Levin discusses the exchange between Santorum and Romney on which I based yesterday’s American Spectator column. He points out, among other things, that Romney still defends the mandate he enacted in Massachusetts.
The problem here is not that it was unconstitutional, as is the ObamaCare mandate (states have the right to enact such laws whereas Congress does not), but that it was a monumental failure as both Santorum and Levin point out:
My column in today’s American Spectator discusses Mitt Romney’s lack of genuine convictions, and how Rick Santorum exposed that fatal flaw in last Thursday’s Republican debate:
The most telling moment of the debate was [Romney’s] response to Rick Santorum’s eloquent explanation of ObamaCare’s importance to the GOP’s strategy in the general election and why giving Romney the nomination would be tantamount to surrendering the high ground on health reform: ‘Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom.’
And how did Romney answer this charge?
The former Massachusetts governor responded with the usual rote talking points, which Santorum vehemently rejected. Romney then uttered the most revealing words of the debate: ‘First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about.’
That captures the essence of Romney’s fatal flaw. For him, the issues are just fodder for stump speeches. He doesn’t have any emotional investment in health care or anything else. He just wants to be President.
To read the rest of the column, click here.
Watch this video and tell me that Romney has any prayer of winning a debate with Obama on health care reform. The two might as well be twins. This means that giving Romney the GOP presidential nomination is, as Rick Santorum pointed out in last Thursday’s debate, tantamount to surrendering on ObamaCare:
[ht Hot Air]
Rick Santorum explains ObamaCare’s importance to the GOP’s strategy in the general election and why Romney can’t effectively make the case for repeal. Santorum pointed out that RomneyCare provided the blueprint for Obama’s plan and addeed:
Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom.
Giving the GOP presidential nomination to Romney will indeed amount to surrendering the high ground on ObamaCare and the rote and unconvincing excuses offered by the former Massachusetts governor are never going to cut it against Obama:
Yep. You read that right. Norm Coleman, an important advisor to Mitt Romney, said the following on a talking heads gasfest a couple of days ago:
You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president … You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.
This not only conflicts with what Romney has been saying in the debates, it suggests that he and his advisors are out of touch with the GOP base.
Repeal is a major issue with GOP voters. Yet Romney provided the blueprint for ObamaCare and apparently isn’t truly committed to repeal.
Just another brick in the wall. If the GOP is dumb enough to give the presidential nomination to Mitt Romney, Obama will beat him like a drum.
[ht James Antle, III]
Obamacare’s advocates claim the law is unpopular because the public just doesn’t get it. So, why didn’t Obama use his SOTU address to help us understand? Because he and his minions know that, in reality, the problem is that Americans understand it all too well. Here’s a clip of HHS Secretary Sebelius being asked why there was virtually no mention of health care in Obama’s speech. Her non-answer says a lot:
Just asking …
Maybe it’s time for a real change.
Santorum used ObamaCare to define himself as the only genuine conservative in the race by describing the histories of Romney and Gingrich as fair weather conservatives who caved on health reform:
The biggest issue we have to deal with in this election that’s crushing the economy, will crush it even further and crush freedom … that’s ObamaCare. Governor Romney’s plan in Massachusetts was the basis for ObamaCare. Speaker Gingrich, for twenty years, supported a federal individual mandate.
[via Breitbart]
My column in today’s American Spectator discusses the shallowness that pervades contemporary journalism and how Newt Gingrich has exploited it to keep his campaign alive:
Newt realized early on that much of the voter indignation that has manifested itself in the Tea Party movement is driven by media complicity with Obama in his ongoing effort to ignore the will of the people and transform the U.S. into a European-style social democracy.
This became blindingly obvious when Newt’s reprimand of CNN’s John King drew two standing ovations from a debate audience. He has received similar responses in previous debates:
One moderator of a CNBC debate, who gave each candidate thirty seconds to propose an alternative to ObamaCare, was clearly shocked and angered when Gingrich accurately labeled it an “absurd question.” She had no idea that she had said something stupid.
This is typical of MSM “reporters” and it’s the primary cause of what often appears to be mere bias. Most of these people simply don’t understand the issues well enough to ask intelligent questions.
To read the rest of the column click here.
Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute and Dr. Hal Scherz of Docs4PatientCare explain how states can stymie ObamaCare by refusing to lay the foundation upon which it was designed to be constructed:
State leaders can force Congress to revisit the disastrous law—-and replace it with reforms that will actually improve the accessibility and affordability of health insurance.
But how can the states pull this off?
If a state refuses to set up its own exchange, Obamacare allows the federal government to come into the state and set one up.
But here’s the rub. The text of the law stipulates that only state-based exchanges—-not federally run ones—-may distribute credits and subsidies.
Without the federal cash, consumers won’t patronize the government-run exchanges—-particularly with all the cost-inflating mandates they impose on insurers who wish to participate.
There is a kind of poetic justice to this approach. ObamaCare was set up so that federal bureaucracies could shove it down the throats of states. This strategy allows state leaders and their own bureaucracies to stop PPACA.
[ht Paul Hsieh]