Mitt Romney refused to criticize his Massachusetts health-care program tonight, saying he would prefer to lose the primary rather than renounce it.
“I’m standing by what I did in Massachusetts,” Romney said on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier. “I’m not trying to dust it aside. I’m absolutely firm that it was the right thing for our state. I’ll defend that and I understand it has political implications. And if it keeps me from winning a primary, so be it. But that happens to be the truth.”
“It’s by far, the biggest challenge I have in the primary race,” Romney admitted, before going on to criticize his rivals. “And if I were willing to say anything to get elected, wouldn’t I just say, ‘oh, it was a mistake,’because I’ve watched other people on the stage when they talk about their cap-and-trade policies, they say, ‘oh, that was a mistake.’ When someone says, ‘oh, I did this ad on global warming,’ that was a mistake. So they’ve just brushed it aside.”
Romney said he “absolutely” still supports the individual health-care mandate in Massachusetts, but reiterated he does not support the mandate at the federal level.
Asked about the Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich, Romney called Gingrich a “good man,” but added that the two had “different backgrounds.”
“He spent his last 30 or 40 years in Washington,” Romney said. “I spent my career in the private sector. I think that’s what the country needs right now.”
In a response to a question about Gingrich’s immigration views, Romney replied, “I can’t tell you what Speaker Gingrich is saying. If he’s going to do what I believe he said he was going to do for those people who would be allowed to stay permanently and become citizens, that would be providing for them a form of amnesty. I can tell you what, I’ll let him describe his view.”
Gingrich has said that he would allow some who had been here a significant period of time to be eligible for legal status, but has stressed he is not suggesting they be eligible for citizenship.
It would be fun for everybody to select one thing in the past that Newt should be forced to apologize for. I'm sure everybody would have a favorite.
Mine would be the nasty little episode in 1995 when Newt complained loudly to all and sundry that Bill Clinton made him enter Air Force One by a rear door on a trip to Israel. The kind of thing that any normal person would laugh off was just too much for the enormous ego of the Big Giant Head. Newt never forgave, never forgot... and later referenced the snub as "one of the reasons" he shut down the government in late 1995 and early 1996.
Wow, at least Mitt has framed his support within the 10th amendment of the US Consitution and the MA Constitution.
Newt has nowhere to go on this, he is clearly, strongly in favor of a national healthcare mandate....unless there is a state with 300 million people in it that I don't know about.
He's making the case for Obamacare on a national level better than Obama.
Would be nice if Mitt could do what Heritage and Newt have been doing since this idiotic plan was concocted. He can't or won't or doesn't know how, which really p*sses me off.
Personally I would not have done what he did in MA, but with a legislature that is 85% Democrat and able to override your vetoes I'm not sure what i would have done.
If it makes you feel any better, he really couldn't renounce it even if he wanted to, which I don't know if he does or not. It would be more damaging for him to renounce the biggest think he did as Governor than it would be for him to continue having it p*ss you off.
If it makes you feel any better, in 2008 he did not run on Romneycare for America back when it was not so unpopular and he isn't now. Since it isn't something that he is running on as a policy proposal, I'm not so sure it should matter as much as it does to people.
And politically it just is not possible for him to renounce his healthcare bill, it would be suicide. Sitting here in Tokyo, the Japanese don't make people jab a knife into their belly and slice open their innards for everyone to see before being beheaded when they do something wrong, these days they just have to cut off their little finger. There has to be some realization that he just can't denounce his healthcare bill.
Agree, Richard. The true source of my disappointment is that he's put himself here because of other, really stupid political decisions. He's simply not a good leader. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee but he's generating zero broad enthusiasm and the election is at risk. Next year will be like a Super Bowl between the 1976 Buccaneers v. the 1990 Patriots.
Good analogy. Not only two bad teams, but two bad teams with absolutely horrific uniforms.
Seriously, it's almost as if someone from the Patriots looked at tape from the 'Bucs '76 season, saw those uniforms and said, "Oh, yeah, I can do worse than that.", and then did.
When the democrats were forcing Obamacare through congress the biggest complaint before it passed was not the mandate. The biggest complaints were the lack of care congress took to bring the country along with them. If you remember all the town hall meetings, the anger and frustration was about congress not caring what the people really wanted. People were furious that this huge bureaucracy was going to tell us what we could have and not have in regard to medical care.
The democrats kept insisting they would pass the bill and we would like it later. After the bill passed, the method to try to block became the effort to block the mandate. But this was just a tool to stop this monstrous intrusion of the federal government into health care.
So now why should Romney say his approach was wrong when a large majority of his state wanted their state level plan passed? That would be truly bizarre.
I personally despise Obamacare, not because of the mandate but because it is big brother at its worst. I also despise the fact that my tax dollars have to pay the way for others who pass off their risk onto me and my neighbors. For all you constitutional scholars out there, does the constitution guarantee free medical care for those who avoid buying their own insurance and then expect us to foot the bill?
Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorium and Ron Paul are all more consistently conservative on the national health care issue than either Newt or Mitt.
Romney still does not get it. The problem with the mandate isn't about federalism, it is about freedom. It would be one thing to say that as president you wouldn't force states to drop their mandates even if you disagreed with that idea. But to say you stand by the decision while at the same time say it is wrong at the federal level is contradictory.
Elbridge Gerry (of Gerrymandering fame) was one of only two or three men who refused to sign the Constitution at the original convention because it didn't include a Bill of Rights. However, Gerry represented MA, one of the many states that had an official state religion clause in its Constitution - a clause that demanded that free men join a church and pay tithing to it. That was a clause that remained in the MA Constitution until (I believe) the very early 1820s.
The Founders wanted a HIGHLY restrained federal government, but they didn't have too much of a problem with the State governments exercising a very big foot in people's private lives, to include what they bought or what they belonged to - even guys like Gerry who were fierce advocates for federal civil rights.
All that only means the Framers fiercely believed that states should be entitled to make their own determinations about matters not specifically delegated to the federal government; it does not suggest any opinion about particular governmental intrusions, which may be wrong even if they are not unconstitutional.
The part you don't get is Romney had few viable options in dealing with the MA healthcare problem. Over 90% of MA residents had medical insurance. Most of the rest either had declined coverage at work or they were financially able to buy coverage. Those without coverage were creating a large budget issue for the state because a federal law required the state to pick up the healthcare costs of serving the uninsured.
To deal with this problem, Romney had two options: A) accept the Democrat proposal for a Canada-like single payer plan, or, B) require those without coverage to buy insurance. Those were the only two options: a complete government takeover of medical care or a system that prevented the 10% without insurance from passing on to others the cost of their care.
Romney chose the most conservative of the two options available to solve the problem. I understand why conservatives don't like Romneycare. Romneycare is a bad answer to an even worse problem. Allowing 10% of residents to freeload would have quickly bankrupted the healthcare system. The better answer would have been to allow each resident the freedom to enjoy the benefits and burdens of his or her healthcare choices. However, federal law prevented this better answer by mandating hospitals serve anyone without regard to ability to pay.
But, David, that still does not explain why he is still defending the MA mandate. He could be saying that we gave it a try in MA, but it hasn't worked and it is impinging on people's freedom. However, that is not what he is saying. He is still defending the program.
Good for Romney for sticking to his position on this particular issue. When someone is consistent, they earn respect even from their political opponents.
> Mitt Romney refused to criticize his Massachusetts health-care program tonight, saying he would prefer to lose the primary rather than renounce it. <
.
Works for me, MItt. Looking forward to voting against you in the Florida primary.
.
I love how people are praising Flip-flop Mitt for his consistency on *this* of all issues - the only one where he really *should* have changed his position. Because his original position was WRONG then, is wrong now, and will be wrong come January of 2013.
.
And it makes it awfully hard to run against Obamacare when you are responsible for Romneycare. Romney is the only one in the race who has this vulnerability.
.
I'm just waiting for Cain and maybe one other to drop out of the race so the 75% of GOP voters who DON'T want Mitt to be our nominee and rally around a single alternative and put an end to the latest Establishment Loser (tm) before he helps re-elect Obama
.
Regards,
It must be somewhat disappointing, and just a little alarming to the Romney faithful that no one seems to care much about Mitt's big "debut" on Fox tonight. Very underwhelming performance, and it was obvious he did not want to be there. Just a bit snarky and condescending, something you might see from Gingrich in a weak moment. But not Roboromney. Not the master of control and programmed smiles. Such a smart and seemingly talented guy, but he always seems to leave a residue of artifice. The kiss of death for any politician or would be leader. Even Obama seemed more genuine in 2008, not sure about what exactly, but he at least must have connected with a critical mass of his potential supporters. Much ink has been spilled on the various reasons, but there is no denying it happened. Not so much with the Mittster. Stuck on 25, at least nationally, and in danger of falling behind in his back yard state of NH. The one state he has taken for granted since he folded in 2008. Must be tough on the faithful. Harold Stassen in an Armani. Slip slidin' away...
It really isn't a choice of either or, he really can't renounce it. It would be even more damaging to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would be fun for everybody to select one thing in the past that Newt should be forced to apologize for. I'm sure everybody would have a favorite.
Mine would be the nasty little episode in 1995 when Newt complained loudly to all and sundry that Bill Clinton made him enter Air Force One by a rear door on a trip to Israel. The kind of thing that any normal person would laugh off was just too much for the enormous ego of the Big Giant Head. Newt never forgave, never forgot... and later referenced the snub as "one of the reasons" he shut down the government in late 1995 and early 1996.
What a little charmer. Really.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesorry... put the above in the wrong thread.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCheck out this story, Newt's full throated support for a national healthcare mandate:
Flashback: Gingrich Championed The Mandate As ‘300 Million-Payer System’ — In 2005
“I mean, I am very opposed to a single-payer system — but I’m actually in favor of a 300 million-payer system." Newt Gingrich
External Link
Wow, at least Mitt has framed his support within the 10th amendment of the US Consitution and the MA Constitution.
Newt has nowhere to go on this, he is clearly, strongly in favor of a national healthcare mandate....unless there is a state with 300 million people in it that I don't know about.
He's making the case for Obamacare on a national level better than Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWould be nice if Mitt could do what Heritage and Newt have been doing since this idiotic plan was concocted. He can't or won't or doesn't know how, which really p*sses me off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePersonally I would not have done what he did in MA, but with a legislature that is 85% Democrat and able to override your vetoes I'm not sure what i would have done.
If it makes you feel any better, he really couldn't renounce it even if he wanted to, which I don't know if he does or not. It would be more damaging for him to renounce the biggest think he did as Governor than it would be for him to continue having it p*ss you off.
If it makes you feel any better, in 2008 he did not run on Romneycare for America back when it was not so unpopular and he isn't now. Since it isn't something that he is running on as a policy proposal, I'm not so sure it should matter as much as it does to people.
And politically it just is not possible for him to renounce his healthcare bill, it would be suicide. Sitting here in Tokyo, the Japanese don't make people jab a knife into their belly and slice open their innards for everyone to see before being beheaded when they do something wrong, these days they just have to cut off their little finger. There has to be some realization that he just can't denounce his healthcare bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree, Richard. The true source of my disappointment is that he's put himself here because of other, really stupid political decisions. He's simply not a good leader. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee but he's generating zero broad enthusiasm and the election is at risk. Next year will be like a Super Bowl between the 1976 Buccaneers v. the 1990 Patriots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood analogy. Not only two bad teams, but two bad teams with absolutely horrific uniforms.
Seriously, it's almost as if someone from the Patriots looked at tape from the 'Bucs '76 season, saw those uniforms and said, "Oh, yeah, I can do worse than that.", and then did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen the democrats were forcing Obamacare through congress the biggest complaint before it passed was not the mandate. The biggest complaints were the lack of care congress took to bring the country along with them. If you remember all the town hall meetings, the anger and frustration was about congress not caring what the people really wanted. People were furious that this huge bureaucracy was going to tell us what we could have and not have in regard to medical care.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe democrats kept insisting they would pass the bill and we would like it later. After the bill passed, the method to try to block became the effort to block the mandate. But this was just a tool to stop this monstrous intrusion of the federal government into health care.
So now why should Romney say his approach was wrong when a large majority of his state wanted their state level plan passed? That would be truly bizarre.
I personally despise Obamacare, not because of the mandate but because it is big brother at its worst. I also despise the fact that my tax dollars have to pay the way for others who pass off their risk onto me and my neighbors. For all you constitutional scholars out there, does the constitution guarantee free medical care for those who avoid buying their own insurance and then expect us to foot the bill?
You do realize that Newt has made several public statements saying that he was wrong back then?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorium and Ron Paul are all more consistently conservative on the national health care issue than either Newt or Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney still does not get it. The problem with the mandate isn't about federalism, it is about freedom. It would be one thing to say that as president you wouldn't force states to drop their mandates even if you disagreed with that idea. But to say you stand by the decision while at the same time say it is wrong at the federal level is contradictory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Romney still does not get it. "
Actually, the Framers would disagree. Fiercely.
Elbridge Gerry (of Gerrymandering fame) was one of only two or three men who refused to sign the Constitution at the original convention because it didn't include a Bill of Rights. However, Gerry represented MA, one of the many states that had an official state religion clause in its Constitution - a clause that demanded that free men join a church and pay tithing to it. That was a clause that remained in the MA Constitution until (I believe) the very early 1820s.
The Founders wanted a HIGHLY restrained federal government, but they didn't have too much of a problem with the State governments exercising a very big foot in people's private lives, to include what they bought or what they belonged to - even guys like Gerry who were fierce advocates for federal civil rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll that only means the Framers fiercely believed that states should be entitled to make their own determinations about matters not specifically delegated to the federal government; it does not suggest any opinion about particular governmental intrusions, which may be wrong even if they are not unconstitutional.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKyle,
The part you don't get is Romney had few viable options in dealing with the MA healthcare problem. Over 90% of MA residents had medical insurance. Most of the rest either had declined coverage at work or they were financially able to buy coverage. Those without coverage were creating a large budget issue for the state because a federal law required the state to pick up the healthcare costs of serving the uninsured.
To deal with this problem, Romney had two options: A) accept the Democrat proposal for a Canada-like single payer plan, or, B) require those without coverage to buy insurance. Those were the only two options: a complete government takeover of medical care or a system that prevented the 10% without insurance from passing on to others the cost of their care.
Romney chose the most conservative of the two options available to solve the problem. I understand why conservatives don't like Romneycare. Romneycare is a bad answer to an even worse problem. Allowing 10% of residents to freeload would have quickly bankrupted the healthcare system. The better answer would have been to allow each resident the freedom to enjoy the benefits and burdens of his or her healthcare choices. However, federal law prevented this better answer by mandating hospitals serve anyone without regard to ability to pay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut, David, that still does not explain why he is still defending the MA mandate. He could be saying that we gave it a try in MA, but it hasn't worked and it is impinging on people's freedom. However, that is not what he is saying. He is still defending the program.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood for Romney for sticking to his position on this particular issue. When someone is consistent, they earn respect even from their political opponents.
Romney is still a flip-flopper overall though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's views on healthcare are just as viable as Studebaker.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> Mitt Romney refused to criticize his Massachusetts health-care program tonight, saying he would prefer to lose the primary rather than renounce it. <
.
Works for me, MItt. Looking forward to voting against you in the Florida primary.
.
I love how people are praising Flip-flop Mitt for his consistency on *this* of all issues - the only one where he really *should* have changed his position. Because his original position was WRONG then, is wrong now, and will be wrong come January of 2013.
.
And it makes it awfully hard to run against Obamacare when you are responsible for Romneycare. Romney is the only one in the race who has this vulnerability.
.
I'm just waiting for Cain and maybe one other to drop out of the race so the 75% of GOP voters who DON'T want Mitt to be our nominee and rally around a single alternative and put an end to the latest Establishment Loser (tm) before he helps re-elect Obama
.
Regards,
Jo.e
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt must be somewhat disappointing, and just a little alarming to the Romney faithful that no one seems to care much about Mitt's big "debut" on Fox tonight. Very underwhelming performance, and it was obvious he did not want to be there. Just a bit snarky and condescending, something you might see from Gingrich in a weak moment. But not Roboromney. Not the master of control and programmed smiles. Such a smart and seemingly talented guy, but he always seems to leave a residue of artifice. The kiss of death for any politician or would be leader. Even Obama seemed more genuine in 2008, not sure about what exactly, but he at least must have connected with a critical mass of his potential supporters. Much ink has been spilled on the various reasons, but there is no denying it happened. Not so much with the Mittster. Stuck on 25, at least nationally, and in danger of falling behind in his back yard state of NH. The one state he has taken for granted since he folded in 2008. Must be tough on the faithful. Harold Stassen in an Armani. Slip slidin' away...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse