Romney Defends ‘Romneycare,’ Outlines Differences from Obama’s Plan

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
May 12, 2011, 11:09 a.m.

GOP cmtes “and con­ser­vat­ive groups have spent” $100K or more in 77 dif­fer­ent House races com­pared to 43 races where Dems spent that amount, ac­cord­ing to Wash­ing­ton Post ana­lys­is. “The pat­tern is sim­il­ar in the Sen­ate” where GOP­ers have spent $1M or more in 12 races while Dems have spent that amount in only 6.

The ad­vant­age has al­lowed GOP­ers to “take to the air­waves soon­er in an at­tempt to define” their op­pon­ents. Dems, mean­while, are spend­ing “in lib­er­al strong­holds” like WA, CA and DE, leav­ing “less cash to fund can­did­ates fa­cing strong” GOP chal­lengers in swing states.

“With out­side groups go­ing on the air” for many GOP­ers, the NR­SC “has had more flex­ib­il­ity in choos­ing which races to fund early.”

NR­SC spokes­per­son Bri­an Walsh: “The land­scape has al­lowed us to use our money for more of­fens­ive pur­poses. The Demo­crats have had to cut a bunch of their can­did­ates loose” (Eggen/Farnam, Wash­ing­ton Post, 10/9).

“Fiv­eThirtyEight’s” Sil­ver writes: “Our mod­el now es­tim­ates that” GOP­ers have a 72% “chance of tak­ing over the House, up from” 67% last week. “Moreover, they have nearly even odds of a achiev­ing a net gain of 50 seats; their av­er­age gain in a typ­ic­al sim­u­la­tion run was between 47 and 48 seats.” GOP “gains this week are mostly the res­ult of factors at the loc­al level; the na­tion­al en­vir­on­ment is roughly stable” (New York Times, 10/8).

What’s Up, Gov?

GOP­ers “are well-po­si­tioned to pick up a sub­stan­tial num­ber” of GOV seats “with po­ten­tially far-reach­ing ef­fects on is­sues like the new health care law,” re­dis­trict­ing and pres­id­en­tial polit­ics. GOP­ers have “the up­per hand in many of” the 37 races up for grabs, “in­clud­ing those in cru­cial polit­ic­al battle­grounds” — GOP can­did­ates “have pulled away from their op­pon­ents” in IA, MI and PA.

The GOP “is also in­creas­ing its in­vest­ment” in Dem-lean­ing states like IL, MI and OR.

“Much of the fo­cus has been on” GOP “ef­forts to win con­trol of Con­gress, but a wave of” GOP GOV vic­tor­ies “could have just as sig­ni­fic­ant, and po­ten­tially longer last­ing, im­plic­a­tions.”

Dems “are bra­cing for deep losses. But party of­fi­cials are already point­ing to races in sev­er­al states, par­tic­u­larly” CA, FL and TX where Dem GOV nom­in­ees “have run stronger than can­did­ates for the House or the Sen­ate, a sign, they say, that the party has not en­tirely col­lapsed” (Zeleny/Dav­ey, New York Times, 10/10).

Ra Ra Ooh La La

Though many GOP can­did­ates “haven’t even read the ‘Pledge to Amer­ica’” and Dem can­did­ates “aren’t really both­er­ing to at­tack it” — the doc­u­ment has be­come a fo­cal point for Pres. Obama and House Min. Lead­er John Boehner (R-OH), in “an al­most daily de­bate” that could be “a pre­view of Wash­ing­ton in 2011.”

Boe­her, 10/9 in OH: “The Pledge to Amer­ica is a break not only from the dir­ec­tion in which Pres­id­ent Obama is headed but also a break from the dir­ec­tion Re­pub­lic­ans were headed when we last had the op­por­tun­ity to gov­ern.”

Obama, 10/8 in Chica­go: “The Pledge to Amer­ica, it’s the same stuff they’ve been ped­dling for years. They’re try­ing to hood­wink you once again.”

