On that same note, the Wall Street Journal wrote today on how Perry, Rick Santroum and Newt Gingrich finally went after Romney on RomneyCare:
"This is something that was crafted for Massachusetts," Mr. Romney responded in Las Vegas, repeating his stock answer. "It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation." The former Governor says Mr. Obama's plan "must be repealed" and then states can experiment with their own health-care solutions.
Federalism is a virtue, yet Mr. Romney did previously promote his plan as a model until Democrats took his advice. "How much of our health-care plan applies to other states? A lot," he wrote in these pages in 2006. Mr. Romney repeated those sentiments in the hardcover version of his book "No Apology," though he cut them from the paperback.
But the larger and more important point is that Mr. Romney continues to defend his Massachusetts plan as a success for precisely the same reasons that President Obama says it should be imposed on all states. In reality, the Massachusetts plan is not a success and its problems are the best refutation of the duo's arguments.
...Mr. Romney has every right to cling to theories that were flawed in conception and have proven false in practice, though the rest of the GOP field has the responsibility to challenge his canned answers. The mental contortions that his health-care record requires need to be dissected—the way Mr. Obama will do if Mr. Romney is the nominee—to give GOP voters a chance to weigh the political liabilities that his candidacy might pose in 2012.
Or, if he is the nominee and if he is elected, to drive him to reject the RomneyCare model in favor of patient-centered, market-driven health-care reform. Mr. Romney laid out such a plan in Ann Arbor in May, even as he now evinces an unaffordable faith that government must pay to reduce the uninsured rate. But the uninsured rate would fall as costs were disciplined through choice and competition in a truly reformed system that Mr. Romney says he favors everywhere except Massachusetts.
Mr. Obama's unbridled expansion of government means that the election will present the electorate with the largest philosophical choice since 1980: To continue the trend toward a larger and growing government and the ever-higher taxes to pay for it, or to modernize the 20th century's broken government institutions. Republicans do not want to wake up in 2012 to discover that they have nominated someone who is unprepared, and maybe unwilling, to lead the reform of government that America needs.