The Case Against the Federal Reserve's Recent Actions

Jim Grant gives a great CNBC interview and thinks that capitalism would be a great alternative to what we have now:



(h/t Zerohedge)

A Not So Super Tuesday

I think last night was probably pretty close to what I would have considered to be the worst case scenario.  Newt only won his home state of Georgia, Santorum won in Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota and Romney took the rest (Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Ohio, Alaska and Idaho).  I was hoping that Ron Paul would have been able to unite the not-Romney vote in Virginia and then take some of the small caucuses as his small devoted following could definitely tip the scales in states where a thousand votes can decide things.  Imagine what the stories would have looked like this morning if Ron Paul had taken Virginia, Alaska, Idaho & North Dakota while Newt took Georgia, Tennessee & Oklahoma?  People would have gone nuts, Santorum would have been all but finished and this race would be wide open.  As it stands now, Romney has a near 100% chance of being the nominee.  It would take a historically epic meltdown for him not to be.  We'd practically have to find out that he is an active White Supremacist, had a sexual affair with Barney Frank and/or find out that he is, as many have suspected, an android (preferably all three) for him to be denied the nomination at this point.  Money, organization and an automatic vote from Mormons (which helped flip usually very conservative western states to his side) have really proven to be insurmountable.  The constant splitting of the conservative vote hasn't helped either.  Santorum's strategy of sticking around, despite abysmal vote tally's after Iowa, to wait for Newt to be destroyed, has helped him vault to the #2 position but also seems to have helped Romney become the nominee.  I'm sure Santorum supporters could say the same thing about Newt sticking around but I really don't think Santorum could unite the party like Newt.  Santorum does well in states with lots of social conservatives while Newt has a more broad Reaganesque message which could potentially unite economic, social and foreign policy conservatives under one candidate.

I'm sure there will be some uber die hard Newt supporters who will attack me for not having enough faith.  Yes, I realize that Newt is not to be underestimated and that people have left him for dead before but I just don't see how he can be the nominee at this point.  We've had 23 contests and he has won a grand total of 2 of them.  He's underperforming what Mike Huckabee did in 2008 at this point who had won 6 of the first 31 contests.  Other than getting a nice big check from Fox to start his own show, Huckabee doesn't have much to show for that performance politically.  Let's say Newt wins in Alabama and Mississippi.  Then what?  Santorum isn't dropping out, so how does Newt get victories outside the deep South?  Heck, given his loss in Tennessee, which borders his home state of Georgia, I don't think even Alabama and Mississippi are done deals.  The most he can hope for is a denial of a majority of delegates to Romney and a brokered convention.  But the power brokers aren't going to go with Newt no matter what, they friggin hate him with a passion I've never seen.  Plus historically they have favored a more moderate candidate at conventions anyway, whether or not they personally like him.  In 1952, the very conservative Robert Taft got the shaft (with some delegates actually stolen from him at the convention) in favor of the RINO Eisenhower, who historically wasn't even a Republican.  In 1980, these power brokers were trying to get a co-Presidency agreement between Reagan and Gerald Ford to water down Reagan's conservatism.  If we have a brokered convention this year, we know Paul will go with Romney given his collusion with him this year anyway and Romney will walk away with the nomination one way or the other. 

What about Santorum?  He doesn't have much of a chance either.  He just has very little appeal outside of social conservative heavy states.  He just can't get to 1,144 without winning in the northeast and California and I find it hard to believe he will have a chance at that.  And again, a brokered convention is not going to nominate someone like him.

It seems all that is left for me to do is to decide who to vote for in the fall.  It definitely won't be Obama but it won't be Romney either (I decided that months ago).  I've never voted for a liberal in my life and I am not starting now.  The Libertarian Party might be getting another voter, despite my complete disagreement with them on foreign policy.  At least they believe in small government, unlike Obama and Romney.

Hamas Gives Israel Green Light to Strike Iran?

A Hamas official has been quoted as saying they won't have Iran's back if Israel decides to strike.  Pretty amazing.  You would think they would at least stay quiet to have some sort of deterrent effect, albeit limited:

Senior Politburo member in Gaza Strip Salah Bardawil said that Hamas "will not do Iran's bidding in any war with Israel, and will not launch rockets at Israel at Tehran's request."

