Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Last night in a comments thread, some of us discussed how the standard for Mitt Romney always seems to be so much higher than for his opponents. A perfect example of this is what happened in Ohio. If Rick Santorum had pulled out a victory there, everyone would be congratulating him on his huge victory. When Romney wins, we get all sorts of people opining on how weak he is. He absolutely trounced in the delegate count last night and we're being told he had a bad night?
And yet, I'm hearing the same thing from people I respect. Jim Geraghty writes "Mitt's Got Trouble. Right Here In River City." And Byron York writes:
[Ohio Attorney General Mike] DeWine, who famously endorsed Romney and then left to join Santorum, had a point. For the Romney campaign, Super Tuesday was supposed to be the day the long, disorganized, and often painful effort by conservatives to deny the inevitability of Romney's claim to the nomination effectively ended. Instead, despite his narrow win in Ohio and victories in his home state of Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Idaho, and Alaska, the day's results left Romney's opponents, especially Santorum, with reason to stay in the race, and Romney himself, still, after these many months, a weak frontrunner.
As the polls closed yesterday, I was willing to accept the inevitable. These post-Super Tuesday essays are not what I expected. One Romney supporter asked on Twitter:
Again I ask, what Romney positions do you disagree with?
I'm sure it's frustrating for those on board with Romney that the rest of the GOP electorate is so resistant. But if they earnestly want to understand the problem, they simply have to address what both Geraghty and York mention in their posts: Obamacare and the trust issue.
I'm going to steal this directly from The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Anderson, because I can think of no better way to make the point. It's long, but for a reason:
Here’s what the two leading Republican presidential candidates said last night, in total, about Obamacare:
Mitt Romney (from 10:35 to 10:40):
“He [President Obama] passed Obamacare. I’ll repeal Obamacare.”
Rick Santorum (from 8:12 to 16:00):
“We have people who believe that America’s best days are behind us. They believe that it’s no longer possible for free enterprise, a free economy, and free people to be able to build strong communities and families and be able to provide for themselves and their neighbors. No, we now need an increasingly powerful federal government to do this for us. [Cries of ‘No!’]
“The reason that Karen and I ultimately decided to get into this race was because of that issue and, in particular, one issue. I’ve said it [in] almost every stump speech I’ve given. If it wasn’t for one particular issue that to me breaks the camel’s back with respect to liberty in this country — and that is the issue of Obamacare.
“What we will go to in a very short period of time — the next two years — a little less than 50 percent of the people in this country depend on some form of federal payment, some form of government benefit, to help provide for them. After Obamacare, it will not be less than 50 percent. It will be 100 percent.
“Now every single American will be looking to the federal government, not to their neighbor, not to their church, not to their business or to their employer, or to the community or non-profit organization[s] in their community, [but] will be looking always to those in charge, to those who now say to you that they are the allocator and creator of rights in America.
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the beginning of the end of freedom in America. Once the government has control of your life, then they gotcha.
“That’s why we decided to step out. As you look, I mean, Karen and I [have] seven children, ages 20 — ages 20 to 3, not exactly the best time to be out running for president of the United States. We’ve given up our jobs. We’re living off our savings. Yeah, we’re makin’ a little sacrifice, for a very, very big goal — and that is replacing this president, on November [6th] of this year.
“In order to make that happen, the Republican party has to nominate somebody who can talk about the broad vision of what America is. As I talk about in every one of my speeches, I talk about how important it is that [we] remember who we are. Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address to the American people, worried about whether America would remember what made us great — that we are not a great country because we have a great and powerful government; we are a great country because we believe that rights don’t come from the government, but as…our founding document, the Declaration of Independence says, our rights come to us from our Creator.
“The government’s job and the Constitution of this country was intended to do one thing — protect those rights, so each and every one of you would have the opportunity to build their own life, to take your own path, to create a strong family, strong neighborhood, community, state, and country. That’s what made America great. We built a great country from the bottom up.
“And we need people to go up against President Obama and his vision of a top-down [model of] government control — of not just health care, but of energy, and of manufacturing, and of financial services, and who knows what else is next? But this is a president who believes that he simply is better able to do this than you are; that he will be fairer than you are with your fellow man.
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is an election about fundamental liberty, and the signature piece — the signature piece of legislation that points this out, where you have economic ‘rights’ created by the government, and then the government using its heavy hand to force you to buy insurance, to force you to take policies that you don’t want, and of course to force you to take coverages that may even violate your faith convictions….
“In this race, there is only one candidate who can go up on the most important issue of the day and make the case — because I’ve never been for an individual mandate, at a state or federal level. I’ve never — I’ve never passed a statewide government-run health-care system when I was governor because, well, I wasn’t governor. But Governor Romney did.
“And now we found out this week, not only did he pass it in Massachusetts, he advocated for it to be passed in Washington, D.C. in the middle of the debate on health care.
“It’s one thing to defend a mandated, top-down, government-run health-care program that you imposed on the people of your state. It’s another thing to recommend and encourage the president of the United States to impose the same thing on the American people. And it’s another thing yet to go out and tell the American public that you didn’t do it.
“We need a person running against President Obama who is right on the issues and truthful with the American public.”
Some people are willing to put their faith in Romney. Some need much more convincing. More than six words devoid of any principle or reasoning, that is.
This is not an unfixable problem, but it is one that needs addressing soon.
- Comment (183)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Ed G.
Palaeologus
Oh that is easy enough. Do you live in MA? Maybe you do, but the folks in OH, VA, & FL don't.
In the cartoon's terms: it is one thing for some guy to parade his ugly kid around a neighboring town. It is something else entirely to put him up in your house.
I don't follow.....
The law in MA matters to the people of MA. The law of the USA matters to all Americans.
My state (MI) has plenty of stupid laws, and some good ones. Do you care?
No.
Neither will voters in the Presidential election. Voters worry about stuff that will impact them.
Jul '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
DrewInWisconsin
Palaeologus
In the cartoon's terms: it is one thing for some guy to parade his ugly kid around a neighboring town. It is something else entirely to put him up in your house.
Romney says his kid would fit in well in my house. "A model for all 50 states" I believe is the turn of phrase. · 8 minutes ago
Right, which is why he vetoed half a dozen or so provisions in that law.
Let's go back to the record:
Apr '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
DrewInWisconsin
Palaeologus
In the cartoon's terms: it is one thing for some guy to parade his ugly kid around a neighboring town. It is something else entirely to put him up in your house.
Romney says his kid would fit in well in my house. "A model for all 50 states" I believe is the turn of phrase. · 12 minutes ago
He won't stop you from taking the kid in, but won't break and enter to foist him on you either. If you don't want him (and Wisconsin almost certainly doesn't), you don't have to have him. It's also worth noting that the model might contain some useful features while also containing some stuff you don't want. The kid in current form may not be a good fit for your home.
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 5:28amMay '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
The fundamental issue here for most ABR using RomneyCare as the rationale for their pre-determined view is that most very strong conservatives tend to oppose doing anything whatever about health care- at either the state or national levels. And that position, which is contrary to the public demand in every developed country in the world, is what got us ObamaCare. Let a vacuum develop, and something will come to fill it. Almost always, that "something" will be a disaster.
RomneyCare was put in place because the sure-as-God-made-little-green-apples-guaranteed-alternative was far worse, and the Dems controlled 85% of the votes. I am very tired of reiterating that point.
Like it or not, the federal government has been mired in this area for decades, and before ObamaCare provided more than half of all US care. Closing our eyes to that in denial doesn't help anything. Our ignoring the problem has made things worse, and every move has been defensive.
The American populace doesn't think seriously about the same things we do. We had our chance in 1995 to do something creative, and we ignored it.
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Horace: They support whom.
Whom they support. · 2 hours ago
Thank you!
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
What's their, er, our pre-determined view?
Sep '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I admit, I'm very late to the discussion due to work. This post and comments raise my principle issue with Romney. When Romney lists his problems with Obamacare, the individual mandate is not one one them. I don't trust a man's conservative bona fides if he doesn't find the individual mandate and its vast expansion of the Commerce Clause troublesome. Nor do I find it a stretch to believe that since Romney does not list it as being problematic that he might want to include that in whatever iteration he proposes to replace Obamacare.
Or better yet, if Romney does not find the individual mandate troublesome does he believe everything is within the acceptable scope of the Federal government and the all-encompassing Commerce Clause? Will there be legislation or regulation that crosses his desk that he quashes because he has the since that it isn't within the scope of the Federal government? No I think not.
Unfortunately none of the candidates left are conservative but they are infinitely better than Obama and will one will get my vote in November.
Aug '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Horace: They support whom.
Whom they support. · 2 hours ago
Thank you! · 9 minutes ago
Mollie, that was very sweet of you.
Sep '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
That is an incorrect description what of very strong conservatives (whatever that means) want to do with health care. The conservative solution is to reduce government involvement and regulation, discouraging employer based health care, so that there is more of an open market to increase competitiveness and reduce cost. Hardly nothing. It simply does not increase the already deleterious effect of the state and federal government on health care.
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 6:24amRe: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Horace: They support whom.
Whom they support. · 2 hours ago
Thank you! · 9 minutes ago
Mollie, that was very sweet of you. · 4 minutes ago
I have tried and tried and tried, but I just never get it right. I know, I know, if it's the object, then it's whom. Right? If it's the subject, then it's who?
I will be 80 before I get this through my thick skull. And my mother even made me diagram sentences. She'd be ashamed. Oh, and she's a Romney voter!
To bring it full circle, I do have to say that I appreciate Romney's clear speaking (grammar and all) and I think it's actually a big part of his appeal.
Mar '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Sorry to be pedantic. That particular grammar error drives me nuts, almost as much as people writing loose when they mean to write lose.
Aug '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Ed G.
Doc Stephens: .....
People forget that Romney was applauded for his health reforms; at least until Obama and his Congress thrust ObamaCare upon us. Romney’s opponents and MSM conflated the two initiatives. No matter how many times you say it, an orange is not a spoiled apple. ObamaCare should be declared unconstitutional. RomneyCare is a model of bipartisan health care reform supported by the people of that state. Santorum remarks demonstrate his ignorance of this important core conservative principle. · 2 hours ago
I didn't applaud those health reforms. Anyone who did was wrong to do so.
Romneycare may be bipartisan and it is the prerogative of Massachusetts to enact it, but don't tell me it's conservative as if anything passed by a majority is just fine and dandy, as if there are no more fundamentally conservative principles to consider other than federalism. · 8 hours ago
So, anyone who disagrees with you, is wrong?
And, if you don't like it, then it's not conservative?
Protecting state's rights is a core conservative principle! If you don't like RomneyCare, then don't move there. If you live there, vote to repeal it.
Aug '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Ed G.
Doc Stephens: .....
The health care reform in Massachusetts is not government run; no matter how many times Santorum says so. States have the right to adopt such reforms, if that is what the people want, and more than 70 percent of primary voters in MA voted for Romney last night. As conservatives, we are supposed to support state's rights......
The distinction between government run and top-down program are blurred here. Is there really a functional difference when government dictates so much detail?
Just because states have the right to adopt such programs doesn't mean that conservatives have to support them, like Romney does, no matter how many people want it. That even more fundamentally conservative. · 8 hours ago
RomneyCare is not government run health care! It is requiring people to carry private health insurance if they can afford it, and helping them afford it if they can't.
So, conservatives should oppose any state law they don't like, even if a majority of people in that state want it? I don't think so.
May '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Ronaldus Maximus
That is an incorrect description what of very strong conservatives (whatever that means) want to do with health care. The conservative solution is to reduce government involvement and regulation, discouraging employer based health care, so that there is more of an open market to increase competitiveness and reduce cost. ..... not increase the already deleterious effect of the state and federal government
Exactly- in the context of what is already out there, this is effectively doing nothing. You cannot sell removing the current horrible systems unless you have a credible positive alternative- and what is highlighted above does nothing whatever to address those problems.
Changing the system from the bottom up and the top down to address those laudable goals requires long term focused commitment.
And conservatives have spent the last 30 years instead blocking initiatives to address some real problems, all the while reciting platitudes about limited government.
If the public, as does the public of every other developed country, demands government involvement, you must do something besides scream "H#!! NO!"
Our side lacks credibility on this issue.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Horace: “All around the country, states have been trying to deal with the problems that bad federal health-care policies have created. .....That’s why the first step toward a better health-care market — one that’s affordable, innovative, and in keeping with our founding principles of limited government — is to repeal your health-care legislation.
“And that’s going to take a new president.” · 10 hours ago
I have imagined perfect takedowns before too, but unfortunately they never quite work out that way in reality. If Romney can present this message, get away without it being challenged, and end up convincing anyone who isn't already a firm Democrat, then I'll be ecstatic.
Romney will have to attack first, otherwise Obama keeps his mouth shut and Obamacare stands unchallenged. So Romney attacks, then Obama responds and does his best to sound reasonable while making Republicans out to be extreme. To top it off he makes the comparison to Romneycare, and the rest is rehashing the same points over and over.
I'm not saying it definitely won't work, I'm saying there's a weakness not present for Santorum or Paul.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Scott, the problem many of us have is that we're not convinced he's a conservative, whatever his policy statements are. Policy statements can be changed, especially when it's pragmatic to do so.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Palaeologus
.....
The law in MA matters to the people of MA. The law of the USA matters to all Americans.
My state (MI) has plenty of stupid laws, and some good ones. Do you care?
No.
Neither will voters in the Presidential election. Voters worry about stuff that will impact them. · 10 hours ago
I care when a guy who supports and lauds those dumb laws is trying to expand his influence over me by running for president of the US, even if he claims to believe in federalism. It calls his basic foundation and judgement into question.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Duane Oyen: .....
RomneyCare was put in place because the sure-as-God-made-little-green-apples-guaranteed-alternative was far worse, and the Dems controlled 85% of the votes. I am very tired of reiterating that point.
.....
Then stop making the darned point already. We've heard the point, and it's a good one, but many of still reject it. Why? Because that's not how Romney puts it. If he had put it that way then I think he would have had a lock a long time ago. But he hasn't, and I don't think he ever will.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I think you're just dead wrong on this. Removing the distortions in the market is an important first step. Reforming the regulations imposed on the insurance industry. Returning the medical relationship to patients and providers. These are all good and within the purview of the feds. Why does "doing something" have to include government heavy-handedness? I don't have a problem addressing this at the state and local levels. I do have a problem with mandates, though. Even Cook County Hospital, hellhole and financial boondoggle that it is, seems to be a better approach in that it serves those who need it without imposing the rationing, poor service, and lack of choice that comes with municipal services and top-down regulation on the rest of us.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Doc Stephens
.....
So, anyone who disagrees with you, is wrong?
And, if you don't like it, then it's not conservative?
.....
Doc, I really don't see how you take this from my comments. You made a claim that Romneycare is conservative because it comports with federalism. I countered that there are conservative principles more fundamental than federalism, and that non-conservative policies that respect federalism are still non-conservative. I'm making arguments expecting either that you'd see where I was coming from or that you'd counter on the merits. Where are we supposed to go with comments like yours?