fehrnstrom confused, or does the candidate himself not have a firm position?
If I were Romney I'd refuse to discuss the details, simply holding the position that Obamacare must go, regardless of whether it contains a penalty, a tax, or some hybrid.
ChuloDO| 7.3.12 @ 10:49AM
Yes, Dai, because refusing to discuss the details is a really an effective sign on how to govern.
But it'll be consistent with Mitt's Romney's approach so far--making mostly vague statements to the public but then telling a completely different story to donors and insiders.
DRed| 7.3.12 @ 10:06AM
Cut the guy some slack. I'm sure it's not easy to be the spokesman for someone who contradicts himself as often as Mittens.
Ryan| 7.3.12 @ 10:30AM
Ugh. Romney's campaign should be smarter than this.
Rule 1 - KEEP YOUR STORIES STRAIGHT.
kingsmill| 7.3.12 @ 10:38AM
I'm very familiar with Fehrnstrom from his time with Willard in Massachusetts. The guy is an unthinking hack. He's a bottom feeder that rose without a trace. He came from the basement of the Boston Herald and found his true calling throwing scraps to the vapid Boston State House Press Corps. He was up to the task dealing with hack Democratic legislators in Boston, where idiocy is king, but he's totally out of his depth on a larger stage.
ChuloDO| 7.3.12 @ 10:43AM
"vitriolic, rabid MSNBC audience", solidground?
I guess that makes the Faux News audience akin to axe murderers.
Sjccoach| 7.3.12 @ 10:53AM
If Romney wins, which I doubt, this is just more proof that he will not back repeal. He is what he is a RINO. Romney, like Roberts, will not offend the mainstream media.
RCV| 7.3.12 @ 11:07AM
The messenger can only be as consistent as the message.
Poly Ester| 7.3.12 @ 12:44PM
This is a non-issue. Penalty or tax, it doesn't matter. It has to go. Let's find something important to use our energy on. Like putting Obama out to pasture. Romney said he would get rid of it. And if we take the Senate and keep the House it's gone. We can do it if we don't turn on each other.
SteveJ| 7.3.12 @ 1:59PM
There are some fundamental problems in using the "tax increase" argument for political gain that have nothing to do with Eric Fehrnstrom.
Conservatives agree with the dissent. The mandate is not a tax. Obviously the dissent doesn't make the law, but Conservatives don't believe in the argument Roberts advanced. Neither does Roberts by the way.
How much political sway do you have with voters when you claim your opponent did something you don't think actually happened i.e. when you are on record stating that the notion the mandate is a tax is based on an absurd argument?
The other main problem is this: for reasons that as yet have to be determined, the Republican nominee is Mitt Romeny -- who is John Kerry on steroids with regard to this issue as well as everything else.
Most people know that Romney envisioned Romneycare as a blueprint for the federal government. He said so in a USAToday op ed in 2008.
In addition to that, he passed a mandate he claims is not a tax.
Quartermaster| 7.3.12 @ 2:34PM
Fehrnstrom is an idiot. If Mittens actually agrees with what Fehrnstrom said, then he will lose to ZerO and richly deserve it. The GOP voters that nominated Mittens should then have their stupidity rubbed in their faces just before the country is bankrupted by ZerO and his idiot minions.