Mitt Romney has been running for president, almost non-stop, for six years. Health care was, not too long ago, his signature issue, and he's been talking about the Affordable Care Act nearly every day since it became law.
And yet, inexplicably, the Republican presidential hopeful still doesn't know his own message.
Last night, Romney appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, offering the far-right host an entirely new perspective on his approach to health care policy. "Well of course I'm going to repeal Obamacare," Romney said. "I've said that on the campaign trail, I think, every single day. Obamacare must be repealed -- in its entirety. It's bad policy, it's bad law, and frankly, a $2 trillion entitlement we don't want and we certainly can't afford.... Obamacare is a disaster in my opinion, and has to be repealed entirely."
I see. So Romney is for the "complete repeal" of the Affordable Care Act. That is, until Sunday, when he said he's "not getting rid of all" of the Affordable Care Act. That is, until Monday night, at which point he intends to destroy the "entirety" of the Affordable Care Act.
He also wants to eliminate the protections for those with pre-existing conditions, and he wants to keep the protections, and he wants to eliminate the protections, and he wants to keep the protections but not really.
Will he change his mind again today? And maybe again tomorrow? Your guess is as good as mine.
And therein lies the point: Romney's position on health care policy has slipped into incoherence. This shouldn't please anyone, least of all his allies who can no longer trust their candidate.
Leave a Comment:
Looks like the undecided person that the Romney campaign most needs to worry about is... Mitt Romney!
No indecisiveness there..Romney has been clear. Complete repeal of Obamacare and replace it with reform that includes some mechanism for pre-conditions and for college-age children. When he says I want to completely appeal Obamacare that doesn't mean he won't replace it, he has always said as much.
RobDon - if there are portions of the Affordable Care Act that Romney would include in his replacement of the ACA, but he starts by repealing the entire Act, won't that create administrative hell for providers, insurance companies, and consumers? How will we go from "you can be on your parents policy up to age 26" to "no you can't" for some period of time until Romney's new plan kicks in, and then "yes you can be on their policy again" under that plan? Who's going to figure out when my 20-year-old daughter was and was not covered under one plan or another? I guess it would create jobs because the claims and accounting staffs would have to grow exponentially (which of course would drive up costs).
Why not just keep the ACA in place and work to improve it, or repeal only the pieces of it that Romney doesn't like? It sounds to me like Romney made a promise to the base and now keeping said promise would cause huge problems. But he can't back out of that promise because it would cost him votes.
Very good point on showing the chaos that would be created in repealing the whole ACA and then reinstating some provisions of the act.
It only makes sense to improve the act. I really don't think repealing the ACA improves anything.
Romney's position is that the ACA needs tweaking but that it is too broad and does not agree with what's at the core of the act. You can easily craft legislation that abolishes the ACA (over a timeline if necessary) and at the same time enacts a couple of additional things (like those Romney is supporting).
According to the Administrations website, the ACA is only a little more than half way implemented.
Boy, I sure haven't seen any Romney ads that use the word "tweaking." And his website says - verbatim - "On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible."
Hard to spin his position the way you described when his own website says this. To be fair, it does go on to say he'll then implement policies that allow the states to do what they want. I don't see that approach working to avoid the chaos I described before, do you?
Wow, amazing the difference one three-letter word can make...I meand to say: Romney's position is NOT that the ACA needs tweaking but that it is too broad and does not agree with what's at the core of the act. Sorry.
Yes, a big difference. But that doesn't really change my point anyway; if it goes to the states, we'll end up with the same - or worse - chaos among providers, insurers, and consumers. I suppose the waivers could stipulate that the ACA will remain in effect until the state laws become effective, but I don't think the states are going to have a lot of success crafting their own legislation in any short timeframe, plus not a lot of states are going to do anything at all, citing costs against reduced budgets and revenues.
Even then, you'll have someone in Iowa who wants to buy coverage through an insurer in say Texas. The Texas company (and all companies) will have to create coverage that fits the Iowa law, and any other different state laws where they want to sell coverage. Regulation of the market (which is indeed necessary in insurance) will be a cluster flick, with trying to compare coverages and rates to ensure fairness to consumers.
