The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on February 22, 2012, 08:38:19 PM
-
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49702
What's their problem with Romney?
As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.
Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)
Romney's approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.
Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.
Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.
The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney -- and for completely contradictory reasons.
The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.
Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is anti-Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin -- who has also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president on a major party's ticket be part of the Establishment?)
The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney -- though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.
Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?
I'm not sure what part of the Establishment supports Romney. Is it Romney supporter Christine O'Donnell, erstwhile tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the country is going to be just fine.)
I would think that the pristine example of the Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol. But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing that we choose someone not running by means of a contested convention.
Who are we trying to get nominated in a contested convention, anyway?
Without having seen this mystery candidate in action, how do we know he won't be another Rick Perry? You'll recall that Perry was the dream candidate until we saw him talk.
In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is especially baffling because there is no liberal candidate in the Republican primary this year.
Just four years ago, one Republican candidate for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton's impeachment and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First Amendment speech, federal laws to combat nonexistent global warming, and opposed Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts ("tax cuts for the rich!") and called waterboarding "torture."
That last one was our nominee: John McCain.
This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation.
That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.
Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a gallon of gas that the economy is improving simply by repeatedly saying so.
But then a large minority of those same conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often.
As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we're looking for here is facts, not chants or epithets.
But instead of popping Champagne corks over our final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism, some conservatives are still fighting old wars, rather like an old cold warrior prattling about the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved onto the war on terrorism.
This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that "the rich," the "right-wing media" and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.
It's as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates' positions -- which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates -- the only issue seems to be whether "They" are showing respect for "Us."
Striking a pose as the only true fighter for real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a national level.
The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about "green jobs."
If saving the environment is the best way to create new jobs, then it could be true that being a hard-core environmentalist nutcase is the best way to appeal to the mass of independent voters.
Similarly, if reducing contraception use, lobbying for Freddie Mac and promoting huge government programs such as moon colonies and No Child Left Behind are the best ways to create jobs, then it could be true that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are our strongest candidates in a general election.
Of course, it might also be true that dousing yourself in fairy dust does not guarantee that you will find the perfect mate and get the perfect job.
We're being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to "send a message." To whom? And what message? That we're morons? Message received!
Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we've run for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as "too Establishment."
-
I'm sorry,...I like Ann, I like what she has said regarding the failures of Liberal policies, ideology, and the double standard hypocrisy of the Left.
However, she either knows what we don't about Romney, or she is blinded by the, as some call "the Dead Elephant" party.....
Kinda like Donald Trump, now that he has endorsed Romney,...he engages his mouth without engaging his brain. Just another part of the "team".....known as the establishment Republican party....
Ann has shown her hypocrisy,....She can't stand McCain,....but "loves" Romney,....please describe the diff Ann.....
-
I'm sorry, but, Ann, BARFF...
-
That's why I separated the answers into every one else, and people who actually were there when he was Gov.
-
Ann says Obamacare is the second biggest threat, yet she is endorsing its grandfather. Hmmm. I wonder what she has been promised.
-
I lived through the Governorship of Willard "Mitt" Romney and I'll repeat what I've said before.
He was a far better Governor than any before or after here in the Peoples Republic.
Romneycare here is nothing at all like Obamacare in that it requires employers to provide health care and only provides a supplemental health care system for the very poor. I can't qualify for it because I make too much money on UNEMPLOYMENT at the moment. Yes, there are issues if you don't have insurance and that is a problem he'll have to explain. Remember, he was working with the most leftist legislature in the US who could have easily overrode any veto he issued. We were phuqued one way or another.
The 2nd Amendment issue is another that most are confused about on Romney. Whether he were governor or not at the time, we would still have what we have today. The fact that he was makes what we have a tiny bit more palatable.
The budget was balanced under Willard, in fact, he left a several billion dollar surplus that the current Obamalike leftist pissed away in short order. Whatever Mitt managed to do, Deval Patrick has managed to screw up and put us in the red to the 10th exponent!
I'm not going to check all of Coulters facts. She's trying to sell more books and is one of the better self aggrandizing marketing people I've ever seen. She certainly thinks highly of herself! I find her a bit annoying personally.
