if you ask him how he did it, as I did during an Iowa campaign swing, Romney becomes effusive. It may be that this tale from Massachusetts reveals what kind of President Romney could be. "He was incredibly impressive, with his intellect, his ability," says MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, a Democrat who advised Romney and who has since had a hand in the Massachusetts-style health-care plans put forward this year by Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. "If there is anything that qualifies him to be President of the United States, it is his leadership on this issue."

The more the Governor thought about health care, the more intrigued he became by the idea of making it work better.

That whiff of a challenge was reinforced by the stories Romney heard as he traveled the state. After talking to a jeweler in North Andover, a man about his age, Romney remembers thinking, "Gosh, he's 55. He could have a heart attack. He could get cancer. He's got his own business, but he doesn't have health insurance? How can this be?"

So Romney started asking for ideas from his aides, many of whom--especially his political advisers--thought he should just drop it. "It was pooh-poohed by everybody," he says. "I am obstinate. I kept on drawing these squares: Well, if you have this number of people, you take that money, you move it there, couldn't that work? Let's do the math." State HHS secretary Ron Preston kept coming back to the one alternative Romney said he wouldn't accept: Dukakis' approach of requiring employers to either cover their workers or pay a hefty fee. "We didn't make as much progress as I wanted to," Romney says now. So the former management consultant did what he might have recommended to any CEO: he got a new team, showing Preston the door and giving the job to his policy director, former investment banker Tim Murphy. "The thing about Mitt," says Murphy, "is he wants to focus on the analysis."

When they considered the situation as if it were a business-school case study, some simple steps became clear, like getting the word out to the 106,000 Massachusetts citizens who were eligible for Medicaid but didn't seem to know it. Yet they also found something surprising when Romney began looking at who, precisely, the uninsured were in Massachusetts. Everyone expected the typical profile to be that of a single mother just scraping by or maybe someone with chronic illness--not exactly ideal customers for insurers. Instead, nearly the opposite was true. "It turned out they were largely single males, and they were working," Romney recalls. "They were eminently insurable. It's funny how data opens up new insight."

That was the bit of analysis that changed everything. Gruber ran the numbers at MIT: universal coverage would be expensive, but so would any half-measure. Romney could simply expand the existing system and, by doing so, cover about one-third more people. Or he could cover everyone by including an "individual mandate," a controversial measure requiring people to buy insurance and offering subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. The price tag would be about one-third higher. "I began by saying, Well, maybe we could help half the people that don't have insurance, maybe we could help a third of the people, and ultimately it became, You know what? We could actually get everybody insured!" Romney recalls.

In November 2004, nearly two years after his meeting with Stemberg, Romney was finally ready to go public with the beginnings of a plan. As it evolved, it became a proposal to achieve an end that liberals had long dreamed of, but through conservative means: creating more competition in the private-insurance marketplace and insisting that Massachusetts citizens take personal responsibility for their own coverage. "From the minute you heard him articulate it, you knew this was a new concept in American health-care policy," says Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor of health policy. "It was a very different way of talking about coverage, and he was very articulate in framing it."

"Before long, Romney was in Kennedy's office in Washington, taking his PowerPoint slides with him. "Had Senator Kennedy said, 'This is a lousy idea, and I don't want anything to do with it,' I would have been back at square one," he admits. Kennedy was sold, and both men turned to the question of how to pay for the plan.

That outcome was far from certain. Romney and his PowerPoint traveled from one end of Massachusetts to the other. But as a Republican, Romney had very little leverage with the legislature, where the GOP's representation was so small it was less a minority than a cult. What's more, the senate and the house had very different ideas of what they wanted to do. As the two chambers squabbled, the Medicaid money was in danger of slipping away.

On a Sunday morning in February 2006, Romney personally taped handwritten notes to the doors of senate president Robert Travaglini and house speaker Salvatore DiMasi, begging them not to let this opportunity die. The speaker, for one, wasn't impressed. "A cheap publicity stunt," DiMasi says. Recognizing the limits of his own influence, Romney turned to Kennedy once again. "I asked for his help on certain legislators: 'Could you give a call on this one?'" Romney says. On March 22, 2006, Kennedy did more than that. He went to the floor of both the house and the senate on Beacon Hill and spoke in very personal terms about the battles with cancer his son and daughter had faced. "This whole issue in terms of universal and comprehensive care has always burned in my soul," Kennedy said. The Federal Government had failed the country on health care, he told the politicians , but "Massachusetts has a chance to do something about it."

The bill that emerged from the legislature two weeks later was different in many respects from what Romney had initially proposed. It increased reimbursement for hospitals, which Romney liked, but added more people to the Medicaid rolls, which he didn't. There were far too many requirements placed on insurance companies for Romney's tastes, and he used his line-item veto on the bill's stipulation that employers who don't cover their workers pay $295 per employee each year into a fund to subsidize coverage. The lawmakers easily overrode it . . .

Everyone around Romney had assumed this achievement would be a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, showcasing the data-driven, goal-oriented, utterly pragmatic side of Romney. But that side of him has emerged only rarely on the 2008 trail. Instead, he rarely discusses the details of his Massachusetts plan and certainly doesn't tout his partnership with Kennedy. As a presidential candidate, he cautiously adheres to by-the-book Republican dogma of giving individual states leeway in the form of tax breaks to design their own reforms.

Jim Geraghty also makes this point about the difference between Hillary's and Mitt's responses after taking fire at the debates:

Thought that popped in my head... could you imagine if Mitt Romney played the 'Mormon card' the way Team Hillary has played the 'gender card' in the aftermath of the debate?

