Romney Spokesperson Andrea Saul Confirms That Romney Will Never Repeal ObamaCare...

By the Left Coast Rebel 

Humble Libertarian least that's the way I see it.

The following Freudian slip by Romney campaign's Andrea Saul reminds me of the "etch-a-sketch" slip (by a different Romney head cheese) a few months ago.

Peter Suderman at Reason:

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul brought up Romney’s state-based health plan in response to an ugly, error-filled ad by a pro-Obama group run by former Obama press staffer Bill Burton. The ad implicitly accuses Romney of having killed a woman because she lost her health insurance when Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, closed the steel mill where she* her husband worked.

But Romney wasn’t actually participating in the day-to-day activities of Bain when she was let go; she didn’t die until five years after Bain closed the plant she was working at; and the woman’s husband, who is the face of the ad, has admitted that his wife retained her primary health insurance from a different employer following the closure of the plant.

Yet instead of simply debunking the fact-challenged ad, Saul’s response was to insist that “if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama’s economy.”
It’s a strange, contradictory argument. What the Romney campaign seems to be saying is that people in the state of Massachusetts are better off because Romney did for them what Obama did for the entire country — and what Romney has promised to undo for everyone outside of his home state. 


If Romney’s preferred method of fixing the health system is to expand insurance through a policy vehicle like RomneyCare, then why insist so strongly on repealing ObamaCare, which is essentially RomneyCare at the federal level? Is his belief that every state should simply pass its own version of RomneyCare? (He has, after all, touted the Massachusetts plan as "a model for the nation.") If so, how is that substantially different, for the end user, from doing essentially the same thing through ObamaCare? Heck, thanks to the Supreme Court and the law’s exchange subsidy provisions, it already looks like many states are going to have the ability to opt out of much of the law. So what policy does Saul's defense of RomneyCare imply?

Romney's embrace of RomneyCare is also... unnecessary and incompetent:

Maybe it's a mistake to look at this through a policy lens. But if this is a general election strategy — a shift to the center — I can’t see that it’s likely to be very effective. In touting RomneyCare, all the Romney campaign has succeeded in doing is further weakening Romney’s criticism of Obama’s unpopular health law while reinforcing the perception that Romney is a pandering flip-flopper.

I highly disagree with Tea-Partiers who are going to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney on the misguided faith he will actually repeal ObamaCare. His actions, and that of those in his campaign, suggest otherwise.

I have friends in Massachusetts, and even in 2008 they told me that Mitt Romney was an empty suit that would say anything to get elected.

The etch-a-sketch candidate has no clothes.

 Check out Gary Johnson for a true limited government alternative to Obama

RELATED: Per Memeorandum, Eric Erickson, "The Moment All the Doubts About Romney Resurfaced on the Right"


  1. I warned conservatives that Romney is a RINO and more dangerous than Obama as we'll oppose BO. Now it's coming out that, thanks to pretzel logic of Roberts, we are completely stuck with Obamacare. God I hate it when I'm right.

    1. I hate it when you (and I) are right too. Thanks to Republicans we now have ObamaCare (SCOTUS ruling by Republican Roberts) and a statist-RINO prez candidate. I guess we can always hope for a Rand Paul/Mike Lee-type senate and fiscal conservative house if Obama is elected. Otherwise I have a bad feeling what a Romney/GOP congress at both houses government is going to do.

    2. Whether it be 4 more of Obama or 4 of Romney it won't be pretty.

  2. Tim, I am going to post this on BBCW. I have written some good things about it too. You are one of the few who get it. Conservatives are demanding Andrea Saul get fired when they should firing Mitt Romney, who pushed statist healthcare. I have noticed the more I warn about Romney, the more I get removed from conservative blog rolls. That's a sad statement. My Aunt removed me as a Facebook friend because I continue to warn against Romney. People just don't get it.

    You have Mitt Romney who pushed statist healthcare, supported gun control, funded Planned Parenthood, forced contraceptive mandates on the Catholic Church, believes in global warming and supports cap and trade, had his own stimulus with failed green energy initiatives, and on an on in a record that looks to me similar to Obama’s, who has now nominated a TARP supporting, auto bailouting, Fourth Amendment killing Congressman who has been built up as a messiah despite the fact the conservative Club for Growth gave his budget failing marks because it didn’t cut the size and scope of the federal government to produce any serious reductions in the national debt until 2040, and you want us to believe liberal Mitt Romney is America’s comeback team? What am I missing?


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.