I didn't vote in your pole because it doesn't matter to me. If he's the guy we bring to the dance, I'll vote for him just as I did for Governor here. If it's Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Bobo the high functioning Clown from Bizzarville, I'll vote for them too!
-
This news item would tend to confirm another of her statements about Romney.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-shows-pitfalls-romney-proposed-national-e-verify-142419836.html
Arizona shows pitfalls in Romney’s proposed national E-Verify program
At Wednesday night's GOP debate, Mitt Romney called Arizona a "model" for immigration enforcement, singling out the state's 2007 law mandating that all employers use the national E-Verify database when hiring workers. He promised to institute a national E-Verify law if elected. "You do that, and just as Arizona is finding out, you can stop illegal immigration," he said. Last May, the state defeated the Chamber of Commerce's suit against the law in the Supreme Court.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MORE AT LINK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
-
Pretty well fed up with Ann's wall to wall Mittens love fest that she has been on. I don't think that I have read and article of hers in months that wasn't singing the praises of Mitt.
I do like Ann's take on most issues, and when it comes to writing and explaining issues she is very good. Lately though she sounds like a whiny liberal defending BHO. It's time to move on!
-
Pretty well fed up with Ann's wall to wall Mittens love fest that she has been on. I don't think that I have read and article of hers in months that wasn't singing the praises of Mitt.
I do like Ann's take on most issues, and when it comes to writing and explaining issues she is very good. Lately though she sounds like a whiny liberal defending BHO. It's time to move on!
Same here, it's the reason I'm willing to at least try to verify what she has to say here.
What any one thinks of her is irrelevant, I have never found her facts to be off in anything else.
To be honest, I don't mean to offend, but the only reply so far that I give any weight to is Tim's, since he was actually there.
-
I don't have the time to verify most of this but it seems accurate as I recall the time period. In 2003 I had more than enough other personal issues taking my attention away from what was happening in the Peoples Republic. There are several verifiable links for anyone interested in the facts.
http://www.aboutmittromney.com/state/massachusetts.htm
-
I don't have the time to verify most of this but it seems accurate as I recall the time period. In 2003 I had more than enough other personal issues taking my attention away from what was happening in the Peoples Republic. There are several verifiable links for anyone interested in the facts.
http://www.aboutmittromney.com/state/massachusetts.htm
I have to say, after reading the stuff at Tim's link, I'm leaning more that way.
One of his 2A endorsements comes from a guy who was a friend of my Dad's when I was a kid, and whom I would trust.
-
http://www.showmegunnews.com/2012/01/07/mitt-romney-signed-anti-gun-law-in-2004/
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban
Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.
A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007
Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill
The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress’ crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. ‘I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,’ Romney said.
Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald , Aug 1, 1994
Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, Romney said he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.” He signed up for “lifetime membership” of the NRA in August 2006 while pondering a presidential run, praising the group for “doing good things” and “supporting the right to bear arms.”
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” , Feb 5, 2008
http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
*****
During Romney’s term he signed several pieces of firearms regulation. A look at that regulation does not reveal an anti-gun Romney. Those bills are characterized as “net gains” for gun owners in a state where opinioned is weighed against them.
During his tenure, Gov. Romney was credited with several improvements to state laws, including protections for shooting clubs, restoration of the Inland Fish and Game Fund, and requirements that all new hunters pass a hunter safety course. He is also credited with relaxing manufacturing testing for some models of pistols.
In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons as well as clarified and insured other rights and responsibilities for gun owners. It was a hard-fought compromise between interest groups on both sides of the issue. The NRA Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement, and Massachusetts gun owners endorsed the bill.
*****
IMHO, He has a track record of political convenience. Walk the fence, try to "compromise" and get things done, some for the "red" folks, some for the "blue" folks.....
I think/hope enough "red" pressure will befall him if any anti-gun legislation comes to his desk...(if elected),,,,,however, he just comes across, to me, as kinda wishy washy almost RINO like....
Source: The Man, His Values, & His Vision, p. 72-73 , Aug 31, 2007
-
http://www.aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm
MYTH #1 - Signed anti-gun legislation creating assault weapons ban:
This is a myth propagated by the Boston Globe and other main-stream media outlets.
Regarding the legislation the myth refers to, the NRA declared:
“Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong...
“Myth: The gun ban was extended...
“Myth: The legislature somehow "won over" gun-rights supporters by including reforms.
“Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.”
NRA-ILA :: Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk - Jun 29, 2004
Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:
“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.”
Gun Owners’ Action League news - The Romney Record - Feb 2007
SUMMARY/HISTORY:
In 1998, Massachusetts passed a very restrictive, PERMANENT assault weapons ban along with many other very restrictive gun-control measures.
Romney worked for and signed a new law that undid significant aspects of that restrictive old gun-control law.
Gov Romney didn't have the votes to completely undo the permanent Massachusetts gun-ban, so he signed a new law that could be considered modifying the old assault weapons ban making it less restrictive, or could be considered a new assault weapons ban that was less restrictive and that gave more gun rights.
Check out the whole site, it makes some interesting reading
-
I'm still leaning towards that undisputed fact that Governors make far, far better Presidents than anyone who's come out of Congress regardless of whence they came!
It's why we don't generally elect Senators and Congressman. In general, they suck in their entirety! Never has that fact been more effectively proven as with our current Asshat in Chief!
I find so little to love in any of these guys that I'm just going with whomever in November! It just blows that we're already seeing polls that suggest that whomever we run against the AHIC, we're going to lose! It's kinda like calling the election before the polls close in California!
Stupid Tuesday is coming up soon! Vote or don't vote, it's up to you but don't cry in your beer if your guy ain't dancing in the end!
-
More food for thought
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50373
Any Republican governor of a blue state who manages to balance the budget without raising taxes should be a nominee for Mount Rushmore, to say nothing of president.
Mitt Romney was governor of a state so blue, it's North Korea with more Irish people, and he balanced the budget without raising taxes.
Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes as governor of California, imposing a $1 billion tax increase his first year in office. It was the largest tax hike by a governor in the nation's history, raising income, corporate, sales and inheritance taxes. Five years later, Reagan raised taxes again by another $1.5 billion.
To be fair, unlike liberals, he also provided tax rebates that, over his tenure in office, totaled $5.7 billion, including $4 billion in property tax rebates.
But even Reagan didn't stop the growth of state government: While he was governor of California, the budget increased from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion.
Republicans are able to contextualize Reagan's record -– it was California! -- but seem unable to contextualize Mitt Romney's record, even though he had to govern a state far more liberal than California was half a century ago.
When Reagan was governor, the California Assembly was majority Democrat, but the Senate was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.
Gov. Romney had to contend with a 200-person state Legislature that included only 29 Republicans.
As Reagan tax guru Arthur Laffer has admitted, Reagan's specialty was cutting taxes, not spending. Reagan, he said, found "it hard to say no" and cutting spending is a "green-eyeshade budget thing," that requires poring over budgets, whereas cutting taxes can be done in the abstract.
Romney is a green-eyeshade guy.
Like Reagan, Romney inherited a huge, Democrat-created budget deficit. The existing Massachusetts deficit was already more than half a billion dollars when Romney took office halfway through a fiscal year, with a projected deficit of $3 billion for the following fiscal year.
And yet, Romney balanced Massachusetts' budget each year he was in office and left the state with a surplus, without raising taxes.
To the contrary, every single budget Romney submitted included income tax cuts -- all of which were rejected by the 85-percent Democratic Legislature. (The last time Massachusetts legislators approved an income tax cut was when it was attached to a bill raising their own salaries by 55 percent.)
Romney balanced the budget by slashing spending, eliminating ridiculous corporate tax loopholes and increasing user fees for government services consumed by only some citizens, such as court filings, taking the bar exam, boating, hunting and golf licenses.
He cut state spending by $600 million, including reducing his own staff budget by $1.2 million, and hacked the largest government agency, Health and Human Services, down from 13 divisions to four. He did this largely by persuading the Legislature to give him emergency powers his first year in office to cut government programs without their consent.
