Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Sorry Seems To Be Mitt’s Hardest Word

    Sorry Seems To Be Mitt’s Hardest Word

    Jennifer Rubin makes the argument that Mitt Romney was the big loser at CPAC because Romney failed to address Romneycare, contributing to the narrative that Romney has no politically good explanation. 

    According to Rubin, a simple mea culpa would help tremendously:

    Romney has a huge problem that a wide array of Tea Partyers, Republican activists and officials, and conservative operatives think he can’t overcome: RomneyCare. He leads in polls a year before the first primary because of name recognition. So did Rudy Giuliani at the same point in the 2008 election cycle….

    However, if there is one point of consensus among plugged-in Republicans on the 2012 field, it is that Romney can’t win unless he does a mea culpa on RomneyCare. Since he didn’t and he won’t do that, he’s not going to be the nominee. Other than Romney admirers (and even some of them!) it’s hard to find serious Republican players who disagree with that.

    NiceDeb has a video and summary of Romney’s speech at CPAC, and gives the speech good reviews:

    “Is it time to take another look at Mitt? He had mojo this morning at CPAC…He was loose and relaxed, and won the crowd over with great speech with many memorable lines….”

    I met Romney once, when I was in law school and he was recruiting for Bain.  The guy was tremendously impressive, and I think he has the potential to be tremendously impressive in a campaign.  I want to like him as a candidate and to be able to support him (depending upon who else is running, of course).

    But there is this elephant in the room that he doesn’t seem to want to address in a manner that will appeal to voters or faces reality.

    Regardless of what else Romney says, he needs to address the Romneycare issue with more than nuanced constitutional arguments about how it is one thing for states to experiment and another thing for the federal government to overstep its authority.  I agree! But ….

    We like people who admit they were wrong.  Everybody is wrong eventually, and politicians doubly so.  Romneycare can be forgiven if it is acknowledged to have been a mistake from which lessons have been learned.

    I made this suggestion on December 1, that Romney become the Responsibility Candidate with a speech similar to the following:

    “To err is human. I had what at the time seemed like a good idea as to how to expand health care coverage, but it turned out wrong. I’ll take part of the blame, but others who acted beyond my control also share in the blame. The key thing is to learn from mistakes, not to compound them. That is a lesson I have learned.”

    “Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not learn from its mistakes. Stimulus, health care, debt, deficits, spending out of control. The response is a refusal to learn from mistakes or to accept responsibility, at all.”

    “You have a choice in this election. Elect a President who learns from mistakes and accepts responsibility, or re-elect a President who is incapable of learning from mistakes or accepting responsibility. The choice is yours.”

    The readers took a dim view of such an approach two months ago, mostly because they had a dim view of Romney. 

    Regardless of whether you support Romney or not, wouldn’t it be better for him just to acknowledge the error?  And doesn’t it become more of an issue the longer it is not acknowledged?

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    My view is simply that Mitt Roney is not conservative enough for me, and I will not waste my vote on him with a Democrat on the ballot. Better to let a Democrat get elected than someone who pretends to be conservative, because at least I know where the Dem stands. I'm completely, totally done with RINOs like pro-establishment Mitt and will continue to vote for a well researched Tea Party candidate or Libertarian. The reason is because I better know where they stand. If someone wants to interpret that action as discriminatory or not, I was never very pc anyway.
    As a side note, I totally agree with you about Regan. In fact, Regan grew government as well, even with all that snappy talk about "City on a hill" and "smaller government". Another POLITICIAN.

    He doesn't think he was wrong. He believed then, as he does now, that socialized medicine, government-controlled health care (that's what we're talking about, after all), is fine and dandy. Including fines for not buying health insurance. Tell me, anyone, anyone at all, on what planet that is conservative. It's not. He's not.

    @Stephen M "Support for abortion? Show me one bill he signed into law that could reasonably be defined as pro-choice."

    How about RomneyCare itself? It provides taxpayer funding for abortion. They call it "pregnancy termination services." Most local (I live in Mass) abortion clinics are proud to advertise their "abortion care" courtesy of Mass Health (the government agency that was set up to and that still oversees RomneyCare, though it's the state that fines you for not having health insurance–the MA Dept. of Revenue, actually, just like the IRS will be fining people under ObamaCare. There are a lot of similarities between what we have in MA and what the feds are trying to do, and it's all just as statist, just as socialist as it is at the federal level.).

    Honestly, if you like Romney, that's fine, but you should do a bit of homework and not believe whatever he burbles on any given day, particularly in this political climate (keep in mind that he was on board with Bush's "compassionate conservatism"–aka, big-spending, big government progressivism–until it wasn't popular any longer. Then he wasn't. Odd how he keeps changing his position on things just when the political winds shift, huh?). When and why did he become a Republican? When and why did he decide he wasn't pro-choice anymore? When and why did he decide that government-run health care is not a good system? Hint: "it suited his political ambition" is a good answer to both the "when" and the "why."

    We need voters to be excited about our candidate. Excited voters donate and work and demonstrate and help their candidate.

    The christian conservative block is not going to be excited. They might hold their nose and vote for him, but you won't get excitement.

    The budget hawks and libertarian hawks are not going to be excited because of Romneycare.

    He might have had a chance 4 years ago, but now he's in the John Edwards seat – running on great hair alone. At least he doesn't have any scandals in the closet – people have been looking for his for a long time.

    I'd only accept his "I was wrong" if I was convinced that he actually believes it; otherwise it's nothing more than "I want your vote and I'll say anything to get it" .

    Personally, I still wouldn't vote for him; because he very enthusiastically pushed for some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws on the country, and still defends doing so.

    Stephen, neither of these is a 'convenient excuse' to me': they're hard reasons why I do not and will not trust him, or vote for him.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend