Mitt Romney is gambling that voters care more about federalism than about individual liberty. He is arguing that states such as Massachusetts should be able to do something—viz., mandate the purchase of health insurance—that the federal government may not do. I don't think many voters will buy this. A mandate at the state level is no better than a mandate at the federal level. Both are coercive. Why should I care whether the agent coercing me is Texas or the United States?
Addendum: The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal calls Romney's gamble a "daredevil campaign act." Indeed.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 