Tommy Christopher wrote a snarky follow-up to my earlier post where he compared Dana Loesch's voting for Romney in a February 5, 2008 primary to a hipster having a Justin Bieber CD drop out of his pocket. Loesch, of course, freaked out and posted a response claiming she had "eaten Christopher's lunch" because she only supported Romney out of her disdain for McCain. But Christopher updated his post to note that, in Missouri's '08 primary, McCain was not Romney's only opponent. In fact, McCain just barely beat out Mike Huckabee.
Of course, the point of all this from my perspective is to evaluate whether Loesch really lives up to her carefully constructed, money-making image as a rebellious tea party outsider. If she claims that the constitution is the most important thing to consider and that RomenyCare is unconstitutional, then it would be pretty bad if she actually ended up supporting Romney in 2008 despite recently claiming that she was "against him last election."
But all of that is rather indirect. Because, as it turns out, Dana Loesch actually said on her blog that she supported RomneyCare. In her January 30 live blog of the Republican debate in California, here's what Loesch had to say:
7:19 Is it just me or are they going after Romney tonight? I like Romney’s “pay your own way” approach to healthcare. Now the debate is starting to sound like an exercise in conservatism. First time all night.Seems bad enough already, but check out the full Romney quote Loesch was referring to:
With regards to my health care plan, let me describe what is the ultimate conservative approach. In this country, you have today about 47 million people that don’t have health insurance. We went out and tried to find out why they don’t. We found out that about half of them could afford to buy insurance if it were reasonably priced. They could afford to buy it, but they weren’t buying it. it? If we get sick, we can go to the hospital and get care for free.“ And we said: what? If somebody could afford insurance, they should either buy the insurance or pay their own way. They don’t have to buy insurance if they don’t want to, but pay their own way. But they shouldn’t be allowed to just show up at the hospital and say, somebody else should pay for me. So we said: No more free riders. It was like bringing “workfare” to welfare. We said: If you can afford insurance, then either have the insurance or get a health savings account. Pay your own way, but no more free ride. That was what the mandate did.So there you go. Radical, going-all-in-for-a-strict-interpretation-of-the-constitution tea party rebel Dana Loesch "liked" Romney's healthcare plan and specifically the mandate, which she says is unconstitutional. And she's now claiming that she never supported it.
So is it a lie? Here's what Dana Loesch said in her most recent response:
I weighed RomneyCare against McCain-Feingold. And that's ultimately what made my decision. I disliked both of them to the point where I almost just wanted to choke. And I ultimately decided that McCain-Feingold in that particular instance was worse.Is it wrong to change your mind about an issue or a candidate later on? Of course not. But is it wrong to rewrite your own history to try to pretend that you never supported the thing you now point to as the epitome of all-evil? You betcha!
I think socialism at any level is still socialism. I don't buy the federalism excuse for RomneyCare. I think it was bad for business, it was bad policy. Say what you will. I spoke to Will Cain earlier this morning (who's on CNN and I respect his opinion very much) and we politely disagreed. I think that it's still socialism. You're still penalizing people for not participating in the system. You're still hinging their living in a state with their purchasing a product from the government and you're penalizing them if they don't. That's a nationalized, in the case of Massachusetts, a state-run freedom-infringing health care plan.