Jim DeMint Blasts Defends Romney on RomneyCare

I didn't forget this because I never knew it -- Jim DeMint actually supported Romney in 2008.

I don't know if he still supports him, but he's not changing his mind due to the current political problem of RomneyCare.

“One of the reasons I endorsed Romney [in 2008] is his attempts to make private health insurance available at affordable prices,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), a GOP kingmaker.

DeMint blames Democrats in the Massachusetts State Legislature for adding many of the features to Romney’s plan that many on the right decry.

“It just depends on how he plays it. For me, I think he started with some good ideas that were essentially hijacked by the Democrat Legislature,” DeMint said.

...

“It’s a hurdle, but I don’t think it’s a hurdle that can’t be overcome,” said one top conservative lawmaker who spoke on background.

“I think, in the end, we recognize that not every candidate has everything you want. Some candidates are weak on some issues and strong on others; there’s no perfect candidate out there,” added the Republican legislator, who backed one of Romney’s opponents three years ago.

The article notes that many believe a much bigger hurdle for Romney is his Mormonism.

I think that's unfair and unamerican, frankly. Millions of Christians know well the sting of animus based on religious belief; no serious person can say "Well, sure, that's unfair, but it's okay if I do the same, because I'm right."

I actually do think that that many voters will not consider Romney due to his religion, and that's one of the reasons (there are several) I don't support him -- I believe there are too many Republican primary voters with a beef against Mormonism (cult, etc.) to really make him a top-level candidate. In a way I'm deferring to prejudice, but I just don't see that situation changing anytime soon.

Not that there aren't good reasons to oppose Romney; there are, of course. One too many, I think. A flip-flop on abortion might be get-around-able; maybe RomneyCare too. But both? It's like having two rooks linked in a line. Mutually supporting and reinforcing.

But the fact he worships Jesus Christ with a stranger backstory than most religions have? That's just not fair.

One of my main problems with Huckabee is how he crudely pushed the religious thing in battling with Romney. A lot of the other stuff -- raising taxes, issuing naive clemencies to killers based on naive pastors claiming they'd found Jesus -- are problems of judgment and ideology and reason, but I thought the Mormon-trashing part of his campaign showed a serious defect in character. It was just too sleazy and crude for me. And, again, unamerican.

Via Hot Air. One of the things that still amazes me is how quickly people become horrible RINOs.

Ann Coulter just got kicked out of the club for being a RINO (Ann Coulter.. RINO?). Now... Jim DeMint?

My view of DeMint just fell off a cliff. Jumped. The. Shark.

I am sure he will attempt to rehabilitate himself, but he can kiss any 2012 presidential aspirations goodbye.

Norwegian on March 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM

On the other hand, there are more reasonable replies...

Sorry, Jim. You’re wrong on this.

MadisonConservative on March 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM

...

I guess it must be Romney’s “turn.”

We all know how well how Republican candidates do when it’s their “turn.”

Bat Chain Puller on March 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Two good points that don't rely on excommunication as a tool of persuasion.

When did it become out of fashion to say merely that someone is "wrong"? When did "wrong" -- a negative adjective, of course -- become too weak to be a useful word?

Why are so many determined to replace "wrong" with "unrighteous"?

There's just a level of emotionalism in all of this I find wearying. Maybe I'm not emotional enough and prefer to keep most arguments on the intellectual plane, and reserve emotion for the truly repellent.

I don't think the emotional emoters ever consider that they're wigging the rest of us the fuck out.

Oh, By the Way, DeMint Is Wrong: Romney is so determined to never say "I was wrong" that he's subcontracted that job out to all of us -- we all decide he was wrong on RomneyCare.

So not only does Romney get wacked with being wrong in the first place, he also gets it wrong on whether he was wrong.

To avoid being called wrong once he gets to be called wrong twice.

Not smart.

As the David Spade comedy special had it: "Take the Hit."

On a deeper level, I compare this to Charlie Crist. Crist seemed to be betting that Obama and socialism were the future -- and he seemed ready to embrace that future.

Someone who thinks, in his heart, that socialism is destined to win and isn't all that bad is obviously not someone who's going to fight it very hard.

No way that Romney is like Crist at that level. But, on a smaller level: Look, he's been positioning himself for a run at the presidency for years, I think. I like that discipline and planning.

But as far as the steps he believed he needed to take to become electable -- these are poor judgments. It feels like he was betting against conservatism with his various defensible-but-not-conservative positionings. So, to me, that's an error in judgment, and one that I fear will have consequences down the road -- if he was betting against it before, I imagine he'll bet against it again.

Part of his plan I don't get -- he ran in a liberal state and adopted liberal social positions, I guess to get elected and to make him a moderate in a presidential election, but then he... kind of completely reversed all that and tried to become a hard-charging conviction social conservative?

That's a big audible. Changing field like that sometimes pays off but usually results in a tackle in the backfield.

I don't know about Romney. He seems like one of those very smart sorts of guys whose judgment is just very often suspect. Good intellect, not-so-good cunning.

posted by Ace at 12:55 PM

| Access Comments