WSJ slams Mitt?

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has come out against presidential wannabe Mitt Romney saying he's a "compromised and not credible" candidate (and using the "RomneyCare" demagoguery they usually reserve for President Obama).

The newspaper's argument against Romney is that he put through a healthcare system in Massachusetts when he was governor. The WSJ (owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) is yet again on the wrong side of an legitimate issue.

Rather than use its editorial voice to put forward a real plan, to suggest a way forward, to report on anything that could help millions who need assistance, to report on the plans for healthcare reform being offered by its Republican/corporate masters (from which not a single real plan has been offered, by the way), the WSJ instead chooses instead to slam Romney for his good-faith effort to help the people of Massachussetts.

If this clear cynicism doesn't prove the point, then nothing does.

Mitt Romney, like him or not and regardless of his party affiliation, at least tried to do the right thing for Massachusetts. Full stop. His current calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act notwithstanding (and seemingly hypocritical), the irony of the situation he finds himself in is that he's probably an honorable man who is being vilified for having tried to do something honorable, yet he's being dishonored by people without a spec of it themselves.

Is Massachussetts' health system perfect? No way! But doing nothing helpful, simply sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who are at least trying to help, is cowardly and shameful.

Now Romney is having to run away from the right side of an issue toward the wrong side only to be blind-sided.