I just don't see repeal of the ACA being good for Americans. Tweak it a bit, sure. Make it better. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It has become readily apparent that Mitt has a problem making and sticking to decisions. So what happens when, as President, he decides to bomb Iran?? Will he decide, as the bomb bay doors are opening, that he didn't mean it after all?
Mitt doesn't have a problem sticking to a decision. Mitt's real problem is, he wants the Independents to think he's in the Middle, while still trying to win over the base, which has moved ever closer to the far right. Having your cake and eating it too, doesn't work out so well.
Mitt just wants to get elected, by any means he can. I mean this is the guy who moved so far to the left of Kennedy. To try and take Kennedy's Senate seat. Then a few years later, moved to the right and ran as a Republican for Governor. Now he had to move so far right to win the primary. That he really can't moved back to the middle to win over the Independent voters. because he is now stuck. Because the GOP base really doesn't trust or like him for that matter. But he's all they've got.
Talk about The Great Appeaser, this election that's a bigger dig for Mitt than it ever was for President Obama. And a heck of a lot more apparent as well.
Why aren't the American people demanding to see Mittt Romney's tax returns? We can then see what he is truly about! I don't believe he paid any taxes, or he would release them. His father, if he were alive, would say "Release them..What's the problem?"
Romney's tax returns may yet have some more time in the limelight, and perhaps in the worst conceivable manner for the man who who would rather lose an arm than release them himself.
news.yahoo.com/secret-investigating-purported-ransom-mitt-romneys-tax-returns-203845491--abc-news-politics.html
Oh, great Steve: Romney refers to his plan he first presented in MI some time ago. I'm guessing that plan is equivalent to saying he addressed Afghanistan at the VFW before the Convention, when in fact he mentioned it in two quick sentences. Have you guys dug this plan up yet?
Sooner or later, if Mitt keeps crossing the street on so many issues, he's gonna get hit by Obama's campaign bus!
On this issue (running against the ACA), at least, Rick Santorum was right.
And I couldn't be happier about that.
Mitt can afford health care. He probably owns stock in insurance companies and/or receives campaign funds from them. That is his health care plan.
Will Mitt ever get called out on his lies about the Affordable Care Act? Every single word out of his mouth on the subject is a lie. That alone should disqualify him from being a credible presidential candidate. Not to mention that repeal of the Act would add $109B to the deficit.
Sit back, relax and enjoy Romney's reaction when he has to answer the inevitable health care question during the debates.
If you can think of a scenario in which Obama can't nail Romney to the wall no matter how he responds, I'd love to hear it.
Fair enough, Ryan - my one concern about the debates is a hope that Kerry - who we know is standing in as Romney for the Prez' practice debate sessions - is responding to each practice question with a gobsmacking, insane lie - and then answering the followup question by repeating said gobsmacking, insane lie over and over as though he were constrained to give only his name, rank and serial number. We know that's how Romney has rolled through his entire campaign. I fully expect the moderators, in the name of being "objective," will let each gobsmacking lie go, and that the debate rules will constrain the Prez essentially to addressing Romney's "misspeaking" in a verbalized Twitter form of 140 characters or less. The media will probably then declare the whole thing a draw. That's the scenario that keeps me up at night.
Oh Mittens knows what he thinks, he also knows that the public won't vote for him if he says how he really feels. Having the courage of your convictions isn't what the GOTP is all about.
"Evolving" Obama has fallen into this category as well from same sex marriage to closing Guantanamo to...It's called politicin'
Actually, @RobDon, while his personal views on gay marriage had to evolve, Obama was upfront about that from the beginning, and upon taking office, hit the ground running to progress gay rights in the country. As for Guantanamo, he signed an executive order on his second day in office to order the facility closed within the year - but the Senate then passed an amendment to block the funds needed for prisoner transfer - and the wrangling has been going on ever since. So, what Romney is doing might be called "politicin," but what Obama is doing is called, "governing."
And exactly what has President Obama been doing to close Guantanamo? What efforts of "wrangling" has he been participating in? Is he any closer?
When during campaigning was Obama "upfront" with the fact his views on same sex marriage was "evolving?"
My point is that campaigns and candidates all the time duck and hide from issues during the election period as to minimize any negative attention. And then, as you say, begin the process of "governing."
You are very correct to point out their is a difference between politicking and governing. If you have answers to my two questions above, we can figure out what President Obama was doing/is doing on these issues.
With an obstructionist Congress refusing to release funding for prisoner transfer there really isn't much that this President can do right now.
As for "politicin" Mittens isn't even doing that well, just look at his audience, and see how he responds even to issues that he's already responded to - that's slitherin' not even worthy of "politicin or panderin".
Zora, I think there are always things the President can do. He is often referred to as the "most powerful man on earth." Granted, I realize the hyperbole in that (and the sexism for that matter) but the truth is it is the most powerful office in the world and you are saying there "really isn't much that this President can do right now." I just don't see it that way.
My hope (which will not happen) is when the first day of debates arrives, and the issue of healthcare reform/ACA comes up, Obama insists Romney go first "because no one has any idea what Mitt's definitive opinion on the ACA is: Does he want to repeal all of it, some of it, how will he pay for what he keeps, if anything? I've heard his opinion change so many times on the subject, for all I know we're in complete agreement on the subject! Today, anyway..."
I can't decide whether this is sad or funny. But I'm giggling while I read this.
Romney's positions seem to depend on who he is talking to. If he's talking to a broad general electorate media outlet, then he's a moderate. If he's talking to a conservative media outlet, then he's "severely conservative."
Remember that in some cases this actually works with the mainstream press and fact checkers. When Romney "absolutely" supports a personhood amendment on Fox News, but then supports exceptions for rape, incest, and health of mother on ABC News, what is a fact checker to do? Well, in many cases, the press/fact checkers have chosen to believe him when he talks to the general electorate and ignore what he says when he talks to his conservative base. This has encouraged Romney, and he is applying the same strategy on the health care issues.
Will the fact checkers and mainstream media continue to enable him? We'll see, but fortunately, they seem to be catching on to his game.
The solution is simple. First, the media should forget fact checking. Clearly Romney supporters don't even care about facts - polls and surveys reflect that. Second, expose Romney for the embarrassment that he is. He's constantly either changing his mind or simply pandering to the audience of the given moment. As Rachel has pointed out, has he forgotten that microphones and cameras are all around you now, thanks to social networking? Nobody wants to support someone who looks mentally uncertain (dare I say "unstable?") as their leader.
I would continue to do what Rachel and her team are doing - repeatedly point out his many, many, many self- contradictions. This man is qualified to be president of the United States? He's drifting into pure blathering and he's a total embarrassment.
Listening to people like Mitt Romney can destroy any faith you might have in people. To listen to the guy is to risk losing your soul little-by-little. What a dick.
I can not **WAIT** for the debates!
You're going to be disappointed. No way the format allows for an objective thrashing of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney will lie straight into the camera and it'll make intelligent Americans have to run to the bathroom to vomit. Meanwhile, the media will Obama and Romney differ...
I agree about the debates. The format will protect Romney, so it won't be a thrashing.
But, I think Romney's ability as a debater have been greatly overstated. In the primaries he was basically playing a prevent defense. Romney was always the front runner (regardless of the fluctuating polls) so he only had to survive.
But, Romney will need to gain ground and do the thrashing by the time the Presidential debates roll around. Because of the format, and the fact that Romney sucks, that is also unlikely to happen. So, the debates will still seal his fate regardless.
The format is frustrating. But what i'm picturing is that Romney will manage to contradict himself during the debates, probably more than once. If Obama is on top of Mitt's current fishtail-flopping, he will challenge him, or at least point out that he constantly changes his story. Obama has a number of things in his favor - he knows where he stands on issues, he's not afraid to express his opinion and stick to it, he's mentally sharp, cool under pressure and he's fast on his feet. Of these Romney has quickness, but the robot is in risk of short circuiting under pressure after so many program changes.
