What Obama and Romney Have in Common: Healthcare and Love for High Gas Prices

UPDATE 03/23/2012, 3:07 cdt

The Rick Santorum campaign has sent out a statement following Romney's attack that Santorum was supporting Obama over Romney but that is not what Santorum was talking about. Romney's camp did what they do best which is taking someone's comments out of context.


Rick's response is here:

"I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's. 

I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. 

Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign's movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It's time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum - this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms."

I am not voting for Obama either but that doesn't mean that I am voting for Romney.


******

All of us know that in 2009 Romney told Obama he should look at RomneyCare to use for ObamaCare including the mandates on individuals to buy health insurance.

So, the laws, while not identical, share many core elements. Next, we wondered if the federal law was indeed based on the Massachusetts law. 

Again, it’s difficult to know what people in Congress and in the White House looked at as they drafted the final health care law. But according to independent reports, they consulted people who worked on the Massachusetts law.

Then we have the infamous statements from Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, went on The Record last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state. 

She also said she would be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president.

From Gateway Pundit:

So Romney and his co-conspirators in the GOP establishment are now planning a National Healthcare Task Force to impose top-down government run national healthcare on all 50 states!!

We know on healthcare that Romney and Obama have similar ideas since Obama followed a lot of RomneyCare for his ObamaCare, but we are also learning that they share a love of high gas prices:

March 22, 2012 by V2AWhat Obama and Romney Have in Common: Love for High Gas Prices 

Curiously overlooked, though, is just what a shift this rhetoric is from the approach that Romney took on the issue of gas prices while governor of Massachusetts. Befitting his profile as a moderate Republican who cared about the environment, Governor Romney responded to price spikes by describing them as the natural result of global market pressures and by calling for increases in fuel efficiency—the same approach that he now derides Obama for taking as president. 

At moments, Romney went so far as to make high gas prices out to be a welcome reality for the foreseeable future, one that people needed to learn to live with. When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.”   

Source:  Vision to America

Rick Santorum finally had the nerve to go on the record and say what many of us have been posting on blogs and in comments on various websites that Romney and his policies when the facts come out are not all that different from Obama.  Since we know what Obama is like, why would we go to someone like Etch-A-Sketch Romney who is planning a restart on what he believes or going back to his true moderate to liberal beliefs.  If anyone swallows that spin coming out of the Romney camp on the Etch-A-Sketch remark, then you are not analyzing what has been happening.  Since the Republican establishment is so intent on giving us Romney as our candidate, are they going to pull the strings on Romney because they are not close to being conservative either.

SAN ANTONIO -- Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy. 

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast. 

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there." 

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future." 

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's comment Wednesday that "everything changes" for the fall campaign. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch," he said on CNN. "You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again." 

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.

Excerpt:  Read More at:  Huffington Post 

In fact some of the Republican moderates to liberals would be just as happy to see conservatives sent packing from the GOP.  It has become more obvious as this election has gone on that they could care less about what conservatives who are making up around 70% of the anti-Romney vote in the states think.  We are supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote against our conscience for the flip flopper Romney in the fall.  Not happening.

We found this statement to be on point:

I believe this places the liberals and moderates at the disadvantage, since conservative leaders have considerable experience at organizing grass-roots activism and building hugely influential movements out of almost nothing. The conservative wing of the Republican Party wants to keep the GOP, but doesn’t need it. Their moderate and liberal rivals need the GOP very badly. 

First of all conservatives are better organized and have an ability if they want to put a third party together and become viable very fast IMO.  The grassroots long before the Tea Party were the backbone of conservative campaigns throughout the country.  We showed what can be done in 2004 when the establishment came down hard against Senate Coburn.  Grassroots rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and beat the Clinton candidate big time even though the powers at be like Karl Rove had cut off Coburn fundraising.

That energy and enthusiasm can be taken nationwide if necessary so the establishment is playing with fire this time trying to ram Romney down our throats when his record is much closer to Obama then it is to conservatives.  He is not a very good actor at being conservative as you can see right through the attempts.  The people of Mississippi let Romney know what they thought of his pandering.

With over 70% of the votes in most primaries, except in very liberal states, for the conservative candidates, it shows conservatives are not happy with Romney.  This notion from the Romney camp we are going to be on board in the fall is not going to happen IMO.  The establishment types were warned with McCain not to try to try it again yet McCain looks very conservative compared to Romney.  I actually supported McCain after Rudy withdrew but I know a lot of conservatives who held their noses and voted for him.  Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, he would have had even less votes.

