Mitt Romney’s speech to the CPAC convention shows that the greatest danger to the Republic is not from some hyper-ideological tea-partier, but from a hyper-ambitious arrogant technocrat. Romney’s failure to mention-even once-the issue of health care or his central role in crafting the Massachusetts health reform was hubris at its most intense.
You really should read economist Brad DeLong [ on what would be different if Romney, rather than Obama, had won the election in 2008. It’s brilliant. The key graf is:
All Republicans except a small grumbling fringe would be crowing about how ObamaCare — oops! I mean RomneyCare — is the golden mean between continued tolerance of a dysfunctional system and rash experimentation with overregulation. All would be saying that Republicans were able to get things done because they were not overambitious or free-market-phobic.
The single most important move that Massachusetts progressives can make as the 2012 presidential race forms up is to let no one forget that Romney was the person most responsible for the Massachusetts Health Care Reform. For pete’s sake, his family foundation made a grant to the Heritage Foundation to support the two guys who drafted the original legislation. The individual mandate was rendered, “personal responsibility.”
This guy really thinks he can blank out his key role in creating the Massachusetts health care changes and get elected president. Despite his laughable showing in 2008, I see Romney as a bigger threat in 2012. Although, if you agree with Brad DeLong, a Romney presidency might not be that different from an Obama second term. With the huge exception of appointments to the Supreme Court, I tend to agree with DeLong. But Romney is taking this over the edge. What are the best ways to get the message out about this compound hypocrisy?