comMITTed to Romney!

In my opinion, McCain’s stance on market based, portable, individual health insurance coverage shows the continuing influence of Gov. Romney on his campaign.

McCain has taken several pages from the Romney playbook. McCain is fortunate to have Romney’s past success in crafting market-based health insurance for Massachusetts available to help him formulate policies that will benefit all Americans.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/
AR2008042902706.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

By Michael D. Shear

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 30, 2008; Page A01

TAMPA, April 29 – Sen. John McCain on Tuesday rejected calls by his Democratic opponents for universal health coverage, instead offering a market-based solution with an approach similar to a proposal put forth by President Bush last year.
This Story

McCain’s belief in the power of the free market to meet the nation’s health-care needs sets up a stark choice for voters this fall in terms of the care they could receive, the role the government would play and the importance they place on the issue

In a speech at a cancer research center here, McCain dismissed his rivals’ proposals for universal health care as riddled with “inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs.” He said the 47 million uninsured Americans will get coverage only when they are freed from the shackles of the current employer-dominated system.

Share on Facebook

Share This

For fellow conservatives considering Mitt for the first time, it’s important to understand Mitt’s staunch support of the pro-life platform.  The media has tried to downplay and negate Mitt’s position on this.  They’ve managed to stick a big old post-it note on Mitt’s forehead labelled “Flip Flopper” in permanent ink.  They’ve asserted that he lacks conviction.  They’re wrong.  As Governor, Mitt consistently stuck to conservative principles.  On abortion, marriage, health care, economy and other important issues, Mitt consistenly made conservative decisions.  For a great summary on Mitt’s real record, see Ann Marie’s post back in November 2007.

On Monday, the 35th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, Mitt once again committed to overturning this decision:

After 35 years of Roe v. Wade, we are again reminded why this decision should be overturned,” Romney said in a statement provided to LifeNews.com.

“We recognize the worth and dignity of every person, a fact that is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose,” Romney added. “Unelected judges should not be the final arbiters on these important decisions which define who we are as a people.”

Recently, Romney told Nevada voters that he wanted the high court to overturn the infamous decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

“I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that’s not where America is, and that’s why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said then.

“That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion,” he said.

“Today, as Americans from across this country participate in the annual March for Life, my thoughts are with all those whose dedication and compassionate concern have done so much to educate and assist others in creating a genuine culture of life,” he said.

The last phrase is a very telling remark.  As he does with so many issues, Mitt is able to look at the broader implications and ramifications of following a certain path.  When he discusses his decision to become politically pro-life, Mitt often states that as Governor he realized that the effects of Roe v. Wade weren’t just limited to abortion.  They extended to issues like embryonic stem cell research and teenage pregnancy, and to the very basic fabric of our culture.  The question, “Are we a culture of life, or of death,” has strong ramifications for our children, their education, their government, their health, their society and their future.  Mitt understood (and has helped me understand) that the issue of abortion isn’t solely about choice or murder or rights - it’s about the kind of culture, society and country we are creating (or destroying) for the next generation.

If you are unsure about Mitt’s conviction on this or other social issues such as marriage, please DO NOT believe the picture the media has painted.  Please take a few minutes to visit Mitt’s site where he discusses his belief in “promoting a culture of life,” or visit the Encyclopedia Mittanica, where you can scroll down and find Mitt’s answers to just about any question, all neatly alphabetized according to issue. 

Warning:  if you take a few minutes to do this - to objectively look at Mitt’s platform and record, you WILL find he is a true Reagan conservative, and you WILL most likely want to join, sign up, contribute, campaign for, blog and in all other ways become a Mitt supporter!  Let us know when you do - we’d love to hear your story!

Share on Facebook

Share This

So “The Economy” constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn’t think so. His new economic plan isn’t impressing many. And let’s not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain’s economic record (Their main points are that “John McCain is No Supply-Sider” and that he has a “Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative”)

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. — John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn’t know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:

McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign’s alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he’s weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he “may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,” McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” McCain said. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.“

Sorry John, but if you haven’t gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you’re not ever going to “get it” . . . even if Greenspan’s book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

My daughter Jessica and Cousin Devon 11 days apart…

As most of you know by my blog posts over the past couple of weeks, my nephew (my brother’s second oldest child) is dying of —>Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, or ALL. It is not likely that by this time tomorrow that he will be with us.

I was so fortunate to speak to him on the phone yesterday morning and hear a strong voice. I was also able to make sure that what I wished for him to have (two packs of orange tick tacks…one of his favorite treats) were given to him. He is a very special boy, one that I will always be honored to have known. I appreciate all of the monetary donations toward his funeral and burial expenses, love, thoughts, and prayers that you’ve embraced my family and me with these past couple of weeks. At this point I would just like to ask for two things, one that you hold those that you love dear and closer than ever (you never know when they might part this earth…Devon is only 11), and that you continue to pray for our family during this extremely painful time. We’re sure going to miss that kid. Thanks to all, and goodnight!