"If there is a war between two powers, Hamas will not be part of such a war," Bardawil was quoted as saying. Hamas is not part of military alliances in the region. Our strategy is to defend our rights."

Analysts said that this somewhat surprising stance illustrates the rift between Hamas and Iran – its key financial patron; as well as Gaza-rulers' realignment with Egypt's new ruling party, the Muslim Brotherhood.

A second, anonymous Hamas source, told the British newspaper that the group "will not get involved in any war between Iran and Israel."

The Obama Volt

Truly awesome satire, that is both funny and completely true:

Chevy Volt - Building a Better Tomorrow from Ben Howe on Vimeo.

(h/t ZeroHedge)

Israeli Officials: Meeting with Obama was Lame

According to senior Israeli officials, Obama is clearly not going to do anything and is more worried about his re-election chances and the price of oil:

Israeli state officials were disappointed Tuesday with the results of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting at the White House on Monday. "There were no surprises," a senior state official said. "It was clear from recent months that there are differences between ourselves and the Americans. We have different perspectives when it comes to the question of time and red lines."

It was claimed that the Americans view the Iranian issue in the context of the upcoming presidential elections. "It's a bad message for the issue and a good message for the Iranians," a state official said.

...

"They won't tell us what to do. They have no interest in giving a red light or a green light because then they take responsibility for the situation. That is why we're in the grey zone now."

"As of yet, there is no decision to attack but we'll see what tomorrow brings," a senior official close to the talks with the Americans said. "Right now we are certain the Americans won't do anything and we need to decide what to do."

Referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with US President Barack Obama, he added: "The meeting was important because now everything is out in the open: The Americans want oil prices not to go up because it's bad for their economy."

The issue of oil rates also drew criticism from some state officials. "Oil prices? Come on. You have to consider the fate of the Western world and history. It's better to pay more for oil this year than to pay the cost for a nuclear Iran.

The Video of Bibi's Awesome AIPAC Speech on Iran

Looks like Israel has made up its mind:

Glick: Obama is Trying to Delay Israel Long Enough For Their Attack Window to Close

Another very astute analysis of Obama's AIPAC speech from Caroline Glick:

While he didn't pick a fight with Israel on Sunday, his speech did mark a clear attempt to undermine Israel's strategic position in a fundamental - indeed existential - way. As many commentators have noted in recent weeks, Israel and the US have different red lines for the Iranian nuclear program. These divergent red lines owe to the fact that the US has more options for attacking Iran's nuclear installations than Israel. 

From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program will reportedly become unstoppable as soon as the Iranians move a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium and/or centrifuges to the Fordow nuclear installation by Qom. Since Israel reportedly lacks the ability to destroy the facility, Israel's timeline for attacking Iran will likely end within weeks. The US reportedly has the capacity to successfully bomb Fordow and so its timeline for attacking Iran is longer than Israel's.

The reason this is important is because it tells us the true nature of Obama's demand that Israel give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. When one recognizes Israel's short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands. Again, once Iran's nuclear project is immune from an Israeli strike Obama will effectively hold the key to Israel's survival. Israel will be completely at his mercy.

Read the whole thing.  Once again, Obama's AIPAC speech is nothing more than an illusory chest thumping in support of Israel that is worth precisely the paper that it is printed on and doesn't mean what you think it means.  Remember in 2008, the last time he ran for the Presidency, he said he supported an "undivided Jersalem" at AIPAC?  Well that support lasted about a week.

Personally, I was also disturbed by this passage from yesterday's speech:

Already, there is too much loose talk of war.  Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.  For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.

Oil prices?  Really?  That makes me think that Obama is too chicken to attack Iran in an election year because he is worried about what oil prices might do.  The higher they go, the lower his odds of getting re-elected.  One marine logistics and services CEO thinks oil could go up to $440 a barrel in the event of conflict with Iran (essentially a quadrupling in price).  At that level, Obama could kiss his election goodbye.  And it is pretty obvious that given a choice between his re-election and a nuclear Iran, Obama would choose his re-election.

