« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Open Letter To RedState, Part I: Mandates and Health Care

Dear RedState.com,

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ryan Larsen. I’m a truth lover, chess player and avid political junkie. I co-founded WhyRomney.com, which is dedicated to correcting distortions and inaccuracies perpetrated against Mitt Romney.

Before WhyRomney, I wrote for Lyingliar.com. At Lyingliar, we debunked all of Al Franken’s big attacks, from his “Chelsea Clinton is a dog” smear against Rush, to his “Peabody” smear against O’Reilly.

Before Lyingliar, I was naive. I didn’t realize the lengths people went to in order to dishonestly paint others as dishonest. And that’s what I see people doing to Mitt Romney. Even on the issue of abortion, where Mitt Romney did in fact change his position, critics distort his record terribly. My next diary will address each of those misrepresentations.

While I would not accuse anyone at Red State of being dishonest, I do see people building camaraderie around attacking Mitt without regard to the accuracy of the claims they are spreading. With the future of the world literally at stake, we don’t have time for reckless accusations against the man who may be our nominee. I realize not everyone has time to discern fact from fable, but if you don’t have time to make accusations responsibly, you should not make them at all.

In this, an open letter to RedState, I will address the health care concerns many of you have. I don’t have all the answers, but I have insights which may be a game changer for some of you.

First, I want to thank Ben Domenech for his very good encapsulation of his concerns in a recent piece on RedState. Although I believe Mr. Domenech is mistaken in his assumptions, I believe his piece is otherwise intelligent and I’m using it as a reference for understanding the sincere angst felt by many regarding this issue. Also, see my response to Philip Klein.

Mr. Domenech wrote, “Romney is essentially using the waivers as a substitute for proposing an actual reform … Romney’s plan in Massachusetts … is all we have to go on when it comes to evaluating his model for reform as president.”

Romney laid out his plan in a highly publicized speech on May 12, 2011, calling for “Repeal and Replace.” Waivers are authorized in the bill itself, offering a chance for relief while working for repeal.

Skip to the 5:15 mark. Key features: Restore states to leadership, Empower individuals to purchase their own insurance, Focus federal regulation as opposed to it being over-bureaucratic, Reform our medical liability system, Introduce market forces to health care.

Romney has called for repeal many times, including twice in the Aug. 11 Iowa debate. From the start, Romney expressed opposition to the federal mandate and has remained consistent.

I realize Mr. Domenech may still be concerned, because of Romney’s “continued defense of his Massachusetts’ law, including the individual mandate.”

Romney, JD, cum laude, endorsed by Robert Bork, understands state versus federal: “I believe in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. And that says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people.” When asked by the moderator why his state mandate was constitutional, Romney replied, “Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am.”

Most people don’t realize Romney sought “an opt-out provision for people who wanted to forgo insurance and pay their own way” (HC p. 175). So, Romney did not want a complete mandate in the first place.

More importantly, in the paperback version, Romney says if he could go back he would provide “a tax break for those who have health insurance rather than a tax penalty for those without health insurance” (p. 194). The tax credit does not require an action or purchase on anyone’s part.

In other words, there would be no mandate. The tax credit is justifiable because the state was footing the bill for uninsured hospital patients. When someone acquires health insurance they are removing a costly liability from the state, and therefore deserving of the tax credit. Moreover, this is merely a broader application of a principle shared by Ronald Reagan, “Most employer contributions for employee health benefits should be tax free because this encourages employee health insurance.”

People wanting Romney to distance himself from the mandate already have their wish, without realizing it.

Romney discusses other changes he’d make, such as reinstating his vetoes which the legislature overrode, and making very different choices than the new administration which, for example, allows some people to pay nothing – thereby creating an incentive for free-riders to move into the state. The most costly provision added by the legislature is their requirement that insurance companies provide certain coverage, such as unlimited dental and in vitro fertilization treatments – vetoed by Romney, but overridden. Romney ends his explanation in the paperback with: “There is no question in my mind that our program could be significantly improved if it were managed by a conservative administration. Elections have consequences.”

Mitt Romney is standing by the principles but not the specifics.

So, when we say Romney is sticking to his plan, what we are really saying is that Romney still believes in the following measures at a state level for MA: First, “creating incentives for those who can afford insurance to actually purchase it.” Second, creating “an exchange to help make buying insurance easier for individual – as opposed to corporate – buyers.” And third, “helping the poor buy their own private insurance with a sliding-scale subsidy. The government’s share of the cost comes from redirecting the federal funds that are currently sent to providers” (PB, p. 191).

What he is “standing by,” is not cause for much alarm. The question now, I think, is whether Romney can be excused for instituting the mandate to begin with. Well, the underlying context was a state of disarray in MA, which had the highest health care costs in the nation. The legislature wanted to amend the Constitution to make health care a right. Romney found a better solution. He had the Heritage Foundation and other conservatives on board, he had the overwhelming support of the legislature, the media and the people of MA. And there was an absence of vocal critics. I’m sure he realized a small minority of people in MA didn’t like it, but they weren’t very vocal at the time. So Romney had every reason to lump the mandate in with other well-accepted mandates like the mandates for purchasing/acquiring car insurance, clothing and babyfood.

But if you insist Romney should not be excused, I ask on what principle you rely, and whether you put that principle ahead of the Original Intent of the Founders. Did Samuel Adams infringe on liberty when he mandated that the kindred of any poor person in MA “shall be holden to support such Pauper?” (1793, “An Act Providing For The Relief And Support, Employment And Removal Of The Poor”). Samuel Adams invented the concept of “States’ Rights.” Did he not understand the role of state law?

If Romney made a mistake, then Samuel Adams made a mistake. Will the Tea Party movement, which derives its name from an act of American Revolution which took place in Massachusetts, fail to excuse a Founding Father from Massachusetts, a signer of the Declaration of Independence?

The Founders understood we not only have God-given rights but also have God-given responsibilities. Short of discovering new land in the world and defending it alone, we all rely on a community to defend our land and liberty. God has put us together, and one of our rights and responsibilities is to work together in determining how best to serve society. At the most fundamental level, this is true in the family. Parents have a God-given responsibility to love, protect and care for their children. A child, in turn, has a God-given responsibility to love and submit to their parents. This is true even though it is not written in the Constitution. It is God-given, and each state is a guardian of that responsibility.

We have a right to demand that other people uphold their responsibilities, ranging from wearing clothes, receiving an education and paying taxes, to giving one’s life for their country.

For instance, John Hancock more than once mandated that virtually all men furnish themselves, at their own expense, with a Musquet, rod, bayonet, flint and knapsack, or else “pay a fine not exceeding twenty shillings in proportion to the Articles of which he shall be deficient.” Hancock’s Massachusetts mandates were soon copied by other states and, under federal militia authority granted in the U.S. Constitution, ultimately inspired a federal militia mandate enacted under President George Washington. (more details)

The commerce clause enabled the federal government to act in some respects like a state, on questions relating to navigable waters which states have no jurisdiction over. And when given that chance to act like a state, the Founders created a health care mandate for ships to enlist the aid of an apothecary and store a chest of medicines (details). Since this mandate to purchase health care goods fell within that limited scope of the commerce clause, it does not constitute a precedent for federal action outside of navigable waters but significantly sets a precedent for state health care mandates.

Discerning of rights and responsibilities is done at the state level and according to the understanding of the people, unless delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. The brilliance of state governance is that states compete with each other using principles of free market capitalism, and yet also are free to adopt the ideas that work in other states and learn from their errors, creating a win/win situation prompting each other to success. Federal government intervention disrupts the process, as it eliminates experimentation and trial and error, taking away from citizens the freedom to choose different approaches and to disagree with people in neighboring states.

Like the Founding Fathers, Ronald Reagan supported the right of states to exercise wide discretion with respect to how they govern themselves. As Reagan explained, “The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.” (October 26, 1987)

200 years earlier, James Madison explained the same concept,”The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (January 26, 1788)

While states keep each other in check through competition, the federal government has no one to keep it in check except it’s own branches, which highlights the importance of electing people to office who understand and defend the constitution.

For this same reason, perhaps the single most destructive consequence of applying a mandate at the federal level is that it takes away our ability to measure the effectiveness of the mandate. To put this in terms of science, it removes the controls. For instance, if conditions worsen after a federal mandate goes into effect, the federal government can claim conditions would have been even worse without the mandate. The federal government gets away with this because there are no controls to prove otherwise. However, if conditions improve after a federal mandate goes into effect, the federal government attributes the improvement to the mandate. In contrast, when an individual state implements a mandate it can compare its progress with national trends across the other states. If conditions worsen or improve, the state can ask how conditions have fared compared with other states.

Romney understood that in the liberal state of Massachusetts the legislature he had to work with might add provisions he objected to – and they did. He also understood that future elected officials might add even more imprudent features to the plan – and they have. But he understood that as long as the federal government stayed out of the matter, aside from continuing to provide standard (non-“stimulus”) aid to each state (which Massachusetts incorporates into its health care plan, and other states continue to use for hospital bailouts; these are funds the states paid to the federal government in the first place, so this really only constitutes the federal government returning what the state paid. Massachusetts receives more than some states because it has higher income and pays more taxes), Massachusetts state law would be kept in check by the capitalist forces imposed by other states, thereby narrowing unwise expansion and forcing a pruning of provisions which fail. However, the enemy of states’ rights, federal intervention, threatens setbacks.

Obama’s unsustainable policies have used borrowed money to bail out states even when they continue failed policies, thereby artificially suspending capitalist forces between states. Massachusetts liberals have changed Romney’s health care plan, and although the plan has still been effective, only time will tell if their changes will be sustainable. Possibly the worst thing that could happen is for the federal government to continue bailing out states instead of allowing capitalist pressure to force states to restructure their policies. In the case of Massachusetts, this would mean a return to Romney’s original health care plan, ideally including a repeal of the provisions which Romney vetoed but which the legislature overrode. Romney structured his original plan to ensure no increased cost to the state. Romney reorganized and streamlined the state medical budget to work with citizens toward acquiring private insurance policies, successfully insuring virtually every citizen.

At the time of the Founding, it was not uncommon to mandate public service by imposing a monetary penalty on anyone who refused an appointment to town office. This was, for instance, the case with public servants in Virginia. Thomas Jefferson supported imposing penalties on those who refused public service appointments, and signed legislation to specifically impose such a penalty in two towns, on Oct. 1779 (Chap. 25). Should Thomas Jefferson be excused?

These laws were also enforced in Virginia by Founding Fathers Patrick Henry and Benjamin Harrison V.

Also at the time of the founding, most states had laws mandating that if a neighbor wanted a fence along someone’s property line, which most states considered the default assumption, one was obligated to build and maintain an equal share of the fence, to a height and composition specified by law. A typical penalty for failing to follow the mandate was at least the cost of building and repair, and in some states up to twice that cost. Fence-viewers were appointed to examine the fences. And, of course, anyone refusing to be a fence-viewer usually had to pay a penalty.

Fence mandates were directly enforced by:

Benjamin Franklin (President of Pennsylvania, Prominent Founding Father)

John Jay (Federalist Papers, First Chief Justice of The Supreme Court and Governor of New York)

John Hancock (President of the Continental Congress, First signer of the Declaration of Independence, First Governor of Massachusetts, Third Governor of Massachusetts)

Samuel Adams (Founding Father, Governor of Massachusetts)

Are the Founding Fathers merely FINOs (Founders In Name Only) and PINOs (Patriots In Name Only)? Or have critics missed something important that Romney understood all along. State’s grow by experimenting. Romney had the ultimate “excuse” for his health care experiment, the MA constitution, as penned by John Adams:

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.”

Article VII

“The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”

Article IV

These clauses iterate in the strongest of terms the right of the people to have their government do what they want it to do.

Courts also find preambles useful in ascertaining the intentions behind, and meanings of, operative statutory provisions. And the Constitution’s preamble likewise stresses the role of government in MA and the ability of the people to shape that role:

“The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.”

“The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.”

In light of these clauses, we can understand the obligation spoken of by John Adams in Part I, Article X:

“Each individual of the society HAS A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. HE IS OBLIGED, CONSEQUENTLY, TO CONTRIBUTE HIS SHARE TO THE EXPENSE OF THIS PROTECTION; TO GIVE HIS PERSONAL SERVICE, OR AN EQUIVALENT, WHEN NECESSARY; but no part of the property of any individual, can, with justice, be taken from him or applied to the public uses without his own consent, OR THAT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE. In fine, the people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws, than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent…”
(CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Part 1, Article 10, emphasis added)

It is the right, therefore, of every individual residing in Massachusetts to be protected by it in whatsoever fashion is determined by the people through their representative body.

Those who are not willing to abide the precepts of the Massachusetts constitution are free to reside in a different state. They are not free however to abdicate personal responsibility for knowing the constitutional expectations associated with their choice to reside in the state of Massachusetts, which includes being called to bear such mandates when deemed appropriate by the state as a whole.

At this point, I’d like to turn my attention back to the concerns expressed by Mr. Domenech, who said Mitt Romney’s campaign, “took time to bash yet another health care study illustrating how his reforms in Massachusetts raised premium costs and cost the state jobs…”

Romney’s campaign did dismiss the study as invalid, but if the results are indeed invalid then we shouldn’t fault the Romney campaign for saying so. The first problem is that the study is limited to determining the impact of health care cost increases on the surrounding economy. The study is not designed to determine what caused the increase in health care costs to begin with. The study, in other words, had no basis for concluding anything about Romneycare.

But it gets worse. The study makes this assumption because it defers to an earlier study.

That study, in perhaps a Freudian slip, states at one point: “We employed the same mythology.” And, indeed, there is “mythology” in their methodology. Their trend numbers, which they use in comparing health costs under Romneycare with costs before Romneycare, are faulty. For instance, in Table 11 their “trend” numbers claim that costs in 2006 were expected to decline from 2005, but this is clearly a false trend since costs had increased every year since 1998.

They then subtract their false trend numbers from the actual cost increase, creating the impression that costs rose at a faster rate. The bogus numbers compound each year, as the false trend numbers get further off course. We can see this play out in each of their tables. Consider table 12, insurance premiums for an average single plan. From 2000 to 2005, costs increased by $1500; meanwhile, from 2004 to 2009, costs only increased by $1100. That’s a downward trend. Yet the study claims that the premium rate in 2009 was $215 higher than the trend.

This disqualifies both studies. The first study was based on the difference between actual numbers and false trend numbers. The second study is based on the first study.

Even with the flaws with Romneycare, despite the costly provisions added by the legislature and new governor, it has slowed the rate of many health care cost increases in Massachusetts – despite the aging population of baby boomers (hip and knee replacements are up dramatically, as well as MRI/CT scans, and mobility scooters) and rising obesity rates. In all, it is working. Think how effective it would be if Romney had been able to do it his way. As he said, “There is no question in my mind that our program could be significantly improved if it were managed by a conservative administration.”

Using the raw data contained in their own tables, let’s look at how costs have slowed. Keep in mind that Romneycare went into effect in 2007. To measure it’s effectiveness we start with the previous year, 2006, so as to contrast the status prior to the law taking effect with the most current status reflected in available numbers.

Table 9: State medicaid spending increased by $1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by $1.5 billion from 2006 through 2009. Again, the slight increase is attributable to the aging population.

Table 10: Medicare Advantage monthly rate increased by $166 from 2002 through 2006, and by only $139 from 2006 through 2010.

Table 11: Medicare Personal Health Care expenditures increased by 1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by only 1.3 billion from 2006 through 2009.

