President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 02, 2012 11:13 PM UTC

Romney Struggles Badly With Obamacare Ruling Spin

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Michael Memoli of the Los Angeles Times reports today on the contortions facing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney following last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law–which, in case you’ve been living under a rock through the GOP primary, is very similar to what then-Gov. Romney signed into law in the state of Massachusetts. This is shaping up to be a major problem, with the Romney campaign’s strained differentiations–or lack thereof–not even close to helpful:

Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior Mitt Romney campaign advisor, said in an interview Monday that Romney agrees with Obama that the mechanism to enforce the so-called mandate that Americans have insurance – a provision modeled after the Massachusetts law Romney had signed as governor – was a penalty and not a tax, a statement that runs counter to what the rest of the GOP has argued in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling last Thursday.

“He disagreed with the ruling. He disagreed with the findings of the ruling. He disagreed with the logic that supported those findings. He said that he agreed with the dissent, which was written by Justice Scalia, and the dissent clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax,” Fehrnstrom said on MSNBC’s”Daily Rundown.”

…[T]o the main Republican argument on whether the mandate was enforced by a tax or a penalty, Fehrnstrom sided with the president and against the GOP. [Pols emphasis]

“The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty, and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax,” Fehrnstrom said.

The problem here is not over the question of whether or not Obamacare’s individual mandate, like “Romneycare’s,” amounts to a “tax” or a “penalty.” The Romney’s campaign’s disagreement over this technical point with the rest of the Republican Party is most notable because it highlights the basic commonality between Obamacare and Romneycare. Romney’s mandate, “what we put in place in Massachusetts,” is so similar to what Obama signed into law that Romney’s campaign is obligated to correct fellow Republicans in its own defense.

Now, there’s a chance that Romney’s campaign and every other Republican 2012 candidate will just agree to disagree, and let the cognitive dissonance play itself out–perhaps counting on a majority of voters never understanding these nuances. But every voter who does figure out that Republicans are essentially running against both Romney and Obama on health care reform is going to be left feeling like something fundamentally dishonest is taking place.

And that’s exactly what Romney’s GOP primary opponents warned would happen:

If you were awake in March and April, you probably remember a line that the increasingly desperate Rick Santorum kept using against Mitt Romney. “Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama on the issue of health care!” he’d say…

Santorum was right.

Comments

46 thoughts on “Romney Struggles Badly With Obamacare Ruling Spin

    1. As we said, the problem is not the bickering over the definition of “tax,” it’s that this argument exposes how similar Obamacare really is to Romneycare. Most voters won’t get into the details, they’ll just see that “Romney agrees Obamacare not a tax” and the damage will be done. It reinforces exactly Romney’s primary opponents said.

      1. States are allowed to impose mandates if they want. Almost every state does for auto insurance. The federal government should not have that power under the constitution.

        Please go take Basic Political Science again.

          1. so when he says something should not be so, then it isn’t.

            Gather round the gadsden flag Polsters, we are truly in the presence of a constitutional scholar.

            1. What are you talking about? Have you ever read the 10th Amendment?

              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

              A state may impose a mandate for health insurance, but the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing so. It’s that simple, and insulting me doesn’t change it.

              Whenever you want to honestly answer me, I’ll be here.

              1. Ah, ArapaBot, you’re just so gosh-darn charming when you try to be snippy!

                Let me ‘splain something. This thingie called the Supreme Court rules on laws made by Congress, not incoherent posters on a website:

                Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, S2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

                “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

                Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. S1251 et seq., and various special statutes.

                http://www.supremecourt.gov/ab

                (Note web address!)

                Now, in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, (AKA the Obamacare Law case) the Supreme Court ruled on a case between A CITIZEN and A STATE, and determined that the law WAS Constitutional…PERIOD.

                Quoting other parts of the Constitution are moot at this point….because that Constitution-thingie, which provides a very clear venue for settling such lawsuit thingies, has ruled that it IS Constitutional, regardless of what shrieking idiots on web blogs say.  

              2. This law was ruled constitutional just last week.  Your INTERPRETATION of the 10th amendment does not make it unconstitutional.  

                Call Chief Justice Roberts and tell him he forgot the 10th !  I don’t know if its sheer ignorance or delusion on your part or some combination of both.

              3. The Supremes decided that the health care bill was Constitutional because of the enumerated power of Congress to levy taxes.

                The 10th amendment doesn’t apply.

                Take your lame argument to some right-wing blog where it will be welcomed by non-thinking people as an “original” idea that supports what they already don’t think.

              4. There were no arguments based on the Tenth Amendment made to any federal court in the litigation over the ACA.

                The case did not turn on a question whether Washington invaded an area committed to the exclusive power of the states.

                The question was, does the ACA violate the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Tax Clause of the U.S. Constitution?

