HOUSTON -- Mitt Romney likely didn't win any votes at the national NAACP convention on Wednesday, but the African American atendees gave the presumptive GOP nominee credit nonetheless for trying.

The crowd gathered in Texas for the civil rights group's annual meeting booed Romney for vowing to repeal President Obama's health care reform law.

Evan Vucci / AP

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks before the NAACP annual convention July 11 in Houston, Texas.

"I'm going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare," Romney told the overwhelmingly African American membership gathered for his address, as a chorus of boos forced the candidate to stop his speech for fifteen seconds, then veer off script to defend his position.

But this audience was never likely to be a friendly crowd for the presumptive GOP nominee, with African American voters supporting President Obama over John McCain 95 to 4 percent in 2008, and with current polls showing a similar split in this election cycle. Romney made note of the tough room with a joke at the start of his remarks.

"I appreciate the chance to speak first – even before Vice President Biden gets his turn tomorrow," Romney said. "I just hope the Obama campaign won’t think you’re playing favorites." 

Several attendees said after the speech that while they appreciated Romney appearing here, he would never win their support.

"I give him kudos for coming here, I really do. He had nerves," said Betty Bush, a retired auto worker from Alabama, who then added she could think of "nothing," that she agreed with in Romney's remarks.

"I thought it was courageous for him and gracious of him to come, and we really appreciate that," said Steven Goings, who traveled to Texas from Monterrey, California for the convention. "Certainly I disagree with most of what he says, but that's to be expected."

The candidate made several attempts to reach out to the black community specifically in his speech: highlighting his father's work on civil rights in the 1960's, pledging to improve the job market for blacks, who suffer from a disproportionately high 14.4 percent unemployment rate, and highlighting his education reform work as Massachusetts governor.

Romney's comments on education -- specifically his often-told story of protecting charter schools in Massachusetts with the help of the black caucus in the Massachusetts legislature -- appeared to be the most popular element of his speech today, here in the home city of the successful KIPP charter school system.

"We need Obamacare," said Liz Cotton, a grandmother from Virginia, when asked what she thought of Romney's speech, adding:"I agree with him on Charter schools. I think charter schools are really good."

Campaign officials said they were pleased with the reception Romney received overall, noting many of his positions -- including pushing back against China on trade issues -- earned notable applause. Several political analysts also noted today that Romney's audience today was broader than just those in the room if he could appeal to moderates and independents just by showing up at the convention. (As the Republican nominee in 2008 John McCain also spoke to the group, as did then-Senator Obama, who begged off this year citing scheduling conflicts)

But on the economic argument that he could be a better president for people of all colors in America -- the core of Romney's campaign message -- Romney appeared to make little headway with this audience.

"I wouldn't say there was nothing to his argument," said Goings, offering faint praise, and adding that he would "certainly" be voting for Obama again this year.

Romney was interrupted with boos twice more for criticizing the president in the course of a twenty five minute address to an audience that was likely the least-supportive one he has spoken to all campaign season. He earned only smatterings of applause for his policy positions, but ultimately receiving a brief, cordial standing ovation from the several hundred attendees as he wrapped up his remarks.

Mitt Romney found himself on the receiving end of a loud chorus of boos when he promised to repeal health care reform during a speech before the NAACP.

"If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in every year. So to do that, I'm going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare, and I'm going to work to reform and save -- " Romney said, being interrupted by boos.

Romney otherwise encountered polite applause in his speech, which hit on themes of jobs and the economy -- mainstays of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's overall stump speech -- as well as education reform.

The former Massachusetts governor faced an uphill task politically in speaking before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), one of the most historic and well-established civil rights groups. President Barack Obama, as the nation's first black president, enjoys tremendous levels of support and enthusiasm from black voters, who helped propel Obama to office in 2008 in key swing states.

Romney joked about the fact that he's unlikely to win over many African American voters. "I appreciate the chance to speak first -- even before Vice President Biden gets his turn tomorrow," he said. "I just hope the Obama campaign won’t think you’re playing favorites."

But the speech, overall, was intended to portray his candidacy as one for all Americans, unified by a theme of improving the economy. Romney pledged to return to speak before the NAACP at its convention next year, should he be elected.

Romney also spoke with reverence toward the legacy of his father, Michigan Gov. George Romney, a Republican who broke with his party at times over the issue of civil rights.

"For every one of us a particular person comes to mind, someone who set a standard of conduct and made us better by their example. For me, that man is my father, George Romney," he said, detailing some of his father's work to advance civil rights.

Now it’s a tax? “Mitt Romney Wednesday reversed the position staked out by his own campaign just two days before and said the penalty levied against Americans who do not buy health insurance under President Obama’s health care overhaul is ‘a tax,’” the Boston Globe writes. Romney told CBS: “The majority of the court said it is a tax, therefore it is a tax. The majority has spoken. There is no way around that.”

And get this… “During a parade in Wolfeboro, NH, Romney was told by someone in the crowd that the health care penalty was a tax. ‘I agree,’ Romney replied.”

Newsweek/Daily Beast’s Tomasky: “After some tap dancing, Mitt Romney now says the individual mandate is a tax. Democrats should call his bluff and agree—it'll hurt Mitt far more than Obama.”

GOP 12: “Hogan Gidley, a former adviser for Rick Santorum's erstwhile presidential bid, tells Talking Points Memo that his boss tried to warn voters about Mitt Romney's difficulty with prosecuting the case against ObamaCare.” He said, “It’s a problem, I’m not going to lie.... Here we are a couple months into the general and you’re going, ‘Hey wait a minute, that Rick Santorum was right'."

CBN’s David Brody: “It makes you wonder if Rick Santorum was on to something when he said it would be a mistake to nominate Romney because it makes arguing the healthcare issue extremely difficult. You think President Obama will be ready with a few good one-liners for the fall debates? You betcha.”

Romney’s attempts to “clarify” or wiggle out of his position on the mandate reminds that back in October, George Will called Romney “the pretzel candidate.” Will hit him for “twists” on ethanol, TARP, and collective bargaining. Will wrote, “A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one.” And he called him “a recidivist reviser of his principles.” Will concluded: “Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?”

Bermuda Shorts: AP: “For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose. Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning - suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign. The omissions were permitted by state and federal authorities overseeing Romney's ethics filings, and he has never been cited for failing to disclose information about his money. But Romney's limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law.”

The Obama campaign, in pushing the story, said it “raises serious questions about whether Mitt Romney established a Bermuda corporation to avoid U.S. taxes and attempted to hide it from the public.” And it put out a web video entitled, “Do you have an offshore bank account?”

“President Obama’s re-election campaign pounced on recent reports about Mitt Romney’s offshore holdings as new details emerged about a Bermuda-based company that was omitted from multiple financial disclosure reports,” the New York Daily News writes.

And it dings him for his home in New Hampshire: “Mitt Romney’s week-long vacation at his opulent lakehouse has reinforced the common line of attack that he’s out of touch with the common voter — a controversy President Obama may be trying to avoid. … Yet whether he’s on a jet ski or not, Romney’s wealth — estimated at more than $250 million — made more uncomfortable headlines for him on Tuesday. The fortune, mostly made at Bain Capital, is largely held in a complex and opaque offshore network, including a Swiss bank account and in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, according to a Vanity Fair report. Also, his campaign must now distance itself from the CEO of Barclays, who stepped down from the British bank Tuesday amid an interest-rate fixing scandal.”

The Romney campaign for its part is hitting Obama for “broken promises.” “With no record to run on, no rationale for re-election, and no positive message – President Obama is on the defensive, trying to win back the support of skeptical voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where he has failed to follow through on his promises on health care, unemployment, and spending,” the campaign writes in a morning email.

And it links to several not-so-positive headlines for the president as he makes his way through Ohio:

Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Democrats And Republicans See Challenges For President Barack Obama In Key Mahoning Valley”
Toledo Blade, “Obama Trip Recalls to GOP Biden Visit Four Years Earlier”
Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sen. Portman Op-Ed: “Obama's Policies Are Stifling The Recovery”
Toledo Blade, “GOP Governors In Maumee Before Obama Visit”
Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Romney Campaign To Rival Obama Bus Tour Through Ohio With Bobby Jindal And Tim Pawlenty.”

