Actually, he does not favor “THE” assault weapons ban. There isn’t even an “assault weapons ban” being proposed that he favors.
He has said he supports the EXISTING law, (1934/1986), and does not support adding any NEW laws at this time.
And he does not support, at least at the federal level, universal healthcare OR a mandate, although he supported a mandated proof of ability to pay your medical bills as Governor of Mass.
There is some discussion over where the “conservative” position is on health care. Once you decide you aren’t going to let people die on the sidewalk in front of the hospital because they don’t have the cash to pay for a simple treatment that would save them, the application of conservative principles to solving the problem some other way becomes a bit murky.
That's just not true. In the May 15, 2007 Republican debate, he stated he favors "an assault weapons ban." Last month on meet the press, he said he "would have supported the original (1994) assault weapons ban." There is no EXISTING assault weapons ban, so he favors a change in law.
In the first New Hampshire debate, he said he supports a federal mandate that states enact universal healthcare, although he said the states can choose what sort of universal healthcare plan to enact (Arnold's socialist option or Romney's facist option, oh the choices we'll have).
Once you decide you aren’t going to let people die on the sidewalk in front of the hospital because they don’t have the cash to pay for a simple treatment that would save them, the application of conservative principles to solving the problem some other way becomes a bit murky.
Since we don't do that now, your statement makes little sense. Mitt said himself he "love['s]mandates." There's nothing conservative about that. Sometimes the real truth comes out for him when he stops reading from the script (e.g. when he instructed phone bank workers to "Make whatever promises you have to.")