By the Left Coast Rebel
The following Freudian slip by Romney campaign's Andrea Saul reminds me of the "etch-a-sketch" slip (by a different Romney head cheese) a few months ago.
Peter Suderman at Reason:
Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul brought up Romney’s state-based health plan in response to an ugly, error-filled ad by a pro-Obama group run by former Obama press staffer Bill Burton. The ad implicitly accuses Romney of having killed a woman because she lost her health insurance when Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, closed the steel mill where she* her husband worked.
But Romney wasn’t actually participating in the day-to-day activities of Bain when she was let go; she didn’t die until five years after Bain closed the plant she was working at; and the woman’s husband, who is the face of the ad, has admitted that his wife retained her primary health insurance from a different employer following the closure of the plant.
Yet instead of simply debunking the fact-challenged ad, Saul’s response was to insist that “if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama’s economy.”
It’s a strange, contradictory argument. What the Romney campaign seems to be saying is that people in the state of Massachusetts are better off because Romney did for them what Obama did for the entire country — and what Romney has promised to undo for everyone outside of his home state.
If Romney’s preferred method of fixing the health system is to expand insurance through a policy vehicle like RomneyCare, then why insist so strongly on repealing ObamaCare, which is essentially RomneyCare at the federal level? Is his belief that every state should simply pass its own version of RomneyCare? (He has, after all, touted the Massachusetts plan as "a model for the nation.") If so, how is that substantially different, for the end user, from doing essentially the same thing through ObamaCare? Heck, thanks to the Supreme Court and the law’s exchange subsidy provisions, it already looks like many states are going to have the ability to opt out of much of the law. So what policy does Saul's defense of RomneyCare imply?
Romney's embrace of RomneyCare is also... unnecessary and incompetent:
Maybe it's a mistake to look at this through a policy lens. But if this is a general election strategy — a shift to the center — I can’t see that it’s likely to be very effective. In touting RomneyCare, all the Romney campaign has succeeded in doing is further weakening Romney’s criticism of Obama’s unpopular health law while reinforcing the perception that Romney is a pandering flip-flopper.
I highly disagree with Tea-Partiers who are going to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney on the misguided faith he will actually repeal ObamaCare. His actions, and that of those in his campaign, suggest otherwise.
I have friends in Massachusetts, and even in 2008 they told me that Mitt Romney was an empty suit that would say anything to get elected.
The etch-a-sketch candidate has no clothes.
Check out Gary Johnson for a true limited government alternative to Obama
RELATED: Per Memeorandum, Eric Erickson, "The Moment All the Doubts About Romney Resurfaced on the Right"