The last argument against Mitt Romney is not convincing:
MITT ROMNEY: The closest thing to a front-runner, the 63- year-old former Massachusetts governor has business and economic expertise, is solid in New Hampshire, where he finished second in 2008, and can raise plenty of money. The downside: Some Christian conservatives remain skeptical of his Mormon faith; Iowa, the first test, isn’t friendly, though Tom Rath, the longtime national committeeman from New Hampshire, dismisses the impact of a loss there: “No Republican ever wins Iowa and New Hampshire.” Most of all, the Massachusetts health-care measure, enacted when Romney was governor, looks like a state version of the national plan put in place by President Barack Obama. “It’s hard to distinguish the two,” says one of his likely rival candidates. “Most Americans don’t like Obamacare; almost all Republicans don’t.”
But there's an easy and very compelling defense here, namely that to enact Obamacare on the national level is bad policy and unconstitutional, but that to adopt a similar policy on the state level is perfectly appropriate if that's what the voters want. The fact that residents of Massachusetts who don't like Romneycare, or its economic effects, can move to other states makes Romneycare far more consistent with consent of the governed than Obamacare. Of course, Romney should explain what he plans to do about health care, but if he does, his policies in Massachusetts shouldn't count against him.