Well, because polling on the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, says people don't like it. Obama beat Romney, and there are a whole series of issues on the table there. If it had been a referendum on Obamacare, Romney would have been president. But he didn't make it one, largely because he had passed something largely kinda similar to this in Massachusetts, that also also has many, any challenges and problems, and despite his other assets and virtues, it made him a flawed candidate for the presidency at a time when it should have been as the tweetor [...] suggests that would have been a more powerful issue.
Let me just get the argument in the first sentence out of the way. As we have seen many times before, Obamcare isn't very popular because a good chunk of people who disapprove of it, do so because it doesn't go far enough. They don't want to completely shred the law like Republicans in congress want.
Now for the second part of Grover's argument. I imagine many people were as puzzled as I was at the rationale. If people hated Obamacare as much as Grover claims, and wanted it repealed, wouldn't it make sense to vote for the guy who said he would do just that?
The argument seems to be, if I'm understanding it correctly, that Romney couldn't appeal to those people who wanted to get rid of Obamacare, because he himself passed the blueprint for Obamacare in Massachusetts.
Yeah...can't say I buy that excuse.
Sure, from the Republican side, if you're of the opinion that Obamacare is the greatest threat to freedom in the history of civilization, then yeah, picking the guy who basically created it as your ultimate weapon to eventually destroy it, might not have been the best strategy.
Still, from a purely pragmatic perspective (yay alliteration!), who gives a shit? I know teabaggers always hated Romney or anyone remotely to the left of Genghis Khan, for being insufficiently pure. But let us not forget that the whole point of Romney getting the nomination was precisely because he was insufficiently pure. It was the establishment's way of trying to put the minds of the non-teabagger portion of the electorate at ease. If a random voter who was on the fence felt slightly terrified at the sight of Michelle Bachmann biting off a live chicken's head, people like Jennifer Rubin could alleviate their concern by reminding said voter that Romney was a moderate, which is why he politely declined to participate in that portion of the Republican debate.
Anyway, whatever flaws Romney may have had, to my knowledge, he has never wavered on his promise to repeal Obamacare. Sure, there is the distinct possibility that he may not have approved of the idea of mandatory Bible study at NASA or allowing BP to annex the EPA, but the number one priority, that united ALL Republicans was the complete and utter destruction of Obamacare, which, again, Romney agreed to do. So it makes no sense that the American people wouldn't have voted Romney in to save them from this socialized monstrosity. What would they say? "Well, this sure is a horrible, awful destructive program that'll bankrupt the country and cause countless people to die on the streets....but hey, what the hell! Let's vote for the guy who wants to implement it, anyway!"
Grover and all his Republican buddies can keep believing most of America doesn't want universal health care if it helps them sleep better at night, but constantly repeating it won't make it come true.