But “des­pite both men’s fo­cus on the pledge, it’s not clear that either is win­ning the ar­gu­ment” — 2/3 of Amer­ic­ans say they’ve nev­er heard of it (Ba­con, Wash­ing­ton Post, 10/9).

Even as Boehner heads to south FL 10/11 to cam­paign for him, one GOP can­did­ate went so far as to dis­miss the Pledge en­tirely. FL-22 nom­in­ee Al­len West (R) “signaled that he’s not com­pletely ready to em­brace the GOP es­tab­lish­ment” and “dis­missed” the Pledge “as more ‘rah rah’ and ‘boil­er­plate’ from Wash­ing­ton” GOP­ers.

West “said the ‘Pledge to Amer­ica,’ cham­pioned by Boehner, de­serves a grade in the ‘D’ range. He said it was miss­ing key policy plans on im­mig­ra­tion, ear­marks and term lim­its. The sec­tion on na­tion­al se­cur­ity was ‘same old stuff … mis­sile de­fense, rah, rah, rah.’

West: “It’s very im­port­ant that in the first 90 to 120 days that the Re­pub­lic­an Party very quickly has to earn the trust of the Amer­ic­an people once again. And I don’t think that the Pledge to Amer­ica went very far in gain­ing that trust. It’s what we call in the mil­it­ary, boil­er­plate. … If John Boehner is speak­er, I’m go­ing to hold his feet to the fire. And I think that’s im­port­ant” (Sher­man, Politico, 10/11).

Tea Tar­get­ing

The Fed “is fa­cing a new source of an­ger: the Tea Party move­ment. “They have made the Fed a tar­get of their ire, link­ing it to their cri­ti­cisms of” the stim­u­lus and Wall Street Bail­outs.

SEN nom­in­ee/ex-Jon Hunts­man gen. coun­sel Mike Lee (R-UT) “has ac­cused the cent­ral bank of try­ing to ‘mon­et­ize the debt’ by print­ing money to buy gov­ern­ment bonds — a mo­tiv­a­tion that Fed of­fi­cials have hotly denied.” SEN nom­in­ee/Weld Co. DA Ken Buck (R-CO) “has called for ‘shin­ing a light on the Fed­er­al Re­serve,’ say­ing it is too cozy with private in­terests.” And SEN nom­in­ee/oph­thal­mo­lo­gist Rand Paul (R-KY) “has ar­gued that the Fed is de­valu­ing the dol­lar and caus­ing boom-bust cycles through its easy-money policies.”

“Cri­ti­cism of the Fed has been more of a sim­mer­ing un­der­cur­rent” this cycle “than a dom­in­ant theme, … but Fed of­fi­cials … have be­come in­creas­ingly at­tuned to the prob­ab­il­ity that their crit­ics will have a louder voice in the next Con­gress.”

Ex-House Maj. Lead­er Dick Armey (R) “blames the Fed for abet­ting the crisis by keep­ing in­terest rates too low for too long after the 2001 re­ces­sion.” And a few Tea Parti­ers, in­clud­ing Lee, “have come close to ur­ging a re­turn to the gold stand­ard.”

The “ire at the Fed may be broad but not very deep. … Even so, the an­ger has been strong enough to raise some con­cerns among” GOP­ers.

Ex-Rep. Vin Weber (R-MN): “The po­s­i­tions that have be­come al­most main­stream, at least on the right, used to be ex­treme po­s­i­tions. Only the John Birch So­ci­ety used to call for the audit­ing of the Fed­er­al Re­serve.”

Josh Barro wrote, for Na­tion­al Re­view in June: “There’s al­ways a prob­lem with un­ac­count­able gov­ern­ment agen­cies, but on the oth­er hand the Fed has had a free hand to do things that have been ne­ces­sary and un­pop­u­lar. If Con­gress had had the power to stop all the as­set pur­chases the Fed has done, we might have dropped in­to de­fla­tion the last couple of years” (Chan, New York Times, 10/10).

