Mitt Romney used a Monday meeting with Aurora, CO, Republicans to defend state health insurance mandates while he hypocritically blasted ObamaCare, which probably is unconstitutional because it mandates that all Americans buy health insurance.

What's so disturbing is that Romney supports state mandates that residents buy health insurance. He says the states have the right to impose mandates while it's unconstitutional for the Feds to do so. He boasts that Mass. residents like their mandated health insurance, which has nearly bankrupted the state and its health insurers and has made it very difficult to get to see a doctor in less than two months.

If you want proof that social issues Republicans aren't conservatives, pay attention to how they are putting GOP presidential candidates into a corner and how they are all but re-electing President Obama.

Anti-abortionists are guaranteeing that Obama will be re-elected and will appoint several liberal, pro-choice justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate and federal district courts. He'll also continue to stack federal agencies with pro-choice appointees who will drive the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage folks crazy.

Here's the evidence. The Susan B. Anthony anti-abortionists have gotten Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum to sign it's anti-abortion pledge. 

That makes them virtually unelectable in 2012. Ask Colorado's Ken Buck who lost his U.S. Senate race in 2010 because he opposes abortions.

Mitt Romney is running as an anti-abortionist, but he has refused to sign the anti-abortion pledge. If he sticks to his guns, he'll probably be only a little more electable than the rest of the field. But he has other problems. He has poor political instincts and skills. He supports mandates that Americans buy health insurance, ethanol, expensive electric power and many of the EPA's job-killing environmental regulations.

Indeed,  all of the Republican candidates say they are for less government spending and lower taxes. But just as Romney supports tax credits and government subsidies for corn ethanol,  the other candidates support government subsidies and tax credits for having kids and buying houses. The  anti-spending GOP candidates are for subsidizing the richest and smartest Medicare beneficiaries who want to continue government subsidies for Medicare Advantage.

They can't have it both ways. They can't claim to be Small Government Republicans when they're Big Government Republicans on social issues and many aspects of federal spending. 

Democrats will hammer them on wanting to make women who have been raped have their rapists' babies and either live with them or put them up for adoption. The Left will hammer Republicans on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all of the issues that the American "Moocher Nation" treasures. 

This will make it easy for Obama and Obama Democrats to win a lot of elections in 2012.

President George W. Bush's legacy is Obama. You can't do worse than that. But the GOP presidential candidates are doing all they can to give Obama a second term.

LINKs:

Romney, pro-life group exchange fire, by Erik Wasson.

An abortion pledge mess, by Jennifer Rubin.

Mitt Romney will be in Aurora Monday to meet with owners of small businesses before he attends a fund raiser in Cherry Hills Village, the Post reports.

I think that guests should ask Romney:

1. Why do you support big businesses like health insurers, hospital companies and big pharamas as well as big health care unions over small employers who will be destroyed by ObamneyCare?

2. If you think it's ok for states to mandate that individuals buy health insurance, do you also think it's ok for the government to mandate that we buy ethanol, energy efficient light bulbs, electric and hybrid cars, and other products and services that political interest groups pay politicians to force us to buy?

3. Why do you buy Al Gore's global warming alarmism? Is it because Iowa farmers buy it because they want to sell corn to ethanol producers and they want the government to force us to buy gas/ethanol, which cuts our milelage by 20%? You're supposed to be a sharp analyst. So why do you buy the work of discredited climate academics and politically-motivated UN commissions?

4. You claim that your business experience has prepared you for the presidency. But so far you're a failed politician who makes dumb jokes about being unemployed and who has been unable to convince anyone that you believe anything. Why do you want to be president other than you'd like a place in history?

I know. The guests will be too polite to ask hard questions. And that's why Obama will be re-elected.

W's legacy is Obama. You can't do worse than that, but Ethanol and ObamneyCare Romney sure is trying.

We have two guys in Rick Perry and Mitt Romney who believe in mandating that Americans buy certain health care services and products that they think everyone must have for the good of the country. Romney's the leading GOP candidate for his party's presidential nomination, and Perry is thinking about taking on Romney.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is getting a lot of new attention since she announced Monday that she is running for president. I think there's a 30% chance that she'll win the Republican presidential nomination.

