The New Republic

"Weaselly" is the best adverb to describe Romney's behavior.

- maxhencke

October 10, 2012 at 1:16pm

Actually, max, I'd disagree. The best adverb and the most important word in the title is "lie". Romney is trying to break the media worse than even Bush did, and it can only work if the media doesn't call him an outright liar. The more that they do, the more Romney will lash out (which the media strangely actually loves--remember its adoration for Sarah Palin as a story and character), but more crucially, the more Romney will be forced to tell the truth and lay out the actual details we expect of a serious presidential candidate.

- chaitless

October 10, 2012 at 1:29pm

They media have been laying down. Like the Democrats, they cannot seem to get their heads wrapped around the fact that Republicans do almost nothing but lie, the more brazen and preposterous the lie, the better. I wouldn't say weaselly, I would say sociopathic, devoid of compunction.

- roidubouloi

October 10, 2012 at 1:40pm

Another excellent Amy Sullivan column. As Obama pointed out, if Romney's positions would be so popular, why is he hiding them? The natural conclusion is, that Romney's true positions would not be popular with the majority of Americans, and thus he has to hide, obfuscate, and outright deny his real positions in order to get elected. I too heard this morning on the radio some woman saying "Well, the President doesn't really affect abortion rights, that's the Legislature's job". Which appears to be the latest Fox-News Tea-Party dog-whistle saying "Leave Romney alone!" -- while actually meaning ".. so he can revoke Roe-v-Wade". Of course the President has a huge impact on abortion rights -- from supporting or vetoing legislation to appointing the next Justice of the Supreme Court.

- AllanL5

October 10, 2012 at 1:40pm

"What does Mitt Romney believe? What would his agenda look like as president?" He's been clear on this for a long time. If it helps Mitt Romney personally, it's good. Close companies to make money. Lower the top rate to save Romney millions. Repeal the estate tax to save his kids millions. If there is something in it for him, he'll say or do whatever it takes, even if it hurts someone else. I still wonder if the donations that went from Romney to that business enterprise, the Mormon Church, didn't end up back in Romney's pocket through Bain. For Pete's sake, (and Romney's,) he's running for President.

- Nusholtz

October 10, 2012 at 1:41pm

Isaac Asimov famously posited the three laws of robotics: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. Romney-bot 2000 has successfully adhered to three laws of robotics that govern his "positions" albeit in a slightly differently manner 1. Romney may not have a "moderate" positions or, through pandering, allow his "conservative" positions come to harm. 2. Romney must adhere to his "conservative" orders given by the GOP, except where such orders conflict with the First Law. 3. Romney must protect his "positions" as long as such "positions" do not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

- singlspeed

October 10, 2012 at 2:14pm

Or maybe something like this: 1. Romneybot may adopt any position that will help him win at any given moment. 2. Romneybot may adopt as many right-wing positions as he can to please the Republican base. 3. In any conflict between 1. and 2., 1. takes precedence.

- ironyroad

October 10, 2012 at 2:27pm

I think Romney has been clear about what he would do. Give the wealthy a 20% tax cut. Appoint anti-abortion Justices if he gets that chance. Attack Iran, go back into Iraq, and extend Afghanistan. Repeal Obamacare, including its support for birth-control. Deregulate oil, gas, and Wall-Street. That he's put on his "moderate face" for the debate and the 4 weeks leading up to the election, doesn't change the fact that his fundamental policies mirror those of Bush-II. And his policies would have similar destructive effects on American society and the economy.

- AllanL5

October 10, 2012 at 2:34pm

Out of sheer nihilistic curiosity I almost want Romney to win to see how he would actually govern, to see him actually come down once and for all on any given piece of legislation. Being that the Republican agenda is unpopular I would love to hear him lie that tax cuts for the rich are not actually tax cuts. It would be a surrealistic 4 years

- blackton

October 10, 2012 at 2:52pm

AllanL5: Yep. (And he is a sociopath.)

