McDonnell Defends RomneyCare

I'm loving the logic pretzels that Republicans are having to put themselves into by nominating Mitt Romney.

Comments

[Valley Indie]

The meaning of federalism, the 10th Amendment, and the Constitution generally, all must be outside your area of expertise.

But you're usually great at dissecting local school board races. So you've got that going for you.

[Not Larry Sabato]

I guess they are also outside the expertise of most federal judges that have rejected those arguments and upheld Obamacare as constitutional!

[Valley Indie]

You miss the point. Whether a court ultimately rules that the federal government can mandate health insurance coverage is irrelevant. Your initial post seems to claim that McDonnell is being two-faced by opposing the mandate but supporting Romney.

The arguments against Obamacare have ALWAYS centered around the federal government overreaching its authority. If states want to pass such a law, that's fine. Romney and McDonnell agree on that, and McDonnell's position on this has never changed.

[Steve Vaughan]

So, Valley Indie, you're endorsing a single-payer plan? Because no one doubts that that is within the authority of the federal government.

[Valley Indie]

Steve, if the federal government passes one, neither I nor Bob nor Cooch will say that it was unconstitutional.

[Chris]

This is pretty amusing . . . of course, Bob has had no interest in taking on Obamacare he just signed the bill because he had too and supports Ken because it would be catastrophic to his own career if he didn't back his actions.

[change]

SV,
When you mention “single-payer plan” are you equating “individual mandate”?
If so your comment that “no one doubts that that is within the authority of the federal government.”, is untrue to the point of absurd.

No one should confuse the fact that because the federal government has usurped so much authority not granted them in the constitution, that it overrides the intent of the document.

The pendulum constantly always swings to and fro.
Consider this (assume extremists opposite your views were in charge): would you support a federal “mandate” that every adult must hunt and kill a portion of the yearly food intake for the betterment of society? Or would you support a “mandate” that every legal non-felon citizen always carry a weapon (which they must purchase with their own funds)?
How about a “mandate” on exercise (big brother) for the betterment of society? Or since we are lacking youths to work and pay taxes to support SS we might “mandate” every woman to birth at least three children…

Yes this all sounds ridiculous. However, imagine if you asked our founders if the government could “mandate” a purchase of a “product”, they would belly laugh at the absurdity. If you asked anyone in the 1960’s if they thought government would outlaw smoking in private restaurants, you would get the same response. or if you asked current Americans, if they thought the federal government would define “poverty” as families with less than 2 TV’s, cars, and no TiVo. Or.. if you asked anyone 30 years ago if the EPA would rule supreme over mudpuddles they would look at you like you were an idiot; which surely you are.. not?

The fact that politics, like a pendulum, swings to and fro, should always be considered, particularly at its greatest amplitude.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, no life-time limits, 80% of premiums must go toward actual health care, unemployed/underemployed children can stay on parents insurance policy to age 26 - That is health care reform.

Americans support the health care insurance mandate, there are no free rides at the emergency room.

[Ralph]

So he supports a mandate as long as it comes from him or Mitt Romney, not the President? Pretzel logic, folks.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

The 10th Amendment argument is valid and there are no logical pretzels for McDonnell. However, Romney clearly supports the idea of government controlled healthcare. You can't run away from that. This (among other issues) raises clear questions about his conservative bona fides. The man claims to be a conservative and yet has taken Liberal stances on all kinds of issues. This is where I question the logic of both McDonnell and Bolling in supporting Romney in the primaries.

If indeed he is the nominee in the end, he's clearly more conservative than Obama, so I have no issues with supporting him in the general, but to call yourself a conservative and support this flip-flopper in the primary really puzzles me.

One last thing I will say in his defense though. While Romney takes at least 3-4 years to flip-flop, at least he's not as bad as Obama who's on every side of every issue, even in the same speech.

[change]

I mandate everyone has a right to:
a “chicken in every pot”…
breast feeding of “children” to the age of 26…
stay in school to the age of 18 or else????...
rape, pillage, plunder or kill up to the age of 26 when they become responsible for their own actions…
A taxpayer funded hoverround for everyone…
Taxpayer funded “talking” monitors for all diabetics…
Handicap parking passes for everyone….
Live until the age of 83 (or until too expensive to the taxpayer)

[Sam]

change,

The Second Congress DID pass a law mandating gun ownership (it was repealed a few years later).... That Congress was loaded with Framers of the Constitution who seemed to have no questions about its constitutionality, and was signed by George Washington...

[Noticed]

Ben's understanding of the law is a product of his Robinson High School "education."

However, don't get on Ben's case too badly. The last time he mentioned "Constitution" out loud, his mommy stuffed a shitload of prunes down his throat!

Sam, If it helps, James Madison changed his mond on a lot of Constitutional issues, most notably the relative powers of the states versus the Federal government. He advocated greater power for states when he was opposing John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, but supported more Federal power when he was President and fending off Federalist attacks on his authority. We have a little more precedent on Constitutional law these days, in case you couldn't tell. See also http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289593/obama-s-seizure-and-truman-s-garland-tucker

[Fairfax Volunteer]

And I find the logic pretzels people on my side are now engaging in to justify their support for Romney pretty damn embarassing.

No worse than the logic pretzels of social conservatives backing Gingrich, of course.

But, like it or not, one of these screw-ups is going to be the next POTUS. Obama is NOT going to get re-elected, even against this crop, if the economy doesn't improve.