Sarah Palin is not right very often, but I will give her credit for some consistency in her (limited) thought process here. I’ve often criticized Ron Paul for supporting limitations on the federal government while promoting a states’ rights view which could lead to increased restrictions on civil liberties on the state or local level. Mitt Romney has been trying to get away with attacking Barack Obama’s health care plan, which is largely modeled on Romneys health care plan in Massachusetts, by arguing that a mandate is okay on a state level but not on a national level. If, for the sake of discussion, you accept Palin’s opposition to mandates (a view I’m not entirely unsympathetic towards) at least she is brighter than Romney. If you outright oppose a mandate, then you should oppose the individual mandate regardless of whether it is imposed by a state or the federal government.Palin attacked Romney before he announced he is running:
“In my opinion, any mandate coming from government is not a good thing, so obviously … there will be more the explanation coming from former governor, Romney, on his support for government mandates,” Palin told reporters today.
When a reporter followed up that Romney has distinguished his state mandate from the federal one President Obama signed into law in 2010, Palin responded that even state mandates are problematic.
“He makes a good argument there that it does. States rights and authority and responsibility allowed in our states makes more sense than a big centralized government telling us what to do,” she said.
“However, even on a state level and even a local level, mandates coming from a governing body, it’s tough for a lot of us independent Americans to accept, because we have great faith in the private sectors and our own families … and our own businessmen and women making decisions for ourselves. Not any level of government telling us what to do.”
Of course there is still the problem that her ideas will do nothing to solve the health care crisis. I’d have far more respect for her if she opposed the mandate out of principle, but promoted an alternative solution which would actually work. It is possible to do, but any solution would still require more government action and regulation of insurance companies than Palin would ever accept.
Attacking Romney today led to speculation that Palin does still plan to run, but this is hardly conclusive proof. She might plan to run, but there is also another plausible explanation. Palin is primarily interested in publicity which increases her income. Leading people to believe she still plans to run keeps her in the news, and she has no qualms about making news by attacking her party’s front runner.
Actually Jay Leno had a pretty good idea in putting both Romney and Palin on the same ticket:
“I think Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin would be the perfect ticket. She can’t answer basic questions, and he has two answers for every question.”
