In an op-ed in today’s Washington Examiner, the GOP presidential candidate pens a tough and pointed attack on Obama. Some highlights:
I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation. I am committed to overturning Obamacare root and branch. If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states. And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith. Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in. . . .
[M]ore than two centuries after the drafting of the Bill of Rights, religious liberty is facing the most serious assault in generations. And the assault is coming from liberalism itself. In the process of implementing Obamacare, the Obama administration is pressing forward with a rule that tramples on religious freedom, taking particular aim at Roman Catholics. The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to choose between violating their conscience or dropping health care coverage for their employees, effectively destroying their ability to carry on their work. . . .
[T]oday, when it comes to the agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic Party—those who brought us abortion on demand and who fight against the teaching of abstinence education in our children’s schools—their devotion to religious freedom goes out the window. They would force Catholics and others who have beliefs rooted in their faith to sacrifice the teachings of their faith to the mandate of federal bureaucrats.
Except Mittens is STILL defending Romneycare, which Obamacare resembles in its offenses against moral conscience.
He doesn't get a pass for pushing this under the "some things I'd change" rug. Nor does he get credit for his overridden veto, which a) was a cheap political ploy he knew wouldn't stick and b) still resulted in him supporting Romneycare wholeheartedly.
I suppose he figured that since some Catholics were suckered by the Kennedys Catholics must be suckers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTef, at the start of this race Mitt wasn't in my top 3. But still, putting Romneycare aside using the largest bulldozer available, the guy says he'll waive all states on day one and sign a repeal act from Congress. It's very hard to believe that on day one - one! - of his presidency he would renege on his biggest campaign promise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not a question of him reneging--it's that Romney has a long history of taking the action he knows won't hold up and claiming it was "all he could do".
Those waivers won't be any more Constitutional than Obama's are. If that isn't taken off the table by the Supreme Court in June, it will sometime thereafter, at which point Romney will shrug, say "We don't have enough Republicans in the Senate", and get with implementing it.
That's his m.o.
He isn't a conservative. He won't fight for our principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's not a movement conservative, or perhaps much of a conservative as we are. I think Jonah has it right in his column today about Mitt being a guy that gets the job done he sets out to do.
I don't see Mitt as ideological, as craving power, adoration or attention. He doesn't need more money and hasn't spent the last 10 years actively trying to grow wealth afaik.
I think he's 1) a smart guy that can analyze problems, 2) very competitive and 3) likes building things. I believe he's turned on by winning and showing results.
So I believe (hope!) if he's elected he's got the plain sense to know some basics which must happen to turn things around. I think with a more conservative congress he'll be OK. We'll probably get decent SCOTUS picks - the Harriet Miers fiasco was instructive, and we may have a more conservative Senate in 2012 that in W's time. Hopefully he picks a conservative VP for successor. And then hopefully we show results and consolidate more in 2014 and 2016. Long ball.
The alternative of Obama relection is too awful to contemplate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe doesn't see Obamacare as anything but a political problem which goes away once he is elected, however.
What makes you think Romney will run any degree of personal political risk to repeal Obamacare?
Congressional Republicans already have his out ready: it's the "replace" part of "repeal and replace". This is why Romney's testing the "overhaul" meme rather than repeal now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, neither of us can guess now what the "replace" part will be. But certainly a GOP congress would take a very strong role in crafting that. I'd imagine tort reform and allowing interstate sales of policies, would be among the key points.
Your concerns are certainly valid to me. But the alternative of Obama is ghastly. I know the anti-Mitt argument of "I'd rather a dem be in charge when it crashes". But that's the wrong way to go. We should win the WH with Mitt, and have a GOP congress, and keep pushing conservatism through this. We've come a long way from 2008 and it'll take quite a while still. And we need those SCOTUS picks to NOT be made by Obama.
What's more, we have an excellent farm team coming up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIts hard to overstate how important it is to have a Republican in there to make sure outgoing justices are not replaced by hyper-partisan liberals.
Romney's not been my main guy either, (I would have preferred for some more solid conservative to be the standard bearer, but they don't seem to be catching on; and I don't see Santorum getting enough steam at this point to catch up) but Romney strikes me as honest enough to put a good faith effort towards keeping his word. Moreover, on matters of faith and state, he most certainly will be better than what we have now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney was not my top choice. But he has been far more reliable than Newt, and no matter what pipe dreams of some, Newt will have a big problem against Obama.
Romney, isn't great, but he will be our guy. This is the realty. If Romney tears Obamacare up from the roots and puts Bush 43-like judges on the court he's fine.
As for the quote. Well done...especially calling out Catholics. Obama did very well with Catholics in 2008 (54-45). I realize there are quite a few pro-choice Catholics out there, but this move goes well beyond that, its a specific attack on catholic institutions in general and thus, this arrogant move by Obama will gain traction on the pulpit. If the Catholic vote were to decline to flip e.g. 45-54 to 54-45 - this group of voters (27%) would make up 70% of the gap McCain had versus Obama.
Let me say this, Romney who has and will be attacked for his Religion, is certainly genuine here. It was very smart to take this issue up!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor me, Romney needs to admit that the individual mandate part of Romneycare was a mistake, and I think he should be pressured into doing so -- the sooner the better. Any kind of mandate to buy something is unconstitutional. As a free market guy, Romney should understand that the absence of a mandate would bring prices down for everybody. I also dislike that Romney is unsettled about how specifically he will repeal Obamacare. My overall impression is that he is still a "more legislation will fix the problem" kind of a guy, rather than less legislation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood hits, Mitt. A line I found most eye-catching was this:
"But, now, more than two centuries after the drafting of the Bill of Rights, religious liberty is facing the most serious assault in generations. And the assault is coming from liberalism itself."
He specifically calls out "liberalism itself" - that's noteworthy.
Politically, it's quite something that Obama has allowed the Mormon to come to the defense of Catholics and Christians of all stripes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEncouraging.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states."
Romney has no intention of overturning Obamacare. He simply wants it to go away for the duration of his administration so that he can get back to ignoring conservatives and get his turn at being the next Republican tax collector for the welfare state. And then when he's done the next Dem POTUS will simply reverse his executive order and simply pick up where Obama left off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Mitt is elected it's almost certain he'd have a GOP congress. Are you suggesting the GOP congress would not send an Obamcare repeal bill to Mitt's desk, and that if they did then Mitt would veto it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere will be nothing close to a 60 seat majority in the Senate, therefore no such bill will ever reach his desk. And with his executive order, there will be no political urgency from the RINO wing to make it happen. And we will be flooded with articles on NRO and elsewhere about how 'dumb' it is to waste political capital rehashing Obamacare when the problem has 'already been solved' and there are other fish to fry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn this particular issue I trust Mitt. He's a member - and a lay leader as a lot of us would understand the term - of a minority sect that was terribly persecuted in this country as recently as about 1870 or 1880. I think he will be better on religious liberty issues than anybody in the race.
On the broader issue of managing a repeal of ACA (the Atrocious Care Act) I'm not so confident. But here I cannot find fault.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you Mr. Romney...
Well done indeed.
The Democratic Partisans are pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation except in Massachusetts, where I set up something remarkably similar and forced similar things on the Catholic Church. But that's okay because of state's rights. And I say this with impunity because I know that a whole bunch of pundits, talking heads and other useful id......friends will bury this so deep that when Newt starts playing the videos, people will think he's being crazy and mean."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who sits out November cuz Mitt's not conservative enough is de facto supporting Obama's re-election, and the whole horror show--including babies killed by mid- and late-term abortion--that goes along with it.
Hold your nose if you have to, but vote!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse