Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Obamneycare
What bothers people about Romney is that, on the issue that the Republicans want to make a central issue in the campaign, Obamacare, Romney can't make the argument that any other Republican can make, which is the argument that the individual mandate is wrong on principle because it's socialistic. We know that he signed and supported an individual mandate in Massachusetts. He can oppose Obamacare on the grounds that it isn't the sort of thing the federal government should do, as opposed to the states. But he can't say that the individual mandate is wrong on principle, but that is what most Republicans believe. So we know Obama is going to ask Romney what, exactly, is wrong with his health care bill, and then what can Romney say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I don't know about "people", but believe it or not, "Romneycare" actually isn't the most brought-up problem in Republican circles. Instead, it's that he has a pretty liberal track record - of which Romneycare is one facet. So far the only thing that has impressed me about him is his personal charitable giving. 15%, I believe? To Obama's 1%. Ah, but if you count the other people's money Obama has spent...
More than that, Romneycare can work in Romney's favor if he's smart - which, given that he hails from the Stupid Party, he may not be. It would be easy for him to say, "Thank you, Mister President, for trying to mimic what we did in my state. I know the logic behind this bill better than anyone, yourself included. Now, let me tell what I would have told you if you'd have asked me about it - and why it's absolutely wrong on a Federal level."
If Romney makes that move, and if he can sell it, it would put him in the best possible position to take down Obama on Obamacare because of - not in spite of - Romney's own views. Rather like a "Only Nixon can go to China" moment.
That's my amateur analysis.
"He can oppose Obamacare on the grounds that it isn't the sort of thing the federal government should do, as opposed to the states."
I wish people would stop perpetuating this nonsense. He can't oppose it on those grounds since he wrote a GD editorial arguing that Obama ought to use his individual mandate in the universal health care plan.
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm
Watching Mittens campaign reminds me of the old lord, lunatic, liar argument. We're down to a dilemma, though. Is Mittens a liar who only claims to be opposed to the individual mandate at the federal level or a lunatic who has core beliefs that change within seconds when it suits him politically?
Congratulations, GOP, you have found your own John Kerry. lol
Is Mittens a liar who only claims to be opposed to the individual mandate at the federal level or a lunatic who has core beliefs that change within seconds when it suits him politically?
Mittens? Whatever you say, Clayface. ;)
Yes, he can argue that the federal government shouldn't be involved in health care in the way it is, to the degree it is, in Obama's plan. That's all he need to do to attack it, and it's the route he's likely going to take. That he insisted his plan worked in his state and that both parties could learn from it during the initial health care debate certainly doesn't commit him to the view that the federal government must or even should get involved at the Obamacare level.
Mitt's a pretty unimpressive candidate, and his health care stance was long complained about by the GOP, but it hardly shuts down his ability to criticize fed-level health care plans. As for 'he switched his position when it was convenient to do so' - holy shit, a politician who's an opportunist? Stop the freaking presses.
Crude,
He defended the individual manadate at a federal level and then lied repeatedly about having done that. True or false?
Clayface,
He defended the individual manadate at a federal level and then lied repeatedly about having done that. True or false?
I'm going to add a third option and circle it: apathy. Don't be surprised if this turns out to be quite a popular option on this question. ;)
If Romney wants to attack Obamacare, he's got plenty of ways to do it even given his own record, even given his past statements and certainly his record. His plan, after all, was cited as the blueprint for this crappy policy. "He changed his position!", if anyone even focuses on the charge enough to care about it, won't matter much.
And I say this as a guy who doesn't care much for Romney aside from his charitable giving. The main thing he has going for him right now is that he's not Obama. Not sure that'll be good enough to get him a win - but man, wouldn't it be funny if it was?
Oh, Crudeface, why am I even bothering to respond to this? Surely Vic's post was about what Romney could say _sincerely_, not what words he could utter. He cannot _sincerely_ utter the words that he's opposed to the individual mandate at the federal level since it was his suggestion to include it. The thought that he can is a mistake and it is perpetuated by people who haven't bothered to check the facts. And the lazy or apathetic. Of course, you don't actually disagree with any of this, you're just trying to be difficult for reasons that I couldn't possibly fathom.
Clayface,
Oh, Crudeface, why am I even bothering to respond to this?
Crudeface? Ahahaha. You can't even come up with a good name. So did you life 'Mittens' from the schmucks at Democratic Underground? Or did you pay someone who had a modicum of writing skill? Because clearly that one was beyond you. ;)
He cannot _sincerely_ utter the words that he's opposed to the individual mandate at the federal level since it was his suggestion to include it.
Oh gosh, not an insincere politician!
What I'm doing is laughing at your angsty attack on Romney, thinking you've scored a big point when reality it's an issue that will be yawned through. He's got bigger problems. But hey, it's the Most Important Election Ever, so be sure to get all super-charged up!
Haha, Crudeface. I'm gonna love that one for at least a week. :)
One of the central campaign issues seems to be the health care bill, one that Republicans have expended a lot of energy in attacking. Romney says what he is expected to say, that it is bad. But the central offending feature seems to be the individual mandate, and if he recommended it to Obama when Obama entered office, then he is going to be hard put to maintain one of the most important planks in the Republican platform without repudiating his earlier views. Now, he can do that, surely. He can say "That was then, this is now, I've changed my mind" or "you constructed the law so that this element of it is not so good. But be badly needs a narrative here, and I don't know what it is going to be.
The worst part of this is not Obamacare but rather the birth circumstances of our candidates. Electing Romney is no different than electing Obama as they were both born in other countries in my opinion.
Santorum was at least born in the US even though his Dad was not.
If you ever wondered who was in charge of the Country start asking yourself why both sides are so quick to give us up to people who are not all that vested in America by birthright or by their parent's birthright.
We accept Obama's birth circumstances no matter which one we pick.
Post a Comment