It's unthinkable. He'd be mocked and ridiculed mercilessly as a guy who couldn't handle a real debate.

Mitt Romney gets slammed from all sides in the debates, particularly the most recent one, and he knows why: He's leading in Iowa and New Hampshire (and close in South Carolina); he's the guy Rudy needs to beat someplace early, he's the guy Fred needs to falter, the guy Huckabee needs to catch up with, the guy McCain wants to see knocked out. Congratulations, you matter now; this means it's time to duck, brace for impact, and demonstrate an ability to get up off the mat.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards

Here’s what Mitt’s son Tagg said at the ND dinner:

“Personally, I think the best way to beat Hillary Clinton is not to water down our values, or to try to act more like Hillary Clinton, or try to blur the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I think we need a strong Republican.”

In stark contrast, here’s what Kevin Cramer, spokesman for Giuliani said after Tagg’s speech:

“We are here to choose a candidate who can win next November. It does us no good to stand on our beautiful, wonderful principles, and lose to Hillary Clinton.”

Courtesy of the Giuliani campaign themselves, you now have a very clear choice between two political philosophies that couldn’t be more diametrically opposed.

MA: ... The US technology industry, of course, has been a world leader. And a lot of the growth has been through international markets, particularly over the last ten to twenty years. What would you do as president to advance these efforts?

MR: Well, first it’s important to communicate as you do to your audience that the trade and opening markets to American goods is essential. The only way America is going to remain the world’s superpower is if we can compete globally, so I want to open more markets to our goods and I will negotiate with other nations to do so. At the same time I want to make sure that our trading with other nations is done on a fair basis, and when a nation like China does not honor our intellectual property rights then we’re going to have to get serious with our Chinese friends and say guys you just can’t do that or you’re going to suffer consequences in our markets. So we’re going to have to fight to make sure that our products are protected and our technology is protected but also to not close down foreign markets, open them up, we can compete around the world.

MA: Ok, great. Let’s jump into internet taxes, some news today on that actually. The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act bars federal state and local governments from taxing internet access or imposing discriminatory internet only taxes. Things like bit taxes, bandwidth taxes, email taxes. It doesn’t of course prohibit states from collecting sales taxes on things like e-commerce. It was twice extended by Congress and actually was set to expire this Thursday, but last week the Senate voted to extend the ban and then this morning the house voted 402-0 to approve the bill as well for a 7 year extension. I’d just like to get your position on internet only taxes.

MR: I think the indication of the house vote indicates that most American’s are of the point of view that Internet only taxes of the type you describe are not something we want to see. I have a specific position on that issue, but I do not want to see internet only taxes as you described them or access fees or email charges and so forth. We do enough taxing in this country and let’s not add more taxes. I’d rather see the tax for innovation reduced rather than expanded.

MA: I guess that brings us to the most important question I have to ask you, which is…Governor Romney, Mac or PC?

MR: I have a PC. My sons have a Mac and swear by it, but I have a couple PC’s.

MA: So one of your sons is on Mac, or most of them are?

MR: 3 out of the 5 boys I believe are on Macs, and they swear by them, but I’m a creature of habit, I’ve got my PC.

MA: I’ve got to say I’m slightly disappointed and that’s going to hurt you in Silicon Valley (laughs), but at least it will help you in Texas where Dell is. Do you have an iPod?

MR: I do.

MA: Of course you have an IPod! What’s on it? What are you listening to right now, what sort of albums have you downloaded or listened to?

MR: What I typically download is country music as well as 1960’s music. I’m a baby boomer, so the Beatles and the Stones and some of the old groups from the 1960’s are my favorites, I listen to them and I listen to country. I might have some inspirational music as well, but those are the highlights for me.

Labels: interview

Labels: mike huckabee

• Kathy Gregg, wife of Senator Gregg, will serve a Co-Chair of New Hampshire for the campaign.
  
  Here's video from the Gregg endorsement:
  
  
  
  
• Congressman Chris Cannon signs on with Mitt. Congressman Cannon joins a Congressional Whip Team led by Congressional Liaison Representative Jim McCrery (R-LA) and Co-House Congressional Liaisons Representatives Dave Camp (R-MI) and Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA).
  

Labels: endoresements

Mitt Romney's campaign tells The Brody File that Bill Wichterman, who used to do conservative and religious outreach for Fred Thompson's campaign, has joined Team Romney. This is a nice "get." He'll be a part of the Faith and Values steering committee.

Bill Wichterman left the Thompson campaign because Thompson DOES NOT support the federal marriage amendment. At least the version that is on the table now. Mitt Romney does support it. Wichterman liked that fit. Who can blame him?

This is a guy who has been big on the federal marriage amendment for years. When Bill Frist was trying to push the amendment through the Senate, it was Wichterman who was leading the charge by getting social conservative groups organized and mobilized. Expect him to be a big boost for the Romney campaign when it comes to the marriage issue. His depth of knowledge here is masterful.

1. Terrorism: 21.4%


2. Economy 15.8%


3. Iraq War 15.5%


4. Immigration 13.5%


5. Health Care 9.5%


6. Abortion 7.2%


7. Education 4.0%


8. Energy Policy 2.9%


9. Gay Marriage 2.9%


10. Agriculture Policy 1.4%


11. Enviroment/Global Warming 1.1%

Thanks for David C for this pic:

Labels: fundraising