Mitt's not my guy--right now, I'd say I'm supporting Tim Pawlenty, unless Mitch Daniels gets in...in that case, I might switch to Mitch (I've established legal ownership of that phrase, so you have to pay me a quarter ever time you use it)--but I think he's getting kind of a raw deal on the healthcare issue. So, I'm going to give him some free advice.
First, he's got to stand by what he did, that is, he can't say that if he knew then what he knows now, he never would have supported healthcare reform in Massachusetts. Why? He's already got a reputation as a flip-flopper, as someone who changes his positions as circumstances dictate. So, he's gotta own the policy.
Second, he needs to make a pretty simple federalism argument: "When we passed the healthcare law in Massachusetts, it's because we believed it would work in one state--Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a relatively small, relatively wealthy state with a very small population of uninsured individuals and an excellent healthcare infrastructure. The program we created was designed to work in those circumstances. I would no sooner have imposed that model on every state than I would have insisted that all 50 states adopt Massachusetts' tax code, or its university system, or its welfare programs. But that's exactly what the Obama administration did, which is why I opposed the healthcare reform bill."
Here's another approach. It's more defensive, but a little fresher, too: "Imagine you're the governor of a small state, and you pass an education reform bill that you think is good for your state. A couple of years later, a presidential administration comes along and says, 'Gosh, we really like that education reform bill. We think EVERY state should have to adopt it.' Well, of course the states are going to scream bloody murder, as they should; it's not up to the federal government to dictate how each state manages education policy. But ask yourself, who should they be screaming at? The president who's trying to force everybody to adopt a one-size-fits-all education policy, or the guy who passed that policy in his state because he thought it was good for his state...a guy who never once suggested that what was right for his state was right for every other state, too?"
Comments