Hugh Hewitt Trapped By His Own Intellectual Inconsistency On Romney

I confess, it is somewhat fun watching Romney supporters twist themselves in knots in an effort to bolster the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Friend Hugh Hewitt has himself in a bit of a pickle given two of his columns. That, or he could drop Romney and endorse Santorum. Writes Hugh:

This clip from Brietbart.tv is another body blow to the Gingrich effort. "There must be 'must carry'..." is clearly an endorsement of a federal mandate, and unless Newt defined "must carry" as something other than a federal mandate, it will hard to argue that he is the right person to carry the Obamacare repeal effort.

Sorry, Hugh, but if Newt isn't the right person to carry the ObamaCare repeal effort, then you should admit Romney would be an absolute disaster because of something you wrote previously; that, or admit your entire arguement is moot - though even that doesn't get you off the hook entirely. Besides, Gingrich has admitted he was wrong; yet, Romney continues to defend the more broadly dangerous and un-Constitutional mandate. According to you, all Newt would have to do is commit to a "Waiver Pedge" as did Romney. So, what's your point, other than reaching for a way to attack Gingrich, tying yourself in a knot in the process?

So much sense, in fact, that the other top GOP candidates ought to take a "Romney Waiver" pledge, committing to the very same course of action on day one of their presidency and thus establishing the first crystal-clear delineation between Obama and the GOP nominee, one that voters can grasp, internalize and act on.

But this is by far the bigger problem for Romney. Thank you for bringing it up at link above. I'm disappointed to see you join the whole living Constitution crowd. Gingrich has acknowledged that he was wrong and, despite some misinformation, Santorum has never backed the individual mandate. Mitt Romney remains the only GOP contender disastrously dedicated to an un-Constitutional solution for our nation's health care issues and is unable to argue the conservative position against Obama.

Romney stood by the work of his governorship as the best that could be done in that state at that time. He defended the individual mandate in the Bay State as a prudent, useful and constitutional experiment, one of many that ought to be undertaken in the states.

As Professor Paul Rahe has pointed out, Romney's Constitutional transgression needs to be a deal breaker for any honest Conservative. Whether argued at the State, or Federal level, it opens the door to a unique and oppressive form of tyranny Americans have never previously had to fear. Rahe terms it Romney's soft despotism. Now, who are we to argue with such an esteemed scholar? Back to You, Hugh. Perhaps you should reconsider and endorse Rick Santorum and solve your problem. 

Paul A. Rahe holds The Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College, where he is Professor of History.

The money left in our possession, however, is our own -- to do with as we please. It is in this that our liberty largely lies. Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government. The former presupposes that state governments have the right to tell us how we are to spend our own money, and the latter presupposes that the federal government has that right as well. Both measures are tyrannical. They blur the distinction between public and private and extend the authority of the public over the disposition of that which is primordially private. Once this principle is accepted as legitimate, there is no limit to the authority of the government over us, and mandates of this sort will multiply -- as do-gooders interested in improving our lives by directing them encroach further and further into the one sphere in which we have been left free hitherto.

Comments

[Calvin Freiburger]

When Romney does it, it's a flip-flop. When Gingrich does it, it's "acknowledging he was wrong."

Huh.

[EBL]

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/michelle-malkin-makes-case-for-rick.html Michelle makes the case for Santorum.

The problem with the candidates is they all have problems. But Hewitt's over the top endorsements of Romney have been pretty entertaining. Like when Michelle Malkin described Hugh Hewitt as Mitt Romney's worst enemy: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/07/mitt-romneys-worst-enemy/

[Ragspierre]

"When Romney does it, it's a flip-flop."

When he does what...???

He stands by RomneyCare. Resolutely. He advocates for its adoption by other states.

[ltw]

"But back in ’06, it just didn’t seem that risky. Sure, some conservative voices attacked Romney over the mandate, claiming it was an affront to individual liberty. But plenty of others defended him. Romney even brought a representative of the Heritage Foundation to the signing ceremony, giving him a place onstage with Ted Kennedy. Hugh Hewitt proclaimed that “the Romney campaign just took a big step forward.”"

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/12/romney_healthcare_massachusetts/singleton/

[StrangernFiction]

"Romney stood by the work of his governorship as the best that could be done in that state at that time."

So the best that could be done was to get the govermnent more involved?

[Trista]

"Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government. The former presupposes that state governments have the right to tell us how we are to spend our own money, and the latter presupposes that the federal government has that right as well. Both measures are tyrannical."

This statement is verging on libertarianism. The truth is that states do have mandates, and often those mandates require us to spend our own money. For example, my state mandates that, for the safety of its citizens, I am required to purchase and carry at the minimum, liability insurance for my car. I am also required to pay property taxes, sales tax, and state tax in addition to federal tax.