Newt Schools David Gregory on Meet the Press

He so needs to be the nominee:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

Obama Hates Israel

Watch this video from the Emergency Committee for Israel which extensively catalogs Obama's war on Israel:



(h/t Legal Insurrection)

The Cost of Obamacare Just Jumped by $111 Billion

The scariest thing about this jump is that Obamacare isn't even in full effect yet!:

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) is asking about a spike in the estimated costs of subsidies to help people buy private insurance — a central, and expensive, component of the new healthcare law.

The administration's budget request this year included $111 billion more for subsidies than its request last year. The difference falls across the same seven-year window.

"This staggering increase in health insurance exchange subsidy spending cannot be explained by legislative changes or new economic assumptions, and therefore must reflect substantial changes in underlying assumptions regarding the program's utilization and cost," Camp wrote Friday in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

...

Camp's letter cites Congressional Budget Office scores of two bills that passed since the White House submitted its last budget. Together, the bills were expected to cut the cost of exchange subsidies by about $9 billion, he said, making the White House's projected increase all the more surprising.

It's Do or Die Time for Conservatives and Libertarians. Time to Unite Behind One Candidate and Defeat Romney

It's time to stop dilly-dallying. Super Tuesday is upon us and with that, the nomination race could be all but over unless conservatives and libertarians finally unite behind one candidate, a candidate who can beat both Romney AND Obama. That candidate needs to be Newt.

Among the not-Romney's he is the only one who can unite the party. Economic conservatives like him because he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. Defense hawks like him because he is the most hawkish of the lot. Social conservatives, when they can get past his personal life, like him for his strong record on issues like abortion. And libertarians, like the Libertarian Party's nominee in 2008, Bob Barr, like him because he is economically libertarian and not over the top on social issues.

Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Santorum? He goes out of his way to attack individual freedom and libertarianism and completely blew his chance to be the nominee by focusing on social issues instead of the economy (probably because his economic policy record isn't really that great). Who attacks prenatal diagnostics? Or the idea of contraception? Or says he wants to vomit over a rather non-controversial (and somewhat revered) JFK speech? He has proven himself to be quite a bit more gaffe prone and offensive than Newt, despite the fact that people thought he was a "safer" option. Even I was offended by some of the stuff he said and I am a Pro-Life registered Republican. It's really not surprising that his support is crumbling like it is. See the latest tracking data from Gallup (Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black [matches his soul], Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green):

Santorum is just not ready for prime time. He is simply too divisive, offending gays, women, parents, protestants and libertarians (in total about 80-90% of the electorate). Unfortunately, he retains enough support to possibly give Romney a majority of the states on Super Tuesday. His conservative backers need to wake up quickly, bite the bullet and go with Newt. As the brilliant Thomas Sowell wrote:

Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.

Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.

Can anyone really argue with that?

I think Ron Paul supporters (the historically Republican ones, not the liberals who are just visiting the GOP for this election in order to support Paul) need to wake up as well. They are not furthering libertarianism at all by supporting Paul any more. He's made his point and has shown that he is a force to be reckoned with but supporting Paul on Tuesday just increases the chances that the most statist candidate, Mitt Romney, is nominated. Do you really want to be responsible for nominating the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to enact a socialist universal healthcare system in their states? Newt isn't a libertarian but he is the man who did the most to wound the leviathan in the last 30 years. Why not vote for him and give this country a chance? It clearly won't with either Romney or Obama.

Finally, Newt is simply the most electable candidate in the race right now. As I mentioned earlier, he can unite the party, has a great grasp of both politics and logic and can actually explain conservatism in a way that others can understand and agree with.  Santorum and Paul are both to extreme to get almost any independents over into the fold. 

Sure he has baggage but I think most of it will go away.  Freddie Mac? Let's see Obama bring that up when he received over $126,000 in bribes, err I mean donations, from Fannie and Freddie while he was in or seeking office (he was the #2 largest recipient in Congress, #1 was the notoriously corrupt Chris Dodd). Nancy Pelosi? Let's see Obama make an issue out of that one or Newt's opposition to cramming down the Ryan plan. 