If you’re still interested in donating to “The Devon Curling Fund” you still can through the following two methods:

You can donate via credit card to my PayPal account and I will write a big check to be deposited in the fund:

Or you can write a check, and mail to the following:

Write Checks out to “The Devon Curling Fund”
Address:
The Bank of Kentucky
1831 Madison Avenue
Covington, KY 41014
Attn: Lisa Metzger

Share on Facebook

Share This

As we approach the primary voting season, there are more and more new folks finding their way to our humble blog. The information I found on this blog was extremely helpful to me as I assessed the various candidates in search of “the One.” As such, I thought it would be fitting for me to share why I am a staunch supporter of Governor Mitt Romney in his run for the White House.

In a nutshell, Mitt Romney is the only “full-spectrum” Conservative who can rally the support of all three wings of the Reagan coalition, namely, Social, Economic, and Foreign Policy Conservatives.

For a full treatment of Mitt Romney’s positions, I would refer you to his comprehensive policy book “Vision for a Strong America.” Let me summarize here, however, the highlights across the major issues:

• Foreign Policy
o War against Islamic Fascism: We are engaged in a multi-front war which will require using all of our military, economic, and diplomatic might to win; we must defeat the terrorists and those who aid and abet them as well as help the Muslim people enter the 21st century (click here and here)
o Iraq and Afghanistan: The surge is working and we must do what it takes to help Iraq and Afghanistan become stable democratic allies in the war on Islamic Fascism and support our troops (click here and here)
o Iran: Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear state; diplomacy and economic sanctions are critical, but may not be enough; the military option must remain on the table (click here)
o Military: Need to increase defense spending to a minimum of 4% of GDP to make sure our armed forces have the equipment they need in the field and the support the need back home; the best ally of peace is a strong America (click here and here)

• Economic Policy
o Taxes: We need to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Tax, and cut taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest to zero for the Middle Class (click here, and here)
o Spending: We need to restrain Federal spending and close the deficit; will veto any budget where non-defense discretionary spending growth exceeds inflation minus 1%; Need to give the President a line-item veto; Strong track record of financial management from Massachusetts where he closed a $3B deficit and turned it into a $1B surplus without raising taxes; carry out a comprehensive review of government spending to increase efficiency and effectiveness (click here and here)
o Entitlements reform: Maintain benefits for current Seniors, but institute fundamental reforms combining slowing the rate of increase for benefits based on income, extending the retirement age, individual retirement accounts, and no tax increases (click here)
o Healthcare: Mitt Romney is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who implemented a universal health care plan; He covered all of the citizens of Massachusetts using market-based insurance without raising taxes; Governor Romney advocates a Federalist state-by-state approach to make health insurance more affordable for everyone (click here)
o Globalization: Continue to trade around the world but make sure we negotiate level playing fields in foreign markets and upgrade American competitiveness through investments in education and innovation (click here and here)

• Culture and Values
o Illegal immigration: Control the border first and turn of the “magnets” that attract illegal immigrants by implementing an employment verification system, no special path for illegal immigrants to become citizens (i.e. no amnesty), no sanctuary cities, increased enforcement by local police agencies (click here, here, and here)
o Traditional marriage: In favor of amending the constitution to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman; fought the Massachusetts Supreme Court to prevent the state from becoming a destination for same-sex couples looking for marriage licenses (click here and here and here)
o Life: Much has been made of Governor Romney’s switch from being Pro-Abortion to Pro-Life; This is a critical issue for me; I have heard many times why he made this change, and I believe him; I believe that Mitt Romney will fight for the rights of the unborn and be a great leader in supporting Life (click here, here, and here)

The choice of a nominee and President, however, is not strictly a “right-brained” decision based on policy statements and positions. There needs to be something inspirational about a candidate whether it’s the way that they speak to a crowd, interact one on one, or something about their personal story that sets them apart.

Experiencing Mitt through articles and videos really helped seal the deal for me. Below, I have listed some of what I would consider the best of the best articles and videos that helped me come to the decision to support Mitt actively. I’m sure I’m missing some great material, but there is a lot down below. I would encourage you to click through as much of this as you can, and if you have a favorite that wasn’t listed, please leave a link in the comments!

Key videos, speeches, appearances, and articles:
• Articles
o Romney to the Rescue (Newsmax) – Great overview of Mitt Romney
o National Review’s endorsement of Mitt Romney
o The House that Mitt Built (Private Equity International) – Behind the scenes view of how Mitt ran Bain Capital and his leadership style
o The Making of Mitt Romney (Boston Globe) – Reasonably balanced biography of each of the major phases of Mitt’s life starting from his youth through today
o Consultant in Chief (Wall Street Journal) – Interview of Mitt where he talks about how he would fix the Federal Government
o For Romney & Company, Campaign is all Business (NY Times) – How Mitt runs his campaign and what it would mean for his Presidency
o Evangelicals for Mitt statement of support
o Mark DeMoss on why Evangelicals should support Mitt
o Ann Romney Opens Up (People Magazine) – Great interview with Ann; she would be a fantastic First Lady!

