Many of the pundits here and elsewhere seem to be on the attack against Mitt Romney because of his health care reform effort in Massachusetts known today as Romneycare. I think, whether one supports Mitt Romney or not, that this will be used by Obama should Romney be the GOP nominee. That is a given. That is a big proverbial "duh." Pontificating about this inevitability says very little and adds even less to the discussion. Instead of beating up the man about it, can we at least give Romney credit for attempting something in his state. We can debate the merits of the effort or whether the results worked as intended and, if not, why not and highlight why similarities to Obamacare will be even more disastrous at the national level.
These endless debates have concentrated on so many stupid topics- Gingrich's past indiscretions, Romney's private wealth, Cain's alleged philandering, etc. There are four points that need to be made here. First, while the press is portraying this process as nasty and dirty, they forget about the outright reverse racism exhibited by Herr Obama in 2008 against Hillary Clinton that makes anything said by any Republican this year look like jelly beans and unicorns. The purpose of a primary, hopefully, is to properly vet a potential candidate. I would rather these things get played out and answered now rather than in a general election debate against Obama. Related to this is the second point.
If these candidates (or should I say, if the MSM would let these candidates) would stick to issues, perhaps we could learn more about the shortcomings of Romneycare. Maybe we would be able to hear what Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or whoever else comes along would do about a national health care reform package rather than standing on stage and saying they would repeal Obamacare. The last time I heard, to repeal a law you need Congressional approval and, quite frankly, even if the GOP gains control of the Senate and keeps the House, there are not enough votes for cloture. The Republicans will not have a super-majority. Instead, they would have to revert to hypocrisy and use techniques they attacked Democrats over three short years ago. I would like to hear- not read- their health care proposals. Unfortunately, every time it approaches that, the attacks on Romneycare come out. Enough already! It was a piece of crap. OK- move on.
Third, Obamacare and Romneycare may be less of an issue (or a potentially bigger one) depending on how the Supreme Court rules this year. With arguments two months away, no one can really tell which way they will rule. I have written on this in the past and believe that the ruling can be very narrow, or Roberts can simply pass up the chance to stick it to Obama, stay out of politics and punt the ball two years down the line.
Finally, and worse, is the prospect expressed on the morning news shows this morning that Donald Trump (a/k/a Squirrel Head) is considering the possibility of an independent run. Although the man is a political (as well as business and television) joke to most intelligent political junkies, not every one pulling a lever in a voting booth is as discriminating in their choice. A Trump independent run would make all the talk of the electability of Romney or Gingrich or whoever obsolete. A Trump run would mean an even clearer path to the White House with an even bigger margin of victory for Obama. Does anyone expect an Obama fence sitter to choose Trump? I can see Romney fence sitters voting for him, though.
So, can we stop talking about Romney's electability based on Romneycare? Yes, we know it is an Achilles heel, but one that could be spun. At the very least, can we at least let the candidates explain themselves before the attacks begin, or before we just dismiss the response because we already made up our minds that we don't want Romney? That is for the voters of the primaries to decide. Its the purpose of the primaries.