When Mitt Romney formally launches his presidential campaign in New Hampshire today, there will be a renewed focus on the politically toxic health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts. Yet while Romneycare may be the single biggest obstacle facing his candidacy, political observers err by assuming Romney would otherwise be coasting to the nomination.
There are many reasons why Romney lost the nomination in 2008 to the deeply flawed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at a time when health care wasn’t a dominant issue.
Supporters typically cite Romney’s successful business career and effective management of the Salt Lake City Olympics to create the overall impression that he’s a competent executive.
But Romney’s actual experience in public office was limited to one term as governor, and the results weren’t that impressive, let alone conservative.
Romney’s biggest legislative accomplishment as governor was signing the disastrous health care law he’s now struggling to explain.
He often claims to have balanced the Massachusetts budget without raising taxes. The first part of that claim is true, but the second part is a matter of semantics.
As Cato pointed out in a 2006 report, while Romney didn’t raise general tax revenues, he raised various fees by $500 million and then proposed $140 million in business tax hikes by closing “loopholes.” His health care plan also increased spending, prompting tax increases after he left office to cover cost overruns.
This time around, by sticking by his health care law, Romney is attempting to avoid the “flip flopper” label that dogged his last campaign. But this shift in tactics isn’t going to make the problem of his past positions suddenly disappear.
As governor, Romney was no friend of gun owners. In 2004, when the Clinton-era federal assault weapons ban expired, he signed a permanent one at the state level.
Despite his tough talk on immigration during his last campaign, in 2005 Romney told the Boston Globe that reform along the lines that McCain proposed was “reasonable.”
Romney also, at various times, supported campaign finance regulations far more sweeping than McCain-Feingold, even though he subsequently blasted that law as an attack on free speech.
Romney’s support for “No Child Left Behind,” President Bush’s expansion of the federal government’s role in education, not only puts him at odds with conservatives, but it also undercuts the federalist defense of his health care law. If a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work for health care, why should it work for education?
Furthermore, there’s no reason to believe that social conservatives who were suspicious of Romney’s conveniently timed conversion from pro-choice to pro-life before his last presidential run will see him as any more authentic this time around.
The best hope for Romney is that a persistently weak economy and poor job market could play into his image as a savvy businessman. Yet his past as a successful turnaround artist also carries its risks.
However justified consolidating companies may be in the business world, it can be deadly in a political context. The fact that Romney’s business career involved laying off workers was effectively used against him by the late Ted Kennedy in their 1994 Senate race and by Mike Huckabee in 2008.
Huckabee insisted during a bitter primary that people were looking for a candidate who reminded them “of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off.”
As Romney continues to tout his private-sector job creation experience, expect his opponents (whether his GOP rivals or President Obama) to counter with similar attacks.
Signing the Massachusetts health care law that provided the model for Obamacare should be enough to sink Romney’s candidacy. But it’s far from the only obstacle he faces.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
