WSJ puts another nail in the coffin

The Wall Street Journal today puts another nail in the Romney campaign's coffin. If he can't even rely on a conservative newspaper like the WSJ then he may indeed be in real trouble. The article makes several points to back up its dislike of Romney's candidacy, some of which are inaccurate or at least unfair:

Insurance in Massachusetts is among the most expensive in the nation because of multiple mandates, such as premium price controls and rules dictating that coverage be offered to all comers regardless of health. Mr. Romney's cardinal flaw was that he did not attempt to deregulate and allow the insurance market to function as it should.

That last line is the kicker. He did try, but faced with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature which had created the mandates in the first place he wasn't successful. This is inaccurate to say the least.

The mandate in combination with other regulations effectively socialized the Massachusetts insurance market.

Does the Wall Street Journal have some other definition of the word "socialized" than the rest of the world? There is no government provision or insurance for healthcare here - just private insurance provided by private companies to private individuals which can be used for private care in private hospitals. Absolutely, the plan wasn't perfect, and absolutely the Democrats hijacked it and created something of a Frankenstein's monster out of it - but this point too is overplayed in the op-ed:

None of this would bode well for a President Romney facing a Democratic Congress that would be even more relentless than the one in Boston.

Relentless? What does that mean? Certainly the national congress, even if Republicans lose further seats in November, would not be anywhere near as Democratic as the Massachusetts legislature. And with far more Republicans there, as well as broad support for Democrats for the principle, it's quite possible Romney might be able to get something much more like his original vision passed in Washington.

The op-ed ends up reading like a hatchet job by a group of people who have already made up their minds, not a thoughtful examination of Mitt's candidacy. What we really need - both from Mitt and from observers like the WSJ - is an examination of what we need in our next president, and how he measures up. I'll provide my version shortly