From Thursday night’s Fox News All-Stars:

On whether Romney’s promise to repeal Obamacare nationally, despite his refusal to renounce Romneycare, will work politically:

Well, it’s a way to finesse it. I don’t think it’s terribly logical. It hinges on a kind of esoteric federalism argument — [that] it’s OK for states to do it, [but] not nationally — which is too narrow.
Nonetheless, I think he has the right theme when he announced today as a candidate. He’s running a Reagan-Carter campaign — a referendum about another guy. “Are you better off today than you were,” Reagan said, “four years ago.”
It’s not easy to make that case today — on Election Day 208 we were in financial collapse. So I think the way he is crafting it is to say: Are you as well off today as Obama promised you? Or: Are you as well off today – and here he’d be addressing independents — as you imagined you would be when you took a chance on this guy in 2008? And I think the answer is no.
He is running on the economy. Not on a theory or the size of government. Not running ideologically. He said… I ran a company, saved the Olympics. I was a governor. He is trying to make himself disappear and be the opposite of Obama.
It’s a smart strategy. It’s the only one — given his problem with Obamacare — he could adopt. I think it could work, although he will have a hard time on that central problem of Romneycare.

On whether Sarah Palin will still have influence on the Republican Party even if she decides against running for president:

Absolutely. But I disagree with my colleagues. I think her arrival in the state [of New Hampshire] is a coincidence. I think her driver made a wrong turn on the New Jersey turnpike and they just accidentally ended up in New Hampshire — of all places — today….
Look, she obviously is not running. If she is, it would be one of the most unusual, spectacularly original ways to actually run. I think, as she said, I want to be a presence and I want to be a voice. She could be king-maker. If it comes down to one or two candidates at the end… her endorsement will be sought extremely heavily by whoever is at the top tier.

On Indiana’s fight with the federal government over funding for Planned Parenthood:

Look, there is a policy issue here, of course. I agree with the spokesman for Indiana who said clearly the administration is trying to push a pro-abortion agenda. However, this issue hinges simply on the interpretation of the law.
And the law as everybody understands is you can’t use the funds, Medicaid funds to pay for the provision of abortion. Everybody agrees.
The question is if you have an outfit that does two things. Say, it performs abortion and claims teeth. Everybody understands you can’t pay for the abortion, but can you subsidize with Medicaid money the teeth-clean operation?
As I understand the law — the way it’s interpreted up until now — the answer has been yes….
We are a country of laws. This ought to be adjudicated in a court. Have Indiana sue the Medicaid administration over this and see who is right, because whatever your views on abortion are, either it’s allowed under [the Medicaid law] or not….
…
If the states had a [strong legal] claim on this, it’s hard to understand why 12 of the states who attempted this have caved and agreed to compromise to keep the [federal] money flowing….
But it shows how corrupted the programs with the state and the federal government are. It essentially wipes out the federalism. It makes the state the vassal of the federal government because…if Washington is funding you, it owns you.