                The merits of the ACA have nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment.

        1. But the most conservative Supreme Court in decades disagrees with you.

          “Basic Political Science” indeed.  Maybe you missed a lecture, or two or three.

          1. The Court ruled that this was not a valid exercise of the Commerce Power. That’s the fact. Romney agrees, citing the 10th Amendment. That’s the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, even if it can be “recast” as a tax by a turncoat Chief Justice.

            I think the problem is that I did take Political Science, unlike you.

              1. BUT YOU ARE WRONG. A majority agreed that the individual mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause. It was upheld as a tax.

                Romney’s point is very simple. The mandate isn’t a tax, but a penalty. States may create mandates, but the 10th Amendment forbids this.

                Seriously, five Justices say something and it’s Gospel? I’ll remember that next time you complain about Citizens United!! 🙂

                (you screwed up on that last one)

              2. Be honest – weren’t you lib-types shrieking pre-decision about how a 5-4 decision only meant an activist court, and a threat to all that is holy and good, when you and everyone else was assuming ACA was going down?

                Did you feel that sacred-y about the Citizens United vote?

                1. That the commerce clause gave plenty of room to support the mandate.  But for John Robert’s sudden realization that he could go down as a partisan hack with the likes of Scalia and Thomas, he would’ve knocked it down as we all expected.

                  Roberts is the definition of an activist judge.  It just so happens he tossed us a bone this time instead of the usual shaft.

                2. Obviously, dancing on the heads of pins and all that aside, if it had gone the way the GOP wanted it to go you would have been calling it a big victory for them and defeat for Obama and that’s the way all the righties like the apoplectic Rush, the shocked Boehner and the general rightie public see it whether you call it a penalty or a tax. The only positive was that the GOP could pound it as a tax but that’s kind of awkward for Mittens what with his people saying it’s not. Awkward all round. Dems can even sell it with Romney’s own old Mass. ad campaign.

                  Second, not quite the same as the strictly party line partisan Citizens United with all Rs on one side and all Ds on the other.  It would have been much more like that one had this passed with occasional swinger Kennedy voting with the 4 Ds but having the far righty, Citizens United loving Chief Justice join the Dems gives it gravitas, unlike Citizens United and Bush v Gore. No way this is something for you guys to declare victory over. Sucks, huh?

                  1. THe difference is, I’m not freaking out and crying that the SCOTUS has invalidated itself with the decision, and I’m quite sure you and others here would have been if it had gone the other way.

                    Dan said a 5-4 decision is basically the end of the road – the final authority has spoken, and I was pretty sure he didn’t feel that way about Citizens United.

                    It’s a tax, it’s a tax, it’s a tax.  So says SCOTUS, and that’s the final word, in my mind.  I’m glad the Commerce Clause has been removed as a way for an overreaching government to impose it’s will – one isn’t being honest if they think ACA would have passed if the mandate was called a tax throughout the “process” of passing it.

                    Besides, it’s not going to matter in a few months.

                    1. THe difference is, I’m not freaking out and crying that the SCOTUS has invalidated itself with the decision, and I’m quite sure you and others here would have been if it had gone the other way.

                      Dan said a 5-4 decision is basically the end of the road – the final authority has spoken, and I was pretty sure he didn’t feel that way about Citizens United.

                      First, you can’t know what might have been said if Roberts had sided with the other cons. Second, and 5-4 con/lib split (or lib/con, if that was the makeup of the court) is much easier to describe as partisan activism then a 5-4 vote where aisles are crossed. They’re not the same thing.

                      Finally, Dan is speaking to A-BOT’s specific “IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL” shriek. Unfortunately, Dan is right – as far as constitutional jurisprudence is concerned, the ACA IS constitutional. That IS the end of the discussion… at least until either an amendment making it unconstitutional is passed, or a future court rules overturns it. The former option is extremely unlikely, and the latter is decades in the future (if ever), so for all practical purposes…. yes. It’s the end.

                    2. It’s constitutional, but please don’t tell me you had a straight face telling me that the libs might not have totally freaked out about an activist court if Roberts hadn’t done whatever it was that he did.

                      Here’s how I look at it: The 5-4 Citizens United will render the 5-4 ACA vote about as relevant in history as Carter’s self-planned hostage rescue mission in the overall scheme of things.

                    3. We have legitimate complaints.

                      If you like a government of, by, and for wealthy interests where you and I don’t matter at all, I suppose that’s something to look forward to.

                    4. And if you don’t think this government isn’t already controlled by wealthy interests, I’d be surprised.  CU just leveled the playing field.

                      Look how fantastically it’s been working in places like Wisconsin!

                    5. If you think CU “leveled” a playing field already tilted at a 45-degree angle toward corporations, that’s just one of many ways in which your ideology impairs your vision.

