Rick Santorum’s Romneycare Smack Down

February 7, 2012 | Filed under 2012 Presidential Race,Barack Obama,corruption,Culture Of Corruption,Elections,Health Care,Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum | Posted by

I think I am an inch away from endorsing Rick Santorum if he keeps this up. I am sure my endorsement will put him over the top, but that aside Santorum has really been standing as the only actual conservative left in the race at this point. His latest triumph occurred in Minnesota where he raked Romney over the coals for Romneycare — something that not enough people are doing.

Santorum’s charge is simple. How can a guy that still to this day defends Romneycare be the one to take the fight over Obamacare to the President? I’ve been saying for three years that Romney is simply unable to be the candidate to refute Obamacare and I am thrilled to see Santorum saying the same.

At his appearance in Rochester, Santorum said, “Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”

“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”

Santorum’s exactly right, too. How can we believe a word Romney says on repealing Obamacre when he still to this day is a huge supporter of Romneycare and its individual mandate? Especially since early in his campaigning for the presidency Romney said that Romneycare was a model for the nation. Especially since one of his chief advisors says that they really aren’t going to repeal Obamacare despite what Romney says on the stump.

Romney simply cannot face Obama on the issue because his record is no different than Obama’s on healthcare. Romney is an anti-Constitutionalist, a big government guy, a statist, whatever you want to call him his record is exactly like Obama’s on the issue. Should we believe what Romney says on the stump that he’ll repeal Obamacare if elected? I say we go by his actual record, not what, in a desperate attempt to win, he claims he’ll do if elected. His words have no veracity. Just look at his record.

Romney has taken notice of Santorum, too, and he’s set his smear machine on over drive to destroy Santorum. Romney has chosen to go after Rick on earmarks, but, as Santorum notes, that is a bit cynical since Romney and those that are acting as his surrogate have been big supporters of earmarks in the past.

“Here’s a situation where someone is now doing well, rising in the polls and instead of Gov. Romney going out and talking about his plans and what he’s going to do, he goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear — even though he’s as vulnerable on this issue [earmarks] as anybody,” Santorum said.

He said some of Romney’s surrogates have used earmarks in the past, but did not specifically mention Pawlenty.

“This is the narrative which you’re going to see. Anytime someone challenges Gov. Romney, Gov. Romney goes out and instead of talking about what he’s for … he just simply goes out and attacks and tries to destroy,” Santorum told reporters after his speech. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”

The main takeaway here is that Romney has been allowed to skate without having to confront his statist love of Romneycare. It is good that Santorum is finally taking it to Mitt forcefully. Some one needs to, anyway.

« « Red Light Cameras: Government’s ‘It’s For Public Safety’ Lie
“She’s never seen a Republican before!” » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 7, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Elections, Health Care, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum.


Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

    Your endorsement would be Santorum’s first large endorsement, Todd.

    Have any of the right’s heavy hitters endorsed him? Why not?

  • Commander_Chico

    Santorum’s basically a Catholic Falangist.  He would have felt at home in Franco Spain, with church-run unions and extensive censorship.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

       Not as at home as you would feel in Stalinist Russia.

  • PBunyan

    I “endorsed” Santorum about a week after Cain dropped out.  I’m glad to see he’s gaining a little momentum.  Santorum is far from perfect, but still the best of the available options.

  • Wild_Willie

    First off we cannot take our eye off the prize. Whomever wins the nomination has my full financial and physical support. Our country is collapsing and any of the three left standing is much better than the bozo in office now.

    Secondly, the adviser is correct because he cannot, as president, end Obamacare. He can stop certain previsions and congress can block funding, but it will take legislative action to end it. ww

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Or SCOTUS to rule Obamacare unconstitutional.

  • ackwired

    If unwavering adherance to ideology is the criterea, he would be your guy.  I’ve been surprised that he hasn’t gained more traction.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

     Santorum today: 

    In December 2005, Governor Mitt Romney required all Massachusetts
    hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception
    to rape victims.

    Actually, Romney vetoed the bill, his veto was then overridden by the 85% Democratic legislature.

    So, in your view, was Santorum’s claim true, or not true?  And, if not true, is it reasonable to expect Santorum to know it was not true?

    • MichaelLaprarie

      The same is largely true of Romneycare in general.  Conservatives like to pin “Romneycare” entirely on Mitt Romney because he submitted a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that included an individual mandate, to the MA legislature.  But a little studying of the history of the bill clearly spells out that MA’s leading Democrat policy makers,  liberal reformers, and even Blue Cross Blue Shield had been pushing for a health care bill for some time.  They put a lot of pressure on Romney both in terms of public demonstrations and by drafting their own legislative plan.

      As I have previously blogged and commented, governors are rarely quixotic crusaders; initiatives that they introduce, or support through compromise, or in some cases oppose, are largely based on the will of the people.  Sometimes those initiatives are controversial, but rarely are they solely the product of strong-arming by the governor against the general will of the people and/or the state legislature.  That was pretty much the case with Romneycare.

      Unsurprisingly, the bill that the MA legislature passed looked a lot more like their own plan rather than the one Romney proposed.  Romney signed the bill, but through line item veto he removed a number of significant parts of the bill, including the controversial mandate that employers with more than 10 full time employees had to provide health insurance or pay a fine.  HOWEVER – the MA legislature over-rode nearly all of Romney’s line item vetoes, including the veto of the employer mandate.

      I think that things like this go a long way to explaining the “liberalization” of governors like Romney and Schwarzenegger, since they face overwhelming ideological opposition and generally can find consensus only by making broad compromises or accepting legislative over-rides of executive decisions.

      I’m not a Romney supporter/defender – I’m just trying to apply a dose of common sense to this debate.

      • westcoastwiser

        Too many jumping on the Romneycare issue fail to do their homework.  The MA legislature at the time was 85% Dems, and both houses had their own Bills in one committee or another.  There was going to be a health care Bill in MA that year regardless and Romney did the best he could to get one that didn’t have major tax increases and other onerous provisions. 

        Just as Michael shows, the background is readily available.  Romney was crafty to get some of his provisions in and not get them struck by the legislature.  He had some vetoes overridden and others passed through that tight sieve.

        The media fails to add the background, that is readily available on the Internet with a simple search, only leaving the impression that Romney is the culprit.

        When i read the other comments in this thread (and those of the author) it’s easy to grasp that little research has been done.

        Thanks for the common sense, Michael.

        As for Santorum, you need to meet him (as I have in a setting of a small group). Another empty suit. Claims conservative posture, but was huge Specter supporter and liberal earmark legislator.

    • http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand

       That’s a Romneybot talking point. Wrong.

      “Coulter then argued to this writer that Romney was pro-life because
      he vetoed a bill requiring all private hospitals to provide the abortion
      pill for rape victims. She got that wrong as well. Not only did the
      legislature notify Romney in advance that his symbolic veto would be
      overridden, but a few days later, he reversed his position and said ”I
      think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals
      [referring to private hospitals] to provide information and access to
      emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.

      Moreover, after the bill became law, Gov. Romney could have used his
      executive power to exempt private Catholic hospitals from complying, but
      he refused to do so, even though the Catholic Church begged him to
      intervene based on existing religious conscience protection statutes on
      the books. Romney’s action, or lack thereof, led to an unprecedented
      assault on freedom of religion.”

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    I do believe one part of Romney’s criticisms of Santorum is unfair:  that he voted to raise the debt ceiling.  Only a dishonest person votes against raising the debt ceiling.  Raising the debt ceiling is always necessary to pay for spending already authorized and appropriated by Congress. 

    Voting against raising the debt ceiling is like tearing up the credit card bill that comes after your spending spree.

    If you don’t want the debt, don’t spend the freaking money in the first place!  There is NO honor in voting against raising the debt ceiling, it is only a cynical political gesture because most people are too uninformed to realize the difference.

    Santorum was no spending hawk in the Senate, to be sure, call him out on that.  But not on voting to pay the dang bill.

  • klaffner

    The argument that Romney is less able to attack ObamaCare because of RomneyCare just does not hold up in the General.  It really doesn’t hold up in the primaries either.  

  • klaffner

    The argument that Romney is less able to attack ObamaCare because of RomneyCare just does not hold up in the General.  It really doesn’t hold up in the primaries either.  

  • Gmacr1

    ABO in ’12.

    It’s good that someone is smacking Mittens with the BS he foisted on the rest of the country by introducing it in MA.

  • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

    One of Santorum’s only negatives is that he isn’t the former “Governor” of Pennsylvania rather than the former Senator of Pennsylvania. His lack of executive experience is his biggest drawback in my opinion.

    On the same hand, it’s Romney’s biggest net positive.

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    All that Romney has to do is remind GOP voters that Obamacare violates the U.S. Constitution, while Romneycare doesn’t. Romneycare may be bad law, but it is still an exercise of the 10th Amendment . . . the Amendment which says that states can do things that the federal government can’t.

    • http://proteinwisdom.com/ McGehee

       I don’t want to choose between two guys who think socialized medicine is a good idea but only disagree on whether it should be state or federal.

      I want a candidate who knows it’s wrong no matter where it happens.