Earlier this month, Mitt Romney's chief spokesperson, Andrea Saul, gave the right a heart attack when she suggested on Fox News that struggling families nationwide would benefit greatly if only they lived under Romneycare at the national level -- implicitly endorsing the implementation of Obamacare.
Conservatives were livid, and the campaign was left confused and unsure what to say next.
As of yesterday, however, Team Romney seems to have settled on a new message, embracing the same law the candidate ignored for the last two years.
Asked about Todd Akin and the Republican Party's far-right line on women's health, Romney said, "[W]ith regards to women's health care, look, I'm the guy that was able to get health care for all of the women and men in my state.... I'm very proud of what we did and the fact that we helped women and men and children in our state."
This is just fascinating. Romney has a problem when it comes to the gender gap, so all of a sudden, "Romneycare," which has been a forbidden topic throughout the race, is seen as a possible solution. Left unsaid, of course, is Romney telling those on the right to keep their mouths shut because, well, he's running for president for Pete's sake.
More importantly, though, is the other detail Romney neglected to mention: he intends to destroy the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, which would mean necessarily stripping millions of families of insurance, consumer protections, and health benefits.
It's disjointed argument, isn't it? Romney can't be awful on women's health, the argument goes, because he brought coverage to so many women in Massachusetts, but don't worry, the argument continues, he'll take coverage away from millions of women nationwide if elected president.
Who's supposed to find this persuasive?