Table 12: Average Insurance Premium (Single) increased by $952 from 2003 through 2006, and by only $820 from 2006 through 2009.

Table 13: Average Insurance Premium (Family) increased by $2423 from 2003 through 2006, and by $2433 frp, 2006 through 2009. Only ten dollar difference between cost increases.

Mr. Domenech voiced a secondary concern which I feel needs to be addressed because it is in the context of accusing Mitt Romney of a factual error: “the overwhelming number of those newly covered are subsidized by other taxpayers, and are on Medicaid, not private market-based insurance.”

“The plan expands opportunities for Medicare beneficiaries to use their benefits to enroll in private health plans as an alternative to traditional Medicare coverage” – Ronald Wilson Reagan

The insurance is private, just as Romney said, and is subsidized by government aid more than Romney wanted. The private insurance plans are different from each other, and thus are indeed market based, though not as much as Romney wanted due to mandates imposed by the legislature.

Why did Romney work with the legislature? On February 9, 1983, when Ronald Reagan was asked about people who said he was “moving away from the policies and principles” that got him elected, Reagan responded by explaining that compromise is not retreat: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

Mr. Domenech says Mitt has “continued to maintain his approach is a ‘Republican way to reform the marketplace’”

Mitt has from the beginning stood by the principles which I outlined earlier, and has consistently stated that those guidelines could be a useful model for other states to work with. He has dropped other aspects which he once supported, and has consistently opposed many aspects which were foisted upon the health care plan against his desires. In the context of it being a “Republican” plan, Reagan told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” but did not insist the entire Soviet government change overnight. Republicans understand that leaders in a war zone need space to operate differently depending on terrain. Our Republican leaders in liberal terrain need that same freedom. A Republican idea looks different depending on whether it’s implemented in a liberal or conservative terrain. But Romney moved in the right direction. The alternative proposed in MA was to make health care a constitutional right.

As far as comparing MA with other states, premiums were high compared to the rest of the nation, before Romneycare. They are high now, they were high then. However, Rhode Island and New Jersey are right behind MA. The obvious correllation here is that RI, NJ and MA are by far the three most densely populated states in the nation. When you receive an MRI scan, the hospital charge is primarily for their investment in purchasing the scanner in the first place, not the cost of the actual scan. Likewise, additional costs accrue in densely populated states. Land costs more, so hospitals cost more. Construction is more crowded, cumbersome and costly. The initial expenditure is higher, and so then are the costs to recoup that expenditure. Insurance companies can afford those higher costs because residents can pay higher premiums withMassachusetts having the second highest personal income per capita, and personal disposable income per capita, behind only Connecticut.

Part II of this open letter addresses Honesty and Abortion                                                          Part III addresses varied concerns

 

 

COMMENTS

  • avgjo

    Neither are a lot of people here.

    We know he’s a flip-flopper.

    We know he’s establishment.

    We know about Prof. Gruber et al.

    We know about Romneycare, mandates, taxes and red ink.

    Oh, and I know many of his supporters take his nomination as a given, but do bear in mind that he hasn’t gotten over 30% support in any primary poll.

    Thanks but no thanks.

    • avgjo

      ….

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      But telling me how much you know is a poor substitute for backing up your claims.

      • californiagold

        According to Jonathan Gruber, who was an advisor to then Governor Romney, 50% of Romneycare was paid for by the federal government, and the other 50% was paid for by an existing tax which was instituted during the Dukakis administration. Basically, tax payers across the country were subsidizing 50% of RomneyCare.

        Here is the link to the video of Romney advisor Jonathan Gruber stating the facts….

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/12/romney_healthcare_adviser_obamacare_based_off_romneycare.html

        • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

          that half the money comes from the federal government. That’s money that each state gets, not just Massachusetts. Romney’s plan was to change how the money was being used. Instead of giving it to hospitals, he uses it to help get people insurance.

          • streiff

            than in neighboring states, including New York.

            RomneyCare was a horrible plan and the fact that “something” was going to pass does not excuse supporting the “something” rather than engaging in prinicpled opposition.

            This lack of guts is what has many of us concerned about Romney

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            It was more expensive before Romneycare. Since Romneycare, the rate of cost increase has declined – as I discuss in the diary.

            I don’t think Romneycare is “horrible.” I think you and many others want to believe it is, but an echo chamber doesn’t make it so.

            I’d be interested in discussing real numbers and facts, if you have some to share :)

          • aesthete

            Lesson the First:

            If you believe that all of your favorite candidate’s opposition consists of “smears”, then that’s all you’re going to find in reasoned critiques — no matter how much you have to twist and bend to make that happen.

            Lesson the Second:

            No matter how vigorously or skillfully you polish a turd… it’s still a polished turd.

          • westcoastpatriette

            nt

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I really didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, if I did I’m sorry. Your first response was civil, but I really felt you were judging my diary without reading it. If I was wrong, I shouldn’t said what I did. And if I was right, you don’t have to tell me.

          • westcoastpatriette

            my feelings weren’t hurt. Frustration is more accurate.

            And actually, I read your diary twice before I commented. At this point, it is pretty clear that you are a loyal defender of Romney and you seem unwilling to accept that many people do not trust him with good reason.

            That became evident to me quickly, so I move on when I feel a person’s mind is completely closed. We just have to agree to disagree.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            can respect that, but I hope you realize that the closed-mindedness which you perceive in me is what I perceive in Mitt’s detractors.

            I’ll be posting more diaries, covering the issues. I hope you’ll take a look at them as well.

            And thank you for reading my diary.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to list one current cabinet level department that a President Romney would abolish.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don’t know! Sorry. I just don’t know one way or the other :)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            but you dismiss the smears as isolated incidents.

            Theology aside, suppose you come across someone who only knows these three facts about a New Testament personality and nothing more: first, Jesus said of him,

          • aesthete

            and there are honest differences of priority, philosophy or perception which cause people to reject Mitt Romney. You acknowledge the first two, but apparently not the last of these: statements you’ve made such as not being able to find a single non-smear really make it difficult to believe that you’ll ever budge on this one. The truth is that your arguments are a mixture of fact, personal opinion, and conjecture: I applaud your effort to bring facts into this, and to some people who are ignorant, that will be enough to jump onboard the Romney camp.

            OTOH, I think that you’re seriously overestimating the power and reach of people maliciously out to get Romney. They are, IMO, a small and meaningless number, just as with other candidates. In fact, if you ask most Romney critics why they dislike Romney, it’ll be some blend of 1) he’s insincere, 2) RomneyCare criticisms, and/or 3) other aspects of his record governing a liberal state. Regardless of how much slack you, personally, are willing to give, it’s pretty hard to swallow the notion that RomneyCare is so unquestionably conservative as to make all of Romney’s opposition on this issue either ignorant or evil. It’s statements like these that get you marked as a troll, or that otherwise discourage conversation. No candidate is even close to perfect: my preferences for this election, Gary Johnson and Mitch Daniels, have flaws that I could cite chapter and verse. (Same with everyone else in the race, including Romney.)

            Perhaps a good way to test yourself is to ask, what has Romney done that aggravated or peeved you, or what position do you differ with him on? If you can’t answer that question, you probably aren’t looking at his record critically enough.

          • acat

            After all, Honest Abe had a terrible electoral record….

            (wasn’t much of a conservative, though … )

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Interesting idea…

          • aesthete

            A flame war over Romney wasn’t enough for you? You need to go out and start a neo-Confederate one, too?! :P

          • acat

            Excessive Strong Bad?

            Burn, baby, burn!

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don’t agree with Mitt on everything, but he’s reasonable and always looking for additional information to consider.

            I don’t recall saying that I haven’t been able to find any non-smears. I think I said I haven’t found an issue he hasn’t been smeared on. But that doesn’t mean everything said on the issue is a smear, it just means some people have found ways to turn the issues into smears. Once the “inauthentic” narrative took off, which started with abortion, his critics and opponents started looking for data to feed the narrative. So people twisted facts and left out context so they could say, “here’s another one!” Then they’d put it in print and it would go to the blogosphere.

            To get a feel for what I’m talking about, consider the words of Deroy Murdock, who has spread many smears, then look below at the response quoted from whyromney.com:

            Mitt’s Vietnam Flip-Flop: His Most Disturbing Yet

            Excerpt:

            “But nothing prepared me for Romney

          • phillarsen

            Romney has the undeserved reputation as a flip-flopper. But it is undeserved. Problem is, you can’t just look at what the mainstream liberal media reports about him; you actually have to look at the facts.

            In a column Ann Coulter wrote for Townhall titled “The Elephant in the Room”, she said that she looked and looked, but couldn’t find any thing other than abortion that Romney flip-flopped on. And with good measure – he hasn’t.

            As far as healthcare goes, Chris Christie was right when saying that it’s intellectually dishonest to compare the healthcare in Mass to the Obama care.

            Christie was not “polishing a turd”, he was just speaking the truth – for those who care to hear it.

          • rightwingmom52

            and a couple of metaphors come to mind. Namely, where there’s smoke there’s fire and perception is everything.

            At the very least, the perception is that Romney has flipped on abortion, amnesty, Obamaneycare, gun control. Those are 4 issues that are central to the GOP platform. Putting aside my own opinions and yours, it is worrisome that one would have to do so much convincing that a candidate isn’t this or that. Conservatives are having enough of a difficult time convincing folks that our policies are better. Why should we choose a candidate who our side and the other side as well presents as having been on both sides of the issue when we have other candidates who present a stronger case for conservatism?

            As for the smoke, we’ve already had our conversation about that on another diary. I just can’t get past his governing pro-choice, despite your insistence that Romney was personally pro life when there are candidates running who have always been pro life.

            However, as I said before, you are a great advocate for Romney, and if he is the GOP nominee, we’ll be on the same side working for a GOP POTUS.

          • rightwingmom52

            a stand-alone comment, not a reply to this.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            It’s great to hear from you in this thread.

            For the record, Romney has always opposed Obamacare and amnesty. You may have heard snippets of him talking where it sounded otherwise, but in context you’ll find those clips are misleading.

            His gun control position has not changed, and he governed perfectly on the issue in MA, when you look at all the surrounding facts. This page has those facts: http://www.aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm#statements

          • californiagold

            I love a guy with a good sense of humor, and you are cracking me up.

            The reality is, Mitt Romney is trying to deflect criticism from RomneyCare by suggesting it’s a states rights issue. Well, thats fine, but if Massachusetts wants to experiment with a socialized medicine scheme, Massachusetts should pay for all of it, not the federal government.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But for you to say, “the reality is” and then start telling me what Mitt is supposedly thinking, has the effect of leaving objective reality and drifting toward your imagination. First, you accuse him of stating a fact. Is that a bad thing to do? No. So you spin it, ie – “he’s only saying that thing which is true because he wants to look like he really believes it.” That’s not a valid criticism.

            And like many Romney critics, you call it “socialized medicine.” But medicaid is already paying the bills in the other states and has for a long time. You’re arguing, apparently, that “if MA wants to experiment with a socialized medicine scheme like Medicaid, but not call it that, then it should do so without the socialized medicine dollars that the other states are using.”

            Conservatism is about thinking. It’s not enough to have a list of rules, you need to apply those rules differently, as a situation calls for. Reagan didn’t ask for the Soviet Union to change overnight. He asked for one wall to come down. He wasn’t asking for it to be conservative. He was asking for it to be more conservative than it was before. And that’s what Romney did in MA.

            People fault him for the mandate, but he was using the same standard used by the Founding Fathers.

      • phillarsen

        The money coming to the Mass healthcare plan was federal funding that was already being given to the state for healthcare purposes. No new revenue streams were created.

        The truth is, ALL states receive money from the federal government. And why shouldn’t they? Their residents get taxed by the federal government, so it’s their money!

        Really, that’s as intellectually dishonest a statement as saying that Rick Perry was wrong for asking for federal disaster funds in Texas – he was asking for money his taxpayers already gave to the feds. However – Romney didn’t ask for new money, he simply got permission to use existing money already coming into the state.

    • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

      all the flip flops on abortion and his proclamation that the earth has a fever and it is the doing on man and we need to take action in this regard. These are the toitality of the reasons on which I have determined that he is room temperature to me in the primary.

      As a PCM I will of course vote for him if he is the nominee and do everything to make sure that OMG (Oama Must Go), but his near anointing by all the elitist in the Republican power structure have convinced me he is another McCain.

      • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

        soon. I hope you read it. And I hope you’ll hold off on your verdict in that regard until you read it. As for global warming, in a joint statement following his meeting in Moscow, Reagan and Gorbachev described their agreement to a “Global Climate and Environmental Change Initiative.”

        The joint statement said:

        “The two leaders expressed their satisfaction with activities since the Washington summit in expanding cooperation with respect to global climate and environmental change, including in areas of mutual concern relating to environmental protection, such as protection and conservation of stratospheric ozone and a possible global warming trend. They emphasized their desire to make more active use of the unique opportunities afforded by the space programs of the two countries to conduct global monitoring of the environment and the ecology of the Earth’s land, oceans and atmosphere. They underscored the need to continue to promote both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this important area in the future.”

        That’s basically all Romney is saying, but people hear the words, “global warming” and lump him in with scare tactics crowd which he disagrees with. Romney opposes cap-and-trade. He was approached as governor about a regional cap-and-trade deal, and he looked into it and found how awful it was. He said no to it, but you probably have heard people falsely claim that he did it. They also take statements he made about genuine air pollution and try to twist them to say they were about global warming. They weren’t.

        Romney looks at the facts, and the fact is carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. People get agitated hearing that, however they don’t deny it. Rush doesn’t deny it, Glenn doesn’t deny it, Levin doesn’t deny it, Steyn doesn’t deny it. Yet the fact it’s a greenhouse gas automatically means that it contributes “some” to warming. Not likely very much. But Romney said he didn’t know how much it contributes, and he stressed that he doesn’t think we should get frantic about it. That gets twisted. Instead of the concern they have over Romney’s innocent statement, conservatives should get concerned over those who intentionally twist that statement to attack Romney on false charges. Good people, like Rush and Glenn, are buying into the twisted attacks. It’s only a period of time before the record is set straight.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    welcome to the Mere Diarist club! Bravo! Mitt needs the help. As you know, I am working on a column that will ask hard questions of Romney about his intentions with respect to national health care policy and government spending. I will pose questions here as well.

    My first set of questions are:

    1) given that Mitt rightly promises to grant waivers from ObamaCare to all 50 states on Day One and wishes to repeal (and replace) all of ObamaCare; what does he propose to replace it with and will that include the tax he wishes he had been able to achieve in Massachusetts instead of the mandate?

    2) What does he propose as to the mandate requiring that private insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions? and at what price?

    3) Does he favor. as do most conservatives, ending state health insurance market monopolies and allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines, which is probably the one policy that would lower premiums the most?

    4) Do you understand that the burden of proof is on Mitt, given RomneyCare and especially given that his advisers met with Obama to fashion ObamaCare and especially given that Glenn Hubbard’s study shows that RomneyCare has raised premium prices in Massachusetts? And that given that Mitt did sign RomneyCare that he will best carry the burden of proof via humility himself in trying to assure others that he is a changed man and that his supporters like you will get more converts with honey rather than vinegar?

    more later

    • gekster

      Will you implement tort reform like Gov. Perry did in Texas.

      • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

        and explained the importance of it in his book.

