2012: Romney hits Obama on health care

DANIELS: “Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels may not be a household name, but the potential 2012 Presidential contender beat out better-known politicians in a straw poll of Washington state GOP activists over the weekend,” the Seattle Times writes. In the Roanoke Conference straw poll, “Daniels led with 31 percent, well above second-place finisher Mitt Romney of Massachussetts (14 percent.)”

“Daniels is reportedly close to making a decision regarding whether he will leave office in order to seek the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination,” The State column writes. “’I think I have got to make up my mind fairly soon,’ Daniels said Friday.”

GINGRICH: The Wall Street Journal editorial page excoriates Newt Gingrich’s pro-ethanol speech at Iowa’s Renewable Fuels Association summit, calling it a “pious tribute to the fuel made from corn and tax dollars.” More: “Some pandering is inevitable in presidential politics, but, befitting a college professor, Mr. Gingrich insists on portraying his low vote-buying as high ‘intellectual’ policy. This doesn't bode well for his judgment as a president. Even Al Gore now admits that the only reason he supported ethanol in 2000 was to goose his presidential prospects, and the only difference now between Al and Newt is that Al admits he was wrong.”

HUCKABEE: Israeli “Deputy Minister for Galilee and Negev Development Ayoub Kara (Likud) told visiting former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a likely Republican US presidential candidate, that Obama needed to understand that ‘supporting the masses carrying out a revolution in Egypt is like support for the Muslim Brotherhood which is likely to take Mubarak’s place,’” the Jerusalem Post writes. “Kara told Huckabee he was ‘disappointed by Obama’s turning his back’ on Mubarak.”

HUNTSMAN: “U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, a Republican with potential presidential ambitions, submitted a letter of resignation to the White House on Monday announcing he intends to leave the post April 30, a senior administration official said,” the AP writes, adding: “Huntsman also wouldn't be the first U.S. envoy to China to seek the White House: President George H.W. Bush served that role under President Gerald Ford. Huntsman's allies suggest he would stay in Beijing through April, set up an exploratory committee and make an announcement in early summer, perhaps after the close of the second-quarter fundraising records are released in July. By then, Republican primary voters will have had a chance to assess the early entrants in the GOP field and may clamor for another option.”

“Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the charismatic former Republican governor of Utah who appeared to put his presidential ambitions on hold when he became President Obama's ambassador to China, abruptly resigned his post Monday and appears likely to take a shot at ousting his boss,” the Washington Post says. “White House officials said they were miffed about Huntsman's shift and said late Monday that they doubted he could make a successful run at the presidency.”

The Post also points out some of its poll numbers on whether Americans would vote for a Mormon for president (the poll centered on Mitt Romney’s ambitions, but Huntsman is also Mormon). “In Dec. 2007, 22 percent of Americans said they would be less apt to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate… But also notable is that the percentage turning away from a Mormon candidate dropped significantly - by 13 percentage points - between Dec. 2006 and Dec. 2007.”

Former New Hampshire GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen said Huntsman’s service in the Obama administration won’t necessarily hurt him with Republican voters. ‘He was doing national service,’ says Cullen, who is neutral in the presidential race so far. ‘It’s like serving in the military in a Democratic administration. It doesn’t do him any dishonor’ to be linked to the Obama White House this way,” the Salt Lake Tribune writes.

PAWLENTY: “Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) sharpened his political rhetoric on Monday, calling President Obama ‘chicken’ when it comes to the issue of entitlement spending,” The Hill writes. “‘He's got all this soaring rhetoric, but the fact of the matter is he's chicken to address the real issues,” Pawlenty said on Fox News, adding, “Don’t confuse nice with being weak.”

ROMNEY: On ABC, Romney said President Obama’s needs “to ‘press the pause button’ on the federal health care overhaul in the wake of a judge's decision declaring it unconstitutional,” the AP writes. Romney said, "We don't need the government imposing a one-size-fits-all system" on the states. But “Romney acknowledged that his own health care law in Massachusetts contained the same kind of individual insurance mandate that a judge in Florida found unconstitutional in the federal law, but says he isn't apologizing for it. Romney, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, sought to make a distinction between the options that a state might choose under the 10th Amendment compared with Washington deciding the policy for all states in a single legislative act.” Romney, per Politico: "I'm certainly indicating the things I'd do differently," he said. "But I'm not going to apologize for the rights of states to craft plans on a bipartisan basis to help their people."