It's time for believers in small government and personal liberty to unite behind Newt, otherwise we will once again have a Nixon vs. McGovern sort of choice in the fall.  And the stakes are just too high this election for that.

Santorum's Support Seems to be Collapsing

This chart from Gallup is probably making people in the Santorum campaign panic, at least a little. Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black (matches his soul), Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green:

If these were stock charts, I would say that it would make sense to lighten up on Romney as there is a lot of resistance at 36%, that Santorum still has a ways to go down (probably to 18%) and that Newt could be a buy as he has formed a base and seems to be trending up a little. Ron Paul looks like a value trap. A stock that you can make a good fundamental argument why it should go up but never goes anywhere.

Romney Hates You and Thinks You're Stupid

Yes, Romney hates you, the Republican voter, especially if you are conservative.  He doesn't want to get off of his elitist perch and try to actually campaign for your votes.  He thinks he is entitled to them (thanks to his pedigree and the fact he has been campaigning for 6 years) already and wants the elitists that he bribed with cash and future positions to reach out to you for him.  To make the attacks and to actually do the physican campaigning.  Haven't you noticed how distant he is from actual voters at events and how few interviews he gives (and when he does give interviews he seems to resent some of the questions)?  And his comments yesterday really drove home how much he despises us:

It's very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We've seen throughout the campaign that if you're willing to say really outrageous things that are accusatory and attacking President Obama that you're going to jump up in the polls. You know, I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am.

Basically, he is saying "oh that Republican base, they are like animals.  They are just too stupid to get me, they want someone to entertain them and show them something shiny. Well, I'm not stooping to their level."  He seems to have the same view of Republicans as the mainstream media, who think conservative Republicans are a mass of unevolved cretins.  That we don't like him purely because of his style.  That just proves that he really doesn't understand conservative Republicans at all.  We don't like Romney because we have absolutely zero faith that he will govern as a conservative.  He has a terrible record in Massachusetts and has already said he wants to increase the minimum wage and tax the rich as President.  It's also pretty clear that he won't repeal Obamacare, which is based on his own universal healthcare plan.  Also, it seems weird that Romney is unwilling to really go after Obama given the merciless attacks he has leveled against his own fellow Republicans. 

Which brings me to the real evidence that he thinks Republican voters are stupid.  The actual content of his attacks on fellow Republicans are 100% hypocritical and anyone with any memory can see through them.  Romney savaged Newt for supporting an individual mandate in the past, despite being the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to actually pass an individual mandate in their state.  Attacked Newt for his plan to combat illegal immigration while at the same time not being clear how his plan would actually be different.  He even accused Newt of funding abortions despite the fact that Newt has a 98.6% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee while Romney was pro-choice for years.  Recently, he attacked Santorum for voting for earmarks that he himself received and voting for No Child Left Behind, which he himself supported!

He probably can't wait until the nomination fight is over so he can pivot to the left and never have to deal with the hated Republican base again.

All's Fair in Love and Defeating Romney

I do understand why I should be upset by Santorum's robocalls in Michigan which try to attract Democrats by attacking Romney's support for TARP and his lack of support for the GM bailout.  In fact, Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has a great post on the subject.  But honestly, I have come to the conclusion that I don't care.  All is fair in love and defeating Romney.  He is the biggest hypocrite in politics that I have seen in a long time and he needs to be  beaten and beaten badly.  This is the guy who savaged Newt for supporting an individual mandate in the past, despite being the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to actually pass an individual mandate in their state.  Attacked Newt for his plan to combat illegal immigration while at the same time not being clear how his plan would actually be different.  He even accused Newt of funding abortions despite the fact that Newt has a 98.6% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee while Romney was pro-choice for years.  Recently, he attacked Santorum for voting for earmarks that he himself received and voting for No Child Left Behind, which he himself supported!

I don't care what tactics any of the GOP candidates use to defeat him anymore.  He clearly deserves it. 

What really is funny is the comment he made in December when Newt's campaign was complaining about Romney's over the top negative advertising.  Romney said,  "if you can't stand the heat in this little kitchen, wait until the Obama's Hell's Kitchen turns up the heat."  Now what is that saying about Karma again?