        • kestrel

          If not, why not? I will try to read his book, but could you just tell me the answer to this, in a nutshell? (Preferably a walnut shell, not a coconut shell.)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            And for that reason, Romney prefers national tort reform. But the answer to your question is yes, Romney has always fought hard for tort reform at every level.

            From Club4Growth:

            “From his 1994 Senate race, to his gubernatorial campaign in 2002, and throughout his four years as governor, Romney was a strong proponent of tort reform. As governor, he supported capping personal injury claims in automobile-related cases and advocated for overhauling Massachusetts

          • kestrel

            which tells me Romney achieved no tort reform. Look at your verbs: prefers, fought hard, supported, advocated, supported, supported, argued, issued (a proposal),

            But here’s what troubles me more: Apparently Romney did not achieve state tort reform, so now he is knocking it as an unworthy goal:

            “I spoke with one member of the plaintiff

          • OregonConservative

            Yes, Gov. Perry did achieve tort reform in Texas, and I applaud that. However, Texas has a predominantly Republican legislature.

            How effective do you think Perry would have been trying to push tort reform through in Massachusetts? In a state with an 85 percent democratic/liberal legislature, do you think they would give any such legislation even a passing glance?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Welcome to this thread. I hope you stay around :)

          • acat

            At this point, I want a *provable* conservative, not someone who played around at it in a rather blue state.

            I know, he can run as a Wall Street wonk! No, wait …

            Seriously. Other than position statements, what does Mitt have?

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            No text

          • APA Guy

            nt

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Here’s a pretty good overview on economic issues:

            “Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally conservative record that included economic expansion.

            “He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $500 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term.

            “In 2004, 2005, and 2006 Governor Romney proposed cutting the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% [4]. Although the Democratic super majority in the state legislator refused to budge. Romney vetoed 844 pieces of legislation, with over 700 overridden. He vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, saying “there’s no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.”

            “Under Governor Romney the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay additional taxes and fees. ”

            Some people criticize Romney for updating fees, which hadn’t been updated in years in MA. So to the above, I would add (from my site, WhyRomney):

            They claim Romney’s increases in fees are identical to taxes. On the contrary, Romney saved millions of tax dollars by ending the taxpayer subsidizing of fees. A fee covers the cost for a special good or service provided to an individual by the government; when a fee is not high enough to cover the cost of the service provided, taxpayers end up subsidizing. Romney shifted the burden from the community onto the individual who benefits from the service provided.

          • gekster

            from:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Governor_of_Massachusetts

            Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[81][90] Romney increased a special gasoline retailer fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[81][90] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[90]) Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[81][93] These initial loophole actions, fueled by Romney’s sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases, won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage.[93]

            The state legislature, with Romney’s support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[94] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.[81][90] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all of them were overridden by the Democratic-dominated legislature.[95]

            The cuts in state spending put added pressure on local property taxes; the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 percent to 53 percent.[81][90] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship but still was below the national average.[81] According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent).

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            when you raised the issue below. You can find my response here: http://www.redstate.com/ryanlarsen/2011/10/13/open-letter-to-redstate/#comment-222

            Some highlights:

            Every state raises fees to keep up with the cost of service. In MA, some fees had not been raised in a very long time. So Romney updated them. Not a big deal.

            You said,

          • gekster

            I have since moved on.
            What do yout hink of Romneys non stand on the union issue in Ohio.
            If you respond, doit to my comment on that thread.
            And I’ll take Romneys stand at equal to Perrys stand on this one, just to move the conversation along.

          • gekster

            and the other comment. This one was first.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I suggest you take a look at a response just below for additional info of relevance to your question:

            http://www.redstate.com/ryanlarsen/2011/10/13/open-letter-to-redstate/#comment-177

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Mitt governed conservatively across the board. I would cut and paste each issue, but I’ll just give some illegal immigration facts and advise you to visit the website for additional info on issues. I also suggest www.WhyRomney.com, which I co-founded.

            From http://aboutmittromney.com/immigration.htm:

            Campaign Consistency:

            “In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.”
            (National Review – Romney for President)

            “The Mitt Romney who hit the campaign trail in 2002…was now a media star – People magazine would soon name him one of the 50 Most Beautiful People in the World… He favored the death penalty and an initiative petition to replace bilingual education with English immersion;”
            (The Boston Globe – Taking office, remaining an outsider)

            ACTIONS TAKEN AS GOVERNOR:

            The Boston Globe – Romney Stand Dims Chances of License For Undocumented – Oct 28, 2003

            “The prospects for a controversial proposal to allow roughly 150,000 undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses in Massachusetts darkened considerably this week as Gov. Mitt Romney came out against the idea and the bill’s sponsor acknowledged that ‘it doesn’t look as if the legislation could become law.’ …

            ” ‘Those who are here illegally should not receive tacit support from our government that gives an indication of legitimacy,’ the governor said, echoing arguments that opponents have voiced in the commonwealth and in other states considering similar license measures. ‘If they are here illegally, they should not get driver’s licenses,’ he said.” (2003)

            The Boston Globe – Romney vetoes $108.5m in budget – June 26, 2004

            “Romney also rejected a proposal to allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities” (2004)

            The Boston Globe – An unfair reward for illegal immigrants – Nov 8, 2005

            “A bill currently being considered by the Legislature would provide in-state tuition at our public colleges and university to individuals who are in the United States illegally. That is wrong. Because a family breaks the law, that should not entitle them to a taxpayer subsidy. Enactment of this legislation would encourage more illegal immigration and send the wrong message to those immigrants who played by the rules. Governor Romney vetoed a similar provision last June, and he is prepared to do so again.” (November 2005)

            The Boston Globe – For new governor, divisive issues loom – Sep 9, 2006

            “Also certain to resurface in the Legislature is a bill that would provide in-state tuition rates at public colleges to undocumented immigrants.

            “Lawmakers approved the tuition measure last year, but Romney vetoed it and an attempted override failed in the House in January” (2006)

            The Boston Globe – Troopers can arrest illegal immigrants in Romney deal – Dec 3, 2006

          • bonnman

            thats the problem with Mitt. He tries to say all the right things but when it comes down to it he takes no action or worse flips his position.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

            One of the untold yet impressive stories of Mitt Romney’s success as a political leader is how he transformed a small state that was in debt to a state with surplus in only in four years. I will first give a financial overview of Mitt Romney’s record and then go into depth and explore his record in detail. Lets look at how Mitt Romney made a wonderful turnaround on Massachusetts.
            A Brief Financial Overview of The Romney Administration (2003-2007): From Debt To Surplus
            Getting the state in financial shape was an absolute priority for Mitt Romney. When Mitt entered into office in 2003, he was a left with a massive deficit of approximately $3 billion. However, he was able to balance the state budget for each year of his administration and got the state out of debt by implementing a mixture of aggressive reduction in the size and cost of government along with bold strategies to spur economic growth.

            By 2005, Mitt Romney had a budget surplus of $1 billion and by the time he left office in 2007, he left the state had a $ 2 billion surplus.
            The Financial Picture On Mitt’s First Day In Office
            In order to understand how Mitt a $3 Billion deficit into a $2 Billion surplus for the state of Massachusetts, we have to understand what the financial picture looked like on the very day he assumed the office of Governor.

            When Mitt Romney walked into the Governor’s office on January 2, 2003, the state’s financial health was not looking good:
            Assuming office midway in the fiscal year, Romney’s team inherited a fiscal meltdown requiring immediate steps to close a potential $650 million shortfall. Worse, budget writers for the incoming governor discovered the projected deficit for the following year was exploding – from $2 billion to $3 billion in a $23-billion budget.
            Now that we know what the financial picture looked like on the first day Mitt Romney took office, let take a chronological tour of how Mitt brought the state back to financial health.

            2003-2004
            In order to confront the immediate problem of the state’s shortfall of $650 million, Romney had to act fast and petitioned the state legislature for help:
            Upon first taking office in 2003, Romney got the legislature to give him emergency powers to cut spending without their permission and, if elected president, he has said he will ask Congress to give him authority not to spend all the money they authorize in the federal budget.
            What powers did Congress give to Romney?
            Under the measure, Romney can reduce funding for any state program, except for the 14 percent of the state budget which supports constitutional officers, the Legislature, inspector general, comptroller and the judicial branch and debt service.
            The expanded fiscal authority, which extends through June 30, gives the governor the power to reduce the $5.5 billion set aside for local aid and the $950 million for public higher education, which includes the University, state college and community college systems.
            Mitt Romney then proposed a $22.858 billion spending plan for Fiscal Year 2004 which introduced major spending cuts and a restructuring of government to make it more lean and efficient.

            2004-2005
            18 months later, during the summer of 2004, Mitt Romney had some good news for the state of Massachusetts; the spending plan he proposed worked. He announced that by the end of the fiscal year of 2004, the state would have a surplus of approximately $500 million dollars. However, when the final figures came out in the fall of 2004, the surplus was actually $724 million with a total of $1.2 billion in reserves.

            Mitt Romney also announced his budget plan for the Fiscial year of 2005 with $22.402 billion in spending plans and which kept the state budget’s in balanced without raising taxes. Mitt Romney also used his veto power to reject $108.5 million in earmarks proposed by the Democratically controlled Congress.

            Now that the state was out of the red and into the black, the Democratically state controlled Congress wanted to go on a spending spree by dipping into the rainy day fund. Mitt Romney used his veto power limit their spending binge. He also enacted a stimulus plan focus on revitalizing the state’s infrastructure with a supplemental spending bill costing the state around $439 Million. As a reward for reducing the cost of administering food stamps, making the distribution of those stamps faster and more efficient, the Federal Government awarded the state of Massachusetts $1.25 million award for getting food stamps to needy families more quickly than any other state in the nation.

            2005-2006
            In January of 2005, Mitt Romney began the new year by instituting welfare reform which required recipients to go back to work. He also proposed a $23.22 billion spending plan, reduced the income tax from 5.3%. to 5% and filed a 93.7 supplemental spending bill to fill up the money that was used for snow and ice removal. In March, Standard & Poor

          • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

            I appreciate your efforts to bring forth the facts on Mitt. As a local I have seen a lot of stuff posted here that isn’t true.

            You are right about the MA Constitution. I don’t agree with it and because of that and a host of other laws in MA, (gun laws) I moved to NH. Next June it will be 20 years out of MA. :)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Great to hear. Thank you. I’m glad you’re part of the discussion!

          • kestrel

            the question that I asked. I appreciate that. I should have explicitly went further by saying, “If he did try, what happened? Did he succeed, or to what extent?” I also appreciate that Romney understood the problem at a state level and tried to solve it. I do not have any doubts about his intelligence, just about his commitment to conservatism.

            Incidentally, maybe Romney thinks Perry’s lucky “four aces” achieved tort reform in Texas, but judging by the recent House Speakership battle there, the place is not overflowing with aces. Besides, the “problem” trial lawyers and their army of lobbyists are the same everywhere, aren’t they? (I can tell you that the ten-volume Encyclopedia of Lawyer Jokes, which I have respectfully shelved due to much present company, is organized topically, not geographically.)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I know it’s an honest concern of yours. But in MA, it doesn’t matter how perfect someone governs. They can only do what the legislature allows.

            Remember, Jesus walked the earth as a perfect man, sharing his plan. But people were free to reject his plan, and they did. If they can reject God Himself, they can reject anyone.

          • acat

            Look, Romney’s a politician, and not a particularly good one – based on lifetime elections won, based on re-elections won, based on conservative actions taken…

            The simple fact is Romney did not govern Massachusetts as a conservative. He governed as a big-government northeastern-establishment republican.

            Romney did this, Ryan, because – at the end of the day – that’s who he is.

            I have and will continue to reject Romney, unless he wins the nomination.

            Finally, please don’t feed the sectarian-trolls by bringing religion into politics.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            With the Lord’s perfect plan it required personal sacrifice… So Romney should provide a non perfect plan and not give anything up except victory…while ignoring the fact he had a line item veto?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Many people don’t know that. But then again, many people have only heard the critics, and the critics don’t like to bring up facts that make Mitt look good.

            If you were on a jury, would you only listen to the prosecution? Or would you hear the defense as well, before deliberating?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Back in ’08 I defended Romney by citing his vetoes.

            And now, in ’12, he’s made me the fool by defending the plan.

            So yeah, you can’t really defend Mitt Romney with his vetoes when the man himself is saying the plan is fine.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read the above diary, but I discuss such concerns there. I hope you’ll give your feedback. Thanks! :)

          • aesthete

            Why not?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I’ll be posting a diary on the abortion concern soon. I’ll enjoy your participation then. Lookin forward to it :)

          • barleycorn
          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Unfortunately, the government was tied down to health care through medicaid and federal mandates telling hospitals to treat the uninsured. So there was no chance for a private sector solution.

            But I agree in principle.

          • acat

            “No chance” ?

            Seems to me 49 other States (and a couple territories) have worked out differently. Massachusetts is the only one that tried it this way.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Massachusetts was the only one with the highest health care costs before Romneycare. And the only one where the legislature wanted a Constitutional amendment declaring health care a right, thinking that would solve things.

            In my comment I was pointing out that government already was involved, entrenched. Hence, zero possibility of leaving the government out (private sector solution).

            If you take Romneycare and remove the things Romney vetoed, remove the changes made by the new governor, and change the penalty to an incentive (as explained in the diary), you have a creative, conservative solution.

            The only question I see is whether Mitt should be excused for the mandate. If you look at it from his perspective, I think it’s easy to excuse him. He was looking at the numbers of getting everyone insured and streamlining the system. He probably categorized the mandate as similar to making people acquire clothing or purchase auto insurance. And everyone around him was telling him how great it was – not just the legislature, but the Heritage Foundation, the media in MA and pretty much everyone. Then he gets endorsed by everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Mark Levin, without any complaints regarding the mandate.

            I’m sure he realized some people in MA didn’t like it, but it didn’t really take effect till he was out of office, so those folks hadn’t grown to really resent it yet. Besides, every piece of legislation has some critics. Governors usually take their cues from the general mood – and that mood spelled excitement and high hopes. And to this day, 3 in 4 residents want to keep it. But Mitt now understands that some have grown to resent it, and if he could go back he essentially says he would do something everyone could agree on.

            I know I haven’t had a chance to reply to most of your comments yet, but I want you to know I appreciate your involvement in this thread :)

          • acat

            To strip it down a little, what you’re saying is that, because Rush, Levin, and Heritage didn’t {complain} about the mandate in 2008 we are obligated give Romney a pass in 2012 as well.

            Umm, no.

            In 2008, by the time Rush started sounding pro-Romney, the other choices were McCain and Huckabee. Compared to either of them, Romney is better…. but Cain or Perry are better still. More betterer, if you really want to butcher the language.

            For this cat, the problem with Romneycare isn’t the mandate, it’s that Romneycare-as-root-of-Obamacare is in the water, and is being spread by the Obama administration. That makes it a very high hurdle for Mitt to get over, regardless of everything else.

            Whether I accept the 10th amendment argument is moot. What matters is whether Joe Sixpack, whose last exposure to the division of powers and roles between State and Federal levels was likely a high school civics course taught by a liberal drone can do so. I know several Joes, and in my informal polls, I’m finding that they don’t.

            That means a huge part of Obama’s record is off the table in 2012, and .. it’s the specific part that sparked the Tea Parties.

            Romney is, therefore, the worst suited candidate to go after Obama.

            Further, I do not have a reason to trust Romney will actually repeal-and-replace. Nothing he’s done indicates that he wants to repeal, everything in his background says he wants to tinker.

            If I compare the Federal Government to a car, it’s currently a ’74 Chevy Caprice. Big, heavy, rusted out in spots, inefficient. I think Mitt would be happy to replace the oil and the timing chain and search eBay for a new carburetor to bring the fuel mileage up by 1 or 2. I want a guy who’s willing to trade it in for an ’08 Toyota Camry. Lighter, more efficient, no rust…

            Mitt has done nothing to convince me he’s that guy.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            In the diary, I link to a video where Romney lays out his plan for what he wants to replace Obamacare with.

            I also link to a video from March 2010 where Romney explains why Obamacare needs to be stopped. He’s consistently opposed it.

            What his past actually shows is that he prefers to start from the ground up, but is willing to tinker when there’s no other option.

          • gekster

            you lay out his plan.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            the main points of his plan. In the diary.

          • gekster

            You posted above:
            In the diary, I link to a video where Romney lays out his plan for what he wants to replace Obamacare with.
            and also:
            I also link to a video from March 2010 where Romney explains why Obamacare needs to be stopped. He

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “To strip it down a little, what you

          • acat

            I do not see it in your diary. I am also not going to re-read it looking for something that wasn’t obvious the first time. Answer the following questions.

            - Is there a mandate in the plan for people to purchase insurance?

            - Does the plan address skyrocketing costs due to lawsuit abuse?

            - Does the plan address emergency room abuse by letting hospitals collect bad debts as other companies are allowed to?

            Second, you’ve now put up a parable to explain the 10th Amendment excuse, which was a waste of your time. I get the defense. I don’t think it will work nationwide, and your parable does not change that.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            To being with, the parable is not intended to explain the 10th amendment argument. It’s intended to show that Mitt didn’t realize he was doing anything offensive. Yes, that ties in with the tenth amendment, in the sense that the tenth amendment probably reinforced in Mitt’s mind that everyone would be okay with it, but there were lots of other reasons he thought everyone was okay with it.

            When it comes to something so subjective as people “feelings,” people aren’t going to realize something is a problem until it’s pointed out. And yes, part of that is Mitt’s personality. It wouldn’t hurt his feelings, so he doesn’t instinctively realize that some people would feel concern over it.

            Anyway, I don’t understand why you would dismiss it instead of taking time to understand what I was trying to say.

            As for his plan I “claim exists,” which I link to near the first part of the diary you claim to have read :) here’s the relevant excerpt:

            “Romney laid out his plan in a highly publicized speech on May 12, 2011, calling for

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I stand by my confidence that Mitt’s pro-life “conversion” was real and compare same in 2007 with my 2000-1 conversion to conservatism and the GOP:

            http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/dec/17/gcs_conservative_epiphany_in_detail_and_why_i_believe_mitt_romney

            PS
            I have argued with many that we could probably count on Mitt not to take MMGW so far as to support laws and regs that would hurt the economy, but his actions and words invite the scepticism. There are much better answers than the one he gave on “don’t know how much man affects the climate” although I do admit it could be a way to reach the brainwashed. Cool?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            http://www.redstate.com/ryanlarsen/2011/10/13/open-letter-to-redstate/#comment-124

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Of course, it’s 4:30 in the morning where I’m at, and I could probably use some caffeine :)

            I’m afraid to post anything, for fear it will be gibberish this early in the morning. Which means I’m not really even reading responses cause that would make me want to post lol. But I’ll certainly make an exception for GC. Thanks.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Thank you very much for sharing that. After this diary runs its course, I intend to post one on abortion. So, that was a timely gift.

        • gekster

          He may have supported it, but what did he do about it when he was passing his socialist healthcare.
          4 years as Governor, and all he did was talk about it?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            and no text

          • acat

            No, he didn’t “just talk about it”? If so, cite please!

            Show one *concrete* and *conservative* *action* that Romney completed in Massachusetts. Just one.

            Not words, not speechifying – had our fill of that with Obama, thanks.
            Not “attempted to” or “failed to achieve” – had my fill of that with Bush 2.0.
            Completed. Achieved.

            Palin put the plane on eBay. Did Romney achieve anything on par with that?

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            And answer to your request.

            Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YtAIWFC18sE

            I realize the circles you interact with probably don’t praise Mitt. But there are other circles that do. And those of us in the pro-Mitt circles are baffled when we hear all the misconceptions.

            Above I posted comments regarding his conservative fiscal accomplishments. Now I’ll focus on guns. Mitt Romney has an excellent gun record in Massachusetts.

            For instance, from the NRA: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2347

            “On July 26, Governor Mitt Romney (R) signed H. 4552, which makes exemptions for the makers of customized target pistols, who, due to a provision within state law, have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts.

            “Prior to the signing of H. 4552, the law required firearm makers to test at least five examples of all new products

          • acat

            Tell me, how many pistols in Massachusetts were purchased for target shooting, and how many because, “when seconds count, the police are just minutes away”, i.e. home defense.

            How many people buying a basic revolver or other handgun for home defense would choose a target pistol instead?

            I’m sorry, but .. I do not think this is a terribly good pro-firearms argument. It’s a decent financial one, but .. I was already aware Mitt was decent on numbers.

            Mew

    • Craigpennsylvania

      When Romneycare went into effect, 8 provisions of the bill the legislature passed were vetoed by Romney, and his veto was overturned.

      Romney’s position at the time was he wanted to end the idea that people could just show up at an emergency room, get free medical care, and stick the taxpayers with the bill.

      He was a proponent in making each individual responsible for his own health care expenses. Here are some basics that Romney had as a goal for Mass.

      1. Those who could not afford insurance would be given help to purchase insurance. There would be subsidies to help the lower income families/individuals in Mass, in order to purchase insurance.

      2. Those who could afford insurance would either have to purchase insurance OR opt out of purchasing insurance with the understanding that one would be responsible for one’s medical bills.

      Comparing Penna. to Mass, we still allow people to show up at the ER, get free medical care, and walk away with the taxpayer getting stuck paying the bill.

      Is it not a conservative position that people should pay for his or her own health care?

      Romneycare, as Mr. Romney intended it, would have done just that: forced people to pay for his/her own health care, either through buying insurance or paying for one’s medical bill by writing a check.

      Mr. Romney had no ability to override the override of his veto.

      For the record, I have not decided exactly for whom I will vote in our primary next year, but I do think a less biased approach is needed in examining Romneycare than what is occuring here.

      • conservativemusician

        is when you said, “Romneycare, as Mr. Romney intended it, would have done just that: forced people to pay for his/her own health care, either through buying insurance or paying for one

        • Craigpennsylvania

          I understand that you don’t care about the facts. Instead, you decided to lecture me about your own personal beliefs, while making statements about Romney’s advisors meeting with Obama’s people.

          I am well aware that Romney’s people met with Obama’s people. I do not like the fact that they did. That is another conversation.

          As for your “PS”, I already stated I have not decided for whom I will vote in the primary. There are elements about each candidate I like and that I don’t like. I participated in a thread here a couple weeks ago which asked for whom I would vote if polls were outlawed.

          Since you felt it necessary to tell me who “aint” a conservative, you might want to check my diary, because the person I selected there was neither Romney nor Cain.

          That being said, honest people will look at all sides of what a candidate has said or done in the past, not just at what one wants to see.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Thanks for being reasonable :) Glad to have you in this thread.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and your desire to defend Mitt against what you perceive to be false characterizations is commendable. But, finding legitimate ways to justify what Mitt has done does not comfort those who see him as RINOish.

            For example, what I find most troubling about your post is how you have quoted the Mass. Constitution as justification for mandating health care insurance in the state. You may not be aware of it, but your arguments twist the true meaning of the words to justify mandating just about anything–and that is a tactic used by the left to continue pushing this nation toward socialism. By using this argument, you are revealing your true colors with respect to missing the bigger picture–all of these justified mandates are encroaching on our liberties!

            In your mind, I think you think the MA Const. says that it is the states duty–and therefore the taxpayers responsibility–to protect each citizens pursuit of life, liberty and property not by preventing the state from encroaching on these liberties (its true meaning) but by subsidizing the provision of the same! This is not what it says or means–and I don’t think you get that.

            I know you mean well but your arguments only cement the view that Romney is a RINO and he thinks like one and approaches solutions like one.

            Finding ways to justify Mitt’s behavior is not going to absolve him of his middle-of-the-road positions no matter how you word it.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            nt

          • kestrel

            that by Mr. Larson’s reasoning one could use the state constitution to “justify mandating just about anything”.

            The way he interprets it seems no different than the wishful belief of some people that the “general welfare” statement in the U.S. Constitution nullifies many specific restraints that are deliberately spelled out in the body of the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, Mr. Larson seems to be saying that because elected representatives have so declared it in law, Massachusetts citizens have the right to be protected from “insufficient” medical insurance because the lack thereof might interfere with their enjoyment of life, liberty and property. I think John Adams would be rolling over in his grave.

            If this is Gov. Romney’s own constitutional rationalization for Romneycare, then there is no reason to believe he couldn’t happily pitch the whole U.S. constitution right out the window if he wanted to. All of a sudden, I am worrying about more than bureaucratic, cost-exploding, death-hastening government-run healthcare.

          • westcoastpatriette

            .

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “by Mr. Larson

          • kestrel

            no text.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            since we seem to be addressing the same issue below:

            http://www.redstate.com/ryanlarsen/2011/10/13/open-letter-to-redstate/#comment-34

          • acat

            We did not get “Romneycare as Mitt intended it”. It is irrelevant what Mitt intended. What matters is what he let get by him.

            He had choices. He had a bully pulpit. He walked away from the fight.

            I do not want a POTUS who folds like a cheap suit, I’ve already got McConnell and Boehner racing to see who can fold fastest.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Reagan said: “There have been concessions and compromises in both directions on all of the major issues, and we expect to continue to work with the Congress in that way.”

            The United States was founded on compromise. As Ronald Reagan said, the Great Compromise of 1787 is “at the heart of our constitutional system” (October 13, 1987). Reagan believed in principled compromise and spoke of it frequently.

            On February 9, 1983, when asked about people who said he was “moving away from the policies and principles that got you elected,” Reagan responded by explaining that compromise is not retreat: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

            Conservatives give our military commanders leeway to fight using different techniques in different terrain. We need to give our conservative commanders that same leeway as they fight in liberal terrain.

          • acat

            “it is .. crucial to choose the correct ground in which to position ourselves to be successful…”

            Mitt chose poorly, and as a result, lost badly.

            I see no reason to reward his failure.

            Mew

          • conservativemusician

            And as Rush said yesterday, Obama is going to kill Romney on Romneycare if he ends up being the nominee. Romney can dance around the issue in the GOP debates, saying he’d grant waivers to all the states before repealing it altogether, but he cannot escape the fact that his own advisors met with Obama and his people to discuss how to implement Obamacare based on the Romneycare model. Perry should have hammered Romney on that the other night – yet another missed golden opportunity to expose Romney for the fraud he really is. This is central to the issue and problems with Romney as a candidate, not for “another conversation”.

            My problem with Romney has always been that he has taken multiple positions on issues in the past – liberal positions, like Romneycare and abortion, just to name a few – and now all of a sudden we’re supposed to look past all of that and believe he is a conservative now? I don’t think so and his polling numbers with the conservative base reflect this view. He is the very model for what a RINO is and why so many of us here find his candidacy very lacking and disingenuous. I believe a person’a past positions gives a good indication on the types of decisions they will make when they get into office. We need a real conservative – not a poser like Romney.

            Is this an “honest” enough evaluation for you?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But they’ve only really looked at the attacks on Romney, and most of those are smears.

            What don’t you like about Romneycare?

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            But the attacks on Romneycare being a disaster for Massachusetts and a signature example of NON-conservative tax-spend-and-regulate government-nanny-statism is valid and true.

            http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/romneycare-making-a-fool-of-every-republican-it-touches-since-2006/

            “There isn

          • aesthete

            It’s totally fair to say that Mitt’s hands were tied (see what I did there? Hur, hur, hur…) when it came to some form of healthcare reform… but nothing said he had to use mandates and the like. Singapore has an excellent program which addresses many of the most common complaints with health care provision in this country… and is much more classically liberal of a system than our own. France’s healthcare system also has much to recommend over ObamaCare and the pre-ObamaCare status quo. Mitch Daniels got some very conservative ideas implemented as Medicaid reforms in his state. Romney’s a good public speaker: why couldn’t he try to sell the MA public on those plans? Would it have worked? I don’t know, but what did he get in exchange for working with Ted Kennedy? I think we know the answer…

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            was to get everyone privately insured, as a step toward streamlining the system. Using Medicaid (/Medicare) funds to purchase private insurance was championed by Ronald Reagan, as I explain in the diary.

            The only aspects of the plan that conservatives should have a problem with are the aspects Romney vetoed and the aspects added after Romney left. As for the mandate, the attitude of the Founders was that everyone was obligated to help strengthen the community. If someone wants to discover a piece of land somewhere in the world, and claim it and defend it all on their own, they may do so. But if someone relies on a community to defend their liberty, and their land, they are obligated to strengthen that community. And the decision on how best to strengthen the community is decided at the community level. I cite examples in the diary that amply demonstrate this.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            quotes:

            Like the founding fathers, Ronald Reagan supported the right of states to exercise wide discretion with respect to how they govern themselves. As Reagan explained, “The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.” (October 26, 1987)

            200 years earlier, James Madison explained the same concept,

          • acat

            Which is great, except that Mitt isn’t running for re-election as Governor, and that Mitt’s architecture was copied by the current President.

            Again, most voters last exposure to the difference between states and federal powers was a high school civics course… even if I accept the explanation, do you think Mitt can get them to understand it when Obama uses Romneycare to spike any objection to Obamacare?

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Concerning the title of your post, I don’t know why you think that was a smear. Did Rick Perry not call it a ponzi scheme, and did he not imply it was unconstitutional and should be turned back to the states?

            It’s fair to say Romney attacked Perry over it, but that doesn’t mean it was a smear. Perry, on the other hand, has smeared Romney repeatedly. We can discuss those smears if you’d like.

            As for the body of your comment, you cite this quote:

          • acat

            Specifically, there’s precious little daylight between Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” and Romney’s “is run like a criminal enterprise” … which Mitt seems to have backed away from.

            For Mitt to have put this in print – and then bash Perry for saying a very similar thing – is, if not a smear, certainly giving off a whif of something unpleasant.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Totally different to attack Congress for hurting something than to attack the thing itself. Romney was defending Social Security in his statement. You have to be careful, because people love to take Romney out of context.

            First, it was Perry, not Romney, who used the phrase “criminal enterprise.” Perry used those words instead of quoting from Romney in context.

            What Romney actually said:

            “To put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded out of their social security. In 1982, the government raised social security taxes with the intention of creating a surplus that could be set aside in some fashion for the baby boomers when they retired. But for the last thirty years, the surplus has been spent, not on retirement security, but on regular budget items.

            “Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for it’s own purposes so that when the grandchildren turned 18, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.” (HC, p. 157-58)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Those types of distortions are common against Romney. Many good people dislike Romney because they’ve been lied to by smear artists.

          • acat

            the people who get in early are paid by the money taken from the people who get in later?

            Social Security is, if not a Ponzi scheme, then certainly a multi-level marketing one. To my mind, Romney is running the wrong way on this. I do hope he realizes the third rail can be turned off (because Obama threatened to withhold checks earlier this year, eh?) …

            The fact is, Social Security has been a criminal enterprise, not from 1982 when Romney woke up and smelled the coffee, but since the 1960s when the “trust fund” was emptied into the general fund.