Why has the establishment pushed Romney at conservatives so hard and why have some conservatives endorsed Romney and not other candidates?  Read the Pink Flamingo today who has an excellent article, Nuking Newt, which details what has been happening in this campaign and it does not bode well for the establishment candidate Romney in the fall.  All his attacks against fellow Republicans have taken a big toll and most of us figure that the Democrats are going to give it back at him in spades while some of us sit and tell the establishment "We Told You So" as we will not be taken fore granted again by the moderate to liberal establishment types in the GOP.

It is doubtful any endorsement these days carries all that much weight. Bush 41 had a similar profile to Romney during his political career. Like Romney, Bush came from wealth, flip-flopped on abortion and was unreliable on the key economic issue of his day (substitute his “read my lips” switch on raising taxes for Romneycare). So it’s not likely that Tea Partiers and social conservatives, most of whom never had much use for George W. Bush’s father in the first place, will be swayed by his support for Romney.

Is Bush 41 trying to get even with conservatives for turning their backs on him after he worked with the Democrats after saying "Read my Lips:  No New Taxes" to raise taxes?  Is this also why Congressman Quayle is having trouble with the establishment types going after him since his father who was the Vice President was against the deal made by Bush 41?  As we have seen, the Bush Family carries grudges which they used against Rick Perry in this Presidential primary and tried to take him out with Kay Bailey in the Governor's primary in 2010.  Now Kay Bailey is back on the attack against Perry in Texas over women's health issues.  Bush 41 and his cronies don't give up which leads us to wonder if this election pushing Romney is get even with Newt and others who they blame for Bush 41 losing:

Some of the most enraged over the change in policy were other Republicans, including House Whip Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republicans' most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. This perceived betrayal quickly led to a bitter feud within the Republican Party. When Sununu called Gingrich with the news, Gingrich hung up on him in anger. When Senator Trent Lott questioned the reversal, Sununu told the press that "Trent Lott has become an insignificant figure in this process."  Republican National Committee co-chair Ed Rollins, who issued a memo instructing Republican congress members to distance themselves from the president if they wished to be re-elected, was fired from his position.  

Many also felt that, while perhaps necessary, the reneging was badly handled. Bush's statement on the issue was simply posted on the notice board in the press room. There was no attempt to sell or defend the reversal. It was also very sudden; there was no attempt to slowly convince the American people of the perceived necessity of raising taxes. No figures with influence on the conservative base were recruited to endorse and try and sell the about-face. 

Eventually taxes were raised in the new budget. In September, Bush released a new budget proposal, backed by the congressional leadership, which notably included an immediate five-cent per gallon increase on the federal gasoline tax, and a phased increase of even higher fuel taxes in subsequent years. To the surprise of the Bush administration, this plan was rejected in the House of Representatives. Over a hundred conservative Republicans, led by Gingrich, voted against it because of its tax increases

Looks like Bush 41 and Romney have a lot in common from their upbringing to raising gasoline taxes as I highlighted in the paragraph above.  Never thought Bush 41 was all that conservative and put Dan Quayle on the ticket to appease conservatives.  Know that Bush's sons wanted Quayle off the ticket in 1992 but wasn't sure of the reason.  Was it because Quayle didn't go along with the deal Bush 41 cut on his own with the Democrats?  Is this also why the media went after Quayle so hard when he was Vice President so he couldn't run for President?   Is this also why Dan Quayle's son, Ben Quayle, who is running for reelection to Congress is being attacked by fellow Republicans from out of state?

Is Romney expected to be the second term of Bush 41 he never had as he was defeated in a three way race as a lot of conservatives went to Ross Perot?  Is this what all of this mess is about -- sticking it to conservatives once again?  If it is, Bush 41 and his cronies didn't learned a thing from 1992 or 1996.

All these questions and no answers right now but sooner or later the truth will come out.  For now suffice to say that Bush 41 and his cronies in the GOP are continuing to push Romney to the detriment of the entire Republican Party.  If you cannot support Romney, there will be other choices, but one thing that must happen is for Republicans to Keep the House and Take the Senate so that whoever is President has to deal with Conservative official holders.