National Review Online, having burned through every establishment hack trying to excite the American people with their favorite RINO, is back to their old standby, Mitt Romney. Little did they know by giving Mitt a couple of paragraphs he could call his own, they were allowing the man to declare his seriousness as a political candidate a thing of the past:
If I Were President: Obamacare, One Year In
By Mitt Romney
If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.
As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are "laboratories of democracy." They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.
I'll admit. I had to read this several times because I'm reading it and thinking how can one single person pack so much fail in so little space. I mean seriously. This is not the sort of plan one would expect from a supposed "educated man." It's damned sure not a plan one would expect from someone who believes in the Constitution.
First, let's look at Romney's plan to just give all of the state wavers, by Executive fiat. For one thing, Executive orders aren't worth the paper they are written on, as any law Congress makes would supersede them. This is simply no way to govern.
While Romney is gleefully issuing wavers by Executive Order, ObamaCare is still the law of the land, assuming the United States Supreme Court hasn't stricken the bill down as unconstitutional before January 20, 2013.
And here-in lies the problem. As long as ObamaCare is still law, parts of it are being implemented. Romney could give a waver to every man, woman, child, dog and cat in the country, and ObamaCare, the law, will just keep on keepin' on, until it is either repealed or declared unconstitutional and void. Billions of dollars will be spent while Romney plays "executive."
There is only one way to make sure ObamaCare doesn't destroy the best health care system in the world, and drag down our already ailing economy with it: Kill it. Put it out of our misery!
As we move on, Romney is still using this tired old talking point:
Under our federalist system, the states are "laboratories of democracy."
Now this is true enough, but it doesn't mean states should embrace destructive ideas and socialist plans. At least not if they expect to succeed! And by every measure humanly possible, RomneyCare is a complete and total disaster. It's bankrupting the state and has screwed up their health care system beyond salvation.
Romney goes on to say that repealing ObamaCare is the "ultimate goal" and he wants to "replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs." That's all well and good, but if that's Romney's REAL position, why didn't he do that as Governor of Massachusetts, instead of instituting a socialist form of health care, one that would serve as the blueprint for ObamaCare!
One is left wondering if Romney even understands the meaning of the words he wrote.
Mitt could have looked to the Lone Star State. Texas took on health care reform well before Romney was elected Governor. Instead of cooking up a European style socialized system, Texas made reforms to the insurance industry, and more importantly, addressed tort reform. Texas used to be a haven for ambulance chasing lawyers. The worst in the nation. With lawsuit reform, the Texas health care system has thrived, with thousands of doctors relocating to the state.
Of course, our beloved Governor, Rick Perry, isn't one of those Ivy League educated "though leaders" so prized by the Republican elite. He's just a good old boy who went to Texas A&M, served as a Captain in the Air Force, flying C-130s overseas, and went back to cotton farming after serving his country. In other words, the man uses Common Sense to solve problems, not Big Government schemes.
Romney could have looked to Texas, rather than socialist Europe for solutions, but how would that have looked to the rest of the country club set?
Another problem with Romney is one of believability. Let's face it, Romney is well known as a human windsock. The absolute, ultimate, finger-in-the-wind politician. You name the issue, and Romney will have taken both sides at one point or another.
Now one could simply say he's grown and matured, learned. That would be valid in several cases, but on many issues Romney famously flip-flops from one side to the other, depending on the prevailing political winds.
So here's the thing, even though Romney is saying anything he has to in order to seem "electable", will he really stay true to his word? Why should we believe he'll even attempt to stop ObamaCare, let alone actually do it?
Long before ObamaCare was ever signed into law, the America people were rising up by the millions in protest. Leaders, like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, and many more, stood up and fought against this disaster with everything they had. They laid it all on the line. Took all sorts of heat from the media, and even the hacks in their own party. But they fought anyway.
In the end, it was Palin, Bachmann, and the rest, who inspired the hard working patriots in the Tea Party, resulting in the largest shift in political power in over 100 years, with the 2010 elections. Republicans didn't just win big in the national contests, the state elections saw massive Republican victories as well over 600 democrats were sent packing!
Where was Romney though? We are constantly told by the Ruling Class of the GOP that Romney is the bestest they have to offer. The leader of their pack. Indeed, Romney has name recognition and even a bit of credibility, among some. Romney's voice would have been not only welcomed, but much appreciated. Romney's strong voice in opposition to ObamaCare might have been the one that made the difference. He could have stood strong with Palin, Bachmann and the others, but that's not the way Romney does things.
Had Mitt Romney stood up with the rest of America as we fought to stop ObamaCare from ever becoming law, he might have even been celebrated as a leader. Instead, Mitt decided to sit it out. Obviously Romney has his own demons to deal with, having screwed up his own state, but still, he could have stood up and took his lumps, then helped stop the Obama regime. Alas, Romney is not a leader, and doesn't have the backbone for the real fight.
So again, how is it he will have the backbone as President?
Here's another problem with Romney's credibility. Far from admitting he jumped the shark with RomneyCare, Mitt has been bending over backwards to defend his mess ever since the nation learned what a total disaster it is!
There are thousands of instances like the one Sasha Issenberg describes for the Boston Globe, almost a year ago, to the day:
Romney defends Mass. health care law
AMES, Iowa — Mitt Romney offered an enthusiastic defense last night of the comprehensive health care law he helped create four years ago in Massachusetts ...
"Overall, ours is a model that works,’’ Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University. "We solved our problem at the state level. Like it or not, it was a state solution. Why is it that President Obama is stepping in and saying ‘one size fits all’ ’’?
[ .... ]
Yesterday, Romney proudly acknowledged that his bill included a set of new insurance regulations that "President Obama always likes to talk about in his health care plan — the good stuff.’’ Romney trumpeted the achievement of near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, while declining to acknowledge that the mechanism he used to achieve that goal — a requirement that individuals buy private insurance — is the same as the much-criticized mandate of Obama’s plan.
The accounting of "some similarities’’ and "some differences’’ between the two systems was a more delicate comparison than Romney has offered recently, when he wholly rejected the idea that the two had anything significant in common.
"People often compare his plan to the Massachusetts plan,’’ Romney said in an interview last month. "They’re as different as night and day. There are some words that sound the same, but our plan is based on states solving our issues; his is based on a one-size-fits-all plan.’’
In the last week, many health care policy specialists, Democrats celebrating the bill’s passage, and Republicans condemning it have come to another conclusion. The difference between the two systems, they say, is slim.
"Basically, it’s the same thing,’’ said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney and Obama administrations on their health insurance programs. A national health overhaul would not have happened if Mitt Romney had not made "the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.’’
I'd like to hear Mitt describe, in detail exactly how "Overall, ours is a model that works.’’ That would be a performance worthy of an Academy Award, if he could pull it off.
Mitt was still out there taking victory laps for RomneyCare just one month ago:
Mitt Romney is ‘proud’ of Massachusetts health care plan
"Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered," Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom told the Globe's Matt Viser. "What's important now is to return to the states the power to determine their own healthcare solutions by repealing Obamacare. A one-size-fits-all plan for the entire nation just doesn't work."
It's unclear how that talking point will play with GOP primary voters, who may find it tough to distinguish Romney's plan from President Obama's health care proposal given both included individual mandates for coverage. In an attempt to perhaps undermine a rival, the White House has gone out of its way to link Obama's plan to what Romney passed. "We got some good ideas from him," Obama adviser David Axelrod said last month.
The question of whether Romney can distance his plan from Obama's seems potentially crucial to his campaign. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 84 percent of Republicans polled have an unfavorable view of "Obamacare."
Will someone please explain to me, with a straight face, exactly how Romney has any credibility on this at all.
There's still more troubling issues with Romney. His publisher recently released his book in paperback. This isn't unusual. What is unusual is the revisions Mitt made. Now it's not uncommon for an author to add more content when a book comes out in paperback. Something to add to the story. However, it's most curious that Romney took the occasion to actually edit the content and change positions on key issues, including RommneyCare. That's right, not only does Romney flip flop in person, he flip flops in print as well!
Romney edits Romneycare out of his book
Multiple Choice Mitt strikes again. Romney is putting out a paperback version of his book, No Apology, but has edited out references to the individual mandate contained in health care legislation he brought into law in Massachusetts.
In the original hardcover, Romney tried to carefully distinguish between the Massachusetts law and the national version that was nearing passage as he wrote.
But the Massachusetts model has become Romney's bête noire among conservatives, who loathe the national reform they call "Obamacare." The rewritten paperback swings much harder, proclaiming that "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."
Read more here.
Sorry, but Romney trying to play the tough guy, on ObamaCare, or anything else, just isn't an image that's believable.
Something else that is destroying Romney's credibility: Obama thinks of Mitt as a "useful idiot" when he talks about his health care plan. Recently Obama cited Romney's stance on RomneyCare to claim his own "bi-partisanship" and announce a change of course on how he'd like to see ObamaCare shoved down our throats. I mean "implemented" [sorry]
The Obama regime constantly "thanks" Romney for giving them the blueprint for their own program.
In effect, this neutralizes any attack on ObamaCare Romney can make. There are only two people in the United States with a socialist health care system named after them. In a political contest it will be hard for one to attack the other, especially when the challenger, Romney, was the first one to create such a system!
In other words, with Romney as the nominee, it takes ObamaCare off the table as a campaign issue.
President Obama praises Mitt Romney’s health care plan
"I know that many of you have asked for flexibility for your states under this law. In fact, I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he's proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts and supports giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions," Obama said in an address to the National Governors Association today. "He's right. Alabama is not going to have exactly the same needs as Massachusetts or California or North Dakota. We believe in that flexibility."
It's the second time in the past several weeks that the White House has gone out of its way to praise Romney, who is expected to launch a bid for the GOP nomination. In January, Obama adviser David Axelrod said the administration had gotten "some good ideas" from Romney, who has come under fire for the plan, which, like Obama's bill, mandates that individuals must have health insurance.
It's Romney's weak position that allows Obama to single him out, and use him as a shield. It allows Obama his "reach across the aisle" moment.
People in Massachusetts are still very upset with Romney, and articles like this recent piece from Howie Carr in the Boston Herald are all too common, and will be repeated often in 2012:
No Rx for Mitt Romney’s Bay State headache
Mitt keeps trying to explain how it seemed like such a good idea at the time. But Romneycare follows him around like a dark cloud over his head, just the way Chappaquiddick haunted Ted Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign. If only those rascally Democrats hadn’t ruined it, Mitt keeps saying, as the crowd uneasily makes its way toward the exits.
No, Mitt says, really, I mean it, seriously, please, come back . . .
As Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it, "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
Romney has had years to do some sort of mea culpa, to come clean, admit he screwed the pooch, and ask for forgiveness. A sincere apology, several years ago, might have helped, instead, Romney has been doubling down. Romney has even called his boondoggle "the ultimate conservative plan" and has encouraged other Governors to adopt it as their own!
I'll give Mitt this, he and his team sure know how to spin disaster!
Now I think we all agree that allowing the several states to be in charge of creating their own destiny, and health care reform, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended for our Republic. In the Federalist system, each state is a sovereign entity, and the intent is to allow each state to create conditions that work for their citizens.
Romney is right in this case, but the conditions he created as Governor are far from "conservative"! Seriously, the individual mandate, forcing every citizen to buy insurance, is not Conservative in any way, shape, or form.
Now some will bring up mandatory automobile insurance as a counter to that argument, but that dog won't hunt. Driving a car is NOT a right, it's a privilege.
One can choose not to drive a car, and thus not be mandated to buy insurance. The act of driving a car is voluntary, and the required insurance is designed to protect other drivers and property owners, not the insured. [unless they purchase "full coverage", which is not mandatory]
On the other hand, RomneyCare, like ObamaCare requires every citizen to purchase insurance, simply because they are alive, and penalizes anyone who doesn't.
This is NOT a Conservative way of doing things. Conservatives respect individual rights, and the concept of limited government. RomneyCare, like it's spawn, ObamaCare are the exact opposite of these concepts. They are the ultimate Big Government intrusions on our lives.
The elections of 2012 are going to be the defining moment in American history. It's going to be the event that determines whether we stay on our current path, and become nothing more than a failed socialist experiment, or change directions and get back to First Principles, those time honored solutions to problems that made this nation the greatest ever created.
One of the real chances the United States has to right itself lies not in the presidency, but in Congress. There are a lot of democrats up for re-election in the Senate. There is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to fill those seats with principled Conservatives. A strong leader on the Republican ticket for President will have long coattails and bring about this change in Congress.
I mention this because it brings us to the answer Mitt Romney should have given, instead of the one he did in the NRO editorial.
You see, the new Congress will be sworn in weeks before the new President. This means Congress will have plenty of time to draft, and pass legislation repealing ObamaCare in it's entirety. This legislation can be sitting on the new President's desk, ready for their signature on day one.
Romney should understand, that after watching many of their fellow travelers go down in the elections, many of the remaining democrats will be all too happy to vote in favor of repeal, especially those up for re-election in 2014.
All of this will be possible with a strong leader at the top of the ticket. It's telling that Romney can't envision this. Mitt's answer shows he is not a a leader, nor is he a serious candidate for the office of the presidency.
RomneyCare was always going to be Mitt's Waterloo, the bridge too far, this just seals his fate.