            The money’s gone. The only way to fulfill our obligation is some combination of higher taxes and means testing. Everyone approaching retirement age realizes this. Many who are 65 now remember Pete DuPont saying something about privatizing 20+ years ago, or Bush saying something about it less than a decade back. And yet, nothing has changed.

            Perry is right to call this out. Romney sure looks like he’s backing away from a fight that, as conservatives, we must win. That’s not encouraging, Ryan.

            Mew

          • Michael Dugas

            as far as Romney goes it shows a lack of political savvy at the very least, that he would allow HIS advisers to be used in such a way. To me it shows a measure of support for Obama’s healthcare monstrosity. Also quite a few of those who signed up for RomneyCare ended up being covered under Medicaid which is no different than showing up at the ER and leaving the bill for the tax payers to deal with. It’s the same damn thing.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            First, there’s a misconception that needs to be addressed about his advisers. They were people in the private sector who Romney paid to offer advice for a short period. But they were not his employees. Obama chose to pay these same people for advice, but that has nothing to do with Romney.

            Second, Romney’s plan was for everyone to pay as much as they could afford for their health insurance, and if necessary Medicaid would make up the difference. The new governor changed that, so some people get covered 100% by Medicaid.

            As I have said to others here, the plan would be better if Romney’s vetoes had not be overridden and if changes had not been made after he left.

        • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

          Conservativemusician,

          I get the distinct impression you did not actually read the diary. Your concerns are addressed there. If you believe my analysis is flawed, please explain why.

          The President of the United States can meet with anyone. The fact he chose to meet with “advisers,” rather than meeting with Romney himself, points to his focus on political underpinnings. This is reinforced by the fact that Obama immediately started trying credit Mitt with Obamacare – but only after it was passed. Obama clearly wanted that association, and understood that calling in people who had advised Romney would help solidify that association. Unless you believe Obama is above opportunism?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But if you would actually read the diary, you might come closer to understanding it.

            You didn’t answer the question about Samuel Adams, so I suspect you skimmed the diary and came across the quote from the MA Constitution. The clause I cited establishes the expectation that the state government can legitimately require residents to give in whatever fashion the elected representatives decide. Therefore, it does not infringe on the liberty of any resident. Such action on the state’s part is inherent in the compact, as illustrated in the example I gave.

          • westcoastpatriette

            pretty weak argument. How about you answering the fact that liberals are the ones who push the nanny state on all of us and that that is not a conservative position? I guess it takes a chameleon to know and understand one. You are very good at twisting facts and arguments around to justify your viewpoint but, for the most part, they are very weak arguments that most conservatives will not buy.

          • conservativemusician

            Also, great response to Ryan Larsen upthread as well.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            hint: suggestion to read the diary was not an argument

          • conservativemusician

            then you said in your long, meandering diary, so in that sense, yes, it doesn’t take much to impress me.

            Like westcoastpatriette responded to you, I have already made substantive responses to Craigpennsylvania earlier on this thread, so no further comment from me is necessary as my position is very clear on Romneycare. Also, your tactic of deflecting criticism by telling your detractors to read your diary isn’t going to work on me either.

            You are justifying the destructive liberal policies of a liberal politician (Romney) in this diary, so I will remind you that this is a conservative site and we support and defend conservatism and conservative policies and the politicians who espouse them. To many of us here, Rommey does not meet the basic standards of a conservative politician, so I suggest you remember this the next time you feel the urge to post sarcastic comments to those who don’t buy into the Romney spin you are peddling.

          • westcoastpatriette

            That was a refreshing defense to hear from a true fellow conservative. It was a frustrating encounter–almost twilight zone like at times. And I know I am not just some dumb broad unable to decipher Larsen’s diary. Made my day end a little brighter.

          • conservativemusician

            Have a good night.

            Regards, conservativemusician

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I’ll be here.

            “I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            One question, Did Romney realise that the mandate should have been a deal breaker before or after he justified his signature under the heated belabored breathing of a salivating and likely liquored aroma imposing Teddy Kennedy?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            even with all the problems. But thanks for the visual. ;)

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            You stated:

            More importantly, in the paperback version, Romney says if he could go back he would provide

          • aesthete

            “Well said. Wasn’t that well said, Zoe?”

            “Had a kind of poetry to it, sir.”

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            by being loaded. ;)

            It shouldn’t be a “deal breaker” for anyone, but to answer your question Romney wrote that in his paperback. Which you quoted me telling you in the diary. That’s when he said it, I don’t know if he said it before that.

            “It shows a high degree of ineptitude to assume that future legislative bodies wouldn

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            You’re seriously going to tell me that Romney is defending his actions because the legislature was going to legislate?

            Better yet, you’re going to ignore:

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Hello there.

            I’m sorry you think I’m ignoring you. I’ve been busy, unfortunately. But thank you for participating in the thread.

            You said, “You

          • acat

            Please get new material. Hint. You can get Rush’s stack of stuff online for a few measly dollars.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            And that’s what I’m addressing in the diary. Rush didn’t express concern about the mandate back then. Now we’re supposed to fault Romney for not seeing something then that no one else saw either. A couple rival campaigns even raised the issue but couldn’t get traction among the conservative talk shows. And that was 2007, when the field wasn’t narrowed to just McCain, Romney and Huckabee.

          • acat

            Seriously.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But useful when people waste time raising issues I’ve already addressed rather than responding to what I wrote. If you’d like to do better next time, I suggest taking your time and thinking about what you’d like to say. I can wait. I’m a very patient guy.

          • westcoastpatriette

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            make a substantive response, but if you’d like to do so I’ll be here.

          • westcoastpatriette

            as did kestrel and aesthete and you are ignoring all of them and pretending we are stupid and incompetent. At this point, any further discussion with you I would consider a waste of my valuable time.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But if you’ve written a substantive response to my diary, I’m sure I’ll get to it.
            Of course, if your response again consists of calling my arguments “weak,” without addressing them, I’ll wait as long as you need to collect your thoughts.

          • Michael Dugas

            And that’s what they are opinions. Because Mitt Romneys past ACTIONS don’t mesh with what he is saying today.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “Mitt Romneys past ACTIONS don

          • gekster

            Here is the website Ryan doesn’t want you to see.

            http://www.romneyexposed.com/

          • kestrel

            “The clause I cited establishes the expectation that the state government can legitimately require residents to give in whatever fashion the elected representatives decide.”

            If it is true, then the state government has the ability to abolish private property if they so decide. Would you argue that this is so?

            We have to interpret parts of the constitution, whether state or federal, in the context of the whole. If there appears to be a contradiction (as with those who claim that providing for the general welfare allows government to mandate that we eat broccoli), then we are probably misinterpreting something.

            About the 1793 Act you mention, Samuel Adams was likely codifying the existing belief and preference of the majority of the community. The idea of caring for your own relatives was a Biblical principle well known and adhered to at that time. I don’t think it’s a good comparison to Romneycare for a variety of reasons. Although I have not read the Sam Adams’ Act, I’m sure it was nothing like instituting a massive, impersonal system of socialized medicine/welfare.

            Thanks for a thoughtful diary.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            kestrel,

            Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

            We do have to interpret a constitution in context. Of course, nothing in the MA constitution invalidates the mandate imposed by Romney’s health care plan.

            But the context in which I raised the MA constitution was with respect to the question of whether Romney should be excused for instituting the mandate. I don’t want to repeat that section of the diary, but I would refer everyone to it, above.

            I brought up Samuel Adams in the same context. What Adams did is actually similar to an insurance mandate: a program requiring residents of each town in the state to create pools of funds to be dispensed for the care of any resident of the town who should happen to fall into pauper status. This is not to be confused with vagrancy. Most residents at the time had some risk of becoming paupers if circumstances beyond their control, such as health, kept them from performing labors for an extended period of time. By contributing their share to Paupercare, residents helped insure against risks to their own future safety, should unfortunate circumstances arise.

            Critics might try to claim that Samuel Adams’ mandate was merely a tax. However, these were not general funds but special pools of money collected and set aside for this purpose, like an insurance plan. The primary difference in structure between Paupercare and Romneycare is that Romney used private insurance, whereas Samuel Adams mandated that public towns function as insurance bodies. Arguably, this makes Romney’s plan more conservative.

            On the issue of broccoli, those who claim that mandates imposed at different levels of government are identical would have to assert that the federal government telling a child to eat broccoli is identical to a parent telling a child to eat broccoli. And where do parents get the legal authority to tell children to eat broccoli? From their respective state – one of many powers reserved to the states. One cannot admit the folly in conflating local and federal mandates yet continue to assert that Romney’s mandate is identical to Obama’s mandate.

            -Ryan

          • aesthete

            but it a) is not necessarily a conservative one, and b) I don’t believe that Romney is a particularly consistent federalist. In fact, it seems to me like Romney only believes in states’ powers when it comes to RomneyCare. I explain my reasoning below:

            a) Federalism is an important, and necessary, part of conservatism, IMO — certainly, conservatives are horribly inconsistent when it comes to its applications (the War on (some) Drugs) comes to mind), but I’d generally say that they’re comfortable with the idea. With that said, it’s *not* a sufficient condition for conservatism. Conservative policies at the state level tend to look very much like what they’re supposed to look like at the federal level: don’t overspend, overtax, and over-regulate, uphold the law, and support traditional values. To go back to your broccoli example, conservatives would not be OK with a candidate requiring broccoli to be eaten everyday — even if he made a perfectly logical and legally appropriate argument for federalism. For similar reasons, conservatives are apprehensive about Romney saying, “it was and is a great idea, but I don’t think we should do it at the federal level”.

            b) Pretty much every other policy that Romney has supported on the campaign trail in ’08 and ’12 completely ignores the Constitutional bounds on the federal government. Is No Child Left Behind Constitutional, or is it an “unconscionable abuse of power”, as Romney characterized ObamaCare? Education sure ain’t covered by the enumerated powers, and thus is a power reserved to the states — so why does Romney support it, and why does he support the DoE? Why does (or did) he support gun control at the state level, when there’s an amendment prohibiting it? Why did he strongly support stem cell funding at the federal level? (He doesn’t now, but that was the result of his public conversion to being a pro-life politician, not federalism.) What in the Constitution allows the federal government to “support” the auto industry with government-backed loan guarantees? How about Social Security? I can keep going — and given that *the only* issue of importance where Romney seems to be a federalist is the one that hurts him among the base, it should be pretty obvious why the base would be mistrustful of Mitt the Federalist.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I haven’t been able to devote as much time to RedState today as I would have liked. I apologize for keeping you waiting – apparently people like quick replies around here :)

            a) It’s not so simple. People do not want the state government mandating that kids eat broccoli, but as a matter of societal preference. States force children to run, do jumping jacks, do push-ups, play basketball, soccer, baseball, etc. for the express purpose of changing their bodies, with or without their consent. This is not merely education. Children are not simply taught how to do these things and given the option whether to do them or not. The state decides this is in their best interest, and if they refuse or even if they fail to perform well, they are penalized. They may not advance in grade and ultimately may be denied a diploma. It isn’t up to the parents, unless they are able to home school or pay for private schooling. Most people want it this way. Even Ronald Reagan actively encouraged it. But if public schools mandated that kids eat broccoli at lunch or be penalized in the same way, Tea Party activists would be upset. But it doesn’t bother them that some kids and some parents think PE wastes time and infringes on liberty. Why? Because those people are in the clear minority (although they might be less of a minority than 50 years ago).

            So let’s apply this standard to MA. The people overwhelmingly wanted the mandate. The legislature overwhelmingly wanted it (I believe only two voted against it). And even today, 3 in 4 want to keep it. Contrast that with Rick Perry’s attempt at mandating young girls receive a vaccination for their own health (as opposed to public health vaccination requirements), where he tried to circumvent the legislature entirely, as I understand it. He justified it by saying it was to fight cancer. As it happens, broccoli is widely accepted as a cancer-fighter. Perry’s rationale could apply if he had mandated that the active vitamins etc. from broccoli be injected into young children. So, whose thinking comes closest to the broccoli example?

            b) There’s a difference between the right of federal government to hand out money (which it does even to foreign nations) and the alleged right of federal government to mandate that people spend money between themselves.

            No child left behind received 87 yea votes in the Senate, including Rick Santorum and Fred Thompson. Thompson later said he regretted his vote because “it’s not working,” but I don’t believe he made a federalism case.

            I don’t think the Constitutional question is education. NCLB is about the right of the federal government to grant money to states. If the states want the money, they have to do what the federal government says. An interesting parallel might be federal student grants. Are these unconstitutional? If you are low-income, the government will give you money if you go to school. But if you don’t go to school, you get no money.

            The Constitution says nothing about space exploration, but conservatives – including Reagan – love(d) NASA, even when it had nothing to do with national defense, like the Hubble telescope.

            So I don’t think NCLB is necessarily unconstitutional from a conservative standpoint. And although Romney has said the DOE has “a role to play,” I don’t think that’s any type of endorsement of their policies. He might echo the words of Reagan: “The national government also has an important, but limited, role to play in the education system.” Romney did offer some praise for aspects of Race to the Top, but then immediately said “but as for me, give that back to the states” (Which Perry edited from his attack ad, just as all of his attack ads are carefully edited to be out of context).

            On gun control, here’s what I wrote at WhyRomney: “Mitt Romney supports the constitutional right to bear arms as intended by the founding fathers. The founding fathers did not intend a right to bear nuclear arms, for example, so we need to thoughtfully draw the line according to their intent. Mitt believes banning weapons of extreme lethality, which are not practical for self-defense, is consistent with the original intent of the second amendment. Critics of Mitt Romney fail to explain where they would draw the line and what principles ostensibly make their own line conservative.” So, where do you draw the line on bearing arms, and how do you reconcile it with the second amendment? I confess, I don’t see the states’ rights angle on that one.

            I’d like to deal with abortion related issues separately, but as far as federal government funding scientific experimentation, I don’t see why that would be controversial. Likewise, I don’t see why the federal government can’t negotiate loans – which are much better than outright subsidies – to keep the United States competitive in key industries which other governments subsidize in their own nations. For instance, in the context of extending a loan guarantee, Reagan said, ” Conservation and renewable energy sources are an important component of this administration’s national energy policy. We support efforts by the private sector to develop alternative energy sources that are economically viable in the Nation’s competitive marketplace.”

            That leaves Social Security. Reagan said, “There is no more important domestic issue on which we have to have a national consensus than social security … I am determined that we put social security back on a sound financial footing and restore the confidence and peace of mind of the American public in its social security system … I believe in the social security system. I believe that it will survive and keep its promise to this generation of beneficiaries and those to come.”

            I believe the taxation aspect of SS is perfectly constitutional under the 16th amendment. It is another tax on income, which we differentiate for convenience. This counts the employer portion as 100% taxed income for the employee. The only remaining question is whether the government can give money to citizens. Considering that it gives money to foreign nations, one would think it should be able to give to its own citizens. It’s also important to remember the Supreme Court has not only upheld SS, but on that basis the fed government has made obligations to the people, which it likely would be permitted (even obligated, under equal protection) to fulfill even in the unlikely event the court overturned its previous rulings.

            - Ryan

          • aesthete

            “People do not want the state government mandating that kids eat broccoli, but as a matter of societal preference.”

            I said nothing about *children*, since the demographic which must deal with the changes imposed by Romney’s law are primarily adults. For the record, I do not like the status quo on states usurping parental autonomy, but that is not relevant to my point one way or another. My point, plainly stated, is that federalism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for qualifying as an American conservative. (The same can be said of “democracy”, though I’m honestly not much of a fan of universal suffrage.) Regarding Rick Perry, he’s not the subject of the OP or my response: nonetheless, I’ll note that he got a lot of well-deserved criticism for what he did vis a vis Gardasil, and that the “pro-life” argument for his actions is lousy.

            Regarding the liberal handing out of monies from the federal government (both meanings of the term “liberal” apply here), you’re just wrong. The Congress is authorized to collect and spend revenues on a limited set of priorities collectively known as the enumerated powers. This set of priorities can be expanded through the amendment process. By no means do any of the examples that I gave, with the dubious exception of stem cell research, qualify as being permitted under the current set of enumerated powers. This is all very basic conservative Constitutional theory on how to interpret the document, and under which the federalism argument exposited by Romney would be applicable. Explain those deviations by tying each instance to a Constitutionally-enumerated or implied power. (BTW, while SS is strictly speaking a tax and redistribution scheme, Medicare is clearly not. Explain Romney the Federalist’s support of the latter.)

            We’ve been around the bend with liberals on gun rights before. Quite frankly, the argument by extremes vis a vis nukes is bunk: whatever your position on nukes being legal for private owners (a pressing issue for Americans today, undoubtedly! :) ), it’s absolutely certain that small arms are categorically and functionally distinct from nuclear or explosive ordinance in general, and in keeping with what the term “arms” would have meant to a person of the period. Considering that field cannons which fired 15-lb shot was Constitutionally-protected, I think that at least an argument could be made for some explosive ordinance, but it’s irrelevant to my point: the Brady Bill (supported by Romney) and MA’s gun control laws (supported by Romney) apply to small arms, not explosive ordinance. Romney’s position is, quite clearly, a violation of the 2nd and of MA’s constitution, which also guarantees the right to bear arms. (BTW, your argument is once more in keeping with what *liberal* members of the SC have argued, and against what conservatives like Thomas, Scalia and Bork have argued for years. That’s fine, but once again, it’s not a conservative position.)

            So, why do I think this is a big deal? Are the other candidate the arch-federalists to Romney’s weak sister act? Not really: most of the other candidates have appalling records when it comes to federalism. The problem, as it were, is that only two candidates have tried justifying major deviations from conservative thought using federalist principles: Romney and Perry. In Perry’s case, there’s a paper trail going back several years indicating a belief in the concept at the expense of some support in the primary and general. His comments on SS and entitlements are that they are un-Constitutional and that the states should be running similar programs, not the federal government. That is a view that is undoubtedly unpopular going into the general. Moreover, he’s said some things about how social conservatism works that have rubbed SoCons the wrong way in the past. Is he perfectly consistent? Heck no: he supported NCLB (and flopped later on), and probably supports the War on Drugs. Still, you can at least say that he has some claim to the principles, given that he’s gone out and said some unpopular things as a result.

            With Romney, I don’t see how his “federalist” views are applied to anything but his weakest issue, or how he has stood up for them in the past at cost to his own political career: it seems to me like campaign pablum designed to prevent Romney from getting beat up too much, to allow him to attack ObamaCare, and to keep him from having to wholly repudiate the centerpiece of his efforts in MA.

          • aesthete

            Regarding your very last paragraph, if SS is indeed a Constitutional tax (as has been stated by FDR’s Supremes and other assorted flunkies), then government doesn’t owe squat to anyone, since any tax on income can be remanded, increased, or otherwise changed without any Constitutional problems. Obligations made are political in nature, not legal.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Then it’s a constitutional tax.

            But I wasn’t so much talking about the government owing anyone, as much as treating people equally. If the government were to set a cut-off date and continue giving benefits to people who are on SS but not to people who follow, I think that violates equal protection. The government can’t just give money to some people and not others who meet the same criteria. The government would have to keep moving the line back further every day, to specifically exclude some but not others.

            I agree however that, strictly speaking, if the SC were to overturn it’s previous rulings, it could tell the federal government to stop completely. I just don’t think that’s likely what the court would say. I think it would be more likely to take a pragmatic approach, even if it ruled SS unconstitutional.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            “I said nothing about *children*”

            You said you were “going back” to my broccoli example, which is about children. In any event, children are just as much citizens and people as adults. We agree children are people, correct? ;)

            You said, “I do not like the status quo on states usurping parental autonomy, but that is not relevant to my point one way or another”

            I think it’s relevant because we’re detemining what is and is not conservative. You’re arguing that conservative state policies and conservative federal policies should look alike – apparently implying that since a federal mandate is not conservative, a state mandate can’t be conservative either. But conservatives view the family as the most fundamental unit of society, and conservative mandates are imposed all the time in a family setting which you would not consider conservative if imposed at the federal or state level. Therefore, it’s not just the specifics of a mandate that make it conservative, but the level at which it is imposed. That was the original point of my broccoli example. Telling someone to eat broccoli is in itself neither conservative nor liberal. The question is who is telling who to eat broccoli. That’s what makes it either conservative or liberal, even though the directive is identical. At the same time, if parents tell children to eat massive amounts of broccoli, or tell them to eat broccoli if they truly hate broccoli, that would not be conservative.

            So it goes back to what you touched on, which is not going “over” – “overspend, overtax, and over-regulate…” The line between conservative and liberal is drawn at prudence. Going out to eat is neither conservative nor liberal. But if you just got your paycheck and you blow it all at the fanciest restaurant in town, treating all your friends, that’s liberal. If instead you budget what you can spend and allow yourself to go to the same restaurant on your spouse’s birthday, that’s conservative.

            So I propose there’s a combination of three things which make a policy conservative. First, the policy must be implemented at the most local level that it can be implemented. Second, the policy must be prudent. Third, only step in if the free market is failing to solve the problem.

            And in liberal terrain, I would add that it is conservative to fight for those three things even if you don’t get them all.

            In Massachusetts, Romney faced a serious health care problem which he did not create and which the free market was not controlling. MA had the highest health care costs in the nation (and yes, it still does). Because of the infrastructure which was already set in place (medicaid, etc) the state was the most local level at which an attempt to solve the problem could be implemented. Romney saw that insurance was effective, and believed that if everyone had private insurance it would streamline and privatize the system as much as it could be and cut costs.

            But not everyone could afford insurance. So the idea was to take money already being spent on people who don’t have insurance and use it to make up the difference so they could have insurance. Not everyone wanted insurance, and Romney essentially said, “that’s fine, but if you choose to not have insurance you’ll need to pay your own way. If you can’t pay your own way, and you refuse to get insurance, then you are by definition a burden on the state and for that you pay a penalty.” The legislature unfortunately would not go along with Romney on letting people pay their own way.

            Is this plan unfair to people who don’t want health care at all? Partly, but the risk of them changing their mind once tragedy befalls them is a liability to the state, which cannot deny costly emergency treatment. That is just a practical reality.

            So I think Romney adhered well to the three things I mentioned. In terms of effectiveness, it’s doing at least as well as the previous system, which indicates it would be doing extremely well if it had not been watered down with imprudent liberal additions by the legislature and new governor. And in terms of the penalty not being entirely fair, Romney realizes that it’s not ideal and would alter it if he could.

            So I think Romney’s actions, in context, were conservative. I’d like to hear if you disagree and why.

            You said, “Regarding the liberal handing out of monies from the federal government (both meanings of the term

          • aesthete

            1: To claim federalism is to embrace a consistent set of beliefs about proper role of state and federal government. This set of beliefs is generally acknowledged to be that the federal government can tax and spend on Constitutional functions, and, post 14th Am, that states cannot violate the limits placed on the federal Constitution vis a vis the Bill of Rights and other amendments. I demonstrated several areas where Romney’s views are inconsistent with this belief system. (BTW, you’re right about stem cell funding, I simply wanted to point out that there was at least a fig leaf that Romney and other supporters of it could use if they were of such a mind — I did use the word “dubious”, did I not? :) ) I don’t see where you showed a difference between Constitutionality of the federal individual mandate to purchase healthcare, and the Constitutionality of Medicare, stem cell research funding at the federal level, et al.

            I also don’t see how a consistent federalist could interpret “Congress shall make no law” (start of the 2nd Am), and “the people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence” (MA constitution) to mean, “Yeah, the laws on MA books, and the Brady Act, are OK with me.” I’ll note that I didn’t ask Romney to make an argument for federalism — he did that of his own volition. I’m just tallying his score on that count. I’ve ragged on Perry to a lesser extent for his lesser deviations from same.

            2: Ronald Reagan was a pretty good conservative President who got the ball rolling and made conservative views both respectable and mainstream in the US. He was *not* Republican Jesus, and given that he was a human (and therefore flawed) politician, was often wrong or engaging in political sophistry. I am not aware of him having to defend an unpopular policy that he supported in CA using his federalist views; you’re comparing two people whose views on federalism do not have the same level of relevance to their policies (explained in the penultimate paragraph of my previous post).

            3: You keep acting as if there’s no difference between children and adults, when philosophically, this is one of the oldest and very first delineations. We could argue about why this is, but that would make an already-long comment even longer, so I’ll just say that there is a difference and that most people would agree with me that there is a difference. (Sloppy argumentation? Sure, but arguing the point more formally would entail a seriously long threadjack.)

            4: While your three criterion are IMO overly broad and could justify just about any “problem”, given that scarcity and therefore un-ideal situations (“problems”) will always exist, I’ll play. I would argue that the decision on whether to purchase health insurance, and what it should cover, should be implemented at the most local level of all: the personal level. Health insurance is a private good supplied by the free market, and decision not to purchase seems to match that of any other market good. Other cost-effective plans which resolved the problems that you described have been implemented, and did so by liberalizing large parts of their healthcare systems at the same time that they implemented other changes to healthcare laws. These systems exist at home and abroad, and did not require an individual mandate. The free market is by no means “failing”; ~80% of people in this country are insured, and most are satisfied with their insurance. Costs have been going up largely as the result of an older population which has been living longer as a result of medical advances — that is by no means a “failure” of the free market, it is a success for those who want to live longer. Prudence is purely a value judgement, and one on which I believe we’ll disagree.

            PS: In the ~2 min I spent looking on Google, I couldn’t find the cite I was looking for vis a vis field pieces. (It was pre-Civil War, I do remember that.) I did, however, find another case in which the Supreme Court acknowledges an uncontested right to cannons for merchant ships and any other civilian vessel — clearly, not a militia or a unit associated with a state or federal government. Take that characterization however you wish: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%LINKURL%%3E&graphurl=%3C%GRAPHURL%%3E&court=US&case=/us/176/535.html

            PPS: The always-fun Constitutionality bonus round. Foreign aid for Israel? Mostly a waste of money, but certainly Constitutional if bound by a treaty. Federal student aid? Unconstitutional at the federal level. NASA? About on par with the Constitutionality of the central bank; it does and has been a direct aid to national defense, and could feasibly be considered an implied power under the charter which allows for a military. However, I believe there would be a stronger federal mandate for space funding if NASA’s functions were rolled into the Air Force and militarized.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You can probably tell that I unfortunately don’t have much time to commit, although I’ll try to check back periodically, but I do want to thank you for engaging me on the actual issues.

            1 – You said, “I don

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            any mandate that is only enforced thru the tax code to the exclusion of fines and penalties that could include jail. Can violations of the RomneyCare mandate be enforced via jail?

            Plus, the sad state of affairs with respect to ObamaCare is that if the mandate were a tax, bad SCOTUS precedent would uphold it like they did to find Soc Sec and Medicare constitutional via the general welfare and taxing clauses.

            What conservatives want to be sure of is that Mitt would neither have an individual mandate nor a new tax.

            I do understand and appreciate the difference at the state level and that the Mass Constitution, like most states’ allow such mandates.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don’t believe anyone risks jail time for failing to purchase insurance in MA. Mitt has of course said if he could do it over again he’d get rid of the penalty (see diary), and thus the mandate. And Romney has always been adamant about no new taxes.

          • Vegas_Rick

            But, no matter how you rationalize his flip flopping, he’s a pandering career politician. I’ll be waiting to see how you spin his statements on AGW.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Which statements in particular has he made on AGW that you disagree with from a factual standpoint?

          • jerry39

            From the US Constitution which holds primacy over the state’s constitutions. And to the full extent of the US Constitution – the state and the federal restraints are identical. A state can choose go beyond the protections afforded by the US Constitution but it cannot choose to forego those protections. If an individual mandate is Cont. in Mass. according to Romney than by definition it must be Constitutional in the U.S.

            I think many people would rather a President who understands that “federalism” is not the only restraint on government mandates. To believe that Mass. allows a mandate is to believe that the US Constitution allows a mandate. The most Federalism does is give states the right to opt out. His logic and your logic are completely flawed on this issue and neither a 1000 page diary or glib responses to everybody who doesn’t agree with you will change that fact.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Would you be willing to cite the part of the U.S. Constitution you believe grants parental rights? Thanks.

          • jerry39

            The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment includes a substantive component protecting against government interference with fundamental rights and liberty interests. To quote the Supreme Court:

            “The interests of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the [U.S Supreme] Court.”

            Troxel v. Granville 2000, 530 U.S. 57, 68, 120 S. Ct. 54. at 65.

            States have repeatedly been rebuked by the US Constitution for interference with parental rights. The case of a state trying to force Amish kdis into public schools comes to mind. The above cited case deals with do-gooder state laws telling parents they must provide visitation to grandparents.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Thank you for sharing that! My question now is, where did parents affirm their legal authority before the 14th amendment? And why does the 14th amendment do away with the former source?

          • jerry39

            What does pre-14th amendment America (I assume you don’t want to back further, perhaps ancient Rome or Greece for some reason) have to do with the liberty interests of the individual? And the fact that those interests are protected by the US constitution? And the fact that many consider mandates to purchase products to be an affront to Liberty? The 14 th amendment merely applied the same restraints on state governments that the bill of rights applied to the federal government.

            I will saythat The rights are endowed by our creator if that answers your question.

          • onemovoter

            Most people think our rights come from the government. Sorry but no, as that is a constant theme socialists and liberals have.

            I always like to challenge people to read the bill of rights, and then to name the overall theme in the way those were written.

            Each and every one that names a right, says that the government cannot bridge that right. At no point does it say that the government can do something unless due process of the law is done. Until then the rights of the people are maintained.

            This means we have our God given rights to live the way we choose.

            Having the federal and state government do something for us other than keep the peace and other basic functions is unconstitutional and should be done away with.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “This means we have our God given rights to live the way we choose. Having the federal and state government do something for us other than keep the peace and other basic functions is unconstitutional and should be done away with.”

            Do you believe John Hancock met your standard? Hancock was President of the Continental Congress when the Declaration of Independence was written and signed (which is why he was the first to sign). He was also the first governor of Massachusetts. Did John Hancock’s “Act for encouraging the killing of wolves” (1782 etc.) in MA count as keeping the peace? (for every head of a full grown wolf, the sum of fifty dollars was ordered to be paid to private citizens out of town treasury funds). If so, then does the fighting of viruses and bacteria also count as keeping the peace?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            It’s relevant because the extreme mandates imposed on some citizens (children) were applied by the states and are not considered an encroachment on liberty. So it’s rather difficult to claim that Romney’s substantially less intrusive state mandate is unconstitutional.

          • jerry39

            And you must recognize how silly it is to keep comparing children to adults to make some obscure point. Any minute I fear you will explain that the founders had slaves, and Romneycare is better than slavery.

