Much of David Frum's work over the past several years has been dedicated to advancing the idea that small government conservatives are pushing Republicans in an extreme direction, leading them to embrace wrongheaded policies that, in the end, will cost them politically. In the latest attempt to advance this theme, Frum argues that had Mitt Romney not been forced to back away from it, Romneycare would have been an ideal way for him to counter President Obama's charges that his wealth has made him oblivious to the struggles of working class Americans. But in the process of making his case, Frum unfairly caricatures conservative critics of Romneycare and misrepresents the policies enacted by the Massachusetts health care law. In describing how Romney backed away from his health care law during the Republican primaries, Frum writes that, "Romney retreated under attack. Not his finest hour, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Attempting to reason with enraged people may only enrage them more." It's a cheap shot for Frum to describe conservative critics of Romneycare during the primary as if we were "enraged" children without engaging the actual criticisms of the law. Some of us simply don't believe that the way to fix our health care system is for the government -- whether at the federal or state level -- to mandate, regulate and subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Frum then argues that Obamacare is not a major issue of the campaign.  Yet even after the Supreme Court