View Full Version : Romney's confusing Obamacare flip-flop upsets Republicans

07-08-2012, 12:11 PM
Not even 48 hours after Mitt Romney (http://www.finheaven.com/topic/mitt-romney)'s campaign spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom promised (http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-mad-as-romney-agrees-mandate-not-a-tax) that the former Bain executive submits to President Obama (http://www.finheaven.com/topic/obama)'s opinion that health insurance mandates are not a tax, Romney himself flip-flopped on that stance in a confusing CBS interview (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/us/politics/romney-says-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax.html?pagewanted=all).

Romney took a break from a weeklong vacation at New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee to grant the Fourth of July interview to CBS. During questioning, the presumptive Republican nominee contradicted his campaign and refused to disagree with the reasoning (http://www.examiner.com/article/leaks-showing-roberts-switched-vote-anger-republicans) of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion declaring the mandate a tax. Yet Romney also tried (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-obamacare-tax_648134.html) to draw an unconvincing and confusing federal vs. state distinction between Obama's plan and his own:

ROMNEY: "Well, the Supreme Court has the final word and their final word is that Obamacare (http://www.finheaven.com/topic/obamacare) is a tax. So it's a tax. They decided it was constitutional. So it is a tax and it's constitutional."
CBS: "But does that mean that the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax? I mean, you raised taxes as governor."
ROMNEY: "Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don't need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts's mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was...The chief justice said that states have what's known as police power, and states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth under their constitutions, which is what Massachusetts did. But the federal government does not have those powers, and therefore for the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it did -- that the law was constitutional -- they had to find it was a tax, and they did. And therefore Obamacare's a tax. Like it or not, it's a tax."

Adding to the confusion, Romney's flip-flop also contradicted Republican National Committee chairman Sean Spicer, who had backed up (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/48045178/#48045178) Fehrnstrom in an MSNBC appearance Monday. At that time, Spicer agreed with Romney and Fehrnstrom that insurance mandates are not a tax, in order to avoid the inevitable comparison between the mandates in both Romneycare (http://www.finheaven.com/topic/romneycare) and Obamacare.

But rather than placate the Tea Party (http://www.finheaven.com/topic/tea-party), Romney's flip-flop exasperated (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/05/12578177-first-thoughts-romneys-fatal-flaw?lite) conservatives even more. No less than the Wall Street Journal published a scathing editorial (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506652734793044.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) this morning, blasting Romney for his timidity in attacking Obama's federal mandate, for continuing to defend his own Massachusetts mandate, and for yesterday's confusion and flip-flopping inconsistency.

The right-leaning paper described Romney's tax flip-flop as a campaign "turning point" that would breed distrust of Romney as an out-of-touch, cautious (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dukakis-kerry-romney_648137.html) candidate who lacks honor and integrity.



07-08-2012, 01:04 PM
Will someone get this man a ****ing campaign adviser who isn't drunk or a ******? Jesus Christ, was the Bush/Kerry so long ago that he forgot how the nation feels about flip-floppers? Either yes, which means his grasp on history sucks, or no, which means the man might be clinically ********. Either way, this man is a joke, and this is who the right wants in office? God help us all...

07-08-2012, 01:23 PM
If/when Obama gets re-elected the Republican party has no one to blame but themselves. Its just laughable at this point.

If Romney is tripping over himself this badly, whats going to happen when debates start up? The man cant even keep up with his own damned campaign team.

I think i can safely say who has secured my vote: Pat Riley.

07-08-2012, 01:26 PM
Romney was the candidate because the bigger stars are going to wait for a better opportunity in 2016. They saw how Obama was polling and decided it was better not to taint someone. It is similar to John Kerry.

07-08-2012, 02:06 PM
the GOP field in the primaries was dismal. they did major uneeded damage to their brand. huntsman was the best candidate.

romney is in a hole. he's gonna need to shake things up to win. not sure he can make it happen but it would be foolish to underestimate him. look who he has to convince.

07-08-2012, 02:13 PM
the GOP field in the primaries was dismal. they did major uneeded damage to their brand. huntsman was the best candidate.

romney is in a hole. he's gonna need to shake things up to win. not sure he can make it happen but it would be foolish to underestimate him.

I could have voted for Huntsman. Of course, the GoP would never give him the nomination, he is far too reasonable of a person. We know we aren't allowed to have those guys in office...

07-08-2012, 03:54 PM
I never thought Dogbone34 would prefer Jon Huntsman.

07-08-2012, 04:11 PM
Huntsman was all about a war with Iran. No thanks.

07-09-2012, 01:54 AM
He forgot his lines


07-09-2012, 04:38 AM
I liked Huntsman.

07-09-2012, 09:41 AM
I am shocked by this. Shocked, I tell you!

07-09-2012, 08:31 PM
Romney's the WOAT candidate.