Romney Gets it Right

Fox News: Romney Slams President Obama’s Health Care Law

I just saw this story over the weekend — finally, what I’ve been hoping to hear from Mitt Romney for about a year now.

“Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for America’s families,” Romney declared. “And that’s the reason why President Obama will be a one-term president.” He vowed to repeal it if he were ever in a position to do so, and drew hearty cheers from his Republican Party audience.

Then, raising the Massachusetts law, Romney argued that the solution for the unique problems of one state isn’t the right prescription for the nation as a whole, and he acknowledged: “Our experiment wasn’t perfect — some things worked, some didn’t, and some things I’d change.”

“One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover,” Romney said, again earning applause. “The federal government isn’t the answer for running health care any more than it’s the answer for running Amtrak or the post office.”

It’s no secret that the biggest hurdle facing Mitt Romney and his inevitable candidacy is his ability to reconcile, and indeed distinguish, the immensely unpopular ObamaCare with the health care law he implemented while in the State House in Massachusetts.  It’s also no secret that I was growing more and more frustrated with his silence on the matter — it seems that, each time he had the chance, he would maintain radio silence rather than state the absolute right answer to everyone’s questions and doubts: it is intrinsic to our republican system of government that the states be permitted, and even encouraged, to act as a laboratory through which we can achieve the best possible solutions for the people to everyday problems.

Time and time again, I maintained that Mitt could use the failed RomneyCare experiment, along with the failed Dirigo Health System experiment in Maine and the success of what Mitch Daniels has been able to achieve in Indiana, and actually use it to his advantage in terms of explaining to the American people exactly how our founders intended our nation to adapt and succeed.  Finally, he’s getting there.

And, speaking of Indiana and Mitch Daniels, perhaps Mitt should be talking to him about a presidential ticket.   Romney/Daniels 2012 would certainly show what solid leadership from a chief executive can do for a state and its people, and it would certainly be able to instill confidence with regard to fiscal matters and draw a sharp contrast to the Obama administration’s handling of the economic downturn.



  1. Linda C. says:

    Already you’re talking about the “inevitable” candidacy of Mitt Romney??? See, that’s the problem. A name is proposed by the “good-old-boy” system and those who are not only more qualified, but who possess a more winnable platform are not considered. Romney is NOT the candidate for the Republican party and not the candidate who can beat BHO in 2012.

  2. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Linda — By “inevitable,” I mean that he’s running. In a primary.

  3. Dan says:

    “The Obama Misery Index and the Rise of Obamavilles” is the best blog post I’ve read in a long time. This is why President Obama will be a one-term president!

    I can’t recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo Romney supporters will need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.

  4. Boston Blackie says:

    What was enacted in MA for “Romneycare” is not what was proposed. Everyone was supposed to pay something, most now pay nothing under Masshealth while you and I will be fined two grand if we do not have health insurance. As you state, Jeff, he needs to clearly explain this and also distinguish the difference between states rights and the federal government overstepping their powers over the states. We need someone that has had a career in the private sector to lead this country. I don’t agree with him on everything but right now he is at the top of my list worth voting for. He did well as governor in a state where you can count on one hand the republicans in government to support him.

    Here is another editorial written by Romney worth reading.

  5. Linda C. says:

    Okay, Jeff. I’ll give you that one. For a minute there I thought your rationale had escaped you.

  6. 2010, 2012 says:

    i also saw this explanation a few months back when Romney spoke somewhere else that i cannot recall at this time. I must admit i was impressed with his argument. it reminded me that it is good to always be willing to listen because i really thought he was doomed as a candidate given the association. his argument never dawned on me until i heard it from his mouth.

    he explained that what is good for one State is not necessarily good for all and he would never have attempted to shove this down the throats of the entire United States. a good argument imo. now if he could just make his position on gay marriage crystal clear for me…

  7. conservative means conservative says:

    okay, romney has not backtracked from his promises to stand with gays SO FAR… SO UNTIL HE DOES he is definitely OFF, OFFFFF, OFFFFFFFFFF my list of considerations, even for V.P.

  8. Jeff Schreiber says:

    If conservative means conservative, and you are in favor of constitutional limitations on the federal government … where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to say who can and cannot marry?


  1. [...] Jeff Schreiber America’s Right [...]

  2. [...] original here: Romney Gets it Right March 7th, 2011 | Category: America’s [...]

Speak Your Mind