Although Romney was not able to get any income tax cuts past the Democratic Legislature, he won other tax cuts totaling nearly $400 million, including a one-time capital gains tax rebate and a two-day sales tax holiday for all purchases under $2,500.
He also vetoed more bills than any other governor in Massachusetts history, before or since. He vetoed bills concerning access to birth control, more spending on state zoos, and the creation of an Asian-American commission -- all of which were reversed by the Legislature.
As Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said, "What else could he do?"
Romney left his successor, Deval Patrick, Democrat and friend of Obama, with a "rainy day fund" of $2.1 billion, more than tripled from $640 million when Romney took office. (Of course, as soon as Romney was gone, Patrick raided the rainy day fund, increased government spending and raised taxes.)
Meanwhile, when he was in Congress, Santorum wouldn't even vote to eliminate federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Santorum supported all sorts of big-government spending plans -- No Child Left Behind, prescription drug coverage for seniors and the "bridge to nowhere."
But you'd think we would at least have Santorum's vote against federal funding for pornographers and deviants. Alas, no.
The NEA, you will recall, uses federal taxpayer money to subsidize crucifixes submerged in urine, photos of bullwhips up a man's derriere, poems celebrating the Central Park jogger's rapists, photos of amputated human genitalia, vomit, mutilated corpses and dead fetuses. (And that was just the children's wing of the museum!)
But Rick Santorum voted against cutting funding for the NEA every time a vote was taken both as a representative and a senator -- in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997 and 1998. These weren't accidental votes. Each one was deemed a key conservative vote on which members of Congress would be graded by the American Conservative Union.
There's your "true conservative," values voters.
Unfortunately, the more time a person spends in Washington, the more likely he is to consider it perfectly reasonable for the federal government to redistribute money from hardworking taxpayers to pornographers, con men, charlatans and thieves.
America is on a precipice. Unless we send Lizzie Borden to Washington next January, our country will begin an inevitable decline into a useless socialist country, with no money for national defense, no entrepreneurship, no new businesses being created, no new pharmaceuticals or cancer cures -- just the endless redistribution of an ever-dwindling pool of wealth from the makers to the takers, overseen by career politicians like Rick Santorum.
Mitt Romney has spent no time in Washington. He was a rabidly frugal fiscal conservative in a state where cutting government spending was as foreign an idea as it is in Washington today.
Do you think a man who slashed government spending in North Korea, put the corrupt and financially bleeding Olympics on solid financial footing and rescued dozens of companies from bankruptcy would consider a photo of a bullwhip stuck in a man's buttocks a wise investment of the taxpayers' money?
-
I'll admit I yanked the handle for Romney in the primary here. I think Gingrich and Paul are done and Santorum is just another out of work congressmen whos record is less than impressive!
We need someone out the business community. It's never been tried before and Romney is the only guy that comes with the requisite experience.
I don't care about pornography, abortion, gay marriage, birth control or unicorn subsidies at this point. I care about the economy and national defense both of which he has pledged to support. I don't think anyone is coming for my guns but I'm not yet on the tin foil brigade either! If the MA Bureau of Firearms thinks they have an accurate accounting of the guns in the state they would be making a quantum mistake much the same as the British did in Concord and Lexington all those years ago!
Crucify me if you will but I'm going to support Willard from now till November.....
Scott Brown is trailing the Obama anus licker here so get on the Senate races and make a difference.
-
I'll admit I yanked the handle for Romney in the primary here. I think Gingrich and Paul are done and Santorum is just another out of work congressmen whos record is less than impressive!
We need someone out the business community. It's never been tried before and Romney is the only guy that comes with the requisite experience.
I don't care about pornography, abortion, gay marriage, birth control or unicorn subsidies at this point. I care about the economy and national defense both of which he has pledged to support. I don't think anyone is coming for my guns but I'm not yet on the tin foil brigade either! If the MA Bureau of Firearms thinks they have an accurate accounting of the guns in the state they would be making a quantum mistake much the same as the British did in Concord and Lexington all those years ago!
Crucify me if you will but I'm going to support Willard from now till November.....
Scott Brown is trailing the Obama anus licker here so get on the Senate races and make a difference.
2 things, first, the "porn thing" that AC was talking about is that our tax money is being used to fund it, and Santorum is OK with that.
The other thing is Scott Brown may have an "R" after his name, but he is as much of a BHO ass licker as his Dem opponent.
-
2 things, first, the "porn thing" that AC was talking about is that our tax money is being used to fund it, and Santorum is OK with that.
The other thing is Scott Brown may have an "R" after his name, but he is as much of a BHO ass licker as his Dem opponent.
Scott Brown is a disappointment and I still don't care about porn!
The NEA is another thing to abolish when we have the time! Right now, there are far more pressing things on the agenda!
-
Scott Brown is a disappointment and I still don't care about porn!
The NEA is another thing to abolish when we have the time! Right now, there are far more pressing things on the agenda!
Not really, while the NEA and NPR are each fairly small cutting Federal agencies should be the first step in deficit reduction.
-
Not really, while the NEA and NPR are each fairly small cutting Federal agencies should be the first step in deficit reduction.
I meant after we get rid of the current Admin and Congress!
-
I meant after we get rid of the current Admin and Congress!
That's the hardest part, but must be the priority. The Republican Presidential candidates, haven't done anything for me since Reagan.
Don't forget,...your local elections as well. Judges, County Commissioners, Council Members, Mayors, State Reps....right down to the damn dog catcher.
Google them, research them, vet them. Go to town hall meetings, be proactive, too many of the sheeple don't.
-
That's the hardest part, but must be the priority. The Republican Presidential candidates, haven't done anything for me since Reagan.
Don't forget,...your local elections as well. Judges, County Commissioners, Council Members, Mayors, State Reps....right down to the damn dog catcher.
Google them, research them, vet them. Go to town hall meetings, be proactive, too many of the sheeple don't.
It's not that hard up here Tom!
Pretty much any incumbent is a liberal Marxist...we had a chance to get at least one House seat back but the Kennedy kid stepped up to run for Bawny Franksucker's district and he immediately shot into a double digit lead!
-
As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.
Not everyone agrees:
Subject: America Needs Bold Conservative Leadership, not a Manufactured Candidate
The goal of conservatives is to scale back government, not manage big government more efficiently. Ronald Reagan had little business experience, but he also knew the business of government was carried out by people he appointed so he set about appointing conservatives. The lesson Reagan left us is that, when it comes to governing, a candidate’s worldview is far more important than business experience, primarily because one’s worldview will determine who you appoint to carry out the duties of government.
Romney Raised Taxes And Destroyed Job Creation In Massachusetts
But let’s take DeMoss at his word that Romney’s business experience will make him a good conservative president. How did his business experience help him govern Massachusetts? And did he govern as a conservative? For the last five years Romney and his supporters have cultivated an image of Romney as a fiscal superstar and who ran a very tight ship as Governor of Massachusetts. Indeed, DeMoss claims Governor Romney “turned a $3 billion deficit into a nearly $1 billion surplus, without raising taxes.” But that statement is simply not true. The reality is that Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor was an economic disaster for the state.
Governor Romney passed a host of new tax and fee increases, hitting the corporate world hard and devastating job creation. As Peter Nicholas, chairman of Boston Science Corporation, stated, “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.” (1)
The Cato Institute reported that in his first year as Governor, Romney “proposed $140 [million] in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code.” (2) As Nicholas explains, “Romney’s tax policies were not helpful for many small businesses…when Romney took many IRS subchapter S businesses in Massachusetts and almost doubled their tax rates, it was an important disincentive to investment, growth and job creation.” (3). As Joseph Crosby of the Council on State Taxation stated, “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations.”
http://www.romneyexposed.com/2011/06/20/an-open-letter-about-mitt-romney-from-conservatives/
-
It's been a while since I glanced at this but my reaction to the title of the thread still makes me think I'm gonna find a sex video of Coulter holding a pic of Romney.