Why is Obama Cutting Active Duty Soldier Benefits While Leaving Civilian Public Employee Benefits Alone?

Obama's war on our troops continues.  Seriously, he seems to have some vendetta against them.  Recently, he has agreed to put US soldiers on trial for burning paper and now is going to severely cut their benefits.  What has he done to civilian public employees?  Frozen their overly inflated pay and that's it.  If you look at government employees as a country unto itself, by targeting our active duty personnel, Obama is in effect targeting the poor in order to be able to continue to fund the rich.  In 2010, the average civilian public employee took in $83,679 in wages.  Based on the 2010 military pay tables that is the equivalent pay of a Lieutenant Colonel with over 12 years of service.  Just to let you know how high up that rank is, a Lieutenant Colonel typically commands a battalion, which can have anywhere between 300-1,200 men (in the Navy, the equivalent rank, Commander, commands a frigate, submarine or destroyer).  A Sergeant Major, the highest enlisted rank, with over 18 years experience, only makes $61,355.  It seems outrageous that parasitic bureaucrats who do nothing productive make more money than people who are physically defending our country and are also completely immune to benefit cuts!  But it is pretty clear why he is targeting soldiers instead of their higher paid civilian counterparts.  Civilian public sector employees are unionized and tend to vote Democratic, while soldiers tend to vote Republican.  How else do you explain it? 

Is Obama Going to Let US Soldiers Go On Trial for Burning Korans?

This was a disturbing announcement from the Afghan government with relation to the Koran burning incident:

NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation's demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible.

An open trial?  For burning pieces of paper?  Sure it was a mistake, but mistakes happen.  For our troops to risk their lives thousands of miles away and then to be thrown to the wolves when politically expedient is a travesty.  What's next, trials for female American soldiers for not wearing burkhas?

Can Santorum Win in Michigan?

I have to say I am relatively surprised by Santorum's resilience in the Michigan polls.  After his rather unfortunate detour into the rabbit hole of his very social conservative views (attacking prenatal diagnostics, etc.), which even Pat Buchanan criticized, and his poor debate performance, I thought Santorum's bubble was going to pop.  While it is certainly popping in Arizona and nationally, in Michigan he actually seems to be gaining some momentum in the last few days.  In the latest PPP poll, he actually leads Romney by 39 to 34 amongst people who plan on voting on election day.  It is only because of the 16% of people who have already voted, who break overwhelmingly for Romney, that Romney comes out with a 2% lead in that poll.  It seems that if turnout is high, Santorum will win, if it is low, it will be Romney, who hasn't been doing himself any favors with his comments about his Cadillacs and just a general lack of excitement for his campaign. 

The question is, why is Santorum continuing to do well in Michigan (and possibly giving Romney a loss in his home state) while he is doing poorly in Arizona, which also has a primary on the same day?  I think the answer is just basic politics.  He is physically campaigning in Michigan but is mostly skipping Arizona.  Despite often coming across as very unlikeable to many, it seems that when people actually get to see him, as they did in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri & Colorado, and when he is not in Newt's shadow (who is campaigning with an almost identical platform), people really like him and come out to vote for him.  Yes he has made compromises while in office, but unlike Romney, he admits his mistakes and rightly points out that he has a very conservative voting record considering he comes from a pretty blue state.  He just comes across as honest, diligent and hard working.  Sure, he isn't anywhere near as inspiring a speaker as Newt, nor as slick and prepared as Romney, but there is certainly some sort of x-factor with him that seems to be connecting.  Romney's attempt at constant character assassination seems not to be working as well as in the past also.  Perhaps people are used to it by now but also it could just be that Santorum is a pretty straight laced guy so slinging mud at him is particularly challenging.  Unless you find that he did something obviously out of character for the image he constructed, like had a gay love affair, it's tough to get stuff to stick.