She performed as well as the other six candidates at the CNN New Hampshire forum for GOP presidential candidates. That none of the candidates made a huge, commanding impression at the CNN forum shows that Bachmann is a member of a strong field of Republican candidates for president. The number of candidates  may grow if Texas Gov. Rick Perry or former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin decides to run. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is scheduled to announce his candidacy next week.

While Bachmann performed relatively well Monday and has been a social issues darling for years, her overall records in Congress and on the stump have been very mixed. Until Monday, she has been seen as a bomb thrower on the stump. Like President Obama, she doesn't have executive experience. She has one of the highest and worst staff turnover records in Congress, but her senior advisors seem to stick around. She's been in the U.S. House less than six years and seems to have spent most of that time campaigning, not legislating.

As a member of the Minnesota Senate and in the House, she has a record of seeking earmarks for her district and voting for farm subsidies that benefit her family's farm.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's camp apparently has put out the word that he couldn't work with State Sen. Bachmann because she is "difficult." House GOP leaders apparently agree, because they refused to make her a member of the House GOP leadership earlier this year.

In a recent op-ed page interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bachmann impressed Small Government Republicans with her views on economic policy.

But when it comes to social issues like abortion, a woman's right to have a decent life instead of raising her rapist's kid and gay marriage, Bachmann is a hugely Big Government Republican. 

Like Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and failed U.S. Senate candidates like Colorado's Ken Buck, Bachmann is trying to leverage and exploit her religious beliefs and use them to increase her political power. 

Bachmann is not a Small Government Republican. In fact, while she generously contributes to other Big Government Republican Congressional candidates, she reportedly doesn't contribute to moderate Republicans. If she can't support Small Government Republicans, how can she win the votes of independents who might otherwise support her against Obama?

Fundraising may be a challenge for Bachmann. She has been very successful in raising money for her Congressional campaigns. Her fundraising staff looks pretty good, she has a good following among social issues and Tea Party Republicans and she should do well when it comes to raising money online. But it takes more than online fundraising to finance a $750 million to $1 billion-plus presidential campaign. Big donors are key, and, to date, most big donors have been gravitating toward the front runner in the campaign, Mitt Romney. They also appear to be urging Perry to run.

How many big money donors will support an unpredictable, anti-establishment candidate from the House like Bachmann. I'm guessing that not many will, and certainly not enough to make her a strong candidate in the primaries or in a general election.

Yes, Bachmann has strong support from the Tea Party, whatever that is. But in 2008, tea partiers showed that they were political rookies who don't believe in working for or giving money to their candidates. So the Tea Party can't be expected to elect Bachmann, Palin or any of their other favorite candidates without strong support from establishment Big Government Republicans as well as Small Government Republicans and independents.

What Bachmann has going for her is the same thing that elected Obama. A lot of women will vote for her. A lot of conservative men seem to go gaga over Bachmann and Palin because they're smart, beautiful women. In other words, Bachmann will win the gullibles' votes. Others will vote for her because they think she can beat Obama, which I doubt. Bachmann is a Small Government Republican on economic issues. She has no foreign policy experience nor credentials. She will be demonized by the Left on social issues and because she's a conservative woman, which drives them crazy.

Most important for Bachmann is that she's not Obama. And that should favor any Republican in 2012.

LINKS:

First Thoughts: Five reasons to take Bachmann seriously.

Michele Bachman's record: Earmarks, farm subsidies and pardons? By Matt Lewis.

Bachmann Brain Trust Looks to 2012. By David M. Drucker.

Bachmann on abortion, budgets, foreign policy, etc.. Ontheissues.org.

Search the web for:

Bachmann fund raising

Bachmann Tea Party

Bachmann staff turnover

Bachmann abortion

Bachmann gay marriage

Bachmann earmarks

What I want GOP candidates to promise:

Republicans and Democrats need to read Tyler Cowen's new 15,000-word book, The great stagnation: How America ate all of the low hanging fruit of modern history, got sick and will (eventually) feel better. It's a $4 ebook at Amazon and will be published in hard cover June 9. 
 
The highly regarded economist and blogger (http://www.marginalrevolution.com), blames the financial crisis on the reality that "We thouight that we were richer than we are." Further, he says we're still stuck with the dangerous optimism that we can grow out of what may become a double dip recession.  
 
That won't happen, he warns, because the low hanging fruit of innovation and great opportunities have been picked for 40 years and it will be awhile before a new development like free 18th and 19th century land, the rail roads, telegraph, phones, autos, air planes, etc. comes along.  
 
