[sickoflibs]

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.

[GOPsterinMA]

“He must explain why one law is good, the other is bad.”

I suspect he’ll try to muck through and say it’s a states’ rights issue?

[sickoflibs]

BTW : I am not one of those nutbags who claim we can now invade the GOP convention and replace Romney with some unspecified candidate who we cant even agree on (we all know who they mean.) I must live on the planet earth.

Romney campaign and allies must EFFECTIVELY beat Obama up and damage him. That is it.