Note: This post has been moved to the top because of the importance of the topic.
I received this e-mail from several people this morning:
I am jaw-drop stunned that an allegedly Republican governor has allowed what’s in the red box above to become law in this country’s birthplace of freedom.
And what’s this about $50 co-pays for abortions? Really?
Really (pic is from the Commonwealth Care [i.e., RomneyCare] web site; original PDF document is here):
As stated previously, I believe that Romney and his supporters, whom Gregg Jackson has taken to calling Romniacs, aren’t attempting to rebut Jackson’s detailed criticisms (here and here) of the former Massachusetts governor, because they can’t.
And now (I can’t believe I’m typing this) — Not only do the Romniacs cluelessly wonder why National Right to Life didn’t endorse their guy, they have the further gall to “speculate” that the guy NRTL did endorse paid them off (HT Life News):
Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, said the endorsement “makes no sense,” and speculated that it had been motivated by money.
“I think in all probability the Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing,” said Mr. Weyrich, who has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.
Look, if you’re a Romniac, you can disagree with NRTL’s decision and point out reasons why, especially if you believe that a Human Life Amendment (HLA), which Thompson opposes, is the way to go (Fred wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and the states to decide individually at that point; I think the HLA should be tried, but only after Roe v. Wade goes away). It may very well be that its Thompson endorsement is not the smartest move NRTL has ever made. But raising the possibility of a payoff without a shred of evidence is a breathtakingly irresponsible move by people who should and do know better. If Weyrich et al have some kind of evidence, they’d better come out with it, right freaking now.
Meanwhile, Gregg Jackson’s, and others’, solid points about Romney’s campaign positions and performance as governor, backed by real evidence, stand unrefuted. We’re still waiting for something other than character assassination in response.
UPDATE: Sally Pipes has more in a read-the-whole thing column on what’s really happening on the ground in the Bay State –
It’s one thing to pass a law, hold a press conference, and boldly declare to have solved an intractable public policy problem, such as the lack of universal health insurance. It’s quite another to actually have the so-called solution deliver as promised.
….. It’s now crunch time in Massachusetts. The estimated 500,000 residents who still haven’t purchased health insurance must sign up by November 15th or risk being fined $219 when tax time rolls around in April. Compared to the premiums, the many may elect the fines. But they all won’t do so quietly.
….. The plan doesn’t contain any meaningful cost-control mechanisms. The bureaucrats managing the new health care agency are expressing concern about cost trends. People purchasing the insurance are older and sicker than projected, resulting in losses to the insurance carriers. Outside of the plan, Massachusetts health insurers have projected increased health premiums of 8 to 12 percent. The plans for which the taxpayers are subsidizing will likely require similar increases in cash.
At this point, it seems smart for Mitt Romney to run from his plan and distance himself from its design even as Hillary Clinton and other Democrats embrace it.
Say what? I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea to elect someone who has to run away from what he at the time considered his centerpiece accomplishment as little as a year ago. What happens if the centerpiece accomplishment of a President Romney doesn’t work out? Does he then run to Mexico?