Is Newt Much Better on the Question of Mandates?

Yesterday I wrote an article on why I view the inevitability of an Obama defeat at the hands of Romney to be less than inevitable.  Mostly I attributed this to weakness on a core issue: Obamacare.  From my view, Romney cannot adequately take on this topic so long as he insists on defending the principles put forth in Romneycare.

His state’s rights position plays ok with the base, but I believe it will be less than compelling to the general electorate when it comes time to decide what separates Obama & Romney on this issue.

In passing, I mentioned that Gingrich, who previously supported the mandate as well, has since determined that he was wrong and will take that to his debates with Obama should he win the nomination.  I based that on this exchange which took place in the South Carolina debate earlier this month:

For the video impaired, Santorum attacked Newt on his support of mandates and questioned his ability to truly stand up to Obama on this issue of healthcare reform, to which Newt responded:

“Of course you can. I’d say, you know, I was wrong and I figured it out.  You were wrong and you didn’t.”

Santorum quickly pointed out that after holding the position strongly for over 10 years, it may not fly in the debates.

When I witnessed this exchange, I decided that Newt had done an adequate enough job of acknowledging that he’d made a mistake and that overall, I was satisfied.

That was before I saw a video at Verum Serum.

Advertisement

Why Mitt Romney’s Electability is Not Inevitable

After many months of getting a pass, it seems that the other candidates are willing to finally start hitting Governor Mitt Romney on his major weakness: The Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law.  The bill, known by most as Romneycare, is (as we all have been saying for many moons) the basis for the much maligned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise affectionately known as Obamacare.

I’ve been in endless debates and discussions with Romney supporters and surrogates for some time now as they paint a beautiful picture of the ultimate State’s Rights battle. They claim that Romneycare vs Obamacare isn’t about socialized medicine vs the free market. They say it’s actually the core of the Federalist struggle and that Romney will channel Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and march onto the capital steps, fulfilling the dreams and desires of tea partiers nationwide by finally standing up and saying, “Enough is enough! Let the state’s make their decisions Obama! Your days of tyranny are at an end!” And they all rejoiced.

Yet, continually when Romney is approached on this subject in the debates with fellow Republicans, he seems incapable of defending any other point and seems befuddled at the idea that there might be more than one part about Obamacare that American’s had wholly objected to. For him, it’s all about the mandate.

But it’s important to keep in mind, Mitt Romney does not object to the concept of mandates. Far from it actually.

The Battle for America begins in 20 Days

However, the movie is already out:

In Generation Zero, Citizens United & Director Stephen Bannon laid out the crimes. In Fire from the Heartland they observed the heroes. The third film of this stylized trilogy is the final act and we are all in it.

The Battle for America wasn’t specifically written for politicos like you and me. It was developed with the sideliners in mind. The politically uninvolved, if there are any left, to give them the perspective and the emotional stirring they may need to get out and cast votes in favor of liberty this November.

Trent Lott…er…Kay Hagan must go.

Trent Lott Kay Hagan either meant what he she said, or he she didn’t. In either case, if Lott Hagan does not resign voluntarily as Senate majority leader from the Senate Armed Services Committee, his her Republican Democratic colleagues should fire him her.

At the 100th birthday party for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond on Dec. 5, Lott discovery that Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia had passed away, Lott noted that his home state of Mississippi had voted for Thurmond when he ran for president in 1948 Hagan noted that Senator Byrd was a devoted public servant, skillful orator and champion of the chamber. “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead,” Lott continued, “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either. Soon after I was elected, I had the privilege of presiding over the Senate with Senator Byrd on the floor,” Hagan continued, “I told him of my deep admiration for his service.”

Thurmond Byrd, then the governor of South Carolina the Senator from West Virginia, was the candidate of the Dixiecrat Party a member of the Ku Klux Klan, whose  sole reason for being was to preserve segregation. So more than a few people wonder what “problems” “service” Lott Hagan had in mind that he she thought would have been averted had Thurmond been elected in 1948 were so worthy of admiration?  Blacks not being allowed in public schools? Blacks voting being taken away? Blacks not being allowed to buying a home in Lott’s Hagan’s neighborhood?

In response to “The Republican Pro-Life Plank”

I was originally simply going to write a response in the comments section of Vassar Bushmills blog titled “The Republican Pro-Life Plank, a Philosophical Stance or a Political Stance? Or Both?” but decided that it was a complex enough subject with enough people on both sides of the issue that it was more appropriate to simply spell out a counter argument in my own diary.

The first issue I have with the point of view expressed is the premise. This is not an issue that needs any moral standing in order to be conservative. The simple fact is that the founders of this country believed that there were granted rights and that there were natural rights. Natural rights include life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They saw the truth in these rights to be self evident, as in beyond contestation. To deprive an American citizen of life completely at the behest of another (in other words not a death row inmate who was convicted by a jury of his peers) is to deprive them of one of the most basic natural rights. A right which our government, according to our founding documents, does not have the authority to grant or deny. You do not have to be a Christian to subscribe to this point of view, nor do you have to be a “Bible thumper.” This is basic stuff related to our founding and for conservatives is the only step we need to go to in order to defend the pro-life position.