Tak­ing A Tea Test

“A re­cord num­ber of Tea Party act­iv­ists” gathered at the VA Tea Party Pat­ri­ots Con­ven­tion in Rich­mond 10/8. Speak­ers in­cluded VA Gov. Bob Mc­Don­nell (R) and ex-Sens. George Al­len (R-VA) and Rick San­tor­um (R-PA), leav­ing “some wor­ried that the es­tab­lish­ment was tak­ing over their grass-roots move­ment.”

Man­as­sas Tea Party chair Dan Arnold: “Some num­ber of elec­ted of­fi­cials make sense, but we don’t want to come off like this is the es­tab­lish­ment. Our job is to hold the es­tab­lish­ment ac­count­able.”

But “or­gan­izers of the two-day con­ven­tion — the largest such gath­er­ing in the na­tion — were quick to say they would not let elec­ted lead­ers give speeches, … but in­stead asked them to an­swer ques­tions as part of pan­els.”

Mc­Don­nell and VA LG Bill Bolling (R) “re­ceived stand­ing ova­tions and pro­longed ap­plause when they talked about” Va’s “leg­al fight” over health care. “The gov­ernor also fired up the crowd when he com­mit­ted to a pro­posed con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment giv­ing states au­thor­ity to re­peal fed­er­al le­gis­la­tion.”

Mc­Don­nell: “Now, I real­ize the tea party is a move­ment - it is not a polit­ic­al party per se. But I think it’s im­port­ant to en­gage people that were largely Re­pub­lic­an and frankly may have lost con­fid­ence be­cause they saw some Re­pub­lic­ans get elec­ted, not gov­ern as fisc­al con­ser­vat­ives, come up with more big-gov­ern­ment solu­tions or high­er taxes, more reg­u­la­tion, and they got dis­en­chanted” (Ku­mar, Wash­ing­ton Post, 10/8).

The right-lean­ing ed. board of the Rich­mond Times-Dis­patch “has sug­ges­ted it was hy­po­crit­ic­al of the con­ven­tion to have” ex-CNN host Lou Dobbs give a key­note 10/9 pm, giv­en a re­cent Na­tion art­icle quot­ing “il­leg­al im­mig­rants em­ployed by a com­pany Dobbs hired to help main­tain the grounds” at his FL home. But Con­ven­tion or­gan­izer Jam­ie Radtke said the group did not con­sider re­vok­ing the in­vit­a­tion.”

Radtke: “I have not had one per­son at the en­tire con­ven­tion come up to me and talk to me about the Na­tion. Frankly, they don’t read the Na­tion.”

Dobbs, re­spond­ing to the art­icle: “It would seem to me that what the Na­tion was ar­guing for, frankly, was ra­cial pro­fil­ing. And I would not par­ti­cip­ate in such a thing” (Hel­d­er­man, Wash­ing­ton Post, 10/9).

Over 2K people “signed up for the event.” Mem­bers from 30 loc­al and re­gion­al Tea Party groups par­ti­cip­ated (Sluss, Roan­oke Times, 10/9).

Amer­ic­ans for Tax Re­form pres. Grover Nor­quist writes, for Fin­an­cial Times: “The party and its en­er­gized Tea Party act­iv­ists have a habit of be­com­ing dis­trac­ted by ‘shiny’ things — is­sues that cap­tiv­ate ra­dio talk show hosts but fail to move voters. Ari­zona’s re­strict­ive im­mig­ra­tion law and the pro­posed mosque in lower Man­hat­tan are ob­vi­ous ex­amples. Spec­u­lat­ing on the pre­cise loc­a­tion where Mr. Obama was born is an­oth­er. Some so­cial con­ser­vat­ives are try­ing to push to the fore the is­sue of gay mar­riage or gays in the mil­it­ary, and that too is a dis­trac­tion.”