He also said the administration needs to urge Mubarak to “step out of the way.”

“Former governor Mitt Romney, in a new introduction to his book, strongly criticizes President Obama, writing that ‘my worst fears about the president have come true’ and that his policies ‘are smothering the American dream,’” the Boston Globe reports. “‘Rather than focusing his energy and political capital on solving the economic crisis, he exploited it to promote his extreme liberal agenda,’ Romney writes in the new paperback version of ‘No Apology,’ according to excerpts provided to the Globe. Romney is expected to expound on such a line of attack in a round of radio and television interviews today and tomorrow.”

“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney raised a total of $6.3 million between his federal and state-based political action committees in 2010, ending the year with $1.4 million cash on hand,” The Hill writes. “Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's PAC totals lag behind both Romney and Palin. Huckabee's PAC raised just shy of $35,000 to close out the year, ending 2010 with $137,660 cash on hand. In all, Huckabee raised $979,000 in 2010.”

SANTORUM: “Mr. Santorum's media strategist, John Brabender, said the Republican will likely announce the hire of a well-known national political consultant this week,” the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writes. 

Discuss this post

The millionaire pundits are licking their chops because one activist conservative judge rules against affordable health care for average Americans. Get used to it, better health care is here to stay.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:25 AM EST

One of many nails in the coffin called 0bummercare. This regime won't give up but neither will the American people. They spoke very loud in Nov 2010 and the opposition grows. Now legally they can't continue implementing 0bummercare unless they go get a stay of his order. There are some misinformed people that say he didn't stop them from continuing down the implementation road but they are sadly mistaken. The admin will be appealing this to the 11th Circuit very soon. If the 11th Circuit upholds this ruling 0bummercare is over.

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:46 PM EST

Actually, support for the Health Care Reform Act is growing, as more people come to realize what was really in the bill, and realize what ridiculous lies were being spread about it. When queried on the individual provisions of the law, all but one provision got support by the majority. The only provision that didn't get majority support was the "must purchase" provision, and a substantial number of opponents to that provision were liberals that wanted a Public Option instead!

So the real reason why Republicans are so eager to overturn Health Care Reform is that, if it is still Law by 2012, their own lies and opposition to it will totally sink their chances of gaining control of Congress and the Presidency.

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 4:39 PM EST
Reply

Careful, Mitt, you signed mandatory purchase of health insurance--the politics of hypocrisy.

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:33 AM EST

Yes, but that was under state law, which doesn't have a commerce clause.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:37 AM EST

Most of the people don't understand the difference between States rights and Fed Govt rights. They didn't pay attention in Civics class.

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:48 PM EST

Yes, "black belt", that includes the Republicans that want to skirt States Rights by allowing insurance sales across state lines, that would allow insurance companies to evade the rate regulations in California and the "must cover pre-existing conditions" laws in Massachusetts.

  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 4:27 PM EST
Reply

Huckabee needs to keep his nose out of foreign affairs, something he has little knowledge off. His bible study classes did not equip him for the complexities of modern day diplomacy.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:35 AM EST

I don't know- if ol' Huck really believes what his bible tells him, he knows the fate of Israel is already laid out. Maybe he would stop sending billions of OUR tax dollars over there, and let them go down. He DOES unequivicaly believe his bible, I assume?

    #3.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 10:13 AM EST
    Reply

    I'm very afraid that the Obama administration will rue the day it chose to leave the severability provision out of the last draft of the HCR bill, if indeed it did. But I saw Anthony Weiner on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night, and interestingly, he didn't deny it. All he said was that certain provisions of the HCR bill -- i.e., the mandates -- were there to please the insurance companies. No kidding. Now it's completely understandable that my fellow democrats, who wish to believe that the administration was truly committed to health care reform, might doubt that this omission was deliberate, but in that case, you need to read this language from the Florida court's opinion, pp. 67-68. This is NOT judicial activism, as I have heard some pundits say, but rather it is a fairly middle-of-the-road analysis, applying legislative history. Keep in mind that the administration itself admitted before the Florida court that without the mandates, other parts of the health care bill would not work.

    The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. “Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability clause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically believed that the challenges might well have had legal merit as it was “unclear” if the individual mandate had “solid constitutional foundation” See CRS Analysis, supra at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’ failure to incude a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.

    Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself ….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/47908341/Florida-vs-U-S-Dept-of-Health-and-Human-Services

    From this, it's not too hard to make the leap that someone in Congress deliberately took out the severability provision to please the insurance companies, which would not have wanted the rest of the bill without the mandates. And before you pelt me with tomatoes, my liberal friends, whatever else you take away from all this, remember one thing:

    All it will take to undo the entire health care reform bill is five votes on the Supreme Court that uphold this court on the commerce clause analysis. And four of those are already in the bag. Whatever this says to you, it does make me wonder.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#4 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:36 AM EST

    Actually all it takes is for the 11th Circuit to uphold the appeal of this judges decision and SCOTUS to refuse to hear the case on appeal. This could be over this year!

    • 1 vote
    #4.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:52 PM EST

    Kennedy is no 0bummer fan. He has already said he will not retire while 0bummer is president because he doesn't want him being the President that replaces him. That and 0bummers swipe at SCOTUS in last years TOTUS State of the Union speech should make the outcome pretty academic. The other thing is Nov 6 2012 is not that far away and we take matters back into our own hands like we did on Nov 2 2010. This is going down.

    • 1 vote
    #4.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:55 PM EST
    Reply

    Hey Santorum. give ME the money you'll pay that consultant! I can whisper sweet nothings in your ear and convince you that your 2006 beatdown is meaningless! Hell, for the right money, I'll tell you anything you wanna hear!!

      Reply#5 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:47 AM EST

      That is nothing like the beat down the Robert Casey is going to get on Nov 6 2012!!!

      • 1 vote
      #5.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 4:04 PM EST
      Reply

      "Professor" Gingrich? LMAO!! He taught at two cow colleges!! You don't get a diploma, you get a welding certificate!!

      • 2 votes
      Reply#6 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 9:57 AM EST

      One thing in Mitch Daniels' favor is that he is actually working right now. If Ambassador Huntsman has resigned, that means that all the other candidates in the running are "formerly" employed people, mostly "former" governors, although Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are "former" members of Congress. If all one is doing is writing autobiographies and campaigning, how can he or she possibly keep up-to-date on events actually occuring?

        Reply#7 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 10:21 AM EST

        One thing NOT in Daniels' favor is that he will address CPAC. That oughtta pretty well kill his chances with anyone to the left of Ivan The Terrible!!

          #7.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 10:46 AM EST
          Reply

          Romney, Mormon nuff said

          • 1 vote
          Reply#8 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 11:26 AM EST

          Romney comes out with guns blazing... and promptly shoots himself in the foot. Next candidate, please.

            Reply#9 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 11:51 AM EST

            The GOP will have a very tough time in 2012.... there is no way a GOP candidate can get the party nomination and then come back to the middle... .the american public does not believe them anymore after the Bush Compasionate Conservative.... and after 2010 to 2012 of the GOP cut... cut.. cut... abortion... abortion... abortion... tax cuts to rich..... they will have no chance with the middle class... why?... no ideas.....

              Reply#10 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 12:04 PM EST

              The Repubs stayed true to their conservative roots on Nov 2 2010 and "shellacked" the 0bummer admin candidates. If 0bummercare is still rattling around by Nov 6 2012 0bummer is guaranteed to be a 1 termer.

                #10.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 4:07 PM EST
                Reply

                Affordable??? Have I been missing the fact that insurance is rising and will continue to rise until someone with an ounce of courage realizes that this health care package did not address rising premiums - and before anyone starts asking whether or not I have read the entire bill let me ak first if you have - all 2700 pages- and state that I read the executive summary of it here.

                  Reply#11 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 12:47 PM EST

                  Unfortunately, you do have a point. A few states, most notably California, regulate rate increases, but that wasn't in the Federal health care bill. That's why the Republicans are pushing the notion of "selling insurance across state lines", that way insurers will all re-locate in states without insurance regulation, and thumb their nose at state insurance laws, especially laws regulating rate increases.

                  A "Public Option", or even a provision to create private non-profit "insurance unions" would have helped curb rate increases by providing serious competition to the "for profit" insurance companies.

                    #11.1 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 4:21 PM EST

                    So, do Republicans think that repealing the health care bill is going to reduce premiums? It seems disingenuous for them to claim the fact that premiums are still rising as a reason to repeal the bill.

                    My premiums have almost doubled in the last 6 years. That is not the fault of this health care bill. I don't expect that my premiums will stop rising when the bill takes effect, but at least they won't be able to dump me when I have to have chemotherapy. I appreciate that.

                      #11.2 - Tue Feb 1, 2011 4:25 PM EST
                      Reply
                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.