Monday evening, Special Report’s 12 in 2012 series featured Mitt Romney, and his likely 2012 run for President.
I was for Romney in 2008 and supported him in the Republican caucuses in Colorado. But not this year.
To me, he crashed and burned over his Romneycare.
It’s not that he pushed this through in Massachusetts, it’s his blindness in how he continues to defend it.
They played his answer on Special Report, and it’s so weak. He talks like there is a difference of night and day between Romneycare and Obamacare because his was a state program and Obamacare is federal, where health care isn’t a legitimate function of the federal government.
Mitt, that is so WEAK! So what you are saying is that you want to keep the federal government from forcing me to buy insurance and driving up the cost of health care, but you want each state to come in then and do the exact same thing. You totally lost me with that position. There is a lot wrong with government-run healthcare, and to me which level of government does it, that’s a minor point.
Mitt, you’re a great man, a great leader. You did wonders with the Olympics and all those failing companies you turned around. But I think that history just maneuvered you out of this job. The battle in 2012 is to repeal Obamacare, and your trumpet gives an uncertain sound. I hate to say that to a brother in the Gospel, but that’s how I feel.
Links: Check out the home page of this Conservative Politics website to read about David Hall, the author of this blog.
Harry Reid is a Mormon that isn’t going to support Mitt’s campaign either. There are huge differences between Massachusetts’ health care plan and Obama-care. This tea partying Mormon will be supporting Romney in 2012!
I understand. I have been heavily involved in leadership positions in the Church for many years, and I understand that strong feeling among many members of the Church of loyalty to others because they are also members. Use an LDS realtor, an LDS dentist, an LDS accountant, etc. And vote for the LDS candidate. That’s a very understandable feeling. But I figured I’d get this reaction from other LDS folks.
But I will tell you that Brother Romney is wobbly on this health care issue. And if it doesn’t kill his chances in the primaries, it will seriously wound his campaign in the general election. Plus, I just don’t like how he has responded to this issue – to me it shows a certain lack of solid conviction. He’s the only candidate so far that Special Report has featured that refused to be actually interviewed by Bret Baier, and I believe that’s because he felt it was a no-win situation for him.
You feel there are huge differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. I will also tell you that a great many people are having problems seeing that. While Mitt declined the interview with Bret Baier, Bret was able to patch in a segment of an interview with Sean Hannity earlier this year. Sean clearly has trouble seeing these huge differences, too, and asked him about it. Romney’s response, as I said was pathetically weak, and failed to help me see these great differences. He told Sean, “Our bill was a state solution to a state problem.” And then he expanded on that. So what I am getting from his answer is that there’s really not much difference between what was done and how it was done – the biggest difference is in what level of government does it. That doesn’t cut it with me, and will not fly with a lot of conservatives.
One of my employees is a good LDS brother and a solid conservative, and he has also cooled on Romney. But I suspect that most Latter-day Saints will stick with Romney.
Mike Lee, though – the new senator from Utah and son of Rex E. Lee, former president of BYU. Now there is a solid, principled constitutionalist and possible future presidential material, in my mind.
– David Hall
When did he say he wanted each state to “come in and do the same thing”?
He said each state should make its own decision.
Massachucetts’ plan was for Massachucetts.
You’re right, he did not address what other states should do. He could help his cause if he came out and said that he felt that no other states should do that.
– David Hall
I don’t see it your way at all. I think that Health Care needs reform. We have been talking about it for ever so long….long before this mess in Washington. Romney tackled it in Massachuetts. (I wish he would have been in office to administer it. for I don’t care for what Patrick Devale has done since he took over the reigns in Massachuetts . He just sees the means and the end differently.
I believe there are too many that are now blind to a great need for Health Care reform because they don’t like how Washington handled it. I think Mitt came pretty close to some solid solutions. Look at the group professionals he assembled outside of the government to work on the Massachuetts plan. That rarely gets publicized. Washington is out for control of the entire Health Care system. People want to claim they are the same, but I doubt most have even looked at them beyond the SPIN that is out there. The Health Care need is still present none the less. I am distraught that Washington is trying to link it’s failure with Massachuetts and especially Mitt Romney. Obama’s team never even brought up Massachuetts until after Obamacare passed. Then because it was not applauded by the nation, the media, spurred on by comments from President Obama, tried to link the two together. Massachuetts did what Massachuetts did. They were not trying to get the nation or other States to buy into their plan. I am for balance and this nation both right and left are losing theirs and will both fall taking many sensible people with them.
This is not, at this point, Washington and the Liberal media that is doing this to Romney. This is conservative commentators like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, et al. And little people like me. It’s unfortunate. I was enthusiastically for Romney in 2008 and actually was the publisher who published a book, Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision (Mapletree Publishing Company, 2008), that was designed to promote his candidacy. But the way this issue has played out in the past two years is stacked against him, and I think it has ruined his chances. – David Hall
I have struggled with this also but recently I saw Newt Gingrich defend Mitt on RomneyCare. His defense was better that anything Governor Romney has stated himself. Newt indicated that the people of Mass wanted universal healthcare and Mitt was only responding to the will of the people of his state. Newt gave examples of how Mitt fought the liberal legislature at every turn to keep the system privatized. Mitt’s original healthcare plan was very capitalistic in nature but it was changed by the Mass legislature. It was said that Mitt’s original healthcare system would have decreased costs and provided healthcare to everyone but the liberals have messed it up! If Mitt explains what happened as well as Newt did, maybe the Tea Party people will be more understanding. After all, what we need is JOBS and there is no one more qualified than Mitt Romney to lead the charge out of this economic mess.
Your explanation makes some sense, and is the feeling I had about what was really going on in Massachusetts. But I don’t like that approach. This is what Bush did – tried to take issues away from the Democrats by doing a “light” version of what they wanted – on the prescription drug benefit, education, campaign finance reform, etc. I like the “just say no” approach myself. The “Democrat light” approach stained the image of the Republican party and I believe led to the Republican losses in 2006 and 2008.
The mood of the Conservative movement now is that we don’t want to slow down the march of statism, we want to reverse it. My feeling is that if we don’t get this right in the next election cycle, Republicans will completely lose credibility with a great many people.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had some kind words for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in a new interview, despite previously criticizing the Massachusetts health care legislation he signed into law.
“Governor Romney’s made very clear that he favors absolute repeal of Obamacare and that he believes it’s not accurate and not fair to try and compare the two,” said Gingrich in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, “and I think you have to start with that. And I also think, in all fairness to Governor Romney, that he vetoed many provisions that the liberal Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature added to the bill, and they overrode his veto. So I think if you’re going to go back and look at the original Romney bill you’d have a much better bill and a much more practical bill than what the liberal Democrats did to the legislation because they literally overrode his veto on a whole series of items.”
When Brody asked whether, therefore, the comparison between the Massachusetts law and federal health care reform is not as clear cut as people may believe, Gingrich agreed. “Yeah,” he replied. “I think it’s not but that will be part of the dialogue.”
Some good comments. I wish Mitt explained it as well as Newt does. I frankly do not know the details of how this went in Massachusetts or how it is working. I’m just reacting to Mitt’s explanations of it, and they are weak, in my mind.
– David Hall
There are some interesting facts as it relates to health care and other conservative leaders.
In spite of Reagan’s dire warnings against socialized health care, in 1985 he signed into law the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, otherwise known as COBRA. What is COBRA?:
COBRA is a law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Reagan that mandates an insurance program, giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment. COBRA includes amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
In other words, Reagan raised taxes to implement a socialist health insurance program–exactly what he warned us against.
“ This brings me to my views on Mitt Romney and the Health Care mandate in Massachusetts. I think the sentiment is the same. It is estimated that nationally somewhere between 10,000,000 to 18,000,000 people refuse to purchase medical insurance simply because they don’t want to. My guess is that most of these are the younger crowd who feel they are healthy and don’t need it. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY DO?
If someone can afford health insurance and refuses to purchase a policy and is voluntarily UNinsured, HOW and WHOM do you believe should pay for their emergency medical treatment? As a Massachusetts TAX PAYER and business owner, I supported the mandate in MA that requires everyone to have health Insurance. I don’t want to be indirectly charged for medical services for individuals who decided not to purchase a policy and play Russian Roulette with their health. Without this mandate, how else do we keep these people from using emergency rooms and STIFFING the tax payer each time they need medical attention?
An undeniable difference between Obamacare and Massachusetts Health Insurance.
Some will say that if you’re PRO-mandate, you are somehow less conservative. I don’t buy that argument. I think it’s a CONSERVATIVE VALUE that each and every one of us should be responsible for any actions or inaction that affects others. If you refuse to purchase health insurance and need medical attention and don’t pay for those services, you force me to pay for you – through higher hospital costs, higher taxes, and eventually higher premiums for all.
Now there’s more to the Massachusetts Health Care system than just the mandate. I could go on and on about the facts that Governor Romney got almost everyone in the state insured and gave the state and his constituents what they asked for and needed – how he accomplished all this without raising taxes. I could talk about some of the other reasons I support Mitt Romney for President, but I won’t. All that will be discussed at a later time by myself and others on MRC.
In closing, I’d like to clarify one thing; I support the MA health insurance mandate. As a Massachusetts’ citizen, I do not support Obamacare and a national mandate to force people to buy health Insurance. Who am I to force my will for Massachusetts on to other states? Like Mitt Romney, I firmly believe in state’s rights and the rights of individual states to determine their own health care needs and to the right to determine what makes sense for them – if and when they determine that it is necessary.”
http: // mittromneycentral.com/2010/11/13/mitt-me-and-the-massachusetts-health-care-mandate/
I too am a Mormon who won’t be voting for Romney. Here is where I take issue.
“Harry Reid, of course, is so far off the reservation as far as what most Church members believe about the role of government that he is easily dismissed by faithful members of the Church.”
For someone who has been “heavily involved in leadership positions in the Church for many years” I’m disappointed that you still feel that faithful members of the church could not in good conscience have a political opinion apart from republican ideals.
Response by David Hall
Different political opinions is one thing. Some opinions are purely political, and for those the gospel has no stance. But there are fundamental beliefs that are part of our doctrine that intersect with politics such as agency, the importance of liberty, the work ethic, etc. There is a growing moocher class in the country and there is a growing element in our government who hold on to power by encouraging that and by using the force of law to take from the producers and give to the moochers. That thinking and that lifestyle are not part of the gospel.
Don’t fall for the line that Massachusetts insurance reform is the same as Obamacare. From you column it appears that you have. Sorry for you to have been deceived by whitehouse talking points. Obama needs you to think so and has tried so hard to make Romney out to be just like him. Its a lie.
Romney’s plan, the original bill he signed, has little in common with Obamacare which set up multiple gargantuan bureacracies to regulate health care and take decisions away from doctors and patients. It has caused employers to drop coverage in advance of its implementation. It raises premiums. But premiums went down in Massachusetts when it was first inacted. Also, more MA employers extended coverage to their employers, which was a pleasant result and unexpected.
Romney’s plan kept health care decisions with doctors and patients while Obamacare creates decision boards and so called death panels.
The narrative in the press is that they are one in the same, Romney’s plan and Obamacare. This helps Obama as he positions himself for 2012 and weakens Romney. But wise up! Its a false assertion. If you beleive this its because you have gotten your info from Obama’s talking points and a liberal media who prefer Palin because they think that would make 2012 so much more fun.
Romney’s bill was only 70 pages and not shoved down voters throats. Its was bipartisan and gratefully received by providers, patients and insurance companies whose concerns were all addressed over a two year process.
This was insurance reform not healthcare reform Obama care is healthcare reform–no–its health care industry takeover. On the road to socialized medicine. Romney’s plan keeps healthcare in the private sector and that my friend is a HUGE difference.
Take the wool off from your eyes. Don’t be deceived by those who want you to think they are the same. And if you think Fox News offering of snippets of Romney defending his plan was weak, I submit you are letting the media lead you to your conclusions rather thatn searching it out for yourself. I have heard him well-defend it as conservative and creative way of spending money they were already receiving for free care at hospitals and putting it toward insurance instead.
So until you know a way to bring insurance to the uninsured, I would ask that you stop comparing Romney’s to Obama’s. While Romney’s was focused on the uninsured, Obama’s clearly focused taking over healthcare fo all mankind. That is the major thrust of it. So figure out a better way and lets compare that to Romney’s plan. And I mean Romney’s plan, NOT the derivative of it that now exists after five years of democrat tinkering.
An another thing. What in the world does your being a Mormon have to do with anything? Why even bring it up? When is there ever going to be a faithblind society if you keep bringing that up? It doesn’t matter what your religion is or what any presidential candidate’s religion is. Period.
Again, I have not heard the White House say anything about Romney. This is my own reaction. The only people I have heard questioning this position of Romney’s are conservative commentators.
And as to a faithblind society, my point is that I am NOT for Romney, in spite of our similar religious beliefs. But I am confident that a poll would reveal a strong correlation between being an LDS Republican and being pro-Romney.
I do, however, believe it entirely appropriate to weigh a candidate’s religious beliefs in deciding whether or not to vote for him or her. For me, I am mostly interested in how faithful they are to those beliefs, whatever they are, than in which particular religion they espouse. Here in Mesa, when I heard that our recently released stake president was running for the state legislature, I signed up to help his campaign and voted for him. In that case I knew him personally and knew he was a good man of solid integrity and a strong conservative. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
You honestly think that the difference between a federal and state healthcare plan is a “minor point”? It’s a huge point. First of all, the constitution allows states to implement it’s own healthcare plan and even require health insurance. The federal government does not. Who enforces/requires that you have care insurance in your state? Your state…right? Not the federal government. Secondly, Obamacare is a “one-size-fits-all” plan and a huge bureaucracy. State plans allow for states to learn from each other and implement custom plans that suit the needs for each state if the state likes. Kentucky may be able to implement a plan that suits it’s residents better than Florida…and so on. Third, the intent of Romneycare was simply to get people covered with insurance, the intent of Obamacare is to takeover healthcare. Fourth, states are required to stay within a set budget, the federal government is not.
I personally think that healthcare reform needs to take place, but I think that Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction. Romney’s plan isn’t perfect and he’ll be the first to admit that, but he shouldn’t be ousted solely on that. I hope that people have some common sense and realize that this country has problems that need to be solved. And, someone with Romney’s experience, business acumen and ability to solve problems is the best chance for the GOP to get this country back on track. And, just for the record…Romney is against Obamacare.