[Calvin Freiburger]

"When he does what...???"

Changes his position on something.

[Gary Gross]

Mitt, like Hugh, omits that bothersome part of the Tenth Amendment. You know, the part that say that things that aren't the federal government's responsibility are given to the states AND TO THE PEOPLE.

What makes Hewitt or Romney think that state bureaucrats are better positioned to make health care decisions than families are? I write about that here:

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=11950

I'm betting that Mitt & Hewitt intentionally omit those pesky words from their defense of Romneycare.

[Ragspierre]

To be fair, Gary, I think Hewitt just recognizes that a state MAY do stuff the Federal gobmint can't.

As a lawyer, Hewitt understands that courts fashioned the "plenary police power" doctrine of state regulation back at the end of the 1800s.

I don't think Hewitt likes RomneyCare. I sure as hell hope not.

[Xiaoding]

"This statement is verging on libertarianism. The truth is that states do have mandates, and often those mandates require us to spend our own money. For example, my state mandates that, for the safety of its citizens, I am required to purchase and carry at the minimum, liability insurance for my car. I am also required to pay property taxes, sales tax, and state tax in addition to federal tax."

NO NO NO. WRONG.

Those are not mandates;, they are requirments, which are brought on by your own actions. You don't have to buy car insurance if you don't have a car, and taxes, well, that is just stupid! Do I really have to explain that?

Are you really this monumentally stupid?

[Kaye]

Rush just said Romney spreading filth.

[Ragspierre]

Where do we find a guy with Gingrich’s skill at attacking his opponents, without baggage piled as high as Moonbase Alpha? Because if Romney doesn’t improve his messaging soon, he risks rapidly heading towards McCain/Dole/Bush #41 in ’92 nice guy to deliver the concession speech territory.
--Ed Driscoll

But read the whole thing...

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/01/30/and-the-role-of-john-mccain-and-bob-dole-will-be-played-by/

[trista]

The classic STUPID rebuttal. Yay!

[Ragspierre]

Except...uncharacteristically...dingy was exactly RIGHT.

(Well, except for that "requirement isn't mandate" thingy.)

To fall under the RomneyCare or ObamaCare MANDATE, all you have to do is "be there".

[Trista]

Well, in loose terms, mandates are requirements (the dictionary says so). In legal terms, I suppose they could be different, but the point is, the government already does tell us how to spend our money.

I've been called stupid so many times on this board that it's ridiculous, including once by Dan who emphasized it with a STOOOOOPid. I am not stupid (and neither are any of you). It doesn't matter that I have the credentials to prove it. Doesn't anyone believe in respectful dialogue any more?

Rags, what would your mother say?

[TR]

Expect to be overheard at CPAC 2012:

Hugh: A Catholic in the White House?
Stacy: Nah, let me write that book, ok?
Dan: LOL

[Ragspierre]

What would my mother say about what, Trista?

The observation that what you asserted was stupid?

My mother would observe we can all say stupid things at times. (One reason I avoid doing that.) ;-)

What you said fell into that category.

[trista]

I'm beginning to agree with my husband's mother that stupid is a bad word. :)

[gary gulrud]

I will not vote for one avatar of Evil over another.

[Ragspierre]

Mmmm--K...

gary is not voting for blue people...!!!

[Kaye]

Levin just played a clip Of Romney thanking Ted Kennedy for his collaboration on Romney care. Devastating.

[Adoption Services]

This topic was your advantage among other blogs out there. This blog contains and provide definitely unique ideas and information.

[Xiaoding]

Stupid is a good word, when it fits. What you wrote, Trista. shows that you have no understanding of the very concept of freedom. It does not merit an informative response; curt dismissal is all it deserves.

[Ragspierre]

So, where's Curt with his dismissal...???

[Dustin]

"Romney thanking Ted Kennedy for his collaboration on Romney care. Devastating."

You'd think so.

Romney also voted for Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan.

That's awful judgment. He can just repeat everything he's told to say, focus group tested to death, but that says something about Romney's cluelessness on foreign policy.

Up until today, Romney's only foreign policy experience was exporting American jobs to communist countries.

[ljm]

Dustin said - "Romney also voted for Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan."

Other than the email circulating and links to a statement on the web of quoting Michael Reagan, can you point me to anything that would back that up?

Perhaps the rumor was perpetuated by this clever but - to borrow a term from Newt - "fundamentally dishonest" ad.

Your statement is apocryphal and should be corrected.

[ljm]

Here's the link to the maniacally, fundamentally, profoundly, deeply, frankly dishonest ad:

http://race42012.com/2012/01/29/newt-gingrich-2012-ad-which-mitt-is-it/