- Claris

October 10, 2012 at 2:53pm

Well, Blackton, going into 2000, we had a similar situation. Except then we had a Republican Congress, Bill Clinton was president, we had a balanced budget. We were at war with no one -- but we were maintaining that "no-fly" zone in Iraq. We had "Pay As You Go" policies in Congress. So Bush-II gets elected. Within the year, we've had 9/11, we're at war in Afghanistan, we've gotten tax cuts that give us a 300 billion dollar deficit, and he's mandated that Wall-Street can sell unregulated CDO's, with unregulated insurance CDI's. If Romney gets elected now, with his policies and a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit, we'll get Great Depression II. Frankly, that price is too high for curiousity.

- AllanL5

October 10, 2012 at 3:03pm

Oh for crying out loud Romney's not a sociopath or compulsive liar either, he's just an uncommonly craven pol. Leave the psychiatric terms to medicine where they properly belong. Also, it doesn't mean anything any more if it ever did to call a politician a liar. After all, as President he would be called on to lie with a straight face in many situations, minor to dire.

- Tgossard

October 10, 2012 at 3:23pm

Allan, I agree entirely, but apart from my voting and donating to Obama there is nothing I can do so if the American people are so effing stupid as to elect Romney then they (and we) deserve the hell we get. I always liked McCain and personally I liked GWB, I still do, I think he was a well meaning schmuck who probably still can't fathom what went wrong. Romney is just a sociopathic megalomaniac. I wonder how long it will be before the American people wake up to the horror that he is.

- blackton

October 10, 2012 at 3:24pm

I almost agree with you, Blackton. How can one expect anything or another from somebody who wants to have it all ways as long as he looks good.

- Tgossard

October 10, 2012 at 3:25pm

Tgossard, did you see his 47% speech? He thinks the economy will turn around just from his being President alone. Now we can quibble if he is sociopathic or solipsistic, but the end result is the same. He is not a leader, he doesn't inspire anyone, he will come into office trusted and loved by neither the right or the left, an accident of economics and bad debate performances by the incumbent. He has presented no details to what his budget will look like nor how he can pass it, he can not possibly please the rightwing with it since it would not pass (unless Republicans also win the Senate) He is worse than a blank slate people ascribe their hopes to, he simply exists as a black hole to suck Obama in. It speaks ill of our country when people say they know he is a prick but will still vote for him.

- blackton

October 10, 2012 at 3:32pm

Tgossard, did you see his 47% speech? He thinks the economy will turn around just from his being President alone. Now we can quibble if he is sociopathic or solipsistic, but the end result is the same. He is not a leader, he doesn't inspire anyone, he will come into office trusted and loved by neither the right or the left, an accident of economics and bad debate performances by the incumbent. He has presented no details to what his budget will look like nor how he can pass it, he can not possibly please the rightwing with it since it would not pass (unless Republicans also win the Senate) He is worse than a blank slate people ascribe their hopes to, he simply exists as a black hole to suck Obama in. It speaks ill of our country when people say they know he is a prick but will still vote for him.

- blackton

October 10, 2012 at 3:32pm

And THEN, no sooner has Mitt made the weaselly promise but his campaign disagreed and said Mitt would support pro-life legislation: http://news.yahoo.com/romney-promises-no-abortion-legislation-004508435--election.html I am getting dizzy. PS where are the MSM journalists? They are irresponsible. Thank goodness for people like Ms. Sullivan.

- Sophia

October 10, 2012 at 3:45pm

As for the comment that the economy will magically improve when he is elected, without anybody having to do a thing, either he knows something about a capital strike or he has a god complex.

- Sophia

October 10, 2012 at 3:47pm

Both sides of the abortion spectrum are awful people. That there is someone out there that would make a raped person have the baby no matter is what is disgusting. That there is someone out there that wants to permit a tube stuck into a baby's head the day before he is to be naturally born, and then have a strong vacuum collapse the skull is disgusting. Worse, unsuccessful procedures will leave the baby to wriggle his last few hours of life without any attention in a cold metal pan until nature takes its course. Fortunately, Romney isn't the in the first group. Unfortunately, Obama is in the second group. Sounds like most here are in the second group too. Very nice.

