Romney the reformer, and the risks of roadkill
A Republican's health reform is similar to Obama's health reform
Romney the reformer, and the risks of roadkill
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
It has been fascinating to watch Mitt Romney during these first days of the health reform era (or, as the Republicans call it, "Armageddon"). We've long known, of course, that Romney has a penchant for retooling his convictions to fit the exigencies of the moment, but what this presidential aspirant is doing this week - shedding his old image as a responsible, pragmatic executive; brandishing a pitchfork so that he can pander to the most irrational elements of the conservative base - is downright breath-taking.
There's no mystery why he's doing this. He wants to win the '12 GOP nomination (although he has yet to formally declare his candidacy), and he figures that the best way to win the key early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina is to convince right-leaning primary voters that he too sees Barack Obama as a socialist/fascist/Kenyan/whatever and a betrayer of America besides. Which is why, on Monday, Romney claimed that the president has "betrayed his oath to the nation" by signing "unconstitutional" health care reform; and why, yesterday, he circulated an email asking his political supporters to donate money to the cause of repealing health care reform.
And yet, despite his latest fervently rightward tilt, I suspect that Romney may well wind up as roadkill after his rival contestants out him as a phony. It's a 30-second attack ad waiting to happen, and it has the advantage of being essentially true:
The Obama health reform law that Romney purportedly loathes actually resembles, in many key respects, the Massachusetts health reform law that Romney championed and signed as governor - starting with the individual mandate, the requirement that all citizens purchase health insurance. The same requirement that Romney now finds so objectionable.
Rather than having me list the provisions that the two laws have in common, let's turn the job over to Fox News. Seventeen days ago, host Chris Wallace sliced Romney to ribbons on this very issue. Here's Wallace: "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 subsidies for some of the uninsured. You set minimum insurance coverage standards. Again, a lot of emails I got from conservatives make this point. They say it sure sounds an awful lot like Obamacare....We got a lot of email from conservatives this week who said that you are the wrong man" to be making the case against Obama.
This is not good. A Republican presidential aspirant who runs afoul of Fox News might as well give it up and go sell shoes. At one point, Romney insisted that his reform law had "no government insurance, no government option, if you will." Wallace retorted, "Well, there's no government option in the Obama plan anymore, either." To which Romney sputtered, "No, that's right, that's right, and so what we did was entirely different..." It was ugly, watching this guy trying to shed his own record.
The record shows that, when Romney was governor and closest to his true self as a business-oriented executive, he worked overtime to cover the uninsured and require everyone to purchase coverage - with government subsidies, if necessary. He became the first (and he's still the only) governor to sign a health insurance mandate.
On April 8, 2006, shortly before signing the Massachusetts law, he talked up health reform on NPR, sounding much like Obama today: "We're spending a billion dollars giving health care to people who don't have insurance. And my question was, could we take that billion dollars and help the poor purchase insurance? Let them pay what they can afford. We'll subsidize what they can't."
He told NPR that the reforms would work only if everyone bought coverage. He said that those citizens who can afford insurance would be required to buy it - "otherwise, you're just passing your expenses on to someone else." Obama couldn't have said it better.
But my favorite part was when Romney attacked those who would defy the law and refuse to buy coverage: "That's not Republican, that's not Democratic, that's not libertarian. That's just wrong."
Today, it's clear that Romney 2.0 (or perhaps it's 3.0) would prefer that conservative Republican voters ignore the earlier Romney or, better yet, remain blissfully unaware. The latter scenario is not very likely. The conservative Club for Growth, the interest group that seeks to expunge all moderate impulses from the GOP, is already assailing Romney; as Club official Andy Roth reportedly remarked two weeks ago, "The individual mandate is diametrically against what free-market conservatives believe in," and if Romney thinks he won't be held accountable for his mandate, "then I think he is in the wrong party."
And wait to see what happens during the long presidential primary season (which, believe it or not, begins in a mere eight months, right after the midterms). Rival Republican candidates will likely bring up the Massachusetts law in the debates, and they will likely distill its essence in the TV ads. Just like in the Fox News gig, Romney will have to spend precious time on defense, explaining how his law differs from Obama's law. He who toils on defense is least likely to survive.
In theory, Romney could take the opposite tack - by pointing out that the health coverage mandate concept was actually hatched by the conservative Heritage Foundation back in the early '90s, as a way to get people to take responsibility for themselves - but, of course, it would be political suicide for him to suggest that conservatives are now behaving as hypocrites, attacking their own mandate concept only because Obama has embraced it. And besides, there's no way Romney can flip flop yet again, now that he has morphed into a placard-wielding populist who's apparently intent on assailing the mandate embraced by his former self. His new, overcompensating self may be his only hope for capturing conservative hearts, tenuous as those prospects might be.
So he'll have to twist in the wind indefinitely, even as the White House keeps twisting the knife. On Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs mentioned the similarities between Obama's law and Romney's law, before adding: "I'm sure Gov. Romney hates every time I say that." You can bet on it.
Dick, you usually at least make a reasonable argument, if based on unsound assumptions. But to insinuate that opposition to the Health bill is irrational crosses the line. The more I read the bill, the more against it I become. I think it is more irrational to believe that this bill does anything it claims to do.— Mirror- Mr. Cheese, Polman's point is that Romney will get your vote only if you write in his name, because he won't be the Republican candidate. Good luck getting elected president as a write-in candidate!— Yersinia Pestis
- Romney will not win the GOP nomination because of 'Mitt-care'. He is a moderate repub (and Polman still slices and dices, go figure:) and that is just not going to do for the next presidential election (McCain but younger). Plus the Morman thing is a little much for the bible belt repubs to get over, imho. The GOP needs to run a true conservative in 2012. Someone that will run on cutting the size and scope of govt., someone that will reign in exploding govt. entitlement spending before it bankrupts us, someone that will run on term limits for Congress. Someone that will run on killing the IRS (not adding 15,000 new agents) and replacing an arcane income tax policy with a national sales tax or some other point of sale method to collect taxes. Someone that will run on personal responsibility for our citizens and not the govt. taking care of everyone, someone that will run on cutting taxes on our people and our businesses to get our country moving forward again. That is the candidate I will be looking for in 2012 and by then I bet the country will have had its fill of 9% unemployment and 4 years of unemployment benefits and 4 years of growing govt., growing govt. debt, growing mortgage defaults, etc. What good are health insurance credits if you have no job, no house & are indebted to the govt. for everything you have and need? We will see if this nonsense works and it better or the refrain will be, 'Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?' & that answer better be yes of this President is in deep doo doo, imho.— NEPhilly
- TOM SAID: Tal, from your post, did you note the word "alleged"? Still no verifiable evidence that any of the slurs actually happened. ........... TOM: Alleged doesn't mean not verifiable, dude. It means not convicted. A man shots someone in front of 100 witnesses, and it's still alleged, dude. Thank you, for how to take one word, and make a Conse 'Pub right. Good example of Conse 'Pub linguistics. No wonder you guys are never wrong.— Talvenada
- NE, that is what cracks me up about this blog post, and the responses to it - Romney would probably do most of the stuff on your wish list, assuming (big assumption) he could beat Obama after 3 more years of legislative and economic progress, but you people are too wrapped up in your ideological strait jackets to realize it!— Yersinia Pestis
- Case in point - yesterday health care reform, today nuclear arms control agreement with Russia. Obama has accomplished more for America in 2 days than Chicken George did in 8 years! Now for financial reform, cap & trade, and who knows, maybe even tax simplification (everyone likes that idea except the tax accountants and tax lawyers).— Yersinia Pestis
Comment removed.- I'll agree with this- Romney Care is just about the same as Obamacare and its failing miserably. This is what politicians do- they change opinions on a daily basis. Of course, you won;t hear about the 5000 changes of opinion Obama has had on these pages, but hey- you;re reading Pravda, what do you want? But I do agree that the combination of Romeny Care and now his stance against it will hurt him politically.— tjm333126
- yersinia, maybe he would, but I doubt it. You don't sign a law like Mass-care that grows the govt. and its spending and then say you are a conservative. Mitt is a chameleon and everyone knows it. The GOP will start with winning at least 1 house of Congress (my prediction is Reid will go down and Pelosi will be minority leader come Christmas) this November and stop the 'euro-fication' of America in its tracks:) Then on to the 2012 elections. 'Jeb 2012' sounds good to me:)— NEPhilly
- Romney signed that law and it too effect right away. That took courage. Obama signed a law that does not really take effect until after the next presidential election. That way, he can tout the signing of the bill without most people even knowing its impact. Brave leader. Wasn't Obama also against the mandate before he was for it? Didn't he lambaste Hillary Clinton during a 2008 debate for including a mandate in her health plan? Why yes, he did!!! Doesn't that also make him even more of a hypocrite than he already is due ot his switch on the deficit commission, on taxing employer provided coverage, for not putting bills on the internet for five days before he signs them, etc. etc. etc. Why not include that in your post Polman?— tom - wilmington, de
- Romney is nothing but a Progressive Conservative...if that's at all possible. He should not even think about running for president again.— whiplash240
- Obama's hypocrisy has shone again. Against the deficit commission, then appoints one by exeutive order. Against taxing employer provided insurance, then includes a 40% tax in his healthcare plan. Against the individual and employer mandate (he lambasted Hillary for it in a 2008 debate), but includes it in his healthcare plan. Promised to post any bill online for five days before signing it into law, but has not yet done that once. The list goes on and on.— tom - wilmington, de
- NE, I don't know what you've been smoking, but can I have some too? You must be joking - Jeb Bush??? The Bush name is radioactive, and will be for generations to come. But, hey, don't take my word for it, go ahead and run him. I'd still prefer Palin/Beck, but Bush/Schmuckleberry is OK too.— Yersinia Pestis
- Forcing anyone to buy a commodity in order to be a good American is unconstitutional, pure and simple. I know it is done with auto insurance but having a driver's license is a privlege, not a right; therefore, that is constitutional. I do not care if a republican or a democrat or George Washington himself suggested it, it is unconstitutional.— frankfj
- tom: can anyone ever change their mind and not be a hypocrit? I agree that Obama hasn't posted bills for five days before signing them (although that's lying, where's the hypocrisy?) and he should be criticized for that. He did criticize Hilary for the mandate. If his economic team (or healthcare team, or whoever advises him) convinces him that it's not doable w/out a mandate, is that being hypocritical, or just not being oblivious to reality? For me, it would depend on what he says. If he simply changes his position with no justification, then yes, that's hypocrisy. If he gives a reasonable justification, then it's not. Was Reagan a hypocrit when he raised taxes? I'd say no, he was dealing with reality, but maybe you think he was. ... Finally, McCain was proposing taxing ALL employer provided insurance. If McCain had proposed only taxing "cadillac" plans and Obama opposed, then fine, he's being hypocritical. But that wasn't the case.— still_independent
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