• Speeches
o “Faith in America” – Seminal address on the role of religious faith and liberty in our nation
o Address to the Value Voters Summit – Seminal address on culture and value issues
o Iowa Straw Poll victory speech
o Highlights from the Republican debates (click 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th)
o Speech at CPAC 2007 – One of Mitt’s first major addresses to the leading grassroots gathering of Conservatives; one of his best speeches in my opinion
o Presidential Campaign Announcement – Mitt announcing that he’s running and why he’s running

• Campaign videos
o Biographical overview video of Mitt Romney (click part I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII)
o “Path to Victory” webcast – Mitt and Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay) discussing the 2007 campaign and discussing the plan for 2008
o Retrospective of Governor Romney’s campaign in 2007
o Online “Ask Mitt Anything” – For those of us who don’t live in an early primary state, Mitt held an online town hall meeting which provides a really good overview of his key positions
o Christmas 2006 – Behind the scenes look at the Romney family and how they made the decision together that Mitt should run for President; cynics have criticized this video as contrived, but I love the fact that he has held his family together while achieving such exceptional success; you can’t fake this stuff

• Media appearances
o Mitt on Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money – Great interview by Jim Cramer where he calls Mitt the “Best businessman in America”
o Mitt on ABC News talking about Ann – Great interview of Mitt where he discusses what he loves so much about Ann
o Mitt on Meet the Press – Tim Russert throws everything he’s got plus the kitchen sink at Mitt who proceeds to address each point in a clear, classy, and compelling way

• My favorite TV spots
o “Searched” – Compelling true story of how Mitt Romney shut down Bain Capital and moved all the employees to NYC to search for and find the daughter of one of his partners
o “Choice: Judgment” – Striking contrast ad highlighting Mike Huckabee’s 1,033 pardons and clemencies (more than 2x his three predecessors) vs. zero from Mitt Romney
o “Choice: The Record” – Ad contrasting Mitt’s record on illegal immigration vs. Mike Huckabee’s record of supporting tax payer funded scholarships and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
o “Not Politically Correct” – Mitt’s record supporting life, English immersion education, and traditional marriage
o “Experience Matters” – Ad highlighting the lack of real world, executive experience on the part of Hillary Clinton (and equally applicable to the other Democrats)
o “Ready for Action” – Summary of Governor Romney’s stump speech in 60 seconds; user-generated ad based on a contest that was run back in September
o “Our Home” – Some precious footage of Mitt playing with his children and grandchildren; focuses on the importance of strengthening our families
o “Leadership” and “Energy” – I just love the images of Mitt jogging through the backwoods and the focus on his track record in business; I think he’s the only politician I’ve seen jogging where it looked like he was actually in shape…not just a photo op
o “Ocean” – Ad lamenting the degradation of our culture and Mitt’s thoughts on how he would like to address it; as a parent this one really resonated with me
o “Tested, Proven” – One of his early ads highlighting his track record in Massachusetts
o “I Like Vetoes” – Ad highlights his track record of vetoing excessive spending; no doubt in my mind that he’ll control spending after seeing this ad and other times when he has addressed this topic

Finally, it is one thing to support Mitt with your vote, but I’d like to ask you to consider supporting Mitt in a more active way. Like many of you, I had always followed politics, but never became active in politics (other than voting) until this year in support of Governor Romney.

This year is different. First, this is arguably the most consequential election in over twenty years. The challenges and issues that will be faced by our next President will have far reaching ramifications for our children and grandchildren.

Additionally, we face a set of candidates on the Republican side who represent vastly different positions and perspectives, some of whom threaten to tear asunder the Reagan coalition that has served us so well. Whether it is the socially liberal and sanctuary city defending Rudy Giuliani, the divisive, theocratic, soft on crime and illegal immigration, and fiscally populist Mike Huckabee, or the McCain Feingold, “Gang of 14”, and pro-Amnesty John McCain, there are clear differences in the way that each of these individuals would take the Republican Party.

If you’ve found this persuasive, please do whatever you can to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy. If you’re from Iowa, please caucus for Mitt (get more information here). Winning Iowa is job one between now and January 3.

If you are not from Iowa, please stay informed by checking in here at Elect Romney in 2008 every day. Make a donation to help Mitt win the media air war. Put on a bumper sticker or put up a yard sign (get them here). And most importantly, talk with your friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors about why you’re supporting Mitt Romney! Personal testimonials from trusted individuals are by far the most effective ways to gain more supporters for Mitt!

If you still have questions or remain unconvinced, leave a comment and we’ll do our best to answer your question. Or better yet, if you are also a Mitt supporter, leave a comment telling us why! Thank you for reading!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mitt was in Iowa yesterday talking health care. Read about it at IowaPolitics.com.

Sen. Hillary Clinton must defend her universal health care plan, and not leave it to her husband President Bill Clinton to take the blame for its failing in 1993, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday at Des Moines University.

The New York senator is running for president, and must defend her universal health care plan, Romney said. “It is very nice of President Clinton to try and take the blame for things that happened in the past,” Romney said.

“She is the one running for president now, not him. She is the one who is going to have to stand up and defend HillaryCare version 1.0 and version 2.0.”

Bill Clinton said during a Nov. 8 campaign stop in Glenwood, that the failure of the health care plan “was more my fault than hers. We couldn’t raise the money.”

Romney contrasted his plan to Clinton’s plan. “Her proposal then and her proposal now calls for more government insurance,” Romney said. ”

That is the wrong way to go. We have a very different approach. My plan says use the money we are already spending. My approach is based on free enterprise and personal responsibility; hers is based on government.“

This should make us confident that Mitt can hammer Hillary. Mitt is expert on teasing out the facts of history and making others (history-distorting Bill and Hillary in this case) accountable.

Specifics Mitt thoughts on our insurance situation:

Deregulating the private health insurance market is one key in lowering insurance premiums and a key to Romney’s plan. Deregulating and giving people a chance to buy more affordable insurance can also help lower the cost of premiums, Romney said. That is what occurred in Massachusetts, where monthly premiums dropped from $335 to $184 under the state’s health insurance reform.

Romney pointed out that insurance premiums differ across the nation, which is another reason why the industry should be deregulated. Wisconsin annual premiums averaged $1,254. Iowa’s yearly premiums average $2,202, while New Jersey residents pay an average of $5,326 each year for insurance.

Under the Romney plan, states would have more flexibility to assist low-income residents. That flexibility would allow states to make sure low-income uninsured get private instead of government health insurance. And, that is important as Medicaid costs are projected to skyrocket in the next decade.

Romney told the crowd the U.S. spends more than $181 billion on Medicaid, and that figure is estimated to reach $417 billion by 2017.

“We need to find a way to rein in the cost of health care in this country,” Romney said. “We can get everybody in this country insured.”

And, that can be done in four years — without a lot of government involvment, Romney said.

“There is no need in this country for the government to take over health care,” he said.

Mitt’s the right answer. He’s got the organization, work ethic, and abilities to get the job done. Hillary would be a disaster.

Share on Facebook

Share This

First, some context. Recently, Giuliani attacked efforts to expand the children’s health insurance program (SCHIP) calling it “socialized medicine.”

Furthermore, the NYTimes reported yesterday:

In an interview last month on New Hampshire radio, Mr. Giuliani said that expanding the children’s program was a “typical Democratic, Clinton kind of thing” and that enrolling more children “is not just a beginning, it’s a big step in the direction of government-controlled medicine.”

But what did Rudy used to think about such programs?

Some Rudy supporters may claim that such statements mirror his record as mayor of NYC.

He began his tenure in City Hall vowing to curb the role of government in health care. He removed large numbers of people from welfare. He tried, but failed, to sell off New York City’s public hospital system. And he discouraged New Yorkers from enrolling in Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, telling city health officials that the program was a “bad idea.”

. . .

Mr. Jones, president of the Community Service Society, a liberal research and advocacy group in New York, said that in Mr. Giuliani’s first term, in setting out his complaints that the city was paying too much for Medicaid, he wanted the board to state publicly that Medicaid was a “bad idea.”

That’s some “red meat” conservatism, eh?

But the problem for Rudy is that he later went on to strongly promote Medicaid enrollment as well as other healthcare enrollment initiatives thus landing a perfect 10.0 on the TRUE “Flip-Flop” meter (you know, the Kerryesque kind of flip flop of being on both sides of same issue repeatedly.) You want evidence?

in the spring of 2000 . . . he suddenly announced that the city would embark on one of the most aggressive efforts in the country to enroll children and adults in public health programs like Medicaid and Child Health Plus, the state insurance program for children.

He named his effort HealthStat, after his aggressive and widely praised crime reporting program, CompStat. He said he would follow the same course on insurance: he would root out the uninsured as he had rooted out criminals

. . .

In 2000, Mr. Giuliani . . . [announced] his effort to enroll as many as one million more city residents in government health programs.

Addressing the City Council and other city officials, Mr. Giuliani, commanding the room like a general marshaling his troops, said: “The first priority in dealing with the universe of people who are not enrolled in health insurance is to enroll as many children as possible. All city agencies are going to be mobilized.”

Pointing to maps of the city neighborhoods with many uninsured residents, he went on to detail an elaborate plan that would involve weekly reports on enrollment progress. “This is something that in a city like ours, if we can do this, becomes a model for the rest of this country . . .”

. . .

Mr. Giuliani’s effort as mayor to triple the number of New Yorkers with health insurance through government programs appears nowhere in his own description of his record on his presidential campaign Web site. And Mr. Giuliani has attacked efforts in Congress to expand the children’s health insurance program that his administration doggedly expanded, calling it “socialized medicine.” During Congress’s recent battle on the issue, Mr. Giuliani aligned himself with President Bush to limit coverage. Mr. Giuliani’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview for this article.

Some are seeing the flip-floppery here:

Mr. Giuliani’s critics say that his changing views and policies on health insurance during his eight years in City Hall are a prime example of the kind of political expediency that has defined him as a mayor and now as a presidential candidate. His current market-based proposals on health care — which would give consumers tax benefits to buy their own insurance and the poor some combination of tax refunds and vouchers — seem to have him campaigning against his own record in some ways, they say.

