It seems to be the perfect opportunity to educate voters--especially the undecideds and some marginal Ron Paul supporters--of the hypocrisy of the so-called "conservatives". California wants to do something about the environment and for the first time since the EPA was created, Washington says "No. We need a national system/solution."
It's related to the same kind of trap we saw the Democratic candidates get into with the illegal immigrants/ drivers' license business. The press or the debate moderator asks a question about some issue that is decidedly "local" or even personal that has no place in a debate. We all remember the Bernard Shaw question to Dukakis in '88.
And they also got sandbagged with questions about local smoking ordinances, the drinking age and teaching about sex in schools. Huh?
The only candidate I've heard complain about this kind of thing is Ron Paul, with a different but also very effective issue--medical use of marijuana. Some states want to allow people who are dying of cancer and other ailments to use a drug that also has "recreational" uses to relieve pain. But the Feds step in and say "No."
Unfortunately, we're a long way from enlightened drug policy here--meaning total legalization. And any candidate advocating that would likely be slaughtered. But why not allow states to experiment, in the tradition of "federalism"?
"States' rights" has been a code term for racism in the past, but is there a place for it now?
All of these types of questions can be deflected by reminding the public that Washington does not set policy for everything, or should not. And by
making that point, some Democratic candidates might just win over some independents and Republicans.
Ron Paul is the best on this issue, but he's being subjected to questions as if he's running for dictator. He's not handling the questions that well. And some of the Democratic candidates are also victims of this kind of questioning, and for whatever reason, they are not well coached on how to respond. Obama and Clinton famously flubbed the drivers' license question. These candidates are sophisticated lawyers; the best answer was or should have been obvious.
A President Paul could not abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, etc. any more than a President Clinton could make states give drivers' licenses to illegal aliens or require second graders to be educated about homosexuality being okay. So why can't the candidates say that?
If the candidates continue to try to answer questions like this, instead of deflecting them, what's next? We've already been through "boxers or briefs" and "did you inhale?" Look how Huckabee dodged--for the time being--the question about Jesus and capital punishment.
Too bad Mitt Romney did not run as a Democrat. He is the only candidate other than Paul who has come out for "federalism". In connection with the Massachusetts health care program, Romney rightly says he would not want to impose that system on other states, since there might be better ones. Fred Thompson has also come close.
So what Democratic candidate will seize this issue?
The "federalist" solution is also the best response to questions about those divisive social issues. Looking toward the general election, I agree with Pat Buchanan that the Democratic candidates need to avoid the "nanny state" image.