Thus, politicians can no longer credibly promise that tax cuts or more government spending will cause the economy to grow more than 2% a year. He predicts that as a result, Big Government growth will slow or even disappear and that our future depends on our ability to reform education and encourage our brightest to become scientist and engineers. He says we must celebrate scientists and engineers and give them the status of today's investment bankers, lawyers and physicians. 
 
Bottom line: No president nor Congress can claim to have the solution for our slow economic growth. To make such claims shows a lack of integrity and a total misunderstanding of where we are in the economic development cycle. 
 
Along the way, Cowen relates how America picked the low hanging fruit to become the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world. He explains that modern communications generated Big Governments around the world, that increased spending on education since 1970 has provided few benefits to kids and that increased government spending on health care is not stimulating growth. 10% of the book is filled with fascinating notes. There is no index. 
 
David Brooks calls the book the most debated book of the year. This week's Business Week has a glowing story about Cowen. Take a couple of hours and catch up on the thinking of one of today's leading and best informed libertarians and economists.

I've spent a lot of time considering whether i'll back Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels. 

I first met Mitt back in the 1980s when I wrote a cover story on Baxter's "value improvement" service for hospitals that Mitt and Bain had developed for the company. Then I met and heard him at the NRO 2008 post election cruise. He is pretty impressive in person, and he has an impressive resume—outside of politics. 

So I've been following his presidential campaign since 2006 or 2007. Only now do I think I get it.

Mitt is good at organizing consultants to tackle problems. He immerses himself in data. But ultimately, he uses other peoples' ideas and recommendations. 

He's not really a detail guy nor an ideas guy. And he's not a street smart politician, as the Wall Street Journal's lede editorial, Obama's running mate; Mitt Romney's ObamaCare problem, explains today.

And he is a salesman and pr guy first, not a leader. 

He goes for the sale first, the solution second. 

This is why he comes across as shallow, pandering, cautious and as a flip flopper. 

He believes in private industry, consumer choice and Big Government. 

Big Government Consumer Choice is an oxymoron, and, I'm afraid, so is Mitt Romney.

I should note that up till now I've believed that Romney is the most electable Republican followed by Pawlenty and Daniels. 

I'm trying to not let my familiarity with Romney breed contempt while I'm still learning more about Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. 

Having read Pawlenty's campaign book, I have problems with his record and pandering to Iowa ethanol supporters as well as with his blatant exploitation of his religious beliefs for political purposes. 

As for Daniels, he looks like the smartest and most accomplished politician of the three guys, but I know less about his record and beliefs than I know about Romney and Pawlenty. 

And Daniels "muddling" through the process of deciding whether to run frosts me a bit. 

I'm still waiting to see which of the three guys has the best chance of beating Obama. 

So far, none of them are looking very good to me as candidates, but they all are better potential presidents and candidates than Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, Palin, Cain and Bachmann.

On Thursday, Mitt Romney, a yet-to-be-announced presidential candidate, will try to get the RomneyCare Massachusetts health insurance disaster off his back. 

Romney experimented with health insurance markets in Massachusetts, and his stab at increasing access to health services while containing costs has failed big time. Health insurance is more expensive and health care is harder to get in Massachusetts under Romney care. And 100,000 still are uninsured.

RomneyCare's costly failures will dog Mitt Romney until he explains how it has gone wrong and how he would fix the politically distorted health care and health insurance markets. So far, he's called for repeal of ObamaCare, but he seems incapable of showing that he's learned from RomneyCare's mistakes. Sally Pipes, a leading analyst of health insurance and health care markets in Canada and the U.S., spells out the cost of RomneyCare for Forbes. http://tiny.cc/zqwti . Impact graphs:

The waste management industry looks like a pretty good speculation for long-term dividend speculators. Today, I bought some  Repubiic Services Inc. and sold covered calls on the stock, as explained below. I may buy some Waste Management (WM) too to complete my investment in the industry. 

A post on Facebook by Crista Huff who blogs at The Right Huff got me interested in the stock, and I did some research on it, which I described on her FB thread. Since FB has made linking to threads clunky, I'm pasting my comments on Christa's thread below. This also will allow me to review my thinking about RSG and WM later.