“It’s not the first issue he’s done a 180 on,” said Fran Reiter, a Democrat who was a deputy mayor under Mr. Giuliani and ran his 1997 re-election campaign. “I think it’s hard to ask people to judge you on your record when you’ve now walked away from what is a very clear record when you were mayor.”

I would just correct Fran Reiter that Rudy hasn’t just done a “180″ on this issue, he’s done a full “360.” Can this man be trusted?

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The Right Romney Record

BOSTON – Last week, local radio talk show host Gregg Jackson penned an op-ed on the “real Mitt Romney.” Unfortunately, it failed to note the many conservative accomplishments Mitt Romney had as Governor of Massachusetts. Here is Governor Romney’s real record of leadership in Massachusetts:

THE RECORD #1: Gov. Romney Provided Strong, Pro-Life Leadership In Massachusetts And Massachusetts Pro-Life Organizations Agree.

• Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The “Morning After Pill” Without A Prescription. (Gov. Mitt Romney, The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
• Gov. Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract,” Press Release, 4/20/06)
• Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Gov. Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
• Gov. Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
• Gov. Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
• Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)

THE RECORD #2: Gov. Romney Championed Traditional Marriage In Massachusetts.

• Gov. Romney Called For A Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman. “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.” (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Statement By Governor Mitt Romney On SJC Decision On Same Sex Marriage,” Press Release, 11/18/03)
• When The Legislature Would Not Vote On The Amendment, Gov. Romney Filed Suit To Force A Vote. “Governor Mitt Romney and a group of Massachusetts residents asked the state’s highest court yesterday to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, accusing legislative leaders of violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.” (Jonathan Saltzman, The Boston Globe, 11/25/06)
• Gov. Romney Enforced A 1913 Law Preventing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Couples From Marrying In Massachusetts. “Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said.” (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 4/25/04)
• Massachusetts Family Institute Kris Mineau: “He’s been rock solid on the issue of marriage.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 1/12/07)

THE RECORD #3: Gov. Romney Put Conservative Principles To Work In Health Care.

• The Club For Growth: “Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance…” “Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code.” (The Club For Growth, 8/21/07)
• Health Care Reform “Has Cut The Number Of Uninsured In The State By Nearly A Third.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 4/11/07)
• The New York Times: “Observers of the state’s progress since the health care law was passed in April 2006 say they are impressed that the varied constituencies – including health insurers, businesses, advocates, medical providers and taxpayers – largely continue to support the law and have worked to resolve differences.” (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 7/1/07)
• Uninsured Massachusetts Residents Can Obtain Health Care Insurance For As Little As $175 A Month. Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 3/3/07)

THE RECORD #4: Gov. Romney Appoint Judges Who Would Be Tough On Crime And Would Not Legislate From The Bench.

• For The State’s Highest Courts, Governor Romney Said He Would Appoint Judges With “Strict Construction, Judicial Philosophy.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
• For The State’s Lowest Courts, Governor Romney Focused On Legal Experience And Whether The Nominee Would Be Tough On Crime. “He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience. ‘People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away,’ Romney said.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
• The Boston Globe: “Some of Romney’s nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney’s pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court’s gay marriage ruling.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

THE RECORD #5: Gov. Romney Took Action When Problems Were Found With The Big Dig. He Removed The Head Of The Turnpike Authority And His Quick Response Was Widely Praised.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The new article “Mitt Romney’s Defining Moment” in Time, is worth a read. It revisits Romney’s saga of Healthcare reform in MA.

This brings back a bit of nostalgia for me. I recall, in April 2006, when the passage of this plan hit the news. That’s when I really started paying attention to Romney. As a physician, I’ve struggled with the day-to-day problem of “the uninsured” but have always cringed at the “solution”, according to liberals, of a single-payer government healthcare system (Heck . . . Medicare and Medicaid are bad enough!) I studied the plan and studied up on Romney over the next couple of weeks. I was so impressed by the plan, his policy stances, his record of accomplishment, and his communication skills that I quickly felt a desire to aid him in his goal of becoming POTUS. To make a long story short, I decided that I could contribute to that cause by creating a blogsite (Iowans for Romney) to satisfy that desire while still keeping my “day job.” Many of my first blog entries (here, here, here, and here) dealt with this plan (and that it WAS NOT socialized medicine).

It’s a pretty balanced article with quite a few MSM “zingers” (How this plan is like Hillary’s, How Romney doesn’t stump about the plan much, How he doesn’t support such a plan nationally, etc . . .) but I’ll give you the “good parts” version.

if you ask him how he did it, as I did during an Iowa campaign swing, Romney becomes effusive. It may be that this tale from Massachusetts reveals what kind of President Romney could be. “He was incredibly impressive, with his intellect, his ability,” says MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, a Democrat who advised Romney and who has since had a hand in the Massachusetts-style health-care plans put forward this year by Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. “If there is anything that qualifies him to be President of the United States, it is his leadership on this issue.”

Not bad praise from a Democrat advising other campaigns, eh?

The more the Governor thought about health care, the more intrigued he became by the idea of making it work better.

That whiff of a challenge was reinforced by the stories Romney heard as he traveled the state. After talking to a jeweler in North Andover, a man about his age, Romney remembers thinking, “Gosh, he’s 55. He could have a heart attack. He could get cancer. He’s got his own business, but he doesn’t have health insurance? How can this be?”

