Posted on 03/09/2010 9:33:24 AM PST by AuntB
Yesterday we made note of potential 2012 hopeful Mitt Romney's appearance on "Fox News Sunday" and the criticism he faced over his Massachusetts health-care proposal.
March 8:
Chris Wallace put Romney on the defensive on this issue.
WALLACE: “But, Governor, let's look at the plan that you signed into law in Massachusetts in 2006. You have an individual mandate. You have an employer mandate. You have subsidiaries for some of the uninsured. You set minimum insurance coverage standards.”
ROMNEY: A big difference -- a state plan versus a federal plan. No new taxes, unlike his plan. No cut in Medicare, unlike his plan. And no controls over insurance premiums, price controls, cost controls like his plan. So very, very different in that regard.”
Still, you can see the line of attack that is going to develop on Romney in conservative circles… Of course, let's remember, as bad as immigration was for McCain in 2007, it didn't end his bid; he still got the nomination. But there are a lot of similarities between Romney and health care and McCain and immigration.
Romney is also taking flak from his right flank on his endorsement of John McCain over J.D. Hayworth.
Rush Limbaugh said with the move Romney is "risking his career," "is tone deaf, it's suicidal." He also said, "What is there to gain by this? Look, it’s unfortunate, but people are weeding themselves out of the process all the while engaging in this kind of behavior. So in one sense it has a cleansing aspect to it."
Romney responded.... saying, "It may not be right for me politically, but we face such challenges right now. It’s time for people to do what they think is right for the country ......"
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
You've got to be kidding me.
Mitt was right in regard to that it was a State issue and not a federal. I don’t see why we cannot have the States come up with their solutions to the “health care” crisis rather than the feds. Probably the reason is that if a State were socialize healthcare, there would be alot of flight from patients and doctors. The socialists know this and want to force it on everybody, and creep their way into a totalitarian system by slowly adding strings to one’s receipt of health care.
RomneyCare is just a smaller version of ObamaCare.
Not to mention his support of gay marriage and abortion, and a long record of flip-flopping on virtually everything else.
Can he be counted on to defend our borders? Of course not. Can he be counted on to defend gun rights? Of course not. Can he be counted on for anything? Of course not.
He will say and do whatever he thinks is convenient to get elected. No principles whatever.
Romneycare makes him completely the wrong candidate, and nothing he says or does between now and 2012 will change the fact that he signed Romneycare into law.
Not to mention that he does not think Americans can have semi-automatic rifles that look scary.
Now I don’t dislike Romney. He wasn’t a bad governor by any stretch despite this health care abortion. Even so I don’t want him anywhere near the white house. He’s further to the right than McCain but that isn’t saying much.
He didn't support gay marriage, except to comply with state laws and the dictates of the courts, as a governor is supposed to. He was pro-choice, but then came to the pro-life side; the kind of flip we hope and work for.
All that said, I still think he's a RINO and too much of a political opportunist, and I won't support him in the primaries. I would much prefer he took consistent, public, principled stands on important issues.
Too much politician and too little principle in that one.
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Mitt RomneyCARE got only a “C” from CATO
And that was before Mitt RomneyCARE’s Romneycare tanked the state.
How long have you worked for Mitt?
never worked for Mitt thank you but he was better than the alternatives that this state spewed up. Things could have gone a hell of alot worse.
The Libs used MA has a test case for institutionalizing it nationally. On that basis alone he should have opposed it.
Either Romney was duped about their intent or he was fine with his state being a vehicle to force it on everyone nationally.
Sometimes it’s just not so simple as “state rights”. Ex. D.C. was used as a test case for charter schools. Soon as the Dems could they shut it down. They understood its success was setting a stage for introducing it via the federal government.
Hmm... Looks to me like the Mass Supremes said that it's the law. Isn't that how you read it?
The Mass legislature refused to take a stand, instead letting the measure die by inaction, so what else could Gov. Romney legally do?
Your analysis of the ruling sure doesn't jive with the way I read it. Their ruling clearly says same-sex marriage is legal, so no legislation is required to make it so.
Look, there are plenty of reasons not to support Romney. Why continue with this distorted fiction?
Yes, he went out of his way to cozy up to the gay/lesbian establishment, which makes me plenty uncomfortable as it is. But the accusation that he was a supporter of gay marriage is simply not so. He did everything he legally could to oppose it, but he was fighting in a pool of liberal sharks in the legislature and judiciary. They made sure that gay marriage happened, not Gov. Romney.
From my point of view, when you tax persons who do not acquire the state mandated health insurance, you're raising taxes.
There is a very good reason the totalitarian authoritarian Democratic Party of America does not mention Romneycare, and it has everything to do with the failure of it.
The average Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the U.S. and keep on rising. Massachusetts spends about 30% more on health care services, per capita, than the national average. Healthcare costs in Massachusetts are rising faster than nearly everywhere else in the United States.
Let's talk about rationing, too:
Boston Globe Story Describes MA’s State-Run Health Care As ‘Trailblazing’ As Its Problems Deepen; Will OBC/ABC Notice?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/06/24/boston-globe-story-describes-mas-state-run-health-care-trailblazing-its-#ixzz0hhj0Ecok
Well McCain was the choice for Republicans so it’s possible Romney is. Remember he doesn’t have to win by a majority in the primaries. McCain didn’t. If conservative’s aren’t united the establishment pick wins.
However, if he were to win he nomination by the same percentage McCain did he’d probably lose the election. The base has to be supportive. They may not be numerous enough to win an election on their own but one can’t be won without conservatives. They do the legwork, door to door, convert neighbors, walk over broken glass type of thing...
It might have helped Romney if he had made this argument back in ‘08, but he didn’t. He wanted to use his program in Taxachusetts as a model for a federal plan. He also has failed to make the argument that he was trying to limit the damage that would be done by the socialists in MA. Instead, he still brags about MassCare. I wished he had read the constitution back in ‘08, and I’m still hoping he’ll peruse it some time, soon.
That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts. People leave the state for healthcare. Doctors leave the state to practice and everyone is forced to buy commie health insurance whether they want it or not.
Just because it’s “up to the state” doesn’t excuse the fact that it’s fascist.
Nope. It does not say on order of the carpetbagger Romney.
Nope. It does not say Mitt Romney can micturate on millions
of people (as he also did with the BIG DIG and with RomneyCARE).
You like all three, right? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Exactly! When taken in context, along with the rest of their opinion, that marriages may NOT be banned on the basis of gender, then it seems they are saying that Gov. Romney refusing to perform gay marriages would be an act of "suspending the laws".
They are, in effect, ordering Gov. Romney to allow same-sex marriages, and since the legislature refused to change the law, he simply had no other legal options left to him.
I think you're misinterpreting what was written and what happened.
Romney allied with the gay/lesbian gang on other issues, but I don't see him ever supporting gay marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.