Today, to mark the beginning of arguments at the US Supreme Court in the fight over health care reform, Washington State Attorney General (and aspiring governor) Rob McKenna—who is part of the suit against health care reform—said he's all for helping the children and the needy. He just can't stand that damn mandate:

Protections for children with pre-existing conditions, young adults wishing to stay on their parents’ plans, and for those with little or no income need not be tied to an unconstitutional requirement forcing individuals to purchase government-approved insurance products. Such a requirement has never before been imposed on Americans by the federal government.

Which is a more complicated way of McKenna saying what he already said on KUOW's Weekday on Friday: "If the mandate is struck down, it's not going to result in the whole law being struck down."

Problem is, McKenna knows that his lawsuit is effectively going after both the mandate and the entire health care reform law—including those benefits McKenna claims to like, the ones for "children with pre-existing conditions," "young adults wishing to stay on their parents’ plans," and "those with little or no income."

As I noted in the January installment of McKenna vs. McKenna, a high court amicus brief that McKenna signed states:

Congress considered the individual mandate essential to the Act’s functioning, to its passage, and to its ability to achieve Congress’ goal of near-universal health insurance. This Court cannot remove the hub of the individual mandate while leaving the spokes in place without violating Congress’ evident intent.

And then there's this video, in which McKenna shows that he well understands how central the mandate is to the proper functioning of the entire health care reform act. (Which, of course, makes his contention that he's only going after the mandate—just the mandate!—simply not credible.)

As others are noting, this whole lawsuit represents a huge political gamble for McKenna. Which is probably why McKenna's telling the Supreme Court that the whole law needs to come down, mandate and spokes and all, while telling Washingtonians that he thinks all of the law's great benefits can survive the striking down of the mandate.