A reader writes:
Contra Massie, "It worked in Massachusetts" could be a decent narrative for Mitt Romney, if he was appealing to more than the Republican base. Take a look at the map you posted earlier today; Massachusetts has some of the highest GDP growth in the country. The state has been relatively lightly hit by the housing crisis. Unemployment is still rather high, but under 8%. And something staggeringly high, like 95-98% of the state, is covered by health insurance. This is a problem for Mitt, because, apparently, amongst Republican primary voters, the fewer people covered by insurance, the better.
But come general election time, this could be a problem for Perry. Texas has one of the highest percentages of people uncovered by health insurance, at 26%. Massachusetts is #1. Texas is #51.
(For adults, 19-64, the percentages are 33% vs 6%; for children it's 18% vs 3%.) That could be a pretty big hammer for the Democrats: "How is Rick Perry going to solve (arguably) the biggest problem in our generation when a quarter of his own state didn't have insurance?!"
And how does Texas (otherwise) work pretty well? Oil and gas. Again, that plays really well in the primaries, but maybe not so well in the general. Of course, Perry plays better in the GE than, say, Palin, Bachmann or Cain.
Another targets another vulnerability for Perry:
We now know that prior to his last reelection, the reality of the dire economy in Texas was hidden. Now the state's huge deficit has been exposed! Don't let lines like "Texas is working" go unchecked. It was all smoke and mirrors, and Perry will have to be held accountable for that!
Another goes into more detail:
The argument has always been that low taxes, small government and less regulation would grow the economy so the deficit could be avoided, if not kept at a minimum. That fiscal "responsibility" has left Texas with a deficit the size of California and New York – with all of their unions and social programs. So Texas doesn't have the same service or protections as the other two states, or the costs associated with those issues, and still has the same size deficit. Now that Perry will take credit for balancing the budget, which has to happen by law (As Chris Rock says, "You don't get credit for things you are supposed to do"), but it is difficult to argue that the "Texas Approach" is working. Perry will also take credit for adding jobs, which is nice, but the unemployment rate in Texas is similar to the unemployment rate in New York (though better than California), and has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation.
So if your model is huge deficits, draconian cuts in services, positive job growth, but lots of poverty and high unemployment, then yeah, "Texas is working."
The Dish 