Romney may have instituted a universal healthcare reform in the state of Massachusetts, but when it comes to explaining why he opposes the new healthcare reform in the country, he's at a slight loss for words. Although, in his defense, he does his best to try and nuance the distinction between the two.
The nytimes, while probably not on Romney's side, shows how he is trying to make the case against Obama's plan while defending his own actions back as Governor of Massachusetts. Currently he's on a book tour for his latest "Mitt Romney: No Apology". No sense either.
He clearly wants to woo the conservative republican base while not looking like a flip-flopper on his own policies. It's tough, and unfortunately, he's having trouble maneuvering out of this one. The best he can come up with? His was a state plan, whereas Obama's is a national plan. State sovereignty will always trump federal policy.
The media's not buying the spin though, at least not the nytimes. So I decided to check out how other papers are covering this, focusing mainly on conservative papers. I found this by the wall street journal. Basically, it's the same article as the times posted (they're both written by their own writers though), minus some of the harsher language used in the times. It's a clear hypocrisy, and it's nice to see not just one side recognizing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment