Warner Todd Huston warns us that Mitt Romney...
"...is one of the main influences for Obama's socialist takeover of America's healthcare system."
I doff my hat to you sir. Correct.
However, after a video which Huston uses to make his case, he goes on to say:
"There is NO difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. None."
Technically not true, sir. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution of the United States of America that forbids states from doing what Romney did, ergo Romneycare is not unconstitutional on the federal level. Is it a good idea? No. Is it something that Massachusetts should have allowed to happen? Hell no! Unfortunately, I have to call Huston on the carpet for this technical mistake.
"...in 2012 the only way we'll win the White House away from Obama is to run against Obama. With Mitt Romney as our nominee that will be utterly impossible and he will cause us to lose in 2012."
Again, I disagree. But here, I think that Huston is vastly underestimating the people's discontent with President Obama, as well as underestimating the amount of damage that Obama can do betweenn 2010 and 2012. Absent a Perot-esque third-party vote splitter, Barack Hussein Soetero-Obama will lose in 2012. Which candidate Republicans run will merely determine the margin of said loss.
I understand the depths of Huston's anger. From a strictly philosophical standpoint, I share it. The fact still remains, however, that no one is forced to live in Massachusetts. That is one not-so-insignificant difference between Romney's baby and Obamacare: We can't escape socialized medicine now. There's no place left to run to.
All this having been said, while I don't share Huston's zeal for keeping Romney away from the 2012 presidential nomination, I think we can find far better candidates -- and Romneycare is one reason of several I feel that way.