“If Re­pub­lic­ans stay fo­cused on spend­ing they will tri­umph. But the Demo­crats know that, and will throw a shower of bling in­to the air hop­ing to dis­tract both voters and their chal­lengers. To win, these di­ver­sions must be ig­nored” (Knick­erboker, Chris­ti­an Sci­ence Mon­it­or, 10/10).

Ju­di­cial Re­view

Justice Clar­ence Thomas wife Vir­gin­ia Thomas gave a key­note at the con­ven­tion. “This year she has emerged in her most polit­ic­ally prom­in­ent role yet”: as Liberty Cent­ral founder/chair, an org “ded­ic­ated to op­pos­ing what she char­ac­ter­izes as … left­ist ‘tyranny’ … and to ‘pro­tect­ing the core found­ing prin­ciples’ of the na­tion.” V. Thomas says it will “be big­ger than the Tea Party move­ment.”

“It is the most par­tis­an role ever for” a Justice’s wife and to some who study ju­di­cial eth­ics “is rais­ing knotty ques­tions, in par­tic­u­lar about her ac­cept­ance of large, uniden­ti­fied con­tri­bu­tions for Liberty Cent­ral.” Liberty Cent­ral “re­por­ted the ini­tial” $550K on its ‘09 “tax re­turn, though the iden­tit­ies of the two donors are re­dac­ted.”

Stan­ford Univ. prof. De­borah Rhode: “It’s shock­ing that you would have a Su­preme Court justice sit­ting on a case that might im­plic­ate in a very fun­da­ment­al way the in­terests of someone who might have con­trib­uted to his wife’s or­gan­iz­a­tion. The fact that we can’t find that out is the first prob­lem. And how can the pub­lic form a judg­ment about pro­pri­ety if it doesn’t have the ba­sic un­der­ly­ing facts?”

North­west­ern Law prof. Steven Lub­et: “I think this is the world we live in, where two-ca­reer fam­il­ies are the norm and there are no con­straints on the polit­ic­al activ­it­ies of ju­di­cial spouses.”

NYU prof. Steph­en Gillers: “There’s noth­ing to stop Ginni Thomas from be­ing polit­ic­ally act­ive. She’s a private cit­izen and she has all of her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights” (Calmes, New York Times, 10/8).

New­s­week’s Miller writes: “Bar­ring the ap­pear­ance of Clar­ence Thomas at a Tea Party rally, even reas­on­able crit­ics can’t find any eth­ic­al im­pro­pri­ety in Ginni’s pub­lic role. … Lib­er­als may not like Ginni — or Clar­ence—Thomas — but it’s hard not to see her as­cend­ancy as a good thing”: his­tor­ic­ally, SCOTUS wives were either com­pletely over­shad­owed by their hus­bands or played the role of host­ess (10/9)

I Speak For Him

SEN nom­in­ee/atty Joe Miller (R-AK), in an in­ter­view with Na­tion­al Re­view: “I think there’s an un­der­stand­ing that the mood of the na­tion has changed in such a way that there is not go­ing to be tol­er­a­tion of busi­ness as usu­al. If that means shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment, so be it. I mean, we’ll do what it takes.”

Miller, on Sen­ate Min. Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell’s sup­port for a shut­down: “There was a com­ment made at break­fast this morn­ing about shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment, and he re­acted in a pos­it­ive way. I’m not go­ing to quote him, but I think that he re­cog­nizes that that’s on the table.”

A Mc­Con­nell spokes­per­son: “He has not called for shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment. … We have much more work to do in or­der re­verse the trend of massive growth in gov­ern­ment we have seen un­der Demo­crat­ic Con­trol in Con­gress. We can get there without shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment, but it will re­quire Demo­crats to join our ef­fort” (Wein­er, Wash­ing­ton Post, 10/8).


Rep. Kev­in Mc­Carthy (R-CA) 10/10 “dis­missed ‘ru­mors’ that the GOP is try­ing to per­suade mod­er­ate” Dems “to switch parties” (Hunt, Politico, 10/10).