There’s also the Akron Beacon Journal front page: “High jobless rate expected for years.”
And the Cleveland Plain Dealer front page: “Romney’s Mahoning Valley opportunity.”
The Youngstown Vindicator: “Romney campaign to stop in Valley; GOP hopeful wants to stay a step ahead of Obama’s bus tour.”

Of course, on the other hand:

Sandusky Register flag on the background of an American flag and the president’s face: “Welcome, President Obama. Obama visits Sandusky today; public access limited.”
The Toledo Blade (with a smiling Obama): “China to face accusation of unfair trade. Complaint to world body affects Toledo-made SUVs.”
The Ravenna Record-Courier: “Aurora man wins contest, has lunch with Obama.”
The Dayton Daily News front page: “IT job demand brings six-figure salaries.”
Hamilton Journal News: “Demand for IT jobs boosting salaries.”

Charles Dharapak / AP

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, accompanied by his Ann, address a crowd after they walked in the Fourth of July Parade in Wolfeboro, N.H., Wednesday. At right is son Craig Romney.

WOLFEBORO, N.H.-- Mitt Romney contradicted a top aide to his campaign and aligned himself instead with the Republican establishment in labeling the health care mandate a tax, not a penalty, as Democrats have contended.

"Now the Supreme Court has spoken and while I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it’s a tax," Romney said in an interview Wednesday with CBS. "Therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that.  You can try and say you wish they’d decided a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it’s a tax. That’s what it is."

Romney's description of the health care mandate as a tax aligns his position with that of GOP leaders, who have for days used the Supreme Court's majority decision upholding the law under Congress's taxation authority as a cudgel with which to attack Democrats and the president as having raised taxes.

Earlier this week, Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom took a position in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd that the mandate should be labeled a fee or a penalty, not a tax, and repeating again that Romney agreed with the Supreme Court's dissenting opinion, written by Antonin Scalia, that the mandate should be considered a penalty or fee and would therefore be unconstitutional.

By stating that the mandate is indeed a tax, Romney can now join a chorus of Republican leaders in attacking the president for what he claims was breaking a central pledge of Obama's candidacy -- not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans. But in doing so, he opens himself up to a similar attack: that the mandate in the health care law he passed in Massachusetts was also a tax.

"The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made," Romney said in the CBS interview. "He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans."

Wednesday morning's interview was Romney's first public appearance in several days, as the candidate took the weekend off to vacation at his summer home here on Lake Winnepesaukee. Romney was joined here by all five of his sons and their children, filling his lakeside compound to the brim with activity over several days of boating, volleyball and at least one meeting with top campaign aides on the house's back deck. 

That meeting, attended by campaign manager Matt Rhoades and senior adviser Beth Myers, who heads Romney's vice presidential search effort, has fueled speculation that Romney may be close to picking a number two on the ticket.

Wednesday, Romney took part in the Wolfeboro Independence Day parade, along with most of his family and with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who is considered by many political analysts to be on Romney's vice presidential short list. If parade-goers were looking for clues to the candidate's intentions or to hear policy discussed, they may have come away disappointed.

Instead, the attitude along the parade route through Main street was patriotic and festive, with the candidate criss-crossing the street to shake hands with supporters, snap photos and guzzle lemonade from a roadside stand. At the parade's conclusion at Brewster Academy, which overlooks the lake, Romney praised the "fighting men and women around the world continue to inspire me," and gave brief remarks saluting America on her birthday.

"I love this country," Romney said. "I love the people who have built this country."

Updated 12:04 p.m. - The Supreme Court's determination last week that health care reform could be sustained as an extension of the power of Congress to tax has launched a battle of political semantics in Washington over taxes. 

Republicans have latched on to the high court's ruling that the individual mandate -- the requirement that individuals have insurance, or pay a penalty to the IRS -- was essentially a tax. Though the majority decision was authored, ironically, by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, it offered an affirmation of Republicans' long-held contention that President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement represented a tax hike.

Democrats have preferred, instead, to call it a "penalty" rather than a tax, parrying Republicans' attacks by using language presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has used in defense of his own similar health reform law in Massachusetts.

As recently as this Monday morning, the Romney campaign was using the same language.

