I wish I could write as clearly as Mickey speaks.

Re: Mickey's notion that this is not a first principles issue since a state can issue a mandate.

We should allow the states to have more coercive power.  We're closer to state-level elected officials and have a greater say in changing bad laws.  If the laws are onerous enough, we can move to another state.  Competition between states checks their power.  A federal mandate is much more likely to be a permanent infringment on freedom. 

Romney's closing-the-deal problems have a more to do with changes in rules than with how he has run his campaign.  In 2008, New York and California were part of Super Tuesday, and McCain ended that day with 707 delegates.  Romney and Huckabee dropped shortly thereafter with no clear path. 

Republicans didn't like that outcome and changed the 2012 rules stretch out the process, making the early races proportional and pushing the larger states to much later.  

Against the expections set by prior nominating campaigns, Romney is  "weak."  Based on the new rules of the game, he's doing just fine. 

I also would prefer Romney to distance himself more from RomneyCare, but it's unfair to the man to suggest his healthcare position hasn't changed in the four plus years since that debate.  The reason that quote startles is because  he hasn't expressed those views in the past 27 debates.  His position is very clearly anti-ObamaCare with a strong federalist instinct to push it back to the states.