[sickoflibs]

RE :”If I were him and asked the same question about Romneycare, I’d focus on it along the lines of “if a court says it’s a tax, I’ll say it’s a tax. But no court has ruled on it.”

He loses either way because he passed and defended the same thing in MA. So he ends up with :”It's a tax under Obama and a fine under me”

If Romney could say :”We tried Obama-care in MA and it worked out terrible so I know first hand that we must repeal it” at least some would believe he is serious, but that would cause him problems too.

Personally I think the fine-tax debate is silly one to be having.

[cuban leaf]

Actually, although I am no fan of Romney or his romneycare, this is something that really does play differently at the state level and if I were him I would explain the basic reason (eloquently, of course): That states are restrained by the simple fact that if business and citizens don’t like what they do, they can move to a different state. It keeps them “more” honest. When the FedGov does it, we’re all kinda stuck. It’s why FedGov involvement in the lives of the average citizen must be kept tightly in check.

Heck, in the 19th century, the only involvement the average person had with the FedGov their entire life was sending and receiving mail.