Where’s Bush?

While Bill Clin­ton “is busy on the cam­paign trail,” George W. Bush is “holed up” in TX. “Aides say he has no plans to be a fig­ure in this year’s elec­tions.” GOP “strategists are quick to say they re­spect the former pres­id­ent but add they are not beg­ging him to join can­did­ates at ral­lies” (AP, 10/9).

As many of my friends and col­leagues from around the world con­verged on a town in Le­ban­on to bid farewell to An­thony Shadid, I spent the past days read­ing his latest book, House of Stone. It had been sit­ting on my desk for sev­er­al weeks; I’d been wait­ing to read it, ready to sa­vor his tales of the idio­syn­crat­ic be­ha­vi­or of the vil­la­gers in Mar­jayoun, where he was re­build­ing his great-grand­fath­er’s house. I was look­ing for­ward to laugh­ing over an­ec­dotes that I, also of Le­banese des­cent, could eas­ily pic­ture.

But with An­thony’s tra­gic death last week at age 43, there was no time for leis­ure. So it was bit­ter­sweet to open his book and hear his voice. It is still too raw to ac­cept that I can nev­er ask him about stor­ies that made me laugh out loud, or those that made my hands tight­en in mourn­ing.

I al­ways thought that An­thony, an award-win­ning re­port­er for The New York Times, wrote Eng­lish in Ar­ab­ic. He was lyr­ic­al, in the way that Ar­ab­ic is. It’s an evoc­at­ive and col­or­ful lan­guage. People don’t merely say Good morn­ing to you, for ex­ample; it’s rather Morn­ing of flowers. I felt in his writ­ing the col­or and tex­ture of a place and its people, their con­flicts and poisoned choices re­coun­ted in an un­flinch­ing way that, thank­fully, made it to the front pages of news­pa­pers — most re­cently The Times — for­cing oth­ers to read and per­haps gain some un­der­stand­ing of what war really meant to those who had to en­dure it.

In 2006, after Is­rael ob­lit­er­ated much of Le­ban­on’s south in its war with Hezbol­lah, An­thony de­cided to re­store the stone house that his great-grand­fath­er Is­ber Samara built in the early 1900s.

It’s a sen­ti­ment I un­der­stood. While An­thony was clear­ing broken tile and glass shattered by an Is­raeli rock­et on the sunken second floor, I was down­ing end­less cups of bit­ter cof­fee with the may­or of Jdeideh, a Beirut sub­urb. I was per­suad­ing the may­or to give me a copy of the re­gistry list­ing all the Tara­bays who had lived there. Weeks later, he handed over to me a red ma­nila folder cata­loguing my grand­fath­er, his wife, their 14 chil­dren, and my great-grand­fath­er and his wife and all their chil­dren; the earli­est entry was the late 1800s. That was when Hana Tara­bay left his moun­tain vil­lage of Baskinta to work the rolling farm­lands of Beirut. Any fur­ther Tara­bays, May­or Youssef Safi told me, I would have to go up the moun­tain to find. I al­ways wanted to get there, but Bagh­dad and oth­er wars called me in­stead.

He took a year out of life to live in Mar­jayoun, which means “field of springs.”

But An­thony stayed. He took a year out of his life to live in Mar­jayoun, which means “field of springs.” There he stayed to ca­jole, be­rate, in­flame, and pay, pay, pay to bring back Is­ber’s house — a house in which, as an “heir to Is­ber Samara,” he owned barely a 1 per­cent share. He did it for his daugh­ter, Laila, whose name he weaves throughout his book in a fi­nal let­ter of love to the young girl he says has been be­trayed by his ca­reer. At one point, lonely in Mar­jayoun, he writes: “I of­ten pic­ture my daugh­ter Laila walk­ing past the stone wall, up the buck­ling drive­way, and to­ward the an­tique door I was de­term­ined to save. I thought of the day I would bring her here, to a house she could call hers.”

