Halperin reports the putative Republican frontrunner will address his Achilles’ heel Thursday in Michigan. Sort of:
Complete with PowerPoint presentation, [Romney] will “lay out plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.”
…Romney won’t back off his past statements on his Massachusetts health care law Thursday. The plan he is releasing is an updated version of the one he ran on in 2008. Romney’s rivals believe health care makes him unnominatable. Romney has failed so far in convincing the media and others that he can explain his record on this issue. By putting out a detailed plan well before any of his opponents, Romney has his best chance to move the conversation from the past to the future.
Questions about MassachusettsCare aren’t going to go away, especially not before his Republican rivals have had a run at it to see how much damage they might do. But spinning things forward is probably Romney’s only option. If Democrats’ use of the Massachusetts model made it difficult for Romney to embrace a national individual mandate, Obama’s constant gleeful reminders make it impossible. But Romney was making his federalism argument well before Congress starting crafting the ACA. And for all the flak he gets for flip-flopping, he’s actually been remarkably consistent (at least since acquiring national ambitions). From the way back machine, courtesy of Karen Tumulty:
Everyone around Romney had assumed this achievement would be a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, showcasing the data-driven, goal-oriented, utterly pragmatic side of Romney. But that side of him has emerged only rarely on the 2008 trail. Instead, he rarely discusses the details of his Massachusetts plan and certainly doesn’t tout his partnership with Kennedy. As a presidential candidate, he cautiously adheres to by-the-book Republican dogma of giving individual states leeway in the form of tax breaks to design their own reforms.
Romney explains this seemingly odd tactical choice by arguing that he never intended for his Massachusetts plan to be a role model for the rest of the country. “An individual mandate in most states today–in all states but one–would be irresponsible and unfair,” Romney says. “Because in most states today, insurance is too expensive.”
That was November, 2007. That’s also why it’s probably too late for him to go the total disavowal route, as Tim Pawlenty did with cap-and-trade. If Romney abandons his argument, opponents will just accuse him of more political expediency, already a widespread (if not slightly oversold) criticism of the former governor. So it sounds like he’ll try moving forward on Thursday.