"It was a penalty, and the governor had all the authority he needed under our state constitution to put in the reforms that he did put in place," Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said this morning on MSNBC. "The governor has consistently described the mandate in Massachusetts as a penalty."

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom

The aftermath of the court's ruling, in short, has resulted in a bizarre situation. Republicans -- including Romney -- attack "ObamaCare" as a tax, even as the party's standard-bearer uses language to defend the Massachusetts law that closely resembles Obama's law. (The Romney campaign is also quick to note that there are other taxes included in the health care law beyond the mandate.)

“The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty. Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position: is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?” asked Amanda Henneberg, a spokeswoman for Romney.

And Democrats are uncomfortably wedded to a Supreme Court decision that handed them their desired outcome, but created for them a new political headache. Mindful that embracing a new tax could be politically treacherous for them in November, the White House and Democrats downballot are scrambling to spin the mandate as anything but a tax, despite the court's ruling and the fact that the "penalty" is paid to the IRS.

Republicans pointed to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's comments toward the decision on "Meet the Press" this Sunday as an acknowledgement of that.

"It's a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1 percent, perhaps, of the population who decide they're going to be free riders," said the California Democrat, who as House speaker was one of the law's chief proponents.

The GOP is likely to find much more success in using this tactic downballot. They have been hammering away at House and Senate candidates since the decision was first announced.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, for instance, has targeted Democratic candidates in releases and videos throughout the weekend for supporting, they assert, a tax hike.

For its part, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has pushed back by launching automated calls against Republicans that accuse them of wishing to "put insurance companies back in charge of our health care."

But that appears set to be a separate battle from the one between Romney and Obama. Republicans' most visible figure this election year will have trouble explaining to voters how his proposal in Massachusetts is not a tax, but Obama's is. That was a chief conservative criticism of Romney during the primary: that he was the worst possible candidate to challenge Obama on health care, because of the similar law he had passed.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has laid out a first term agenda that is nothing short of ambitious, outlining a list of priorities that would require him to marshal a near-impossible amount of political capital to achieve.

"What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal ‘ObamaCare,’" Romney said Thursday in Washington, adding to his portfolio the politically thorny pledge to undo President Obama’s health reform law.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gives his reaction to the Supreme Court's upholding key parts of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law in Washington June 28, 2012.

The list of promises Romney has made for his first term is extensive. His two “Day One” ads outline other policies the former Massachusetts governor would put in motion on his first day:

• Seeking tax cuts and deficit reduction,
• Approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline,
• Issuing more aggressive strictures for trade with China,
• And seeking the repeal of “job-killing regulations” (the financial regulatory reform bill, Dodd-Frank, is an example Romney mentions frequently on the campaign trail)

More substantially, Romney has promised to seek some type of comprehensive immigration reform – an accomplishment that has escaped both Obama and President George W. Bush – in his first year in office.

"In my first year I will make sure we actually do take on immigration, we secure our border, we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want," Romney said at a fundraiser earlier this week.

All this is on top of lofty expectations Romney’s set for himself on the economy; he said in May that an unemployment rate above 4 percent is “not cause for celebration.”

“It's going to be busy,” deadpanned a House Republican leadership aide, speaking of Romney’s agenda.

Presidential candidates are not typically modest in their election year promises.

Obama, as a candidate in 2008, made a number of promises that haven’t made their way to fulfillment. Romney has been eager to highlight, for instance, the president’s inability to accomplish comprehensive immigration reform.

And to Romney’s credit, despite the criticism the presumptive Republican nominee has weathered for offering few specifics about his first-term agenda, his first term proposals seem to outpace Obama’s ambitions for his second.

Romney, like Obama and any number of candidates entering their first term as president, might encounter a stark reality. Governing is about as easy as herding cats, and that process isn’t helped by the glacial pace on Capitol Hill.

First Thoughts: Ending the month on a high note

Presidents often enjoy a “honeymoon” in which they’re able to advance a major element of their platform. Bush got education reform and his signature tax cuts; Obama got his stimulus bill.

And that’s to assume, the Republicans maintain control of the House and take over the Senate – in which case, prospective Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would be tasked with convincing a non-trivial number of Democrats to join the GOP in advancing Romney’s agenda.

