Archive for ‘Mitt Romney’

July 26, 2009

Romney, Health Care, Federalism

by Smitty (h/t Powerline)

Fox has a story about the Massachusetts health care plan being a political sea anchor for Mitt Romney:

Massachusetts is struggling to keep the state’s groundbreaking coverage program running. Against a massive budget shortfall, lawmakers are planning to cut about 30,000 legal, taxpaying immigrants out of the system, which requires nearly everyone in the state to have health insurance coverage.

Whalen said the state health care plan did not have a sufficient revenue stream from the start, and that Romney could face sharp criticism for that from fiscal conservatives in a 2012 Republican primary.

“He’s highly vulnerable on this,” he said.

But Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state and candidate to be Republican National Committee chairman, said the Democratic “regime” in Massachusetts is to blame since the Legislature changed the plan that Romney originally put on the table. Romney vetoed a number of those changes when he was governor, but the General Assembly overrode him.

Judson Berger and Molly Line, who contributed the story, need to be taken to task for missing the forest while staring at the tree: the Massachusetts plan is how it is supposed to work.

  • A state taking care of her citizens is the Constitutional model.
  • A state legislature making tweaks to fit the local tastes is more responsive and responsible (for better or worse).
  • A socialized program forced to work within actual tax receipts Just Makes Sense.
  • The Massachusetts border being a bulkhead against scatalogical management crapflooding the neighboring states with moronic policy and debt.
  • Keeping the Federal government out of the picture both honors the 10th Amendment and leaves open delegating a useful oversight function to the Fed.

Let’s have a debate about health care, and consider very carefully the health of the system itself. Federal entitlements are a Progressive train wreck; it is unclear how running a few more cars of money down the rails and into the heap helps anyone but those managing the rails.

The Federalist concept of delegating exactly the amount of power necessary to Washington, DC, and no more grows increasingly wise over time. Yet we’re on the verge of having voted that away.

I care not fig #1 whether Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee, or Tim Pawlenty, or Bobbie Jindal, or, *gasp* Ron Paul, or even a freshly-conscious Colin Powell (!) fronts the basic, simple, obvious, transparent, clean, sustainable principles of Federalism inherent in the Constitution.

If Mitt Romney segues from a state governor with some experience in health care implementation to a Federalist warrior bent on restoring state’s rights, and implementing the Federalism Amendment, he’s got my support.

Conversely, and I don’t think it likely, but if Sarah Palin runs a Long Haired Barack campaign, replete with personality cult and paper-thin promises that just moves the country infinitesimally closer to tyranny, then she’s lost me. I think the New England, Noonan-approved, Progressive elite could be replaced with a button marked ‘Yawn’. We must esteem principle over personality, or we’ve lost the intellectual battle before even suiting up for combat.

I’d like to thank every American attending Tea Party protests. The fact that so many brave souls are out there, spelling errors on their signs and all, returns “We the People” to hard reality from the memory hole. Posts like this one seem less historical romanticism and wishful thinking and more possible, thanks to those Just Folks.

July 3, 2009

Krauthammer thinks Governor Palin unqualified?

by Smitty (h/t HotAir)

This is a fascinating three minutes of your time.

K+ is completely correct on his point that the GOP has operated on a seniority system going back at least my four decades. Going unsaid in his remarks are the ringing non-triumphs of the Bush-41 1992, Dole 1996, and McCain 2008 campaigns.

Romney certainly sells a fine Progressive brand of snake oil, and can certainly give good speech, like BHO. Does anyone have advice on how to overlook the fact that the libertarian ideals of the Constitution are antithetical to the Progressive snake oil? The collectivist crap has only been bankrupting the country these 80-ish years or so. Mitt:

  • I can stare at the First Amendment and ignore theological differences with you.
  • I can admire your fine rhetoric and capacity to deliver a stirring speech: I joined in the standing ovation for you at CPAC with gusto. Great buildup, masterful delivery.
  • But if you’re not in touch with the basic concepts of Federalism, then why bother, sir?

You’d be offering the same non-choice between Obama and McCain: “Vote for me, I say ‘tomato’ with a long ‘a’ in the middle.”

The comment that Governor Palin has to do the homework is also well-founded. You can complain that BHO didn’t, but that just underscores the point: “We the People” let an arguably unprepared, unexamined candidate into the office this time around. Possibly John McCain over-estimated the critical thinking with which the voters would come at the question. This “Vote for the groundbreaker, even if there are some weaknesses, FML” is not the precedent you want to reinforce.

The fact that Governor Palin would be the first female POTUS really needs to be a tangential point, or we’re continuing the DNA-based decision making that marred the 2008 election cycle. “Anyone not voting for X is Y!”. X goes Obama->Palin, Y goes racist->sexist. The scourge of Affirmative Action wasn’t completely stomped out with the Ricci decision. Playing to Progressivism just to win an election on gender is playing into their fell hands.

In the credit where due department, HRC is nothing if not cunning. She’s suddenly not going to Russia. Of course, it’s entire too early to connect the dots with other (scroll down a bit) “Unwelcome Distractions“. But it doesn’t take a prophet to realize that, if BHO is AFU in 2012, HRC will come back with the fury of a cancer that’s been in remission for a few years. Possibly I could have chosen a more pleasant metaphor, but as long as the electorate favors Beltway hangtime over Constitutional fidelity, the egalitarian oxymoron “political class” shall continue to weaken all you hold dear, tumor-like.

This is my worry about Governor Palin: there will be a legitimate argument made that her resume is relatively thin compared to Secretary Clinton’s. A Palin/Romney ticket will be “too weak on foreign policy, which is our number one national concern.” Understand, a magic unicorn shall have recovered the economy in time for the election. Or so the propaganda shall instruct us to think. How about that General Petraeus, anyway? Has he quaffed the Progressive kool-aid, one wonders?

Full circle, then, I appreciate that K+ is seemingly immune to Governor Palin’s charms. Uncharmed thinking is a Good Thing. However, Romney needs a come-to-Beavis meeting where he unloads the Progressive baggage. Either way, don’t count HRC out. Or, rather, do: you’re likely helping her game.

Update:
Goldberg, also, seems to hope that Governor Palin can come through, while deliberately muting the enthusiasm.

June 2, 2009

Romney: Obama of the Right?

by Smitty (hat tip: American Power Blog)

  He’s interesting on distributing GM shares. But to claim that the GOP, which has tolerated the federal flattening of the individual through the willful ignorance of 10th Amendment since FDR, cares much for conservative values, is just a bit much.

  Mitt: we don’t care about your precious party. Partys are tools for denigrating politics to the level of a sport. If the voting population is distracted from the history and policy at stake by a bunch of questions about which jersey a candidate wears, then who wins? Not the voters. We care about the 50 states, one Constitution, and the principles on which they’re founded far more than any particular narcissist in a stuffed shirt with an immaculate coiffure. Though, one must admit, the cologne work was impressive:

  Why the psdeudonym? 😉

  And before decapitating me in the comments, let me clarify: the BHO comparison is not about experience. Romney certainly has plenty. The comparison is about the stylishness of the presentation, at some cost to substance. I thought Romney delivered an excellent speech at CPAC. I’d like to hear him discuss, in detail, the fallout of his healthcare initiative in the Bay State.

May 5, 2009

Compliments or Attacks?

Apparently, giving a woman a compliment on her good looks is inherently an insult now, no matter the context, at least if politics and the media are involved in any way. . . . It’s one thing to point out blatant sexism in its true form. It’s completely silly on the other hand to misconstrue obvious, harmless compliments as an insult in order to spark a fake verbal spar between two GOP leaders.”

November 8, 2008

Palin & Romney, Tessio & Barzini

There was a time when the worst thing one Republican could say about another was that he was aligned with “the Eastern Establishment,” a “Rockefeller Republican.” A few years later, accusing your GOP rival of favoring detente with the Soviets was the favorite submarine tactic.

Now? If you really want to undercut a Republican antagonist’s conservative credibility, accuse him of spreading dirt about Sarah Palin, as Marc Ambinder notes:

Rumor: Aides and advisers to Mitt Romney are responsible for spreading most of the anti-Palin stories that have been going around; during the campaign, they pressured reporters to look into reports of tension between McCain and Palin factions. . . .
Palin is the most popular figure in the Republican Party right now, and if you want a future in that party, you can’t be seen as spreading gossip about her.

The rumors are mostly false, Ambinder says, but this raises the question, Who’s spreading this smear? My guess: The McCain aides who bashed Palin are now the ones trying to hang the blame on the Romneyites.

So it’s like Tessio proposing a meeting with Barzini: Any McCain aide blaming Romney thereby becomes identified as an anti-Palin traitor.

Applying to this situation the logic of Sherlock Holmes and the dog who did not bark, therefore, I observe that Nicolle Wallace has reportedly denied being the anti-Palin leaker and ask: Did Nicolle Wallace ever say anything nice about Mitt? (Let the folks at Operation Leper take note.)

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

UPDATE: Via Hot Air, this video:

October 24, 2008

The objectivity of beauty

Conservatives are indignant today over Kathleen Parker’s suggestion that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as running mate primarily for her looks.

Does any conservative really wish to deny that good looks are an asset in politics? After all, which party put a bona fide Hollywood movie star in the White House?

Back during the GOP primary season, I argued that the tall, handsome millionaire Mitt Romney would be a better nominee than the old, short, bald guy. Independent voters are superficial and, other things being equal, will generally prefer the guy who “looks presidential” on TV — a test that John McCain spectacularly fails.

Palin’s beauty is not a political deficit, so why does Kathleen Parker assert that because Palin is beautiful, she is to be presumed unqualified? It’s envy, motivated by the same sour-grapes psychology that caused so many Republican pundits to dismiss Romney as “superficial” and “slick.”

The fact that Romney was able to talk meaningfully about economics — another woeful shortcoming of John McCain — was scorned as irrelevant by those who believed that the heroic biography would conquer all. Just like Bob Dole . . .

UPDATE: Linked by Daniel Larison:

As for Romney, he was considered superficial and slick because he seemed to have no core political beliefs that he would not abandon at the drop of a hat if there was some advantage in it.

The accusation that Romney was an unprincipled opportunist — a flip-flopper — didn’t bother me very much, since at least he was flip-flopping in the right direction, whereas McCain seemed to believe that his stubborn advocacy of bad ideas (including amnesty for illegals) was a virtue in its own right.

I would further add, in response to Larison’s criticisms of Palin, that there was no one on John McCain’s short list of VP candidates (Tom Ridge? Joe Lieberman?) who would have met with Larison’s approval.