Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
As we've noted elsewhere on Ricochet today, the Romney campaign has now reversed itself, announcing that Mitt will call ObamaCare a tax after all, but this piece by Steve Hayes, written on July 3, remains fascinating. From the website of the Weekly Standard:
The politics [of the Supreme Court's decision calling the individual mandate a tax, not a penalty] could have hardly been better: The Obama administration and other Democrats would not only have to defend an unpopular law, but they’d have to try explain that a mandate upheld because of the power of Congress to tax was not, in fact, a tax. Democrats tried unsuccessfully to make that case this weekend with White House chief of staff Jack Lew and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, struggling to deflect the obvious implications of the Court’s decisions.
Those struggles may have ended yesterday morning when the Romney campaign announced that their candidate does not consider the mandate a tax. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, where he agreed with the host’s assertion that Romney “believes that you should not call the penalty a tax.”
That’s an odd argument. It’s not only possible but also perfectly consistent to agree with the argument in Scalia’s dissent that the mandate should not have been considered a tax for the purposes of constitutionality, but to bow to the reality that the Roberts decision makes it so. Whatever the mandate was before the decision, and regardless of how strongly one disagrees with the ruling, it’s a tax now.
Why did Romney do it? Presumably because calling the Obamacare tax a tax would, by implication, mean that Romney’s mandate in Massachusetts could be similarly labeled. Romney has often boasted that he made his reforms “without raising taxes.” There are arguments he can make—federal taxing power versus police powers of states, for example—but Team Romney wants to avoid the issue altogether, preferring to give up an argument in 2012 to win one from 2005.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
It's possible, but it's equally possible it was a (not sure of the best metaphor...) stalking horse? Trial balloon? Lure? To see how Obama would react. And the reason why this is possibly true is that there has never EVER been an "imposition" of this kind--a tax you pay when you don't do something; there's no precedent. Is abortion on demand legit just because SCOTUS has said it is?
Do you really think Fernstrom and Saul said it was a penalty without first consulting with Romney? Or, do you really think Romney changed his mind about what it he viewed the mandate as over a weekend?
Edited on July 5, 2012 at 11:41pmOct '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
I was just listening to a discussion about this on The Five. It seems Romney wants to win on this issue without disavowing Romneycare. On the one hand it doesn't make any sense because it's in the past but then again politicians do care about their legacies. It wouldn't help the flip-flopper perception. Maybe he's hedging in case he doesn't win?
Mar '11
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
So if Romney calls the Obamacare mandate a tax, he opens himself up to the accusation that the Romneycare mandate is also a tax. But if Obama calls Romneycare's mandate a tax, he is implicitly agreeing that his mandate is a tax, which opens him up to the accusation that he raised taxes, but if Romney accuses Obamacare of raising taxes, then it.....God, I need a drink.
Edited on July 6, 2012 at 12:01amMay '12
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
Well, again this is really just overwrought handwringing and premature panic. Frankly, it is an example of what we have to look forward to from "true conservatives" who can't bring themselves to like Romney, despite that he's now the only chance to defeat Obama. They refuse to give up their primary campaign against Romney and have started preemptively whining about how we're doomed because Romney is incompetent.
Expect to hear crickets at every smart, effective move the Romney campaign makes and "I told you soes" and defeatism every time there is the merest misstep. As this episode illustrates.
Hayes, Peter, and the other consistent Anyone But Romneys completely ignore the fact that Fehrnstrom ably used this line of questioning to point up the duplicity of Obama, a line of attack they will be making more of using Obama's entire record, and which will be a devastating theme for the campaign. The fretful ABRs pretend that Fehrnstrom simply "spent 48 hours attacking the Supreme Court" and reduces the Todd interview to the sentence fragment "[Romney] believes that you should not call the penalty a tax.” As if that captures the essence of the exchange.
(cont.)
Apr '12
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
Listening to Megyn Kelly's show today, I heard an Obama flack try to make the case that Roberts' opinion does not call the tax a tax, even when she quotes the opinion calling it a tax. It reminds me of Baghdad Bob denying the presence of American troops at the airport when they were clearly visible in the background.
May '12
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
The fact is that there was plenty of ammunition against Obamacare before the ruling, and there is still just as much. The "biggest tax increase in history" attack was not nearly so effective as all the ABRs are making it out. Hardly anyone in the country will have to pay this supposed massive tax increase, after all. What's more, the Romney campaign has picked up another opportunity to point out Obama's consistent pattern of going back on his word and talking out of both sides of his mouth. Decrying the "flubbed" opportunity and claiming the Romney campaign has blown it simply betrays a lack of perspective and imagination.
The irony of all this criticism, especially from Peter, is that it is based on the claim that Fehrnstrom and Romney missed a chance to attack Obama and instead misdirected the fire at the Supreme Court. They say this while ignoring the line of attack Fehrnstrom actually opened up in the Todd exchange at Obama's duplicity and instead focus their energy and time complaining about and attacking Romney, still.
Edited on July 5, 2012 at 11:53pmNov '11
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
I see my preemptive strike was not in vain.
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
ParisParamus: It's possible, but it's equally possible it was a (not sure of the best metaphor...) stalking horse? Trial balloon? Lure? To see how Obama would react. And the reason why this is possibly true is that there has never EVER been an "imposition" of this kind--a tax you pay when you don't do something; there's no precedent. Is abortion on demand legit just because SCOTUS has said it is?
Do you really think Fernstrom and Saul said it was a penalty without first consulting with Romney? Or, do you really think Romney changed his mind about what it he viewed the mandate as over a weekend? · 24 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
I am also confident that Fernstrom consulted Romney before he made his etch-a-sketch comments.
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
You may be right, Cylon, about premature handwringing, and you are certainly right that Romney is the only alternative to Obama. But when you use scare quotes for true conservatives, you give yourself away. Romney's instincts are those of a fiscally responsible left-liberal. No genuine conservative would have promoted the vast extension of government power represented by Romneycare, and no one but a standard left-liberal would have fallen, as he did for a time, hook, line, and sinker for the global warming scam.
May '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
No genuine conservative would have promoted the vast extension of government power represented by Romneycare, and no one but a standard left-liberal would have fallen, as he did for a time, hook, line, and sinker for the global warming scam.
Are we back to this? He paired-back what that legislature wanted to do, and had eight cost-saving vetos overriden; and signed a weak tea CO2 initiative that in all likelyhood veto-proof.
Since legislation starts in the legislature, what are you talking about?
Dec '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
Romney could have disavowed RomneyCare easily without adding to the flip-flopper perception, simply by saying, "We tried it and it didn't work right." That is, yes, it expanded coverage in Massachusetts, but it also drove costs up and drove insurers out of the Commonwealth.
He could have done that, early in the primaries, but he can't do it now without flip-flopping on his earnest defense of RomneyCare throughout the primaries.
Fehrnstrom is doing his boss's campaign great harm with badly-formulated and thoughtless comments. Whatever role he can play to help Romney win, spokesperson is not it.
May '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
The question that must be continuously asked: "Will this help or hinder the effort to elect Mitt Romney?" It can also be framed "Will this help or hinder the effort to make Barack Obama a one-term president?"
The constant, constant picking at and bitching about Romney by us conservatives does nothing to positively effect retiring Barack Obama.
There will be plenty of time after November 6 to whine, wail, and second guess if, God forbid, PBO gets reelected. Between now and Election Day, let's focus on keeping that from happening.
Apr '11
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
I just heard Romney on NPR giving a thoughtful, balanced answer on whether it was a tax, a penalty, constitutional etc. He needs to spend some time with Newt Gingrich learning how to address the premise of the question rather than the details and give the questioner a dope-slap in the process. Of course this assumes that he sees something wrong with the government running health care.
Dec '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
I fear.
Dec '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
Define "the government."
He has repeatedly said he doesn't want the FEDERAL government running health care.
But his actions in Massachusetts and his subsequent defense of them indicates that he has no objection to a STATE government running health care.
Some think those two positions are ideologically incompatible. Some think that Federalism resolves the incompatibility.
Some think that Federalism resolves the incompatibility, but that it's wrong for government at any level to run health care for private consumers (as opposed to those receiving public benefits, like veterans, the elderly and the indigent).
Oct '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
is there still time for a brokered convention?
May '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
Boy, if we spent as much time on ground game for the only party that can stop this, as opposed to violating Reagan's 11th commandment, we would win in a landslide. I'm really sick of the "boy, is Romney gonna blow it" articles.
Jun '10
Re: Why the Romney Campaign Flubbed It
We all need to pray for Mitt, his family and his team. That's all. He's in the grinder on our behalf.