She has my vote.  I’d have preferred she ran for Prez the last time instead of that worthless RINO from Arizona.

Speaking of Romney…

He has a 20-ton Albatross hanging around his neck called Romney care.  Yes, he has a business background. Yes, he did well running the Salt Lake City Olympics.  But when it came to governing Massachusetts, he revealed his RINO core—then denied it.

Let me count the ways.  From the Washington Examiner.

The Massachusetts plan was a free market approach, but ObamaCare is a government takeover:

In December 2009, when the so-called “public option” went down in flames in the U.S. Senate, so too did Romney’s ability to distinguish the structure of his plan from President Obama’s in any meaningful way.

Both plans force individuals to purchase insurance under the threat of a penalty, expand Medicaid, and provide subsidies for individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government run exchange.

One of the main architects of the Massachusetts plan, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, went on to be a paid consultant for Obama and a booster of his health care plan. He recently told the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin that Romney’s plan “gave birth” to ObamaCare.

…

 

It’s the Democrats fault:

The attempt to shift blame to Massachusetts Democrats normally has several iterations. One argument is that Romney used his line-item veto to remove many of the mandates and other objectionable items from the bill, but was overruled by the Democratic legislature. Another is that it fell on Democrats to implement the plan because he left office before the law went into effect, and they messed it up. Neither of these arguments stands up to much scrutiny.

While Romney may have used his line-item veto to reject certain provisions of the law, this was purely symbolic because he knew he was dealing with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature that would override him. Whatever his frustrations were with the final bill, it didn’t stop Romney from holding a high-profile signing ceremony with Sen. Ted Kennedy at his side five years ago today, or from boasting of his accomplishment in the WSJ op-ed quoted above, entitled, “Health Care For Everyone? We found a way.” (Emphasis mine. – Crucis)

Trying to deflect criticism by pointing to flawed implementation is an even weaker argument. To start, the version of the health care law that he signed had the key features that have drawn the most criticism. Beyond that, Romney announced he wouldn’t seek reelection in December 2005 – months before he signed the health care law. Thus, he signed it knowing full well that he wouldn’t be there to implement it, and that it would almost definitely fall on a Democratic successor. If it was so important to him that the health care law be implemented properly, he should have sought reelection.

… 

It’s the best he could have done in Massachusetts:

This argument, a close relative of the blaming Democrats defense, suggests that given the overwhelmingly liberal legislature, he got as good a deal as could be hoped for. This is a bizarre argument for Romney defenders to advance for several reasons.

To start with, it’s not as if, sometime in the spring of 2006, the Democratic legislature plopped down a health care plan in front of him and Romney had the option of either signing it, or getting what he could in exchange for his support. By Romney’s own account in the WSJ op-ed, he decided to take on health care after the CEO of Staples urged him to do so weeks after he was elected in November 2002, and soon he “assembled a team from business, academia and government.” In other words, this was to be his main legislative ambition in office, something that he spent years developing. Once it was obvious that the end result would be a liberal, government-dominated plan, he could have decided that it was no longer worth doing. But he ploughed ahead anyway.

…

He didn’t raise taxes to pay for it:

Depending on whether or not you consider the penalty for non-compliance with the mandate a tax, Romney could argue that technically, his health care plan didn’t raise taxes. However, what it did do was lead to massive cost overruns that ended up triggering future tax increases.  As the New York Times reported in 2008, “The legislature and (Gov. Deval) Patrick filled a health care spending gap that approached $200 million for this fiscal year by increasing the tobacco tax by $1 a pack, levying one-time assessments on insurers and hospitals, and raising more money from businesses that do not contribute to their employees’ insurance.”

…

RomneyCare was right for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size fits all Washington solution:

This is the argument that we’re likely to hear the most. Romney himself has come out and said that he wouldn’t use the Massachusetts plan as a national model for reform and that he would sign a repeal of ObamaCare if elected. Although, it must be said, this wasn’t always so clear. In a February 2007 speech, Romney said, “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.” And here was the exchange he had with Charlie Gibson in the ABC debate also cited above:

GIBSON: But Government Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

The bottom line: Political analysts keep saying that Romney will have to find a way to address the health care issue. But the reality is, he has no coherent defense to offer and it’s too late to disavow the law. As I’ve written before, Romney’s only hope is to simply survive the issue by attrition, hoping that the primary electorate’s attention is diverted elsewhere and that no viable alternative candidate emerges.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/top-five-failed-defenses-romneycare#ixzz1NZ2q0Bvx

Needless to say, Mitt Romney can’t be trusted.  When examining candidates like Romney, we must realize that what is said, counts little compared to what has been done.