Thank you for visiting Ohio.com. We noticed you are using an outdated browser that may not give you the best user experience. We recommend current browser versions of Google’s Chrome, Microsoft’s Edge, Mozilla’s Firefox. For more specific information on how to update your browser --Click Here or visit your browser’s website.
The tragedy is that for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President.
In case you're wondering.....the WSJ is a hopelessly, in-the-bag-for-the-wealthy, Murdoch-owned, ultra-conservative media source. The WSJ is NEVER friendly towards anything progressive. The WSJ, like the modern GOP, has never seen a tax or regulation on big business they didn't want eliminated.
Former GOP presidential primary candidate, Rick Santorum on March 26, 2012...
“There's one candidate who is uniquely disqualified to make the case" against the law, Santorum said of Romney. "It's the reason I'm here and he's not. The reason that I talk about 'Obamacare' and its impact on the economy and on fundamental freedoms, and Mitt Romney doesn't. It's because he can't, because he supported government-run health care as governor of Massachusetts.”
I never could quite understand why Republican primary voters would pick a guy who, as governor, passed and implemented the identical health care program that he says he will repeal nationally, if elected. Before the Supremes ruled, Mitt Romney could get away with claiming that his Massachusetts health care program was fine because of.....states rights, but that the federal government passing such a program would be unconstitutional.
Now that issue is settled....and Romney doesn't have the unconstitutional label to throw at Obamacare anymore. Yet, Mitt is still promising to repeal Obamacare on "day one." And if he can't repeal it on day one, then he'll issue waivers to all 50 states so they won't have to comply.....or something.
Much of it implemented, and now ruled constitutional.....should Romney be elected president.....he's not going to do anything, at all, to Obamacare. Obamacare stands.
Oh sure, there's talk about the reconciliation process, and the possibility of 51 GOP senators in the new Congress next year, and doing away with the 60 vote filibuster rule in the Senate if the GOP gains the majority there....and imaginative talk about killing Obamacare entirely. But without a GOP president to sign the repeal.....a re-elected President Obama will veto any such repeal or rollback attempt and Republican obstructionists won't have enough votes to override a presidential veto.
It's a rock and hard place situation for Republicans. They need to change the subject, but because they and their mistaken followers and media members invested so much time and effort cock-sure and mouthy about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.....changing the subject is proving to be more difficult than first imagined.
And so, Rick Santorum's words "uniquely disqualified" resonate today, and they will resonate in November. What the heck were conservative/Republican leaders and voters thinking? Why would conservative voters pick a candidate who didn't simply proclaim his contempt for Obamacare, like all GOP candidates did,.....but had, himself, passed an identical law when he was governor of Massachusetts?
How could conservatives/Republicans expect an ex-governor who had passed and implemented the same healthcare law that President Obama signed for the nation.....to campaign against President Obama on the premise that Obamacare was "bad policy" and that, if elected, Romney would repeal it? The dissonance has created an unavoidable WTF moment.
The WSJ points the finger of blame towards Romney's handlers, but the Murdoch paper propagandists seem united in their doom and gloom outlook of a GOP presidential takeover....
This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign's insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.
To which I would respond....."well, what the heck did you expect?" Think about the obliviousness. In the aftermath of the worst financial recession in 70 years, a recession caused entirely by the deregulation of money shuffling bankers and insurers......and Republicans choose Gordon Gekko as their presidential hopeful, the Monopoly Man.
In a period when income and wealth disparity between average Americans and the top 1% has skyrocketed.....Republicans choose a candidate whose wealth is a quarter of a billion dollars and who paid a lower percentage last year on his millions than a tenured teacher did on his thousands. And to make all of this even worse....Republicans have chosen a guy who, if elected, will lower tax rates on guys like himself.....by another third.
It's often said......but in the case of Romney's candidacy it is uniquely accurate.....that it would be hard to make stuff like this up....but it's all true. Republicans, confronted with a bunch of minor leaguerers and has-been candidates, actually picked the worst candidate they could have possibly picked.
Yes, Santorum, a veteran nut in his own right, stated it correctly.....Mitt Romney is "uniquely disqualified" to make the case against Obamacare. Romney is a poor, a uniquely poor, candidate, and it's starting to show.
And that's why the flags are at half-mast over at the WSJ.