@Rollo: Romney may or may not need to make up ground. The convention bounce for Obama could be squashed by the carpet bombing that is just getting started. Hopefully, Bill Clinton's presence is helping out in the swing states.
@Jesse: I'm beginning to wonder if getting caught in contradictions is even a problem for Romney anymore. Even for people trying to keep up, it's wearying to state where that assnapkin stands. Quite possibly, Romney doesn't even know till he opens his mouth. What Obama needs to do, I think, is just remind people that nobody knows what his position is, and he's told people they'll just have to wait till after the election. However, people do know the long-held positions of the Republican party on a few important items: kill Social Security, kill Medicare, kill regulatory agencies, cut taxes on the rich. Obama should insist that we can trust Republicans to do those and that he has the opportunity up close and personal to be able to assure them that that is what Republicans will do. Then knowing that, we know that that necessarily leads to raising taxes on the lower and middle income classes, more financial crises, more reverse Robin Hood, more fossil fuel use, no action taken on climate change. And Obama MUST remind people of the efficacy and effectiveness of the conservative economic ideas Republicans have implemented in the last 30 years and what conditions they have resulted in: inequality greatest since the Great Depression, immobility we've never seen, and a worldwide Great Recession. This is what supply-side economics, unfettered market deregulation, union-busting, strong dollar, over-the-top patent protection, free trade, etc. have wrought.
It seems to me Obama needs to really, really go on offense in order for the public to get an honest picture of what has happened over the last four, especially the last two years with the obstruction that has occurred. Obama could really answer (both) questions over whether the election is a referendum (on his performance in office) or a choice between different futures over Obama and Democratic ideas or Romney and Republican ideas (whatever those might be). Obama should ask two questions of Romney and be extremely aggressive:
1) If it's a referendum election to Romney: If Obama has done so bad, whey does Team Romney have to manufacture lies on Obama's statements and ideas and results and base his entire campaign on those lies. The Obama campaign should have been inoculating itself against charges over the deficits and debt (easily shown to be W and complicit Republican congresses fault), unemployment (easily shown to result from Republican obstruction), taxes (easily shown to have cut taxes), regulations and uncertainty (easily shown to have actually reduced regulations and uncertainty due to Republican actions), lies about the ACA, national security, ....... Team Obama has been advised to inoculate against these but they have failed miserably in doing so. The debates should offer Obama a chance to do that. Except for the SUCCESSFUL stimulus, Obama's economic policies have been blocked. And those polices were analyzed independently to be significant job creators. No Republican plans were. So, because of obstruction, the economy we now have is the Boehner/McConnell economy. Obama's policies aren't in place. For Romney to attack a stagnant economy is for Romney to attack Boehner/McConnell and what Boehner/McConnell want is what Romney wants (for the most part).
2) If it's choice election to Romney, then why, if Romney's plans are so good or so much better than Obama's, then why won't Romney tell the nation about his plans for taxes, and for health care? Why does his story change by the day/hour?
Hopefully Obama will see fit to embellish his answers to questions with points that challenge Romney with points from both those viewpoints concerning what the election is about and give the public that, no matter how they view the election, the only choice is Obama.
What if Romney wants to make a $10,000 bet with Pres. Obama?
I was for it, before I was against it, before I was for it.........
It is hard for me to fathom anyone voting for Mr. Romney. It's one thing to base leadership on compromise, along with consideration of the perspectives of advisers and input from Americans.
It's quite another thing to be indecisive by nature. On an extraordinary amount of vital issues -- from healthcare reform to unions to women's rights -- he has changed his position several times a week.
I believe Mr. Romney lacks understanding of a key point about the Presidency. The government of the United States of America can't "pivot" on a dime, like one of the business engineered to make him a personal profit.
So, I repeat: I find it hard to believe that anyone who cares about this country's future would place the Presidency in the hands of Mr. Romney. It's all the more infuriating given that Senator John Kerry was successfully accused of being a "flip-flopper," when he was extraordinarily decisive on every issue compared to Mr. Romney.
