Ethan makes a great point about Senator Obama’s foreign policy outline, specifically regarding its striking similarities to Mitt Romney’s own plan. I got into why this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for Obama or the Democrats on my own blog, but it’s worth pointing out here that Mittens has had his own share of duck-and-cover moments in this early campaign season.

The WaPo editorialized on Saturday about how Romney’s efforts to universalize health care in Massachusetts seems conspicuously absent from all of his stump speeches and apple pie parties in New Hampshire and Iowa:

Unless Americans are ready to move to a single-payer system — and even these emboldened Democrats aren’t making that leap — a pay-or-play employer mandate coupled with reforms to make insurance more affordable for individuals and small businesses is a sensible approach. Just ask California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), or — not that he mentions it very often on the campaign trail — former governor Mitt Romney (R), whose Massachusetts health-care plan included a requirement for employers to offer coverage or pay a “fee.”

Why doesn’t Romney flaunt his health care record more often? Probably the same reason Obama buries his hawkish tone in a long speech. Both men are doing the primary season shuffle, running away from the middle in order to flirt with the fringes. The question becomes however, if these men were to win their respective nominations, what would they look like in the general election? Would Obama start talking tough? Would Romney revert back to the raging liberal he truly is?

Time will tell.

Cross posted here.

Comments