          • acat

            Neither group has the vote…perhaps that’s the key factor?

            No choice on health care without representation?

            Mew

          • gekster

            I’ll take just one issue with your points.

            from:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Governor_of_Massachusetts

            Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[81][90] Romney increased a special gasoline retailer fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[81][90] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[90]) Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[81][93] These initial loophole actions, fueled by Romney’s sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases, won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage.[93]

            The state legislature, with Romney’s support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[94] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.[81][90] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all of them were overridden by the Democratic-dominated legislature.[95]

            The cuts in state spending put added pressure on local property taxes; the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 percent to 53 percent.[81][90] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship but still was below the national average.[81] According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent).

            Please explain this to me, as it is his record.
            And what will he do diferent as President.

          • gekster

            ….

          • onemovoter

            in another state other than Mass. I hear California is in desperate need of another tax raising republican, oh wait they have a democrat governor for that now.

            The way I see it at least Romney did push for budget cuts. That is a good thing. However, the tax increases were the reason why Mass. had only a 1% growth for the 4 years Romney was there. The economy from 2003 to 2007 was the best years of the economic boom, especially in property values. The surrounding states to Mass. had 4% growth during the same period.

            The tax increases obvious had a dampening effect and reduced the revenues that they could have had. Cutting spending and raising taxes is what Europe is doing and is causing problems.

            I do see the GOP picking up the senate and keeping the house. We should have someone who’s worked with GOP legislature for a decade.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You and I took the fee issue to a different thread, but in case you didn’t notice my responses there, I want to post them here as well.

            I will post them as responses to this comment

            I hope things are going well for you :)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said,

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Another poster raised some concerns in that other thread and this is my response to those. Hopefully you will find this information useful.

            You said,

          • jerry39

            It doesnt make Ryans argument more relevant. Children do not have certain rights because they are children, and it is folly to pretend they can be compared to Adults on that issue. As would be bringing up slavery because we all agree that was abhorrent and so it can’t justify anything.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You’re bordering on tautology, Jerry. You’ll need a better Constitutional justification than “children don’t have rights because they’re children.” I do appreciate this discussion though.

            The point I’m making is that the Original Intent of the Founders is the lens through which we should view liberty as afforded in the U.S. Constitution. And the example I cite regarding children illustrates that liberty is not a universal absolute free-for-all. You would have to strain at a gnat yet swallow an acat to say that children are subject to extreme mandates yet adults are not subject to any mandates under the vision of the Founders. Rather, the attitude of the Founders was that everyone was obligated to help strengthen the community. If someone wants to discover a piece of land somewhere in the world, and claim it and defend it all on their own, they may do so. But if someone relies on a community to defend their liberty, and their land, they are obligated to strengthen that community. And the decision on how best to strengthen the community is decided at the community level.

            In contrast, slavery was forced on the colonies by Britain. It did not reflect the Founders’ “intent.” Michelle Bachmann is not my first pick, but she was right about slavery and the founding fathers. They used the commerce clause to prohibit states from engaging in the international slave trade. In addition, the Founders persuaded most of the original states to end slavery outright. The Founders led the rest of the world in changing slavery, and Abraham Lincoln stood on their shoulders. I hope you aren’t comparing slavery to Romney’s mandate.

          • acat

            originates at least as far back as Jewish law. See also the Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah.

            That this fact was later adopted by other cultures is really not a surprise.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Goes back to Adam. But that doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.

            Thanks for the video though, I like Kelsey “Klingon” Grammar. And he’s conservative :)

          • phillarsen

            Romney’s positions have been mischaracterized many times and his “support” for NCLB is one of them.

            I’ve actually read his book and followed Romney on this. His position is that the federal government can supply a national standard, but it’s 100% up to the states to meet that standard for testing. I’ve looked and looked, and as far as I can tell, Romney does not now, nor ever support any kind of punitive measures for states that don’t meet these standards. He wants more power returned to the states.

          • aesthete

            The MA health bill supported and passed by Romney cannot be construed to be an extension of the principle behind the article that you cite. Any reasonable reading of that article and its intent would surmise that it authorized collecting revenues for the purposes of police or other forms of law enforcement suitable to protect the Lockean rights of “life, liberty and property”. Under no reasonable reading would this right include a bill requiring that people purchase insurance intended for the purchaser’s own well-being at the expense of the purchaser’s liberty and property.

            Similarly, Samuel Adams is not the end-all, be-all of all Constitutional thought — after all, even the founders (starting with John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts) violated the federal Constitution, so why would this not be the case with state constitutions, as well? More importantly, Sam Adams did not justify his bill using the article of the MA constitution that you cite, and did not encroach nearly as much on liberty with his bill as Romney did with his.

          • westcoastpatriette

            LOL

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “The MA health bill supported and passed by Romney cannot be construed to be an extension of the principle behind the article that you cite.”

            Some people here have criticized me for asking them to read the diary to which they are responding. For the record, I don’t think my request was unreasonable. After all, I came here hoping for constructive discussion, not a recitation of vaguely related talking points. So I thank you for providing good discussion. But I ask you to read more of the original MA Constitution before drawing conclusions about the meaning of the article I cited.

            “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.”

            [There we see the words "protection" and "safety" in a clearly general context and associated with prosperity and happiness, not specifically referring to police protection. Moreover, the clause iterates in the strongest of terms the right of the people to have their government do whatever they want it to do]

            “The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.”

            [Again, the common good is stressed, and not specifically police protection]

            “The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.”

            [Not just safety. But prosperity and happiness.]

            “The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”

            You said, “Any reasonable reading of that article and its intent would surmise that it authorized collecting revenues for the purposes of police or other forms of law enforcement suitable to protect the Lockean rights of ‘life, liberty and property’”

            Either way, Romneycare is constitutional, and by living in MA, residents consent to be subject to such experiments.

            You said, “Under no reasonable reading would this right include a bill requiring that people purchase insurance intended for the purchaser

          • aesthete

            of any politician to the right of Joseph Stalin, including any and all current members of the Democrat party: you’re essentially saying that the social contract justifies any behavior on the part of a state that is condoned by an elected official. Conservatism is about a little bit more than letting the people have what they want, and letting them have it hard (to paraphrase HL Mencken). For that matter, so’s the MA Constitution. What you’re quoting above is the preamble (i.e., an aspirational statement which has no legal bearing), and which largely mirrors the preamble of the US and other state constitutions. You also cite an article which is satisfied later on by the amendment process for the MA constitution. Quoted for effect:

            “If, at any time hereafter, any specific and particular amendment or amendments to the constitution be proposed in the general court, and agreed to by a majority of the senators and two thirds of the members of the house of representatives present and voting thereon, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on the journals of the two houses, with the yeas and nays taken thereon[...]”

            So, was the MA health bill codified into MA’s constitution? If not, then it’s a clear violation of the protocol that revisions to MA’s government must follow. I remember a certain MA governor being outraged at a certain Dem President’s lack of adherence to his own Constitution…

            Lastly, regarding your point that no one is perfect, what you fail to understand is that most Romney critics understand that already. Every candidate has flaws — most Perry, Romney, Cain, etc supporter understand this, and those who don’t can be ignored. Your hand-waving is very unhelpful, however, because you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to find Romney’s imperfections problematic, especially when they are measured up against a lackluster record in general. (Again, I must point out that every pol’s supporters on the right and left can use the same argument vis a vis perfection, making it a rather trivial argument when you’re stumping for a particular candidate.)

            To conclude, I am perturbed by the view embodied in this statement: “The same state that recognizes a child as subject to a parent, still holds all that authority when the child grows up. The only difference is that it no longer delegates to the parent, legally.” I don’t know about you, but I do not acknowledge myself as a mere ward of the state, and when I am a parent, I refuse to see my children as wards of the state entrusted to me out of convenience. Many of the views that you espouse seem like they would fit into either European conservative movements, or American leftist thought on social contract, better than modern American conservatism. Perhaps your arguments for Romney would be more convincing if you attempted to persuade us when it comes to the merit of these heterodox (for conservatives, anyways) positions.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “you

          • aesthete

            Well, I tried, but you’re either not understanding my points above or willfully distorting them.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Let’s look at the first one:

          • Shaggy_DA

            “Essentially, states grant parents nearly complete control over the lives of their children in regulating and mandating practices which society finds tolerable.

            This literally constitutes a state mandate that one person must conform to the subjective will of another. We whole-heartedly embrace this mandate power exercised by states, because we believe it defers to the natural order of family as fundamental and therefore serves a greater good.

            But it is not liberty.”

            States do not mandate that children be subjected to the will of their parents. Conversely, States are absolutely prohibited from interfering with the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit, with exceptions for when the actions of the parents place the child at risk of injury or death.

            This gross mischaracterization of liberty on your part causes me to question your interpretation of the Mass Constitution with respect to what permissible mandates are encompassed by that Constitution.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            The legality of adoption relies on the state’s earthly authority to award one person nearly complete control over the life of another person.

            I can understand why that would make you feel uncomfortable. But if the state can do that, it can certainly help people purchase insurance and cause those who refuse to pay a penalty.

          • aesthete

            “If the state can [award one person nearly complete control over the life of another person]“, then they can do anything they want? Well… I guess in the sense that they have the M1 Abrams tank and I don’t, you be right — but there’s a categorical difference between children and adults that you just don’t seem to understand. Almost anything that the state did to anyone would be justifiable under your rubric — including actual communism, as far as I can tell (and before you start yelling “smear”, no, I don’t think that RomneyCare qualifies as “actual communism”).

          • damianvincent

            No matter how hard you guys try to divorce mitt romney from obamacare, it’s just isn’t going to fly, especially now that we know, Obama’s people met with Romney’s people to draft it. With Romney we lose Obamacare as an issue, it just lacks credibility.
            Now what about this stuff?

            Romney saying he’s pro choice, even defending how minors can get abortions without parental consent.

            Here is Romney defending Mass. tough gun control laws

            MITT ROMNEY: “But my view is that those 12 million who have come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here…”

            You just have to watch this to believe it, here you see Romney run to the left of Ted Kennedy, even calling for gay scoutmasters in the boy scouts.

          • phillarsen

            Romney freely admitted that he was wrong on abortion and that is the one position that he changed on. Even still, he kept his promise not to change the laws in Massachusetts by vetoing every piece of pro-choice legislation that came across his desk. Romney came down on the side of life every time as governor.

            Gun control… Romney has always been consistent. He still supports limits on assault weapons. Agree with him or not, there is no change in his position whatsoever.

            Immigration…If you watch the whole clip on MTP, Romney clarifies his position well. Again, no change in his actual position.

            Also – look at how he governed on the issue: he vetoed in-state tuition, fought for English immersion, deputized State Troopers to enforce immigration laws. He was endorsed by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Tom Tancredo. Enough said!

            The flip-flop claims come from you tube quotes taken out of context. If you look at them in context, there is no contradiction.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Will address abortion.

            For now, let me just say that your claims regarding the videos are false:

            You said, “Romney saying he

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            States can do good things, states can do bad things. There

          • Shaggy_DA

            is not a winning tactic…

            I called you on your assertion that parent’s rights are somehow a grant from the State. You respond with the fact that States have procedures in place for adoption as support for the State’s authority to mandate that people do something. And what is with this new language that the State “can certainly help people purchase insurance”? When you tack on a penalty for not buying you are “forcing” them to do so, not offering them a kindly assist…

            I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that adoption makes me uncomfortable, that is pretty silly on your part. The legal adoption process is a way of formally recognizing that an individual or couple have committed to taking on parental responsibilities for a child who was not naturally born to them. Under your premise, the State could mandate that a couple take on that responsibility whether they wanted to or not. Again, you miss the concept that rights reside within the citizens, wholly and completely. Certain of those rights may be limited in a manner chosen by those citizens via a constitution and an elected legislature. Those rights exist without a grant from the State. Government, on the other hand, has no rights except that which is granted to it from the citizenry in whichever manner of government they choose.

            Now it may be that a state’s citizens will approve legislation or a constitution which permits the government to mandate all sorts of conditions and requirements on those citizens. What they can not do is pretend that inalienable rights are the result of those mandates. That’s the language you used above which I quoted and called you on. If you are basing a very broad authority to issue mandates from the Mass Constitution based on a premise that that Constitution grants parental rights (and therefore the legislature can mandate pretty much anything it wants) then you are flat wrong.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You said, “I called you on your assertion that parent

          • barleycorn

            “The clause I cited establishes the expectation that the state government can legitimately require residents to give in whatever fashion the elected representatives decide. Therefore, it does not infringe on the liberty of any resident.”

            Wow.

            That’s a mouthful.

            As far as I’m concerned you just gave the game away. Sometimes its a real smart thing to shut up while you’re behind.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You managed to compose a 100% content-free response. Why not join in the actual discussion?

          • barleycorn

            I don’t know you sir, so what follows is strictly my impression based on your diary entry and then your responses to the various comments.

            Your diary was very good. You made a quite compelling and vigorous case for Mitt Romney. Your arguments were very reasonable on first reading and I think you advanced the Romney cause through a mixture of correcting misunderstood facets of Mitt’s career and through the time honored methods of obfuscation and “Hey, look a yellow spotted elephant.”

            Your presentation started falling apart when you had to start ad-libbing and defending on the fly. Your response to me is a nice example. Rather than respond to my comment you pretended that I had substantively not made one.

            I’ll spell it out a bit more to see what color elephant you point to next.

            Your statement:

          • jerry39

            Should just give this one up and admit Romneycare was a mistake. It sounds so much scarier when you try to defend it in this way. “federalism” as a defense works better in the 30 second debate format (ie fools more people) but it obviously can’t sustain critical scrutiny in this forum. You should know when your worldview is “the states delegate parental authority to parents” that your not helping Mitt’s cause. Let alone citing adoption as some exemple of absolute state power.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I’m sorry I didn’t get to it sooner. I just noticed it, as I today have time to sit down and read over various comments in this thread.

            You said, “To suggest that anything a government does, so long as it is

        • kestrel

          Concerning the raw data that supposedly shows cost increases slowing under RomneyCare, you fail to mention that Gov. Patrick had essentially frozen healthcare premiums by fiat for 2009, in an attempt to slow the rising costs. This caused three of the four major health insurance companies in the state to operate at a loss in 2009, which obviously can’t be sustained. (Now the state government is imposing artificial constraints on services, which will lead to rationing care, if it hasn’t already.)

          Whether Gov. Patrick’s fiat allowed the companies a lower increase in premiums than they needed, or no increase at all, I don’t know, but if it allowed none, for example, then you are comparing three years’ rise (2003-2006) with only two years’ rise (2006-2008), while claiming to use two comparable periods of time. At any rate, you don’t mention that there was an artificial (and unsustainable) constraint on the rise of premiums in one third of the post-Romneycare period. This is relevant to the data you cite from Tables 12 and 13.
          http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/lets-look-romneycare#ixzz1Y3MEbkg2

          The state government has repeatedly imposed artificial cost restraints because under Romneycare, costs are exploding:
          “Last year (2010) Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill wrote that Romneycare ‘was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion.’”

          Even if you include both 2006 and 2010 in the calculation ($88M X 5), Romneycare was projected to cost taxpayers $440M in a five-year period. The reality is 10X this (and probably the $4B is only over four years).

          We are getting our RomneyCare workout today, aren’t we? :)

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I haven’t had a chance to look into this yet, but I want you to know I haven’t forgotten.