- seattleeng

October 10, 2012 at 4:03pm

Such hyperbole and hysteria. I give ANYONE extra credit for trying to remove the abortion war out of any election. Both parties pander to their base on this issue, which is why America is on the path to fiscal destruction. I look forward to re-runs of "The West Wing" reappearing on cable regardless of who wins in 2012. full disclosure: not supporting anyone this year, in part because of the way the Dems use abortion to drive voter turnout (NewYork2010 when the real issue was Medicaid), and the way the SoCons (the Santorum wing) never see how they are promoting one theological viewpoint on the rest of us. I recently had a nice conversation with an Evangelical in the most unlikely place: Trader Joe's in Hadley, MA (she was blocking my way to the guacamole). She told me how her mother had considered an abortion, but did not, and how important that was to her. My response? My mother told me my entire life how she had NOT wanted a second child, and the result is that I really wish she had not, because being treated like that by your own mother is devastating.

- K2K

October 10, 2012 at 4:08pm

seattleeng: "Sounds like most here are in the second group too. Very nice." Another completely unsubstantiated assumption. I see nothing in any of the above comments to support it. And the issue isn't what ridiculously oversimplified "group" one falls into. It's that Romney seems to fall into every group, or at least most of them. First he's pro-choice, then he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution (which would put him in the first "group"), then he favors exceptions which are logically inconsistent with such an amendment.

- dsimon

October 10, 2012 at 4:23pm

"he can claim that he’s not familiar with an existing piece of legislation that does just that." The kind of thing Seatle does all the time. Seem to be a Republican modus operandi. Speaking of hyperbole and hysteria: "Both parties pander to their base on this issue, which is why America is on the path to fiscal destruction." Really? Democrats pandering to their base - women - on the issue of abortion is why the US on the path to, er, "fiscal destruction"? You're funny :).

- icarus-r

October 10, 2012 at 4:32pm

seattleeng: "That there is someone out there that wants to permit a tube stuck into a baby's head the day before he is to be naturally born, and then have a strong vacuum collapse the skull is disgusting." Before criticizing those who get late-term abortions, it might be useful to actually hear the stories of those who have them. Some of them are done under the most difficult personal situations imaginable . One can start here: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/06/its-so-personal-a-round-up/200913/# I find it hard to believe that one would casually choose a difficult and possibly dangerous abortion procedure "the day before he is to be naturally born," though of course I could be mistaken. Moreover, banning a procedure--in this case the "partial birth" abortion apparently referred to by seattleeng--makes no sense even from a pro-life point of view. Since other procedures remain available, the abortion can still take place with an elevated risk to the woman and the same result for the fetus, so no one benefits. If the issue is late term abortions, then that's the issue that should be debated. But debating a particular procedure misses the point entirely.

- dsimon

October 10, 2012 at 4:53pm

dsimon: pointless to engage Seattle. Of course, at issue not which group which pol belongs to, but that, as you rightly point out, whether it is even possible to discern what Romney stands for and what he will do in office at any given point. He is the personification of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Schroedinger's Quantum Observation Axiom. The only way Seattle can defend this oik is to change the subject - to tar each and every person who suggests Romney might be damnable liar and flip-slopper as a supporter of late-term abortions. He, like Romney, has no shame.

- icarus-r

October 10, 2012 at 4:56pm

This article is a hilarious rant about absolutely nothing

- Nicomachus

October 10, 2012 at 5:12pm

Man, seattle, you really are shameless. You know nothing of what families are confronting, nothing whatsoever. But, short of judgement you are not. Alas.

- Sophia

October 10, 2012 at 5:19pm

Nicomachus: I guess you missed this part of the article:

Will Saletan has compiled the exhaustive list of every Romney shift on abortion which before yesterday stood at nine. The result is an astonishing document that makes it very easy to doubt whether Romney stands for anything at all.

- icarus-r

October 10, 2012 at 5:36pm

The Daily Kos video, "Romney Debates Himself," is well worth a look. Three instances of Romney directly contradicting himself, on taxes, on coverage of pre-existing conditions, on hiring more teachers. I'll bet there are even more remarkable examples out there. With some commentary -- because the dumb electorate cannot get the take-away on its own -- each could be a great Obama ad. One ad, one contradiction, with as many different ones as they can muster. A series of "Romney Debates Himself" ads. Great set up for the next debate. Obama could point out several Romney contradictions introduced by "Governor Romney Debates Himself." Wouldn't necessarily work if introduced at a debate, but would if the viewers are already primed.

- roidubouloi

October 10, 2012 at 9:06pm

It is quite clear what Romney believes, that Romney can and should shamelessly say whatever he thinks is to his advantage at the moment without regard to how many times he contradicts himself and without even a semblance of a bona fide position on anything. Then count on the press to let him get away with it. Not a terrible bet.

- roidubouloi

October 10, 2012 at 9:08pm

Also logical -- in many ways it's the ONLY bet he can make at this stage.

- ironyroad

October 10, 2012 at 9:31pm

DSimon writes: "And the issue isn't what ridiculously oversimplified "group" one falls into." Question: If a woman comes in at 32 weeks, and says she's really stressed about carrying the child, she doesn't know how she'll pay for it and that the dad just split, and she's completely panicked about how she's going to raise this child...but physically she's in fine shape... ...should abortion be an option? If so, how much evaluation do you think a doctor would need to decide? Obama says yes, and the doctors decisions need only take a few minutes. What do you say? Sophia? Icarus? PS. Spare the me life and death situations. Even Palin agrees with you in those cases.

- seattleeng

October 10, 2012 at 9:37pm

icarus-r: "dsimon: pointless to engage Seattle." Yes, I know. Just didn't want his/her assumptions and assertions to go unanswered. And of course the response provided is completely inadequate, coming up with a hypothetical that probably rarely if ever happens while ignoring the actual cases I've referred to, and also not acknowledging that Romney was apparently at one point in the "group" that would force a woman to bear a child that was the result of rape or incest--though who knows what group Romney is in now. Also not addressed is the absolute absence of evidence for the claim that "most here" would support an abortion the day prior to what would be a live birth. (And it doesn't matter what Sophia or Icarus or I would say because the assertion was made prior to asking any of us.) But I'm used to such avoidance by now. Attempts at real engagement are apparently useless.

- dsimon

October 10, 2012 at 10:35pm

All those words, DSimon, and you didn't answer a simple question. I'll venture nobody here will answer the question. Because it will expose just how extreme your views are. When you condemn the wacko religious cult that believes abortion is never an option, I'll bet you you have no sense that you are looking in a mirror, just from the other side. Of course, when talking about abortion, you love to bring up the stuff that even Palin doesn't dispute, as if it's the least bit controversial. But when it comes to actually stating what you really feel, you avoid answering. Very telling. But par for the course.

- seattleeng

October 10, 2012 at 11:14pm

Hey Roid. Here is a good video for the republicans to showcase. During the debate over Obamacare, the Obama administration consistently denied that a statutory penalty for failing to purchase a government-approved health insurance policy would constitute a “tax.” Obama personally denied it was tax (see "This Week" interview on YouTube). This was a pivotal issue because one of Obama's key campaign promises was not to raise taxes on the middle class and many democrats had misgivings about this unpopular legislation. Only after the constitutionality of the individual mandate was placed into serious doubt did the Obama administration completely contradict its position and argued fervently to the Supreme Court that Obamacare is in fact a “tax”, which is how the act was eventually upheld. Talk about saying "whatever is to his advantage at the moment". This is a cleat cut case of duplicity by Obama over an important national matter. Not some theoretical position, but actual deception in the course of governance. I think that would make a good campaign ad.

- Nicomachus

October 10, 2012 at 11:35pm

Why does extending health care coverage provoke such hatred? That is the really interesting question.

- ironyroad

October 11, 2012 at 5:32am

Hmm... let me think. Could it have something to do with jamming through major life altering legislation using whatever means necessary, absent an honest discourse and national consensus? Could that piss people off, hmm...?

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 9:11am

Nicomachus: based on your post on the "tax" issue, it is evident that you know nothing about the law, constitutional law, legal argumentation and so on. Based on your latest post, it is evident you know even less about politics and political history. It would take too much time and space to educate you, but here is a simple try. First, the principal line of argument of the Obama administration was that the mandate is what it is: it requires those who will, at some point in their lives, benefit from a national health insurance regime to purchase insurance in order to spread the risk, and it provides a penalty in case they fail to do so. This is both the intent and the effect of the legislation. The penalty is not a "tax" properly so called because it is not meant 1) to raise revenue, and 2) to be collected at all, if the regime works the way it is supposed to. That is about the measure of it, and if the Supreme Court majority had been honest about applying the Trade and Commerce clause, it would have remained there. As it happened, five of the justices are bent on reducing the scope of Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Four of them decided to characterise the mandate the way it is and, thereby, 1) to frustrate the achievement, through judicial fiat, of a major national policy objective; 2) to cripple a president they don't like; and 3) to narrow the scope of federal economic regulatory authority. Roberts realised that to do the first in order to achieve the second and the third would destroy what legitimacy the Court had after Bush v. Gore, so he decided to resort to a time-honoured and perfectly legitimate judicial gambit: recharacterise the impugned measure in order to maintain its constitutionality. This - you are evidently too ignorant to notice - is called, er, "judicial conservatism": you uphold what you can of the law on whatever constitutional basis you can, in order not to frustrate the will of Congress in passing major legislation. Period. For constitutional purposes, and only for constitutional purposes, Congress has the authority to pass the mandate because it can "tax" anything. Period. As for your blather about " honest discourse and national consensus" - well, there was no honest discourse on the Republican side. You can't have an honest discourse with a side that repudiates its own policy proposals. As for national consensus - well, I wonder how many Repulican policies will survive if you apply that test to them. Or politicians. Come back with arguments that have a semblance of sense and knowledge next time.

- icarus-r

October 11, 2012 at 10:11am

icarus-r, you are a funny little person who attributes "ignorance" to anyone that dares to have an opinion incongruent to your own. As for the substance of your rant, it is entirely off base and does even come close to refuting my argument. This discussion concerns Obama's integrity, not the politics of the Supreme Court or legal mechanics. The fact is that the Obama administration argued in court that the act was a "tax". Obama said one thing in Congress and the opposite in court because that approach was useful rather than honest. As for "national consensus", you must have been too busy thinking up personal insults to seriously examine my argument. This has nothing to do with the Republicans. Obama failed to get a consensus of the citizenry on a major piece of legislation that impacts just about everyone. Had he done so, the Republicans (and some of the Democrats) would have have had no choice but to go along. As it happened, he jammed the 2700 page legislation through with a razor thin majority and very little debate, which is why it continues to be resented by a majority of people. My simple point here is before you call the opposition "liar", take a good look in the mirror.

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 12:12pm

"The fact is that the Obama administration argued in court that the act was a "tax". Obama said one thing in Congress and the opposite in court because that approach was useful rather than honest." As I explained, that is actually not what the Obama Administration argued in Court. The first and more legally correct line of argument was that the mandate is the exercise by Congress of its Trade and Commerce power. In the event that position is incorrect, judicial conservatism requires that the Court determine if a measure may be upheld under some other theory. There is no loss of integrity on the part of a politician or an Administration to advise the Court that even though that is not the appropriate way, it is a plausible one. It is not that your position is different from mine; it is that your premise demonstrates ignorance of constitutional litigation.

- icarus-r

October 11, 2012 at 1:03pm

icarus-r. You wrote "As I explained, that is actually not what the Obama Administration argued in Court." Here is just a very very small subset of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal put it in his February 2011 brief to the Fourth Circuit in Virginia v. Sebelius (p. 36): “The minimum coverage provision,” that is, the individual mandate, is “independently authorized by Congress’s taxing power…The minimum coverage provision appears in the Internal Revenue Code and operates as a tax. It is projected to raise billions of dollars in revenue each year.” He reiterates this point later in the brief (p. 72): “The practical operation of the provision is a tax. Individuals who are not required to file income tax returns for a given year are not required to pay the penalty…The amount of any penalty is calculated in part by reference to household income for federal income tax purposes; it is reported on the individual’s federal income tax return for the taxable year and is assessed and collected in the same manner as certain other federal tax penalties…In short, the minimum coverage provision is a tax in both administration and effect.” For the Supreme Court proceedings, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s brief on the legality of the individual mandate makes the point again and again. “Congress assigned adverse tax consequences to the alternative of self-insuring,” writes Verrilli (p. 11). “Congress’ taxing power provides an independent ground to uphold the minimum coverage provision…The only consequences of a failure to maintain minimum coverage are tax consequences” (p. 20). “The minimum coverage provision operates as a tax law” (p. 52). “It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance.” In his 2010 ruling against the mandate, Judge Roger Vinson sums it up pretty well: "Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check" icarus-r, when you are not launching personal attacks, you are busy hair splitting. Just admit it, Obama lies too.

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 1:35pm

Typical of a Republican hack - you quote the first part of my reply and do not cite the sentence that follows. You quote the submission selectively. This, however, is telling: "independently authorized". A lawyer would immediately recognise this as an alternative argument, and the less important of the two arguments. That is, the mandate is authorised by the Trade and Commerce Clause, and in the even the Court does not buy the argument, it is independently authorised by the taxation clause. Litigation 101; US Constitution 101. Basic, really. This is not hairsplitting - it is the essence of constitutionalism. And, more to the point, given Roberts' judgement, it is the essence of judicial conservatism. Though administered through the tax regime, and though in "effect" a taxation measure, the point of the mandate is not its taxation function. It is a "tax" that under a properly functioning system is not meant to be collected. This is what two other Republican Circuit Court judges who upheld the ACA recognised - Vinson notwithstanding. As for whether Obama lies - I am not sure what you are trying to prove, even if correct. On this issue, this is not a lie, but rather, as I have stated, a difference between political and policy discourse, on the one hand, and constitutional law on the other. If you cannot understand this, it is a failing of your grade 5 civics class, but says nothing about Obama. As for Romney's lies - if Obama lies too, that surely does not excuse Romney's lies, does it?

- icarus-r

October 11, 2012 at 2:15pm

icarus-r, Try to look at this issue honestly. This has nothing to do with the constitution, law, or the courts. Its about integrity - saying what you believe to be true irrespective of the consequences. Obama's agents made a concerted argument that the act represented a tax in the courts. Whether this was an "alternative argument", constitutionally justified, common legal practice, unnecessary due to the commerce clause, etc. is totally irrelevant. Obama vehemently insisted that the act was not a tax during the legislative stage. I credit Obama with being intelligent and not capable of believing in two contradictory ideas at the same time. Thus, he either misled the country during the legislative stage or put forth arguments he did not believe in the courts. This is so clear cut and obvious, I am astounded that you do not see the truth of it. I disapprove of deceitfulness from both parties. However, this article seems a bit one sided to me. I will admit that Romney is a liar. Will you admit that Obama is a liar?

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 5:00pm

"This has nothing to do with the constitution, law, or the courts." Oh dear God - Are you for real? You are quoting chapter and verse of a legal submission and have the brass to say this is not about the constitution or the courts? :) "Whether this was an "alternative argument", constitutionally justified, common legal practice, unnecessary due to the commerce clause, etc. is totally irrelevant." Given that this was the legal position of the Government of the United States, all of the above matter a great deal. "Obama vehemently insisted that the act was not a tax during the legislative stage." Yes, and it is not. The object of the penalty is not to raise revenue. That is what taxes are for. The point of the ACA is not to raise revenue through the mandate provisions. It is, rather, to ensure that everyone in the country is covered by insurance. In that sense, the ACA does not impose a tax. It is not meant to. That is not its object. "Thus, he either misled the country during the legislative stage or put forth arguments he did not believe in the courts." The point is not to present arguments to the Supreme Court in which the President believes in, but rather put those arguments with which the Court agrees, thus upholding the law. To argue that for constitutional purposes the penalty provisions may be viewed as the exercise of its taxation power by Congress, is not to admit that the penalty properly construed is a tax. Actually, let me give you a very good policy example. In most countries, taxes on cigarettes are very high. It is in part because they want to raise revenue in order to pay for the cost of health care for smokers. But, in effect, the principal object is to reduce smoking. The tax is pitched at the intersection between disincentive to smoke and incentive to evade through smuggling. If the tax is challenged, it will be defended on two grounds: the taxation authority and the police power (to protect health). It is a tax measure, but its point is something else. The ACA penalty is not a tax as such, even if it is, for administrative, and constitutional purposes, administered through the tax system. "Will you admit that Obama is a liar?" Well, on this issue at any rate, the response is clear. No.

