You know how Mitt Romney has spent virtually the entire 2012 campaign hiding behind a state's rights argument on the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare, saying that the health reform plan he signed into law was okay because it was state-based but the one President Obama signed into law is a tyrannical usurpation of liberty because it's federal in scope?
Well, during a Republican debate in August, 2007, Romney answered a question about a federal expansion of children's health insurance by saying "we have to have our citizens insured" and that to accomplish that goal "what you have to do is what we did in Massachusetts." And because it was part of a debate, it's on video:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani, are either one of you for the expansion of children’s health insurance, as outlined by Senator Grassley?
MITT ROMNEY: Look, it’s critical to insure more people in this country. It doesn’t make sense to have 45 million people without insurance. It’s not good for them because they don’t get good preventative care and disease management, just as these folks have spoken about. But it’s not good for the rest of the citizens either, because if people aren’t insured, they go to the emergency room for their care when they get very sick. That’s expensive. They don’t have any insurance to cover it. So guess who pays? Everybody else. So it’s not good for the people that aren’t insured. It’s not good for everybody else. [Crosstalk]
We have to have our citizens insured, and we’re not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don’t have insurance aren’t paying taxes. What you have to do is what we did in Massachusetts. Is it perfect? No. But we say, let’s rely on personal responsibility, help people buy their own private insurance, get our citizens insured, not with a government takeover, not with new taxes needed, but instead with a free-market based system that gets all of our citizens in the system. No more free rides. It works.
Because he doesn't use the magic word "mandate," the video by itself might not make that big a splash. But it is an unambiguous endorsement of taking Romneycare national—unlike in his 2012 campaign, Romney makes no mention of the tenth amendment, and makes his case without respect to any "state's rights" concerns.
If Rick Santorum is smart, he'll use this passage as evidence that Mitt Romney was for taking Romneycare national before he was against it. Whatever Santorum does, if Romney manages to win the primary, you can bet your last dollar President Obama will use it against him.