                    6. Sucks for your side. And that straw dog stuff you’re pushing about what would have happened “if” is bogus and the refuge of those who’ve got nothing on what actually did happen. Tell me with a straight face you wouldn’t have preferred the opposite, death of the whole plan, and wouldn’t be calling that a victory. Both outcomes can’t be equally great victories, now can they?

                      If you can’t address what I did say in my actual post instead of what I would have said in some hypothetical post, don’t expect to be taken seriously.

                      So this would make all the many fees Romney imposed, along with his penalty on those who didn’t get insurance, taxes which means every time he says he didn’t raise taxes as Governor, he’s lying, right?  But that’s not going to be a problem for him. Huge problem for Obama, though. It’s all good for Romney and the GOP, even though they can’t seem to stay on the same page. You must be smokin’ the good stuff.

                      And of course Sir Robin was addressing me 🙂

                    7. I wish SCOTUS had invalidated the whole mess, but they didn’t.  That’s fairly obvious, right?

                      I was responding to Dan’s assertion that a 5-4 ruling is basically a divine act, and pointing out that I’ll bet that’s not what you guys said after CU and certainly not what you’d have said if Roberts hadn’t gone the way he did, and I think I’m on the money.

                      Please, gloat away.  But also please allow me to point out this act of divinity the next time a 5-4 decision comes down that you or someone here hints ‘endangers the Republic’ or whatever.

                    8. if it’s all the cons vs all the libs. I mean, you can WISH they’re equivalent, but it won’t be unless there’s a lib among the five. You can pretend, but we’ll all know better.

                    9. In case you haven’t noticed, the Supremes have been losing the public’s respect as jurists because so many of the decisions break 5/4 along purely partisan lines.  Add to that Scalia’s highly politicized partisan rantings, totally inappropriate for a sitting Supreme. Have you missed all the polls, articles and op eds on the subject?

                      What makes this 5/4 decision different is that Justice Roberts, not just any one among the conservative block Supremes but the friggin’ Chief Justice, joined the libs on this one. So, not a purely partisan party line vote. Therefore not equivalent to the infamous Citizens United or Bush v Gore or any other glaringly partisan splits, especially in terms of public perception. Come on, Elbee.  I’ve already explained this.  Pay attention.    

                    10. If a SCOTUS decision is split along party lines, it’s pretty easy to dismiss it as heavily based in politics. It someone crosses party lines, it can’t be dismissed that way (unless there’s something to the notion that Roberts was crassly interested in his Court’s legacy and let that influence his judgment – which, as far as I know, is an idead based on one book).

                      That means that a 5-4 decision involving a change of sides (like ACA) is worth more than one that’s party line (like CU). Not to the law, of course, but to the public debate about their respective political meanings.

                    11. …did SCOTUS’ approval ratings go in the toilet after the decision on ACA?

                      Thanks for responding, BTW.

                      Ari-  I’m not going to be around for a couple of days to reply again.  I don’t want you to think I’m blowing you off.  Have a good 4th.

                    12. No clue there.

                      I’m offering my own opinion as to how to value 5-4 decisions, especially now that there’s no true swing vote on the Court. (Kennedy was always one of the four cons back when O’Connor was the swing vote. Will Roberts, heretofore an equally reliable con, take that role?) Doesn’t mean I’m right, but it seems to be more fair to assume that politics were left out of it when people cross aisles than when they don’t.

                3. ANd I didn’t care that much.

                  Without a public option it’s a stupid rule. Calling it a personal responsibility mandate, or whatever the Governor of MA called it at the time,  and doing it at the state level makes it no less stupid.

                  Citizens United is the law.  It’s a bad idea* but it’s the law.

                  But either way- the general is now a clear cut choice (at least on these issues): try and repeal ACA, or at least the bad parts like death panels and free care for non citizens, or adjust it to make it better.  Amend te Constitution so corporations are not people, or get Texas to execute one.

                  * It’s a bad idea because if corporations are people, why don’t they get to vote? Or get counted in order to apportion electors and representation?

            1. the mandate can be enforced by a penalty that meets the constitutional criteria to be a tax.

              The 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it.

            2. So your view of the role of a federal judge is to rule on cases and controversies in the manner consistent with the platform of the party who the president that nominated him represented?

              If so, that is certainly an interesting concept. Law is not supposed to be politics by other means, after all.

          1. Not the Feds, in my mind.  The distinction is important to me, but I know there are many who disagree.

            I’m looking forward to chatting with you, MADCO.  You are a favorite of mine.  Glad you’re here.

            1. I may have to be nice to you.

              Maybe not.  

              Now that you’re a FFPE, and since all you righties know each other, can you do anything to get those d—heads to pay up?

              Either way  – beers sometime? I think I owe you one or three.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

104 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!