Add this to the long list of negatives against Mitt Romney, though according to even many conservatives on Facebook, he’s our “electable” candidate. From Reuters:
“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.
“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
The former Massachusetts governor fielded questions on topics ranging from the debt ceiling to abortion on his first full day of campaigning for 2012 Republican primary nomination.
To be fair, he does go on to note:
“I love solar and wind (power) but they don’t drive cars. And we’re not all going to drive Chevy Volts,” he said referring to electric cars.
The United States can not go it alone in attempting to trim emissions levels and give a free pass to countries such as China and Brazil, Romney said. “It’s not called American warming, it’s called global warming,” he said.
However, when you talk to people like Christopher Horner (whose interview with Steve and me you listen to here), author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, you begin to realize just how big a crock the whole global warming/climate change debate truly is. And having a GOP contender giving it credence should make every conservative cringe.
Perhaps I could forgive Mitt this transgression if we weren’t also talking about the man responsible for socialized medicine in Massachusetts, legislation known as Romneycare, which our own Adam Wetmiller brilliantly skewered a few weeks back:
Mr. Romney, let me tell you a story I heard a few months back…
As I was making my calls at work, I came across a gentleman from your state. He was a rough sounding Massachusetts native that sounded like the type of person that I wouldn’t want to meet in a back ally. As I looked at the gentleman’s stats on my computer screen, I noticed that he is 6 foot 4, 280 pounds. When he realized the person on the other line was a health insurance agent looking to help him he instantly softened up. He began to tell me his story.
“My wife has Multiple Sclerosis. She has been in the relapsing-remitting phase for quite some time. Adam, the problem that I am having is that the damned state of Massachusetts has created a monopoly on the insurance market. Nobody wants to do business in our state because all of the county hospitals wont give the insurance companies the normal negotiated rate that they used to give.”
I responded that Massachusetts was the hardest state for me to help people find coverage in but I never fully understood why.
He went on, “Adam, it’s because the local county hospitals will not give the normal PPO discount to any insurance company other than the state insurance company. The way the woman at the hospital explained it to me is that they do that so they don’t lose their state funding. This is my problem. The best insurance that I can afford for my wife has a $5000 deductable. The problem with that, Adam, is that she is in the hospital every year with her MS, so I’m paying out the $5000 deductable every year on top of her monthly premium, on top of the $600 a year fine that I take because I can’t afford insurance for myself.”
Here’s Cato Institute’s conclusion:
No one can deny that the U.S. health care system needs reform. Too many Americans lack health insurance and/or are unable to afford the best care. More must be done to lower health care costs and increase access to care. Both patients and providers need better and more useful information. The system is riddled with waste, and quality of care is uneven. Government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid threaten future generations with an enormous burden of debt and taxes. Given these pressures, the temptation for a quick fix is understandable.
But, as Massachusetts has shown us, mandating insurance, restricting individual choice, expanding subsidies, and increasing government control isn’t going to solve those problems. A mandate imposes a substantial cost in terms of individual choice but is almost certainly unenforceable and will not achieve its goal of universal coverage. Subsidies may increase coverage, but will almost always cost more than projected and will impose substantial costs on taxpayers. Increased regulations will drive up costs and limit consumer choice.
The answer to controlling health care costs and increasing access to care lies with giving consumers more control over their health care spending while increasing competition in the health care marketplace- not in mandates, subsidies, and regulation. That is the lesson we should be drawing from the failure of RomneyCare.
It’s worth visiting the site to read the entire analysis.
Let me add another important social issue into the mix: abortion. From Prolife Profiles:
As a “Pro-life” Republican Candidate: by his undeniable documented record, Mitt Romney:
- authorized tax-funded surgical elective abortion two years after he claimed a pro-life conversion
- advocated grisly research on embryos after he claimed a pro-life conversion
- nominated a pro-abortion Democrat judge after Romney claimed a pro-life conversion
- gave Planned Parenthood a permanent seat on a state board after he claimed a pro-life conversion
- bragged that he would continue to defend abortion “rights” after he claimed a pro-life conversion
- pro-choice in ’94; pro-life in ’01; choice ’02; pro-life ’04; choice ’05; life in ’06; then funded abortion in ’06
Though he enjoys support from some of America’s largest ministries, Mitt Romney’s recent and aggressive pro-abortion record shocks the conscience:
Authorized Tax-Funded Abortion: On April 12, 2006 Romney signed1 Massachusetts’ government health care plan2 that pays for even what are called “elective” abortions, procedures that kill unborn children even without the typical though invalid medical excuses common in tax-funded abortion laws.
Promoted Even “Pro-Choice” Government Health Care: Romney’s government-run health care plan3 predated Barack Obama’s effort and according to the government of Massachusetts, “All Commonwealth Care health plans include… abortion.”4
Change of Heart? Preparing to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2005, Mitt Romney claimed a 2004 pro-life conversion5 6 which was two years before he authorized elective, surgical, tax-funded abortions.
Tax-Payers Forced to Fund Abortion: Unlike the countless liberals and moderates who are “pro-choice” but oppose tax-funded abortion, “RomneyCare” goes beyond being merely “pro-choice” and is radically pro-abortion by paying abortionists with tax dollars.
What’s most astonishing to me in terms of what I’m seeing from other conservatives on Facebook is their sudden championing of Mitt Romney as the only “electable” choice for 2012. One activist in particular deleted me and several other Palin-supporting Facebook friends because she absurdly claims that the former governor of Alaska — who willingly gave birth to her 5th child knowing he’d have a disability — is somehow “pro-choice” simply because as governor she rightfully followed the Alaska State Constitution. By that I mean, Sarah Palin was between a rock and a hard place in terms of filling a vacancy on the state supreme court because both candidates were pro-choice. She chose to appoint the lesser extreme of the abortion advocating judges, making the very best choice she could under the circumstances.
For that, our friend Patsy cannot forgive her, but somehow Mitt gets a pass for making pro-choice decisions in spite of his alleged pro-life conversion. Sadly, Patsy is not the only one. Apparently it’s not just the Ruling Class Republicans who are stuck on stupid. As long as we’re in primary mode, I will fight with everything I have to help Sarah Palin, or in the event she does not run, another solid, commonsense conservative to win the GOP nomination.
I am not sure how many times we have to run the failed “moderate” experiment before we realize it’s a loser (HW Bush, Bob Dole, McCain) and that the best way to win over “independents” is through clear articulation of conservative principles and why they are good for everyone, but expect me to fight like hell for the right candidates throughout the primary season. If abiding by the US Constitution is too “radical” a concept, then our country is already lost.