The latest flap over Romney's op-ed, titled Mr. President, What's The Rush? is a perfect example of twisting, adding assumptions, and non-logical associations. While I do not criticize people for not knowing better, I suggest that we should, in the future, as much as we can stick to using fact-based, reasoned thinking. And if the journalists cannot do it, then it is up to the citizens to do it. Meanwhile, Romney must use up his resources to quash this thing or it will stick around as part of a smoldering fire, based on untruth that is still believed.
The "what he really meant was" and the "it was code for" purveyors of misinformation must not be allowed to prevail, for it hurts the American public by causing decisions to be made on falsehoods and twistings. We must not allow quotes out of context and only look at complete statements in context.
______________________________________________________________________________
There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.
And from the lesson, we can see the business-like, conservative methods and principles being used in action by Romney - which would give even more credibility to how effective he can be in a "business mode" of effectiveness!
______________________________________________________________________________
THE "OFFENDING" OP-ED ONLY SAID THIS... AND DIDN'T SAY MORE!
If you must do it, don't rush.
Get bipartisan support in designing it
Design using these conservative principles. And he suggested (conservative, sensible) ideas.
Make it "no cost"
If one actually reads the op-ed as an objective observer, one can only see that Romney is saying "if you're going to do this" then make sure you follow these principles and ways of doing things.
OP-ED TITLE: Mr. President, what's the rush?
He says, since you are doing this, please do it the right way!!!!!
"For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats."
HERE'S HOW WE APPROACHED THE STATE PROBLEM; LEARN FROM IT!
He put out some insights and wisdom in how the state achieved its solution.
He pointed out that it was a bipartisan approach, that took two years to fashion - and then passed the 200 member legislature (including Republicans) with only two dissenting votes! It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers...
"Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance." [How's that for a great lead-in!!??)
"Dump the public option."
APPROACH IT IN A BUSINESS-THOROUGH MANNER
Businesses "engaged in [I inserted the numbers and spacing]
1. extensive analysis,
2. brought in outside experts,
3. exhaustively evaluated every alternative,
4. built consensus among those who would be affected and
5. then moved ahead."
[Obama should follow that!]
REPUBLICANS WILL JOIN WITH THE DEMOCRATS, IF...
"Republicans will join with the Democrats if [I inserted the numbers and spacing.]
1. the president abandons his government insurance plan,
2. if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt,
3. if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and
4. if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care
reform deserves
The President obviously did not take his advice.
__________________________________________________________________________
THE NONSENSE
If I were a journalist doing this and I had self-respect, I would be ashamed of doing this and I'd relearn how to do my job for the public good, not for bias.
Urged what????
"USA Today op-ed penned by Romney in July 2009 that urged President Obama to adopt an individual mandate to purchasing health insurance as part of national reform." [I sure didn't read that into it! An example of adding in attributions and assumptions from a biased view.]
Wrong premise, wrong conclusion
"Romney is now on the verge of escaping with the party nomination having embraced a program his party considers inimical to freedom itself and blatantly lied about having done so without any major opponents pointing this out. It's pretty incredible." [Can't you see through that rather easily. Yes, anyone thinking that he actually was a traitor to the conservative cause (from using all conservative principles in a bill lauded by conservatives...before ObamaCare) might come up with that. But the premise is incorrect, so the conclusiong is, therefore, incorrect. The opposite conclusiong is more appropriate: he was a brave and effective advocate of conservative, responsible principles, addressing a need that was urgent in the state.]
Could learn from - is that bad?
'Romney bragged about taking on health care reform in Massachusetts and said the federal government could learn from the Bay State and use it as a model to get everyone insured.' [Twisting, not what he actually said. He said, instead, that Obama could learn from the reform in Massachusetts and that Obama should meet the key criteria he specified. See The Op-Ed Itself. Did he brag? Is so, so what? Is that interpretation for a "make wrong"?]
He didn't say what he didn't say, but that meant something...
"The problem with the 2009 op-ed is that there is no mention by Romney of what has been a standard line: each state should be free to take the approach they think is best." [Well, the article could only be so long - and what is talking about was the bill that was about ready to be passed anyway - too late for saying that again ...or it could have been a good addition...but there is no significance that one can add to it nor can one call it a "flip-flop" - and the silliness goes on and on and on....]
"Mitt Romney Suggested Three Times In 2009 That Obama Imitate Romneycare"
[So what? It was a good plan, but he clearly did not advocate the bad parts of ObamaCare!]
1st video: Glad to to hear he is copying exchange idea. But don't set up government insurance plan because it will cost millions of dollars in subsidies. [Now who could construe anything further from that. It was encouraging a good free-market approach - plus fiscal prudence!]
2nd video: Republicans said for a long time we need health care reform. Let's learn from our experience (Massachusetts).
3rd video, quick two second clip: We have a model that worked. [See how someone can take and read anything into it. Suggesting someone can learn from something that works is not exactly a radical idea!]
As A Condition Of Breathing
Santorum said that Romney’s mandate requires individuals to buy an insurance policy “as a condition of breathing.” He called it a top-down model that is “no different than Barack Obama’s mandate.”
So? Even if someone copies something after the fact, the existence of the something beforehand does not logically imply that it caused the second something. A super error in logic!
“Everyone has a requirement to either buy it or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care. Because the idea of people getting something for free when they could afford to care for themselves is something that we decided in our state was not a good idea.”
Well, doesn't that make sense. It's like advocating eating tomatoes and lettuce, but blaming either of them for producing a cheeseburger is preposterous!
Was This, Logically, An Advocacy Of Anything But A Good Principle?
In the hardcover edition of No Apology, Romney wrote the following, which somehow people have in a super-stretch twisting come up with the idea that he advocated a national plan (nonsense!):
My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model If they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition. {Note that this only said "if a national approach is ultimately adoped" 'then' we should do free market approach. An "if-then' is logically not the same as advocating the "if" nor any other "then" than the one mentioned - use a free market approach - which, of course, is a good idea..]
________________________________________________________________________
I might suggest that is a sad commentary on how commentators are behaving. Why do we allow it???