Romney could seek the repeal of health care as his first priority, something he might accomplish by using the process of budget reconciliation. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) suggested Friday on “Morning Joe” that Republicans could use this tactic, which allows the Senate to approve legislation with a simple majority of votes, to gut the heart of Obama’s law.

But even if this were to be achievable practically, it would be a bloody fight on which Romney would have to spend considerable political capital.

“He comes into office, and Day One is getting your secretary of State or secretary of Treasury confirmed!” said former Delaware Sen. Ted Kaufman (D), who long served as an aide in the chamber before succeeding Joe Biden in the chamber, of a new president’s traditional to-do list.

“You’re just going to declare war on the Democrats from the first day you get into office?” Kaufman said. “Obama didn’t do that, and he had 60 votes.”

There are always foreign policy crises and the unexpected issues – like 2010’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – that can divert from the business of governing.

“If the Democratic leadership wants to criticize a President Romney for fulfilling his promises, it's not something that's going to play well with voters,” said the House Republican aide, evaluating the broad range of issues Romney has promised to advance.

On some of those issues, too, Romney is boxed in politically. Republicans in Congress have so frequently voted to repeal the president’s health care law – the next vote is set for July 11 – in part because they made it a cornerstone of their 2010 campaign.

“If Romney is to win, that's a major part of what he's run on,” the GOP aide said of Romney’s vow to repeal the law. “Despite protestations from Democrats, some of whom will vote for repeal, that A) depoliticizes it, but B) is also part of why he's running.”

But Romney will also have to reckon with the so-called “fiscal cliff” – the cocktail of expiring tax cuts, automated spending cuts and necessary extension of the nation’s debt ceiling – early in his term, unless Congress were to reach a deal in its lame-duck session, an unlikely prospect.

 “You may be critical of Obama – why’d he use up all of his mojo on health care reform?” Kaufman noted. “You’re going to need mojo just to get a debt limit vote and figure out what we’re doing on the Bush tax cut.”

Even after all of this has been addressed, even in the best case scenario for Romney, in which the GOP controls both chambers, he’ll be dealing with a Congress that prides itself on regular order. Romney has prepared few detailed plans or pieces of legislation to drop on Capitol Hill’s doorstep; in fact, when asked earlier this month on CBS about which tax exemptions he’d kill to finance tax reform, Romney said he’d “go through that process with Congress.”

That process can be lengthy, though, and force any president to prioritize agenda items. And congressional Republicans are cognizant of that.

“It's something that could be moved through a process,” the GOP aide said of Romney’s immigration reform plans. “Does it end up at a president's desk? That remains to be seen. Things that are comprehensive take a long time.”

*** Friday’s “Daily Rundown” line-up: Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on the Supreme Court’s ruling… NBC’s David Gregory on the campaign consequences of it all… NBC’s Kerry Sanders with the latest on George Zimmerman’s bond hearing in Florida… More 2012 trail news with NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Demos’ Bob Herbert and the AP’s Beth Fouhy.

*** Friday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts talks with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, former RNC Chair Michael Steele, Time magazine’s Michael Crowley, and all four co-hosts of MSNBC’s “The Cycle” -- Steve Kornacki, S.E. Cupp, Krystal Ball & Toure.

*** Friday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include “The Newsroom” Creator/Writer Aaron Sorkin, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, USA Today’s Jackie Kucinich, and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

*** Friday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: Chis Cillizza, filling in for NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, interviews NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell and Miguel Almaguer, former Department of Justice Prosecutor David Rivkin, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart and Ruth Marcus, USA Today’s Susan Page, National Journal’s Major Garrett and Medora Works Directors Davy Rothbart and Andrew Cohn.

*** Friday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Newsweek’s Zachary Karabell,  Dem strategist Jimmy Williams,  Natoma Canfield – the woman mention yesterday in Obama’s speech after the healthcare ruling, and Colonel Jack Jacobs on the Stolen Valor ruling.

*** Saturday's and Sunday's "Melissa Harris-Perry" line-up: On Saturday, Melissa Harris-Perry interviews, among others, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, writer Rebecca Traister, and former SC GOP Chair Katon Dawson. On Sunday, she interviews Dem strategist Karen Finney and The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel

Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who taught both President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts at Harvard, wrote on SCOTUS Blog: “Today, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a heroic rebuke to the growing number of Americans who feared the Supreme Court had lost the ability to rise above the narrowminded partisanship that dominates the country’s political discourse.

“More than a year ago, writing in the Boston Globe, I made a simple point … that ‘this law doesn’t literally force anybody to do anything; it just increases the tax liability of those who refuse to buy insurance.’ Fortunately, the Chief Justice ended up articulating essentially the same common sense view despite protestations and pressure from his conservative colleagues on the Court that he approach the case more artificially.”

Dana Milbank with the headline of the day: “The umpire strikes back.” His lead: “John Roberts was the first justice to appear from behind the curtains when the buzzer sounded in the Supreme Court chamber at 10 a.m. sharp. He forced a tight grin and scanned the audience, which, on this historic day, included several members of Congress and retired Justice John Paul Stevens. The only hint of what was afoot came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who, taking his place at the chief justice’s right, bowed his head as if in mourning… In the audience, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), an opponent of the law, folded his arms across his chest, his mouth slightly agape. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) put his chin in his hand. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a leader of House conservatives, shook his head. Scalia was reclining in his chair, staring blankly. Justice Clarence Thomas was practically horizontal.”

And: “Whatever one thinks of the health-care ruling, Roberts’s opinion was extraordinarily brave.”

National Review didn’t think it was brave, but a “folly” instead: “If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy… Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands come November.”

Charles Krauthammer calls this decision by Roberts his “Nixon-to-China” moment. “Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature. … As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce. … But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held.”

In fairness, as one of us will write later this morning, the taxing power argument didn’t come out of nowhere. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued strongly for it. For example: “If there is any doubt about that under the Commerce Clause, then I urge this Court to uphold  the minimum coverage provision as an exercise of the taxing power.”

Verrilli fended off eight justices, including the liberals, who came after him for the president and members of Congress denying that it was a tax. He argued that not all members of Congress denied it was valid under the Congress’ taxing authority, including Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who was entrusted as one of the key shepherds of the bill. And Verrilli acknowledged the legislative politics, but pointed out the reality: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. But it is in the Internal Revenue Code, it is collected by the IRS on April 15th.” 

Republicans want move toward repealing the law. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning unabashedly called for the Senate, assuming a narrow GOP takeover of the Upper Chamber, to use “reconciliation” to kill the law.

But David Frum calls GOP hopes of repealing the law a “fantasy” and the ruling a “Waterloo.” “First, today's Supreme Court decision will make it a lot harder to elect Mitt Romney. President Obama has just been handed a fearsome election weapon. 2012 is no longer exclusively a referendum on the president's economic management. 2012 is now also a referendum on Mitt Romney's healthcare plans.”

He also notes that Republicans will be the ones faced with political backlash. “[I]t will be their town halls filled with outraged senior citizens whose benefits are threatened; their incumbencies that will be threatened.” And that since many Republicans want to keep elements of the bill, that one-page repeal bill “will begin to grow.” He adds that there’s “no internal consensus on what a replacement would look like. Worse, any replacement of the law's popular elements will require financing. But where is that money to come from?” And he contends the bill will become not just more popular, but more difficult to undo as states begin to implement it in 2014.

In other words: “If replacement does not happen in the first 100 days, it won't happen at all—that is, it won't happen as a single measure, but rather will take the form of dozens of small incremental changes adopted episodically over the next 20 years. The outlook then: Even if Republicans win big in 2012, they will have to fight inch by bloody inch for changes they could have had for the asking in 2010. Truly, this is Waterloo—a Waterloo brought about by a dangerous combination of ideological frenzy, poor risk calculation, and a self-annihilating indifference to the real work of government.”

On the other side of the aisle…

Huffington Post’s Stein and Grim: “Democrats won [yesterday’s] battle, but the war over health care remains unsettled… Having endured years of sustained attack for constructing a bill that was based, fundamentally, on conservative principles, Democrats on Thursday were conceiving of ways to make the Affordable Care Act more popular rather than structurally different.” And: “[A] bill that has been sold to the public before would need to be presented once again during the presidential campaign.”

Josh Marshall at left-leaning Talking Points Memo: “In politics like in everything else, wins tend to generate more wins. They excite the winners and demoralize the losers, especially when the losers were certain they were about to win big. Getting the wind knocked out of you and desperately choking for breath for a minute on the field isn’t a plus. So a loss for the opponents of ‘Obamacare’ strikes me as what it is: a loss for the opponents of ‘Obamacare.’ On all levels.”

Matt Yglesias on what’s at stake in November: “[I]t turns out that the provisions a Romney administration would need to repeal to gut the law are wildly popular. According to a Reuters poll earlier this week, 78 percent of self-identified Republicans favor ‘banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions’ and 86 percent of them support ‘banning insurance companies from canceling policies because a person becomes ill.’

“In other words, once the basic framework of the law is in place, it’ll be all but impossible to kill. That’s probably why no country that’s instituted a universal health insurance program has ever rolled it back—even strong conservatives like Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom or the current right-wing government in Canada leave existing programs in place. The problem for Democrats is that if Romney takes office in 2013, none of this stuff will have actually happened yet. Repealing the law in its abstract form is a bit politically risky for Republicans but not nearly as risky as it will become in the future.”

“In upholding most of President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Supreme Court handed the tea party a new lease on life,” Roll Call writes. “While activists spouted made-for-TV rancor through megaphones outside the court Thursday, the behind-the-scenes strategists who helped Republicans take the House in 2010 prepared for a flood of donations they said will fuel even greater gains this November.”

The Romney campaign, for example, said it had received more than $4 million yesterday.

But for all the talk of winners and losers, Glen Johnson points out: “The Supreme Court’s health care ruling today is a political victory for President Obama if you simply accept Mitt Romney’s most recent statement prior to the decision being handed down. Speaking Tuesday in Virginia, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee girded for the ruling by saying if the nation’s highest court overturned what he derides as Obamacare, ‘then the first 3 1/2 years of this president’s term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people.’ Yet the court, with the vote of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, today upheld the law’s constitutionality. Accepting Romney’s logic, that would mean that the bulk of Obama’s first term in office was spent on something that helped the American people. Roberts is not someone Romney can dismiss, either. On his campaign website, he pledges to nominate Supreme Court justices ‘in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts,’ as well as other court conservatives.

Andrew Sullivan also points it out: “‘As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts ...’ - MittRomney.com.” 

Michael Shear on how the Romney campaign orchestrated the GOP message machine after the ruling yesterday: “Moments after the Supreme Court ruled on President Obama’s health care law, Lanhee Chen, the policy director for Mitt Romney, sent an e-mail to about three dozen senior Republicans on Capitol Hill and in state attorneys general’s offices. ‘Please stand by. Reviewing. Will circulate answer,’ the e-mail, sent at 10:17 a.m. said in part. Minutes later, at 10:27 a.m., Mr. Chen sent another e-mail: ‘Go with upheld.’ Those three words unleashed a public relations plan that was nine weeks in the making and designed to make sure that the Republican response to whatever the court decided served Mr. Romney’s presidential ambitions.”

“For more than two months, a group of top aides to Mr. Romney met weekly with staff members to Republican lawmakers, legislative campaign committees and representatives of the state attorneys general. The meetings, led by Jeff Larson, the chief of staff at the Republican National Committee, were usually held at 3 p.m. in a conference room on the fourth floor of the committee’s headquarters. The group developed three scenarios.” There was some disagreement, “But in all cases, it was agreed that Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, was in charge of the message.”

Jeff Zeleny points out: “Republicans swiftly sought to turn the court’s reasoning against President Obama, recasting the legislation as a tax increase. Mr. Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts signed a similar health care law, was one of the few in his party who did not join in that argument.”

Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) found herself caught in the preliminary confusion over the Supreme Court's ruling on health care reform.

A source passed to NBC News some video, taken by iPhone, of Schmidt standing outside the court as news of the ruling was apparently being passed to her via cell phone.

"Yes! Yes!!! And what else?!" Schmidt says into her cell phone, under the belief that the Supreme Court had struck down the law. (Like most Republicans, Schmidt was an ardent critic of the law.)

Her reaction is a testament to the initial flurry of misinformation surrounding the court's ruling. Even President Obama had thought that his signature legislative achievement had been defeated at the court, before an aide informed him otherwise.