If Santorum does win in Michigan, all the pundits will have to eat so much crow that there will have to be a new addition to the endangered species list.  His prior wins have either been in low turnout caucuses (IA, MN, CO) or in a non-binding primary where Newt wasn't even on the ballot (MO).  To win a primary in a major state like Michigan, Romney's home state where his father was Governor, will show everyone that his base is far beyond just "bible beating" evangelicals.  I would expect his national numbers to start to recover as they seem to be driven by momentum more than anything else.  And a Michigan win for Santorum will be a big momentum swing in his favor.  It would help him in Washington, which has a caucus on Sunday, March 3rd and then in quite a few states on Super Tuesday, March 6th.  If he wins Michigan, he has a great shot at winning in Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee, leaving Romney with just Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia (where only he and Paul are on the ballot).  Newt, unfortunately, even with a win in Georgia, would pretty much be crippled at that point.

I'm sure by this point many of you who have read more than a handful of my posts are wondering "hey, aren't you a Newt guy?  What is up with the pro-Santorum post?"  Yes, I am a Newt guy and have been very impressed with his campaign lately (just this weekend I watched him on Piers Morgan, at the CA GOP convention and at a Church in GA).  He has found the right issues to focus on (like $2.50 gas and Obama's tasteless apology to the Afghan government) and I think is the most electable candidate in the field in the general election.  Unfortunately, primaries are a lot about luck, momentum and scheduling and many factors can keep the best candidate from winning the nomination.  I'm of the mind that if the 1980 electon were held today that George H.W. Bush would be the nominee.  There was about 6 weeks back then between Iowa and New Hampshire and it took that long for Reagan to regain the momentum after losing Iowa.  If NH was only one week later, he probably would have lost that one too and we might have actually ended up with a second term of Jimmy Carter in the end.  So I am just being objective and realistic of what a victory in Michigan might mean for Santorum and to Newt.

Newt still has a chance.  It is small but nobody really thought his souffle could rise twice, so who is to say it can't rise a third time?  If Santorum is routed in Arizona, Michigan and Washington and Newt keeps pounding away so well on Obama as he has been, conservative voters might wake up to the candidate who so clearly is voicing our frustrations with the current administration and its actions.  But for something to happen, it probably has to happen by March 6th.

Watch Newt Take Apart Obama's Energy Speech

Definitely worth watching:



Video streaming by Ustream

(h/t Conservatives with Newt)

Romney: How Dare Santorum Endorse Someone like Me!

Alec MacGillis at the New Republic makes a phenomenal point (which is what it takes for me to link to something at the New Republic) about how ludicrous Romney's attacks on Santorum's Specter endorsement are:

Santorum is being pilloried for having endorsed against a primary challenge a sitting senator from his own party and his own state who was also endorsed by the Republican president at the time. The senator he endorsed was pro-choice and went on to vote for universal health care legislation. Santorum is being attacked for this endorsement by a man who himself was pro-choice and signed into law universal health care legislation. So Santorum's crime, in Romney's eyes, is to have endorsed someone whose moderation resembled that of ... Mitt Romney.

Romney Caught in a Big Lie During the Debate

The Boston Catholic Insider has caught Romney in an outright lie.  During the Wednsday's Arizona debate he stated:

KING (Moderator): Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the governor to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics' rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement."

But here is what really happened:

In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called "morning-after-pill," knowing his veto would be overridden, but months later, he decided Catholic hospitals did have to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Key points to note:

1. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals
2. He reversed his own July 2005 veto against abortifacients by signing an October bill seeking a federal waiver to expand distribution of Plan B abortifacients.
3. On December 7, 2005, Romney's Department of Public Health said that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections
4. On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B "morning after pill" to rape victims.  He was quoted as saying, ""I think, in my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide  information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a  victim of rape."

The Boston Catholic Insider concludes:

For him to suggest to the citizens of the United States on national television that Cardinal O'Malley and the Catholic Church would "voluntarily" provide morning-after pills is an egregious misrepresentation of Catholic Church teachings and an egregious misrepresentation of what actually happened in this situation.

BCI hopes that the media and other candidates call him out on this.

I'd like to see him wriggle out of this one.  My guess is that he will use a Clinton-esque argument related to how in his response he said the "Catholic Church" was not required to provide the pills, which is technically true as Catholic hospitals are not the Catholic Church, despite the fact the question explicitly referred to Catholic hospitals.
 

What a slimeball.