- icarus-r

October 11, 2012 at 7:51pm

icarus-r You can't seem to distinguish ethics from a legal stratagems. You suggest that the Obama administration did not believe in the case it argued for before the nation! Even if that was true, this alone would constitute a form of dishonesty. Not everything that is allowed and advantageous in a legal context is ethical. The definition of tax you espouse is not relevant since Obama has conveniently taken positions both for and against the mandate being a tax, depending on what was advantageous at the time. It can't be both a tax in the courts and not a tax in the legislature. One of those positions was dishonest. Finally, you cowardly dodged my question on whether Obama was a liar.

- Nicomachus

October 11, 2012 at 8:59pm

"Finally, you cowardly dodged my question on whether Obama was a liar." If you think "No" is a dodge, you have a basic problem with the English language. "It can't be both a tax in the courts and not a tax in the legislature. One of those positions was dishonest." It can, because the two are different fora. "Obama has conveniently taken positions both for and against the mandate being a tax, depending on what was advantageous at the time." No. The object of the ACA is to have an individual mandate; backed up by a penalty. There it is - nothing dishonest about that. And the ACA is not a revenue raising law; nothing dishonest about that. The penalties for the mandate may be defended, before the courts, on two independent constitutional grounds. The USSC rejected one and accepted the other. Nothing unethical at all about Congress using its taxation power - as a constitutional basis for enacting legislation - in order to achieve a non-taxation objective. This is not a question of ethics. To frame it as such demonstrates your ignorance of law and of politics. Aristotle had two books, incidentally - Politics and Ethics - and there is a reason for it. They are different.

- icarus-r

October 11, 2012 at 10:23pm

seattleeng: "All those words, DSimon, and you didn't answer a simple question." Because your question isn't relevant to the assertion you made when you made it. You said "Sounds like most here are in the second group too." I wrote that there was nothing in these comments that supported that statement. You have not pointed to any, instead trying to justify your brazen assumption after the fact. I will not play your game. (I might equally ask you about situations where the fetus is horribly disabled, or where the woman's life is in some kind of danger, and ask at what point you feel that your assessment should take precedence over the woman's decision.) And all the other points I've made have gone unanswered (yet again). I could assume that means concession, but I'm not willing to make claims that don't have real evidence behind them.

- dsimon

October 11, 2012 at 10:59pm

icarus, you are not making any sense. "This is not a question of ethics." Of course it is. This is a discussion on honesty. That falls clearly in the realm of ethics. If we are not concerned with ethics, than lying or whatever other means to an end is acceptable and immaterial for both Romney and Obama. There would be no point to this conversation. This discussion is entirely about ethics. Earth to icarus? I am not going to debate this ad nauseum, so I leave you with this thought. The only way Obama is not liar in the scenario you assert is if all of the following are true: - The mandate is not a tax. - Obama truthfully declared this during the legislative phase. - As a legal stratagem, government lawyers advocated a position they knew to be false, namely that the mandate is a tax. - Advocacy of a falsehood in the courts is not considered deception. - For nefarious purposes, the Supreme Court conspired to erroneously uphold the mandate as a tax. But really, its not a tax. Or alternatively, we have my position: - Obama lied that the mandate is not a tax to get politically critical legislation passed. - The real truth came out in the courts. Finally.. "If you think "No" is a dodge, you have a basic problem with the English language" Please don't be coy. You did not simply state "No". You lawyered it up. It was obvious I was asking you a general question, given reference to my statement on Romney, not just "on this issue at any rate". This just underscores how intellectually dishonest you partisans are.

- Nicomachus

October 12, 2012 at 1:33am