            I suspect it won’t make much difference. As you know, MA was facing a health care problem to begin with, before Romneycare. As you also know, health care costs are shooting up across the board, and our nation is in a financial crisis.

            https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_sheet.asp

            I don’t buy his claim that Romneycare has costed ten times more than expected. He doesn’t specify what costs he’s referring to. But the federal share of Medicaid spending in MA in 2009 was the eighth lowest in the nation:

            http://marketplace.publicradio.org/maps/america/medicaid/

        • californiagold

          Maybe you’ve answered this question before, so pardon me if I’m being repetitive.

          President Obama claims that RomneyCare was used as a blueprint when creating Obamacare. Apparently Mitt Romney disputes that claim. Yet, one of Obama’s healthcare advisors also advised Romney on health care. His name is Jonathan Gruber, and he is a liberal democrat who teaches at MIT. Mr. Gruber is on record stating that he did advise Romney and Obama, and yes, RomneyCare was used as a blueprint for ObamaCare.

          Here is the link where he states that…

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/12/romney_healthcare_adviser_obamacare_based_off_romneycare.html

          My question to you is this, why did Mitt Romney seek the guidance of a liberal professor when drafting Romneycare ? And why does Romney now seem to be distancing himself from Gruber ? Afterall, if RomneyCare was so good for Massachusetts, one would think Romney would be thanking Gruber…and Ted Kennedy too.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Here’s how I responded when someone else made a similar point:

          • californiagold

            You defend the indefensible by suggesting that there aren’t enough republicans in Massachusetts ? Didn’t Romney have free long distance on his cell phone ? Tell you the truth Ryan, I’m somewhat disappointed in your reply. You can do better….

            The fact is, Mitt Romney praised a liberal democrat for helping him create Romneycare – the same democrat who helped Obama create ObamaCare. And on the day Romney signed the plan into law, he praised his good friend Ted Kennedy for being a key collaborator in getting RomneyCare passed. How special….

            You can spin this thing all you want, but here on Redstate it’s not selling.

          • sethellis

            It’s a sad day when we say that we can’t seek help from the opposition to craft legislation.

          • acat

            We should work with everyone TO ADVANCE CONSERVATISM.

            If you don’t stand for somethin’, you’re gonna fall for anythin’.
            – Mellencamp

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            If Romney had looked around MA for someone to appoint as a criminal judge, and ended up finding and appointing RedState’s own Mike gamecock Divine, to sit over cases such as theft and violent crime, would Romney have betrayed conservatism just because Mike was a Democrat at the time? Or, is it possible Romney was right when he said there are good people on both sides of the aisle?

            That’s one of the things people fault Mitt for – appointing Democrats with strong records of being tough on crime and prosecutorial experience. Of course, when Mitt appointed higher judges the criteria he looked for changed to include looking at strict construction and judicial philosophy.

            In the end, only 12% of voters in MA are Republican, but 25% of his appointments were Republican. So Republicans were over-represented by double.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don’t know what type of lawyer Mike is, but the hypothetical still stands :)

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      Glad to be welcomed.

      1 – Mitt laid out his plan in May. The diary links to a video, but you may have missed it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvPENzBO8Hs&feature=youtu.be&t=5m15s

      2 – His national plan says nothing about pre-existing conditions. He wants to empower the states. I believe in MA he stands by it, although he doesn’t think insurance companies should be required to provide the services mandated by the legislature.

      3 – As I understand his plan, yes.

      4 – Honey, yes. But there’s a place for vinegar, when disinfecting. But the burden of proof depends on who is making a claim.. People can’t make any claim they want about Romneycare and then demand he prove it isn’t so.

      As I told Conservativemusician below: “The President of the United States can meet with anyone. The fact he chose to meet with

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        You defend Mitt well.

        • Michael Dugas

          “The fact he chose to meet with

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            was even well known. Let alone Obamacare.

            Romney was advised by the Heritage Foundation, which helped craft his plan. So why didn’t Obama choose to meet with them? Because he wasn’t interested in actually crafting it the same way as MA. He was interested in leveraging the narrative.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I would put him just under Reagan and Rush in influencing my conservative epiphany. He’s a great asset for Mitt.

    • californiagold

      Hugh would be the first to admit that he is a neoconservative who believes that the federal government has an important role to play in domestic policy. And Hugh has been a big supporter of the neoconservative interventionist foreign policy which mirrors Woodrow Wilson’s. Hugh also has supported amnesty for illegals, no child left behind, prescription drug entitlements, and just about every other big government program created by the establishment wing of the party.

      It doesn’t end there, Hugh has stated many times that he dislikes populism in politics, ie, like the campaign Herman Cain is running. That explains why Hugh has been pushing Mitt Romney for the past five years.

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      is great! I agree. The picture scrolls if you wait long enough. It goes through a number of people.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/10/14/2253/

        enjoy

        • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

          I’ll go check it out right now

  • ssshannon1026

    Romney is at best a moderate conservative, and that would be the worst thing that could happen to the conservative movement. Even if we conservatives were able to win both houses of congress, he would pull them leftward as president. Obama remaining in office with a strongly conservatvie congress would be impotent, but would still tend to push them rightward.

    You don’t fight extremism with moderation. We should give the moderate center a clear choice between true conservatism and socialism. If they chose the latter, so be it, but we keep pushing conservatism until they have had their fill of socialism. If we allow ourselves to be pulled leftward, there will be no conservatism remaining, merely somewhat watered down socialism.

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      people have against Romney, I can understand why you think that. But there’s a lot of false information out there. The deeper you delve, the most conservative you’ll find he is.

  • acat

    First, I hope the Romney campaign is paying you well. You’re trying to do yeomans’ work, making Waffles look good to Red State.

    Second, I hope you realize it’s not going to work out. It’s not you, it’s not me, it’s Romney. He’s not sufficiently conservative, and is coming off as downright dishonest.

    Third, I’ll encourage friends and family to vote for him in the general if he wins the primary, but .. I’m really hoping I don’t need these again:

    noseplugs

    Mew

    • onemovoter

      The linkage: http://whynotromney.blogspot.com/

      The person running the site hasn’t posted anything since July, but I think that is just more that they ran out of topics that haven’t been covered before on their site.

      It’s enjoyable reading and viewing of actual footage of Romney. Also documented extremely well too.

      I’m actually contemplating on putting a video montage of a debate between Mitt and Mitt. I know it would be hilarious.

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      that could make waffles sound good. You’ll need to pull out, cause Mitt might be that nominee :)

      I intend to address everything people don’t like about him, or think they don’t like about him, or think they know about him that they don’t like.

      Can a cat get called to jury duty?

      • acat

        that I’m practicing my pro-Mitt lines…

        I’m hoping to not need them.

        Mew

  • phillarsen

    Rather than looking at old video clips that are taken out of context (sometimes ridiculously so), look at Romney’s actual record as governor:

    PRO LIFE
    Romney vetoed every single piece of pro-choice legislation that came across his desk as governor. He fought against stem cell cloning in the state. At the end of his term, he received a medal from the Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

    PRO FAMILY
    Romney supported traditional marriage and actively fought against gay marriage in the state. He used up a lot of political capital doing so: in less than two weeks, his approval rating went from 66% to 45% after he came out against the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. He fought hard to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage.

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
    Romney vetoed in state tuition for illegal immigrants, fought for English immersion and deputized State Troopers to enforce immigration laws.

    ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
    Romney pulled Massachusetts out of the the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative because it would charge excessive penalties that would be damaging to businesses. He also eliminated the Metropolitan District Commission, an unnecessary environmental agency.

    GOVERNMENT CUTS
    Overall, the number of state employees decreased under Romney’s term. He consolidated agencies and cut hundreds of millions of dollars in spending.

    FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
    Romney came into a huge financial crisis with a $3 billion deficit. He cut spending dramatically and balanced the budget all 4 years as governor. He also put over a billion dollars in the states’ rainy day fund.

    Here are some quote from people who actually watched Romney up close and saw how hard he fought for conservative values in Massachusetts:

    SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE CAUSES

    “Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is possibly the most inhospitable terrain in the country…a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.” – John J. Miller, National Review Online

    “Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.” -James Bopp, Jr., Conservative Attorney – Club for Growth

    “On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor.” – Kris Mineau, of the Massachusetts Family Institute

    “In the worst possible circumstances, he confronted one of the toughest issues of our politics with considerable moral seriousness and political skill, that’s the mark of a conservative statesman.” – Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation

    “No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney … I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.” – Robert Bork, Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court

    Those who actually paid attention to how Romney governed (not just looking at cherry-picked YouTube quotes taken out of context), know that Romney governed as a conservative in the most liberal state in the country.

    • wilgolden

      and RomneyCare is actually the least of my concerns with him as a candidate. A STATE mandating the purchase of health care, is at least, arguably legal. As a NATIONAL policy, it is unconstitutional on the face of it.

      My disqualifying concerns are:
      1) He is a gun grabber, supporting the Assault Weapons ban; now he claims to be a hunter, and pro-Second Ammendment.

      2) He was pro-Gay Marriage in Taxachusetts. Now he expects us to believe he has a deep heartfelt commitment to traditional marriage.

      3) He was pro-abortion before he was pro-life; he and his wife both donated to Planned Parenthood.

      All of the above were positions he held when he was running against Ted Kennedy for the senate seat. And when he was running for Governor.

      he is a flip floper, and WILL NOT get my vote, under any circumstances. Not for the primaries. Not for the General.

      I’m sorry, but choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

      • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

        Thank you for expressing your concerns. I hope you will keep an open mind and hear the defense before reaching your verdict.

        “1) He is a gun grabber, supporting the Assault Weapons ban; now he claims to be a hunter, and pro-Second Ammendment.”

        Regarding the so-called assault weapons ban he signed in MA, the NRA strongly supported the bill – http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1149.

        Romney has indeed hunted many times, mostly in his youth before focusing on a wife and career. Many misconceptions exist on this issue, and they are all addressed at this website: http://aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm

        “2) He was pro-Gay Marriage in Taxachusetts. Now he expects us to believe he has a deep heartfelt commitment to traditional marriage.”

        He always opposed pro-gay marriage. He has been smeared on this issue. When asked in 1994, Romney said: “I line up with Gov. Weld on that … he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position”. When asked again in 2002 if he supported gay marriage, Romney still answered “no.”

        The term “gay rights” did not mean gay marriage in 1994. His position has not changed. The Republican base has moved to him – essentially, he’s the only one who hasn’t flip-flopped on the issue. For more info, see www.whyromney.com

        “3) He was pro-abortion before he was pro-life; he and his wife both donated to Planned Parenthood.”

        Only Romney’s wife donated to Planned Parenthood, but they had a joint checking account so critics claim Romney himself did it. It isn’t true. Barbara Bush and Laura Bush are both pro-choice. Ronald Reagan converted from pro-choice to pro-life, but his wife Nancy Reagan is currently still pro-choice. As for Ann Romney, I believe she has become pro-life.

        Admittedly, this happened at a campaign stop at a Planned Parenthood fund-raiser. However, it should be noted that the liberal media and Planned Parenthood had pushed hard to create an image of PP as a resource and counseling place for women and scared young girls, not emphasizing abortion. Only those who were familiar with pro-life literature really understood that PP was not interested in helping but actively pushed abortion.

        I will be writing a diary entry on the abortion issue soon, but for now suffice it to say a lot of misconceptions are circling about on this issue. I’d ask you to read “Prolife Principles: why critics are wrong about Mitt Romney.” Here’s the url: http://www.whyromney.com/prolife_conversion.php

        • wilgolden

          1) I was not speaking of the Massachusetts “assault weapon” bill. He supported the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons ban. Publicly. He was touted by Sarah Brady as “a breath of sanity in the Republican Party.” I watched this happen.

          Bt the way, I dropped my Life Membership in the NRA during the ClintOOn administration, due to their propensity to compromise, and the habit of supporting Democrats. I don’t care how pro-gun one individual democrat may be – he will still cast his vote for Grama Nan as the speaker, and will vote as he is told.

          2) He ran for the Senate to the left of The Swimmer on Abortion, gay marriage (and “gay rights” has always been understood to be just another euphemism for gay mariage) and state health care.

          I’m afraid that one of the pitfalls of arguing with someone who has been active in Politics since 1964 is that occasionally you will try to convince someone that a wolf is really a sheepdog, when the person you are trying to convince was there at the birth of the wolf.

          Romney is not to be trusted. If the Republican Party of the United States nominates this Democrat Lite, then I for one, will say goodbye to the Party, and allow them to take their medicine.

          I
          Will
          Stay
          Home.

          I’m tired of being taken for granted. The last election that I really felt i was voting for someone, as opposed to voting against someone, was 1988.

          No More.

          • jackdaniels11

            Don’t need you. If the party nominates someone with zero experience in government, I will probably vote libertarian. Especially if that person can’t answer simple questions about what he will do as president.

            If the party nominates someone who uses religious bigotry to tear down his opponent, I will probably vote against him.

            Clear enough?

          • wilgolden

            I mentioned his religious beliefs.

            Funny thing that. I always thought those types of unfounded assertions were the province of the NSDWP.

            Personally, I’m happy he believes in something bigger than himself.

            I just refuse to vote for a liberal pretending to be a moderate. I’m old enough to remember the fights his father started as part of Nixon’s Cabinet. The apple fell real close to that particular tree.

            Go ahead, however. Don’t let me stop you from believing what you will.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            wilgolden,

            You don’t have to vote if you don’t want to. But I don’t think your facts are accurate.

            1 – Romney supported an earlier version of the bill, with reservations, but opposed the final bill. So, he never supported what became the Clinton assault weapons ban of 1994.

            And Kennedy attacked him for that, since the bill was popular in Massachusetts (Boston Globe, Aug. 16, 1994 – Romney flays Kennedy on crime bill Says tinkering by senator, panel ruined measure) :

    • reggie182

      Especially the quote from Robert Bork.

      The next two to three SCOTUS picks I believe are going to have the most enduring effect on the nation and the Constitution.

      You can’t get a much better endorsement than that of Robert Bork.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    He believes in state imposed solutions.

    Your post is rather long winded but doesn’t address the core of who Romney is. A statist.

    The idea of ‘Tax Credits” instead of a mandate is tripe.

    The actual affect of a tax credit for people who purchase insurance is to impose a penalty for those who don’t purchase insurance and don’t therefore get the credit.

    Tax Credits vs Mandates is sophistry. Particularly when the penalty for non-compliance is increased taxes.

    Given the Sam Adams contrast what you are missing is the “kindred” will pay, and not, the state will steal from one and give to another aspect as RomneyCare does by subsidizing the poor.

    It is interesting you are “clearing the record” by obfuscating the truth.

    Romney is Obama Lite. Or McCain Lite without the military service.

    Things will only get worse with him.

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      You said, “He believes in state imposed solutions.”

      His plan uses private insurance companies. It just diverts Medicaid funds toward helping people purchase that private insurance, which is something Ronald Reagan himself supported for seniors, using Medicare. Romney’s plan does impose a penalty for not acquiring insurance, which I address in the diary, however Romney wanted to keep the government out of the insurance companies’ operations. The legislature and new governor have made it less prudent than it should have been. But as far as it being a state-imposed solution, government was entrenched in health care through medicaid, and it is no more entrenched now than before his plan. The level of entrenchment simply means government has to be involved in any solution on the issue.

      You said, “the actual affect of a tax credit for people who purchase insurance is to impose a penalty for those who don

  • RebelRoss0587

    This is a very well thought out argument that I hope a lot of people will read.

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      I appreciate that.