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.