It only remains, then, to examine two of the props from the 2004 GOP/RNC convention: http://ronwade.freeservers.com/FlipFlop.JPG and http://baptistspirituality.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/kerry_flipflops.jpg
I believe that says it all.
Totally agree. I think Rachel has it dead on. I don't think he's necessarily indecisive, I truly think that he thinks the old tricks work - that you can say different things to different audiences and think that neither one will talk to the other. I have not seen any surveys, but I'd hedge my bet that Romney and his camp and not terribly social media savvy.
As so continues the most dishonest campaign in modern history...
And so continues the most dishonest campaign in modern history...
Listening to this and reading the comments, one can only hope that Obamacare, or indeed his own healthcare provider, has plenty of mental health cover because he sounds like he has early onset Alzheimer's!!!
"I will repeal?" Doesn't he understand the legislative process?
To all those worried about people (read: voters) getting confused as they try to keep track of what Mitt's position is today, I say: don't worry!
What matters is Romney coming across as someone who will someone what Romney thinks they want to hear. And then immediately tell someone else what he thinks they want hear.
Hoist by his own petard...
Just as we need fact checking, we need consistency checking in the media. Romney is counting on being able to "tailor" his message by locality. However we are living in a digital age, where information is available immediately internationally.
The question is, do local news stations think it's within their purview and their readers/viewers interests if Romney says one thing in one locale and a counter message in another. Or is that left more to the national news? Although, any national news organization would probably be able to share this information with local outlets and to aggregate them into a cohesive view of the candidate.
As long as Romney gets a free pass on specifics, then he probably expects to get away with it. But it's this inconsistency on the specifics, which should drive home the need to do more than provide broad principles. More than ever, constituents and media should be pressing him for substance.
Romney's certainly does seem like the most dishonest campaign in modern history. Rachel mentioned on yesterday's show that she wondered if the Repubs really are that disorganized and inconsistent and just don't realize it. Or she wondered if it is by design and a genius plot of some kind that we have yet to figure out. I don't know about genius, but I do think it's by design. The Repubs are betting that all the edge they need, considering the vast fortunes being invested in their campaign, is the two strategies they have been putting into place: rig the election by disenfranchising as many on the Dem side as possible, and go for the sound bites that will make them look good to all those dumb Dems that don't look beyond sound bites. They figure that's all they'll need to close the margin enough to squeak in a win.
I dare say there are maybe a few other such dishonest strategies being put into play too. They've already begun the process of tearing down unions so that Repubs will be able to dominate any states without them. And the tactics being used in Michigan . . . all seem designed for future domination for this election and beyond. Will the courts help stop these machinations? Maybe if the judges aren't Repub pals.
I am rather disappointed as a fan of TRMS that the show staff didn't dig into more than just the soundbyte from the Romney-Gregory interview about health care reform. Note I am an Obama voter and neither want the ACA repealed or replaced.
If you actually go to youtube and watch the interview (about 22:00 at this link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLvWC4ZvahM
You will see the complete context. The sound clip making the rounds of every liberal outlet everywhere "I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform, of course..." does not capture what Romney was saying, which is that he planned to repeal the ACA/Obamacare and replace it with his own plan. Romney never said he was not getting rid of all of the ACA, he said he was not getting rid of all reform. Even within the minute or two of the segment of the interview, he said he was still planning to repeal or replace. Nothing says he can't replace it with his own plan and include some ideas that were also in the ACA. That, I feel, is what he was saying.
Nowhere in the interview did he say "I am not going to repeal all of the ACA." but people took that 10 second clip and ran with it as a flip flop and Romney has had to reply to it as such, which his reply is quite accurate, he never said what everyone is insisting he said...because they only saw the 8 words in the soundbyte.
Liberals and progressives (like me) get upset when the GOP clips out "you didn't build that" and make it sound like Obama is speaking against entrepreneurship. We should not then turn around and distort the other side's statements in the same manner.
Again, no fan of Romney here and there are plenty of areas where he is validly criticized but this is not one of them, and I was a bit disappointed to see this unexamined talking point make it without scrutiny into the show.