The Denver Post, Democrats and Gov. Hickenlooper are showing their true colors. They  are spend and tax liberals who are willing to destroy private sector jobs in Colorado in an effort to preserve the jobs of ineffective teachers, unneeded school administrators and state employes who have little useful work to do. The Post endorsed higher taxes in an editorial this morning.

A Florida Federal District Judge who today ruled ObamaCare (PL 111-148) is unconstitutional because it mandates that all Americans must buy government-approved health insurance also ruled that the law's provisions that force states to spend more on Medicaid is constitutional according to case law. The only thing that will save the states on the Medicaid issue is the judge's ruling that the unconstitutionality of the mandates makes the whole law unconstitutional. Links:  Decision on Florida v. DHHS. Scholars, politicians discuss the ruling here.

Will Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann speak for voters who gave the GOP control of the House when they reply to President Obama's state of the union speech Tuesday night?

The answer will not be known until we hear one of them articulate the GOP's missions to cut spending and taxes in terms that will resonate with voters.

If all they do is talk about cutting spending without explaining the benefits of such cutting, Obama will win the day.

Instead of harping on cutting spending "for our children," Republicans must talk about cutting spending that favors General Electric, General Motors and General Dynamics and members of public unions.

Spending must be cut to put lobbyists like GE's Jeffrey Immelt out of the business of using his political clout to win advantages for GE over Americans who don't work for GE, GM, GD or federal and local government agencies.

Only when government subsidies and tax credits for those with highly paid lobbyists are eliminated will all Americans be able to play on a level playing field. 

As long as Obama's government favors one type of energy producer over another and favors producers of goods and services over consumers, only the Democrats' favored few—the General Electrics of the world— will enjoy opportunities to share in the American dream.

Democrats have long dismissed the "trickle down" theory of economics. And they've been right. Pouring money into the pockets of GE, GM, GD and public sector unions will not bring prosperity to all. 

Yet, Democrats are trying to sell the "trickle down" theory that they despise. They're saying that if the government spends billions that it doesn't have on infrastructure, favored energy producers and education, everyone will benefit. 

That simply is not true. Obama's spending and taxing proclivities will only make his friends rich and the rest of us poor.

So Republicans in the House will stop Obama Democrats from paying off their favorite lobbyists. Sorry, GE, GM, public sector unions and the bloated higher education and health care industries. 

Like all thinking Americans, Republicans believe that we must minimize government spending so that we can cut taxes and give every American worker and consumer an equal opportunity to prosper.

The Denver Post editorial page writer, Alicia Caldwell, continues to hype the findings of its panel of former members of the Colorado General Assembly. I posted the following in the comment section that follows the Post's defense of the panel's feckless findings:

With all due respect, the Big Government spend and tax Republicans and Democrats on the Panel fufilled the mission that the Big Government Denver Post editorial board gave them. 

The mission was to justify higher taxes, protect bloated government programs, call for increased spending on K-12 education and try to stop spending cuts in higher education, subsidies and tax credits for special interests and cuts in spending on transportation. 

Mission accomplished. The panel's report is credible only in the eyes of its members, a few Denver Post editorial writers, public employee unions, the Denver Metro Chamber and contractors and academics who slop at the public trough.

Even the Republicans on the General Assembly Joint Budget Committee appear to be protecting their contributors in the gimme community of government contractors. Frank McNulty, the Speaker of the House, a GOP lawyer, refuses to restructure and cut K-12 education spending and delay new spending on roads, bridges and infrastructure. He's even protecting the increase in the car tax, which the transportation lobby loves. However, Speaker McNulty said last week that higher education will take a spending cut this year.

Colorado continues to look like an Illinois wannabe.

Politicians have neither the skills nor the credibility to fix the state budget in ways that will encourage consumers to spend and businesses to grow in Colorado. 

What Hick and the legislature should do is hire Bain or some other strong management consulting company (not the big accounting firms) that doesn't work for state or federal governmental agencies to put together a turnaround plan. 

What the Post should do is hire two or three strong private sector economists, budget analysts and strategists to write a series of articles that show the public and the politicians how Colorado's laws and regulations can be changed. 

Show how the laws and budgets can be fixed so that Colorado won't follow Illinois, NY, California and other states into some form of default or bankruptcy. It is clear that the current editorial page staff doesn't have a clue.

Frankly, if you haven't figured it out already, I think the Post's panel did a tremendous disservice to Colorado. It was disingenuous and dishonest about what can and should be done. Maybe the panel's members just don't know any better.