This headline is oxymoron of the day: "Romney's tea party-friendly defense on health care":
Mitt Romney made some of his most significant statements yet this weekend about the health care bill he signed as governor of Massachusetts, offering a preview of his defense for what many are expecting to be a potent line of attack for Romney's opponents.
And in doing so, Romney appears be trying a tea party-ish angle
[. . .]
His next point may have been the most interesting, though. Romney emphasized that his state faced its own set of issues and sought to separate a state's effort from a federal one.
"Our approach was a state plan intended to address problems that were in many ways unique to Massachusetts,"Romney said. "What we did there as Republicans and Democrats was what the Constitution intended for states to do; we were one of the laboratories of democracy."
The subtle implication, of course, is that he wouldn't have tried for the United States what he attempted in Massachusetts. And that's how he separates himself from Obama.
But perhaps more interesting are Romney's not-so-subtle federalist overtones. Federalism - the belief that states should lead the way in effecting policy - is a very popular ideal in the tea party movement
What's not so popular in the tea party movement, of course, is Obama's health care bill.
I don't think too many people are going to buy this. Federalism isn't an excuse for a state doing any damn thing it wants to. Having the constitutional authority to do something is not the same thing as having the need to do something -- the best alternative to a bad health-care takeover is not a less bad takeover. It's no takeover. In those great laboratories of democracy, some experiments will succeed, some will fail, and some shouldn't even be attempted.
Comments
Where Mittens made his mistake was in not standing up and owning it as a huge mistake.
Had he done that, he'd (oddly enough) have a huge club against Obama and Obamacare by saying (over and over again) "Look, I tried it and it was a colossal failure in Massachussetts, nobody knows better than me that this behemoth MUST be repealed entirely"
But alas, he's decided to "nuance" his way out again.
Tim:
And here I thought that NUANCES only worked in ballroom dancing...
(guess Mitt found a NEW "two-step"?)
;)
Republicans eat their own. Romney is your only chance of beating Obama, and he can't pass your litmus test. You guys used to be more pragmatic. You're going to nominate a theocratic fascist and wonder how you lost. Go Huckabee!
Littlejohn, each party eats it's own every election cycle. A lot can happen before the primary. Remember how dems ate their own in the run up to 2008, like Hillary inventing the "birther" issue?
Patience old man, patience. We'll give you a nominee you can love to hate eventually.
So if I sleep with my friend's wife, but proclaim that I do not support the general proposotion of other people sleeping with their friend's wives, then my friend should really not be mad at me. Because, although I did sleep with his wife, I remain firmly opposed to what I did.