In my previous post about galvanizing the conservative base over the Obamacare ruling, I mention how it's up to us to get Romney elected as well as congressman who will stand up and repeal this massive failure of a policy. And Romney, as expected, repeated his vow to repeal Obamacare from Day 1. There's only one small problem: Romneycare. For those that followed the Republican Primaries and debates, you'll remember that the more conservative candidates did a fine job blasting Romney for implementing the program that Obamacare was supposedly modeled after. Romney's responses to such attacks were pretty weak, citing the semantics between a state program and a federal program. This will not fly during the general election campaign.
Romney puts himself in a precarious position. By going full tilt about repealing Obamacare, he's risking himself once again to be defined as a flip flopper. I mean, how could someone who implemented the system that Obamacare was modeled after be so vehemently against Obamacare? I'm quite sure the Democrats will use this talking point at every turn they can to get the conversation off of Obamacare.
If Romney is going to capitalize on this rallying cry, he needs to get ahead of the issue. This next week will prove crucial for him as this is the time where he can cement and frame his stance about being against Obamacare despite him being the engineer of the system Obamacare was modeled after. If he fails to make this argument, the valuable independent vote could be turned off as they see this rallying cry as nothing but more politicizing. While there's definitely other reasons to vote against Obama, this resurfacing of his alleged flip flopping nature could reduce the turnout he'll sorely need to succeed.
So, how can he get ahead of it? By adopting Arthur Brooks' moral argument philosophy, Romney has to make a strong moral argument on the differences between federal and state government. There is one he could use: He believes in the sovereignty of the states to make up their own mind about health care reform and that a diverse nation such as ours can never have a "one size fits all" health care reform bill because what may work for Massachusetts doesn't mean it will work everywhere. He almost did that during Republican debates, but wasn't making the stronger moral case.
From there, he can expound upon the differences and all the other negative qualities about Obamacare that make it bad for the nation. The important part is that he needs to get ahead of the accusations and get set. If he doesn't, no amount of fact spewing will matter since he'll just look like a flip flopper.
Democrats and liberals WILL attack his credibility on this. By framing the distinction as an overreach of federal power, he affirms the sovereignty of the states, highlighting that the federal government should be limited.