So Romney started asking for ideas from his aides, many of whom–especially his political advisers–thought he should just drop it. “It was pooh-poohed by everybody,” he says. “I am obstinate. I kept on drawing these squares: Well, if you have this number of people, you take that money, you move it there, couldn’t that work? Let’s do the math.” State HHS secretary Ron Preston kept coming back to the one alternative Romney said he wouldn’t accept: Dukakis’ approach of requiring employers to either cover their workers or pay a hefty fee. “We didn’t make as much progress as I wanted to,” Romney says now. So the former management consultant did what he might have recommended to any CEO: he got a new team, showing Preston the door and giving the job to his policy director, former investment banker Tim Murphy. “The thing about Mitt,” says Murphy, “is he wants to focus on the analysis.”

When they considered the situation as if it were a business-school case study, some simple steps became clear, like getting the word out to the 106,000 Massachusetts citizens who were eligible for Medicaid but didn’t seem to know it. Yet they also found something surprising when Romney began looking at who, precisely, the uninsured were in Massachusetts. Everyone expected the typical profile to be that of a single mother just scraping by or maybe someone with chronic illness–not exactly ideal customers for insurers. Instead, nearly the opposite was true. “It turned out they were largely single males, and they were working,” Romney recalls. “They were eminently insurable. It’s funny how data opens up new insight.”

That was the bit of analysis that changed everything. Gruber ran the numbers at MIT: universal coverage would be expensive, but so would any half-measure. Romney could simply expand the existing system and, by doing so, cover about one-third more people. Or he could cover everyone by including an “individual mandate,” a controversial measure requiring people to buy insurance and offering subsidies to those who couldn’t afford it. The price tag would be about one-third higher. “I began by saying, Well, maybe we could help half the people that don’t have insurance, maybe we could help a third of the people, and ultimately it became, You know what? We could actually get everybody insured!” Romney recalls.

In November 2004, nearly two years after his meeting with Stemberg, Romney was finally ready to go public with the beginnings of a plan. As it evolved, it became a proposal to achieve an end that liberals had long dreamed of, but through conservative means: creating more competition in the private-insurance marketplace and insisting that Massachusetts citizens take personal responsibility for their own coverage. “From the minute you heard him articulate it, you knew this was a new concept in American health-care policy,” says Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor of health policy. “It was a very different way of talking about coverage, and he was very articulate in framing it.”

Everyone repeat after me: “EXECUTIVE COMPETENCE”

“Before long, Romney was in Kennedy’s office in Washington, taking his PowerPoint slides with him. “Had Senator Kennedy said, ‘This is a lousy idea, and I don’t want anything to do with it,’ I would have been back at square one,” he admits. Kennedy was sold, and both men turned to the question of how to pay for the plan.

The author gives way too much credit to Kennedy in that last sentence . . . because Teddy wasn’t a key figure in the crafting of the legislation nor in the “nuts and bolts” of making it economically viable. Kennedy, however, did see the novelty of the plan (and, I’m sure, was sick of all of his and other liberal healthcare plans never making the grade with the American people) . . . and he did have a key role in helping the plan not get stalled out in the legislature.

That outcome was far from certain. Romney and his PowerPoint traveled from one end of Massachusetts to the other. But as a Republican, Romney had very little leverage with the legislature, where the GOP’s representation was so small it was less a minority than a cult. What’s more, the senate and the house had very different ideas of what they wanted to do. As the two chambers squabbled, the Medicaid money was in danger of slipping away.

On a Sunday morning in February 2006, Romney personally taped handwritten notes to the doors of senate president Robert Travaglini and house speaker Salvatore DiMasi, begging them not to let this opportunity die. The speaker, for one, wasn’t impressed. “A cheap publicity stunt,” DiMasi says. Recognizing the limits of his own influence, Romney turned to Kennedy once again. “I asked for his help on certain legislators: ‘Could you give a call on this one?’” Romney says. On March 22, 2006, Kennedy did more than that. He went to the floor of both the house and the senate on Beacon Hill and spoke in very personal terms about the battles with cancer his son and daughter had faced. “This whole issue in terms of universal and comprehensive care has always burned in my soul,” Kennedy said. The Federal Government had failed the country on health care, he told the politicians , but “Massachusetts has a chance to do something about it.”

The bill that emerged from the legislature two weeks later was different in many respects from what Romney had initially proposed. It increased reimbursement for hospitals, which Romney liked, but added more people to the Medicaid rolls, which he didn’t. There were far too many requirements placed on insurance companies for Romney’s tastes, and he used his line-item veto on the bill’s stipulation that employers who don’t cover their workers pay $295 per employee each year into a fund to subsidize coverage. The lawmakers easily overrode it . . .

Near the end of the article . . .

Everyone around Romney had assumed this achievement would be a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, showcasing the data-driven, goal-oriented, utterly pragmatic side of Romney. But that side of him has emerged only rarely on the 2008 trail. Instead, he rarely discusses the details of his Massachusetts plan and certainly doesn’t tout his partnership with Kennedy. As a presidential candidate, he cautiously adheres to by-the-book Republican dogma of giving individual states leeway in the form of tax breaks to design their own reforms.

Rarely emerged? I guess they’ve been reading the MSM reports more than they’ve been around campaigning with Mitt. Even in the last debate in FL he was very clear to not distance himself with this plan nor give the Democratic MA Legislature all the credit for it.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Democrats want to take your baby and offer birth-control to your 12 year old. This is a statement ready made for good, old-fashioned propaganda except for one thing. It’s true and it has already happened.

Just last week the Anaya family of Omaha, Nebraska filed a lawsuit against the state health department director and two people who oversee the newborn screening program. The Anaya’s had religious objections to having their newborn son undergo a state-mandated blood test. Nebraska, like 3 other states in the country, has no provision for parents to opt out of the test. So earlier this month, a judge signed an order and sheriff’s deputies entered the Anaya’s home and forcibly took the 5 week-old infant. The baby was not returned to his family until the state received the results of the test, six days later.

This story comes just on the heels of the controversy over the King Middle School Health Center decision to offer contraceptives to students who admit to being sexually active. While a parent permission slip is needed to use Health Center services, doctors are not required to notify parents if a child seeks help for sex, drug, or mental health issues.

The health care system of our nation has become a major issue among presidential candidates. The Democrats are falling all over themselves promising bigger and more lavish government health plans than the one before. John Edwards has already proposed that every person in the US be required to attend a health check-up once a year. If they can take a baby from his home for a required blood test, what will they do to an adult who misses his government-mandated annual check up?

Even some of the Republicans seem to want in on the action of proposing to fix health care problems. Earlier this year Governor Rick Perry of Texas signed an executive order mandating that all girls from the sixth grade up be given vaccinations against cervical cancer. (A parental opt-out was included in the mandate.)

In my estimate, his position on health care is one of Mitt Romney’s biggest weaknesses. He speaks with glowing pride of his accomplishments with the health care of Massachusetts. And with some reason. In the first place, he worked with a Democrat controlled state legislature and he was able to implement the plan without raising taxes. In the second place, his approach shows a new train of thought about the problem of governments role in the health care process.

However, the answer to any problems with the health care of this nation are not going to be fixed by more government involvement. If they are to be fixed at all, it will need to be with less government regulations and restrictions. Much of this is tied up in the tax code. The way that health insurance is bought and sold in this country revolves around the tax benefits, or penalties, associated with it. Changing these laws so that the health insurance market can operate in a more traditional marketplace setting would be a great advantage to the American people.

I do not pretend to be an expert on health insurance or taxes. But this seems to be pretty apparent. In the first place, health insurance purchased through an employer is purchased with “before-tax” dollars. This means that taxes are not deducted from the money going to pay for your health insurance. Should you purchase health insurance from another source, the money is considered taxable income and the government expects a percentage of it.

In the second place, as your salary goes up, so does your tax rate. Not only your personal tax rate, but also the taxes that the company who employs you is expected to pay on your behalf. So it is in the company’s interest to pay you less cash and, instead, offer you benefits that are not subject to taxation. This, in essence, raises your salary without raising your taxes. In the instance of health care, however, it limits you to whatever plan or plans your employer wishes to offer.

Naturally, overhauling the tax code is messier work and more difficult to explain to voters than simply promising that no matter what the government will make sure they have health insurance. But as Romney points out, making promises without explaining the costs rings hollow in the ears of the American people.

In this case, the cost will not just be in money and increased taxation, but in the quality and availability of health care for everyone. We have examples of socialized medicine readily available for study in Canada and in the UK. In both countries, wait times for routine procedures are ridiculously long and delays for life-saving treatments cost people their lives. People from these nations with serious illnesses are coming to the US in large numbers because they cannot depend on the government system at home to give them the kind of care they need to save their lives and restore their health. To paraphrase a famous quote: to implement the same policies and expect different results is insane.

But most of all, allowing the government control, any control, over our health care system means giving up personal freedom. The freedom to care for our health and the health and well-being of our children according to our own desires and beliefs.

The Anaya family is not seeking any money in their lawsuit against the State of Nebraska officials. Instead, they simply want to make sure that none of their children can be taken from them again for following their religious beliefs. And for that matter, none of your children either.

Additional Reading:
Journalstar
MSNBC
Rush Limbaugh

Share on Facebook

Share This

Patrick Ruffini writes, “Where’s Romney’s Bio?”

First he states:

I know I’m sort of questioning a big strategic assumption behind the Romney campaign here, but I really have to wonder whether the brick wall in polling that he’s hitting is because his campaign has become all about issues and not his incredibly compelling bio.

I disagree with this assessment. Romney’s campaign from the very beginning has promoted his experience as a businessman, at the Olympics, and as Governor while also putting forth great ideas of ways to manage our country better. First, lets go to the bio question.

Has Ruffini never seen this campaign video?

I think the video sums up the bio piece quite nicely. And it’s not like this was the end of telling his story, and who he is and where he came from. There have been others as well.

