Former governor and almost-certain presidential candidate Mitt Romney is launching a big media blitz today, and he kicked off the day with an eyebrow-raising statement: Hosni Mubarak has to move on.
ROMNEY: I think what the United States has to do is make it very clear to the people in Egypt that we stand with the voices of democracy and freedom. And we have to also communicate, as I think the administration has, that we would like to see a transition to a permanent democracy, not just a one time, one vote, and then the extremists take over, but instead a permanent democracy with the rule of law, with a support for the allies that have existed in the past. And that kind of transition would be best undertaken if President Mubarak were to step out of the way or lead the transition. But I don’t know that I would say to the president, ‘you should call for Mubarak’s resignation.’ That, I think, flies in the face of a long history of friendship between he and our country and our friends. But it’s very clear that he needs to move on, and the transition to the voices of democracy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it sounds like you have no quarrels with how the administration has handled this so far?
ROMNEY: Well, I think they got off to a rocky start. I think some of the statements early on were misguided. But I think they’ve corrected and they’ve said they want to see transition, I think that’s right. And I think that you’re going to find Mr. Wisner and others are going to say, ‘look, there ought to be a transition, that you Mr. Mubarak or someone else leads, to the voices of democracy in the street.’ We are a nation whose values and principles demand freedom, free enterprise, democracy. That’s the right course for Egypt.
Romney also said that he agrees with the recent decision declaring the individual mandate in Obamacare unconstitutional and emphasized that he prefered state-level solutions to health care, not a one-size fits all solution. When Stephanopoulos argued why the “same requirement in Massachusetts” wouldn’t be unconstitution
“States have rights that the federal government doesn’t have,” Romney said. “Under the Tenth Amendment, the powers of the federal government are specifically limited… States have certain rights that they can exercise… I’ll be the first to tell you as well, our plan isn’t working perfectly. There are a number of things I would do differently the second time around.”
I'm not so sure about Romney. When the topic turns to foreign policy, he is not so good. When the topic is the economy, there is no better candidate.
I expect 2012 to be about foreign policy.
That said, thing about this- 3 a.m. call. Who do you want responding to Islamic or Russian terror? There is one man standing- Giuliani. Too bad we have this labeling system.
As a former MA resident (just recently moved to Austin, TX) I think there is a perspective that is often lost in the whole Romney discussion.
For one, when your state implements legislation that adversely impacts you at least you can move to another state (like I did). This system sets up competition for resources, talent, companies, revenue, and prosperity amongst all states. That TX has no state income tax is a major draw to people living in MA, CA, NY etc. This puts pressure on those states to reform. The harder MA makes life for its residents, the more will shuffle out to NH, the south, or wherever (and census data shows us this is happening). Obamacare is dangerous because there is no state to escape to, and that is a point that Romney rightly makes.
Secondly, there is a harsh political reality when trying to get anything done in MA. The state is so incredibly liberal. Romneycare MAY have been a better option than some of the other hairbrained commitments the State of MA had made to keep paying hospitals for the uninsured that walk through their doors. Additionally, with a supermajority Democrat legislature there were a lot of elements incorporated into Romneycare that Romney did not support.
In that light I just don't think that Romneycare should weigh so negatively against him, especially in light of the overwhelming positives he brings to the table (experience, intellect, fiscal conservatism etc.)
Calvin Coolidge wouldn't have made it to Washington with the standards to which Romney is being held.
I have no use for MAHealth but people who never liked Romney to begin with are using it as a cudgel to beat him over the head with it in order to hamper his prospects.
Romney starts the long, arduous task of walking back Romneycare.
That being said, I still think he's the best GOP candidate for '12.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn other words, he screwed up the first time, by advocating a socialist solution.
Please give him a second chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Mitt Romney, but see seems to be in Candyland with his Egypt comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not so sure about Romney. When the topic turns to foreign policy, he is not so good. When the topic is the economy, there is no better candidate.
I expect 2012 to be about foreign policy.
That said, thing about this- 3 a.m. call. Who do you want responding to Islamic or Russian terror? There is one man standing- Giuliani. Too bad we have this labeling system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a former MA resident (just recently moved to Austin, TX) I think there is a perspective that is often lost in the whole Romney discussion.
For one, when your state implements legislation that adversely impacts you at least you can move to another state (like I did). This system sets up competition for resources, talent, companies, revenue, and prosperity amongst all states. That TX has no state income tax is a major draw to people living in MA, CA, NY etc. This puts pressure on those states to reform. The harder MA makes life for its residents, the more will shuffle out to NH, the south, or wherever (and census data shows us this is happening). Obamacare is dangerous because there is no state to escape to, and that is a point that Romney rightly makes.
Secondly, there is a harsh political reality when trying to get anything done in MA. The state is so incredibly liberal. Romneycare MAY have been a better option than some of the other hairbrained commitments the State of MA had made to keep paying hospitals for the uninsured that walk through their doors. Additionally, with a supermajority Democrat legislature there were a lot of elements incorporated into Romneycare that Romney did not support.
In that light I just don't think that Romneycare should weigh so negatively against him, especially in light of the overwhelming positives he brings to the table (experience, intellect, fiscal conservatism etc.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't buy it.
Romney could have stood up for conservative principles and not signed a big government solution.
Also he is terrible on guns. Anyone who is bad on guns is generally bad on other issues of personal liberty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalvin Coolidge wouldn't have made it to Washington with the standards to which Romney is being held.
I have no use for MAHealth but people who never liked Romney to begin with are using it as a cudgel to beat him over the head with it in order to hamper his prospects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse