Replies

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.

RE :”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.”

I am more a true believer in limitations of Federal power than most who call themselves conservatives here. Many of the precidents that allowed this ruling, many by Republicans, I oppose almost alone here. I hated the GWB single mom tax credits. I don't like his or Obama’s geen energy tax credits. I don't just flip my positions because the WH changes party. Romney isn't running against any of that either.

But now that Roberts refused to do Republicans job for them, Romney running for POTUS has to be able to explain SPECIFICALLY why Obama-care is so bad at the Federal but SPECIFICALLY good in MA as he has been forced to claim. He is not going to get away with trying it avoid the subject as he is trying too. It's too big an issue now and it's a huge part of his record to try to bury.

Romney needs to explain SPECIFICALLY : 'Why does Obama-care kill jobs but Romney-care doesnt?' or he will get creamed in the debates.

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

Yes . We need to go back to 1900: We need to repeal all laws, Constitutional amendments back to 1900. . then all the regulations and government agencies that came with those laws and Constitutional amendments will vanish as they must.

RE :”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.”

I know Romney wants to avoid Romney-care and use states rights vs Federal limitations as a defense, BUT :

In 2009 Romney did a USA op-ed saying the Federal government should apply parts of the successful Romney-care at the federal level including the mandates. That was posted here many months ago. He also argued for the mandates at the Federal level in the 2008 debates echoing Democrats words now : It is needed to keep “free riders” from passing their medical costs on to others.

Romney never anticipated Obama-care mandate as becoming the overwhelming symbol Republicans would use to define it as evil, and their most desperate hope to have the SCOTUS throw it out, now lost.

He must explain why one law is good, the other is bad. He is in a hole he dug himself. He knew this was coming all through the primaries but still trashed the other candidates.