Furthermore Mr. Ruffini goes on to say:

Despite spending gobs of money, despite eclipsing Fred Thompson in the invisible primary, he still can’t quite connect with conservatives. Yes, he barely won the FRC straw poll, but only after he and the other ballot stuffing strawpoll-centric campaigns figured out they could phone it in for the in-person contest and focus exclusively on running up the score in the online vote. Filter out the online votes, and you have a pretty organic (and one sided) protest vote for Mike Huckabee.

What a mischaracterization he has going on here.

If you’ll read this post from Evangelicals for Mitt it explains how the poll turned out and why. I don’t know why Patrick has decided to keep this mischaracterization going even after this was already explained now at least two or three days ago.

Then Mr. Ruffini drones on about how Governor Romney can’t be as conservative as Thompson and Huckabee…

Romney’s speeches are built on the assumption that he can out-conservative Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee by out-talking them. His words are a litany of conservative talking points.

Earlier this year, when his conservative credentials were genuinely in question, the issues-talk might have helped. But now his problem has morphed into something far worse: an authenticity problem centered around flip-flopping. And arguably, each time he opens his mouth and spouts platitudes, he only makes it worse.

Romney has done to himself what the Bush campaign did to John Kerry. The Bush team made it so that every time Kerry opened his mouth, he hurt himself, thanks to the perception that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Kerry couldn’t help himself by saying the right things because nobody believed what he was saying.

Romney’s situation is further complicated by the fact that issues are actually friendly terrain for Rudy Giuliani. Huh? That’s right — because people assume Rudy’s positions are liberal, when he talks conservative, that’s reassuring. When Romney talks issues, people assume he’s pandering.

Rudy has an issues problem, one that he’s trying to make go away by talking issues. Romney’s problem is not an issues problem. The flip-flopping charge is a character problem, not an issues problem. So what Romney really must do is shore up perceptions of his character.

Romney should resign himself to the fact that he won’t be able to out-conservative Thompson or Huckabee on issues.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, lets take some of the conservative issues.

If you go to this link, it spells out in depth Governor Romney’s agenda.

Lets list them (be patient these are PDF documents):

• Keeping Americans Safe at Home and Abroad
• Confronting Radical Jihad
• Combating Nuclear Terrorism
• Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants
• Winning the Global Economic Competition
• Ending Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
• Curbing Out of Control Federal Spending
• Ending the Tide of Illegal Immigrants
• Reducing Spiraling Health Care Costs
• Confronting Threats to American Culture, Values, and Freedoms

All of these are very conservative issues, and ones where Governor Romney excels. He has a pattern of successful leadership over and over again.

Next Mr. Ruffini goes on to say:

In all the ads we’ve seen so far, where is Romney the incredibly successful businessman — the most successful one in North America according to Jim Cramer? Romney the father of five? (this one’s only made the occasional cameo before social conservative audiences). The guy who was home with his wife doing his HBS homework while George Bush was out partying? (Okay, go light on the last part in the primaries.) Or the guy who saved the Olympics?

What about this ad Patrick, it does a pretty great job at highlighting his accomplishments.

He finishes off with this analysis:

The Romneybots could probably dredge up clips to show all of this in campaign material. No need to bother. I’ve seen the clips and they’re playing in my head right now. But how many points have they really put behind bio spots in the early states? Where’s the 60-second bio spot with the soaring music?

On February 5th, Mitt Romney wants people to go to the polls saying this: “Slick Romney may be a smooth talker. He’s just telling me what I want to hear. But he was a pretty darned successful businessman. A good governor. And family man — take that Billary. And he’s not Rudy.”

Think of how Bill Clinton fought back against ultimately more serious character charges: by reframing the character issue. Yeah, he was a lying, pot-smoking philanderer. But he felt our pain.

I like Mitt Romney. But I feel icky whenever I hear him debate. He needs to remind people why they liked him to begin with.

First off, I am not a Romneybot. I never have been. I am not employed by the campaign, nor told what to do on his behalf. It all comes from within, and I think that it’s ridiculous for you to characterize everything that’s been done in the Romney grassroots as “robotic”. We work well together, we get things accomplished. We really have our stuff together collectively as a grassroots, but we are marching to the beat of our own drums here.

As for this talk of “Where’s the 60-second bio spot with the soaring music?”. Governor Romney has campaigned relentlessly in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary and caucus states. Every single member of his immediate family has fanned out across the country to campaign for him. His wife goes and speaks, his sons, his daughters-in-law. I’ve never seen a candidate with such familial support as Romney. People in those early states see that. He doesn’t need a campaign commercial to prove his worth to them. They see it every time he comes to visit.

As for Romney being slick, well, you go on believing what you want to believe Mr. Ruffini. In the end though, Governor Romney is going to be the strongest person and the last one showing for the nomination. With the exception of losing to Ted Kennedy (which he really gave him a run for his money), Governor Romney’s been successful in every endeavor he’s put his mind to. I don’t see this being any different. He has the intelligence, the team, the organization, and the grassroots to back him up. It’s unfortunate that you can’t see that.

Share on Facebook

Share This

All these guys keep on talking about health care, but ONLY Romney is the one thatR