At the core of An­thony’s book — between the in­furi­at­ing con­tract­ors, meddle­some vil­la­gers and re­l­at­ives, and a war sput­ter­ing in the back­ground — is the need for a home. The Ar­ab­ic word is bayt, and as he writes: “Home, wheth­er it be struc­ture or fa­mil­i­ar ground, is, fi­nally, the iden­tity that does not fade.”

Home is in the heart of every per­son trans­por­ted to a new life, wheth­er in a dif­fer­ent town or a dif­fer­ent coun­try. Tu­mult took An­thony’s an­cest­ors from the vil­lage of Mar­jayoun to Amer­ica, from Texas to Ok­lahoma. It’s what took mil­lions of oth­er Le­banese to new lives in Africa, Aus­tralia, and South Amer­ica. It’s what’s tak­ing people away from the carnage in Ir­aq, Syr­ia, or Libya — places they may nev­er see again.

When he ex­plains the tra­ject­ory of Is­ber Samara’s life, in­ter­woven with his own quest to re­store the stone house, An­thony casts a light on the near-uni­ver­sal ex­per­i­ence of the im­mig­rant, wheth­er polit­ic­al or eco­nom­ic. A man might be a doc­tor in his ho­met­own, but in a new land where elec­tri­city runs 24 hours and uni­formed men don’t care what sect you be­long to, he is a taxi driver, a jan­it­or, or a gro­cery-store own­er.

That feel­ing is what lives in the heart of every­one who knows they have a home some­where and dreams they may one day be able to see it. An­thony fin­ished the house and har­ves­ted olives; he ima­gined eat­ing some with his daugh­ter from the tree he planted for her when he began the renov­a­tions.

We know what we’ve lost in a journ­al­ist whose un­par­alleled dis­patches from the Middle East summoned us in­to broken lives strug­gling to sur­vive. We know what we’ve lost in a friend who, in a world of ego­ma­ni­acs and bul­let chasers, nev­er threw his suc­cess in any­one’s face. But more than any­thing, we know what An­thony’s fam­ily will nev­er again have, and that is the greatest loss of all.

Late one af­ter­noon over the week­end, I played soc­cer with my 3-year-old son, acutely aware that An­thony would nev­er see his son, Ma­lik, mark his second birth­day. In the face of that pain, I smiled at my boy, chased the ball around our garden with him, and thought of my lost friend as the sun dis­ap­peared in­to the gray sky.

What We're Following See More »
Niger Attack Possible Terrorist Set-Up
10 hours ago

"An emerging theory among U.S. military investigators is that the Army Special Forces soldiers ambushed in Niger were set up by terrorists, who were tipped off in advance about a meeting in a village sympathetic to local ISIS affiliates...The group of American Green Berets and support soldiers had requested a meeting with elders of a village that was seen as supportive of the Islamic State, and they attended the meeting at around 11 a.m. local time Oct. 4...Such meetings are a routine part of the Green Beret mission, but it wasn't clear whether this meeting was part of the unit's plan."

Bergdahl’s Sentencing Delayed Until Wednesday
10 hours ago

"The long-awaited sentencing of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was delayed Monday after a legal battle erupted over the word 'but' in President Donald Trump's most recent remarks about the case. Bergdahl's defense team argued that their client could not get a fair shake from the court because Trump, during a Rose Garden appearance on Oct. 16, at first said he couldn't talk about the case and then added: 'But I think people have heard my comments in the past.'" Trump has called him a traitor and suggested he should be executed.

Mueller Investigating Tony Podesta and His Firm
19 hours ago

"Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News. The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

House Intel Will Interview Trump Digital Director
21 hours ago

"President Donald Trump’s campaign digital director, Brad Parscale, will be interviewed Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee, his first appearance before any of the panels examining the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Parscale confirmed his scheduled appearance. The Senate committees also probing interference haven’t scheduled time with Mr. Parscale, he said, declining to comment further."

Trump Promises No Changes to 401(k) Plan
21 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.