Democrats are accomplishing what Romney’s Opponents should have
How come Democrats are the only Ones seemingly Capable of Matching Romney’s Negative Ads with ones of their own.
Over at Politico, Alexander Burns lays the problem out in the most simplistic manner.
Burns plainly asks – “Remember that shocking moment on the debate stage, when Santorum confronted Romney with his 2009 USA Today op-ed highlighting the individual mandate as a possible element of national health care reform?”
“Or when Gingrich called out Romney for inaccurately claiming that his investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were made through a blind trust?”
“No, you don’t. And neither does anyone else because — thanks to the total failure of Romney’s opponents to do basic research and preparation — they never happened.”
Burns also asked, “When Gingrich was asked at a New Hampshire event in December about the role Planned Parenthood played in Romney’s Massachusetts health care law, it appeared to be the first the former House speaker had heard of it.”
This is indeed sad, because these are the very things that cause conservative activist to recoil from Romney in the first place. What does one think the voters would have done with this knowledge? There is a good chance that many of them do not know this stuff, not when the only right leaning Television news source [Fox News] has gone out of its way to white wash all of it. Knowing that the voters would not come to like Romney if they knew he once told a Pro-Choice group that he would serve as an the agent provocateur of pro-choice causes in the Republican Party.
In the video up top, you can clearly see that Romney has spent a lot of time deceiving the Republican voters; we can all say with confidence that he supported the mandate [those who deny it just look foolish doing so].
Romney may not have ever uttered “I support a federal mandate to purchase health insurance.” Look at his record; it is difficult to infer that he did not support copying the Massachusetts plan at the federal level, which would mean the mandate is in whatever bill that would have passed if he would have been in charge. This is exactly what Democrats did with ObamaCare.
Let us match Burns earlier critique of Romney’s opponents with my own captious remark.
Remember when Obama said this: “Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar.”
You probably do not remember this quote, because it too never happened. This was written by Romney is an op-ed in the middle of the health care debate. Except for the first part, Romney actually said that Massachusetts could serve as the model for the rest of the country.
It is all about the tax [liberal version] or the penalty [reality], and Romney clearly favored/favors the tax insensitive. I often hear his supporters saying that even though Romney did support the mandate, so did many other Republicans.
While Ben Collinscontends that Romney never supported the mandate, he then points readers to a quote where Ronald Reagan supposedly did. Like somehow, if a person such as Reagan made the mistake of supporting the mandate, that it now excuses Romney of lying about supporting it now.
The liberals and Romney supporters always seem to say some Republicans have supported the mandate in the past.To which I always say, “So what, that is indicative of the problem within the Republican Party, not the excuse that should be used to defend past transgressions.”
Call it a flip-flop, call it a mistake, it does not matter because Romney is not admitting it. He says it was the right thing for his state, but he would have never pushed it nationally. As if most people do not encourage other states to take actions that have worked before. First thing wrong with that is that it has not worked; it has been a drag on the state of Massachusetts, causing prices to rise, while not giving little benefit[it would be better to let Levin handle this].
The simple question is how conservatives are going to defend Romney against ads like the one I have posted up top. It is not as simple as just repeating team Romney’s talking points. I do not know about you, but I am not looking forward to saying, “yes Romney is a panderer, and a flip flopper; yes he has been on two sides of every major issue, but he still is better than Obama.”
That sounds like a horrible argument, and one conservatives should not have to make.
I was looking forward to arguing from a place of strength this election cycle, but that is not going to happen if Romney is the best we have. The desiderata of excitement, this is what we are looking forward to. How did we get here, and is there anyway we can stop this before it is to late. Maybe since Romney is running out of money, he will not have the ability to buy the rest of the delegates.