I’m with Glenn on that one.
“One-size-fits-all-federalism might have been the perfect system then. But today for a country as full and rich and varied and alive as ours, the old system is a disaster. Romney was the first to catch on.”
Huge OUCH!
No one who has an idea that the constitution is outmoded and the founders are no longer relevant will EVER get my vote. He can pack his RINO rear back to Mass. and stay there.
Why? Because ONLY ROMNEY TANKED AN ENTIRE STATE'S ECONOMY.
Not Gov. Palin. Not Sen. Brown.
The brutal fact is, unrebutted by the Legion of RomneyBOTs
is that any trained monkey could have done better than
Mitt Romney, who got a "C" rating from CATO.
And that was BEFORE
Romney's Socialized medicine and Romney's coverup of the BIG-dig kicked in. .
Note that the record also shows that Romney also betrayed President Bush as Governor
(predicting what TeamROMNEY would do later in Election2008 to Gov. Palin, and every other GOP candidate).
Also, Romney was against the conservative tax cuts.
Here are the facts from CATO.
"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]
Mitt’s done. He’s got the slow motion disaster of RomneyCare chained to his ankles. It has hung on, poorly, weakly with Federal ...bailouts. Much like Mitt, Bush/Obama like wanted to bailout Detroit, and as he bailed out the Utah Olympics.
But, of course Mitt is a ‘conservative’.
Sarah is supporting Perry in Texas. GW Bush, the man that doubled the nations debt, and Mitt are supporting the plastic, old, hack, KB Hutchinson.
Old ‘compassionate conservative’ ( unless you are a taxpayer) love spending money.
Slick Willard = Epic Fail Socialist CON-ARTIST
It appears that their SAVVINESS has increased a LOT since Mitt's FAILED Presidential bid!
(Could it be because Scott is ACTUALLY Conservative compared to MITT?)
Romney is pontificating politically at the expense of constitutional principles, he is making excuses not to protect and defend The Constitution, and asking everyone else in the GOP to accept it as a platform.
Racial segregation was by popular, democratic, demand at one time, but the Bill of Rights does not allow it, and segragation was ended. How can anyone still claim that it is legal to deprive American citizens of any right, anywhere, because "most of the voters want it that way"?
I already understand Mitt...have for a long time. He has no political conservative core values but will support anything for political expediency. He’s a fake, an empty suit who is a big-government solution loving socialist who at various times has supported abortion rights, gay rights, and limits on the right to arm oneself.
For a person with conservative core values...Mitt, not an option. Next.
Beck doesn’t trust Brown but trusts Romney. Well, I wonder why?
Romney is a two-bit, two-faced, lying political whore.
What’s the difference again between Obama’s unconstitutional, pro-death, pro-abortion, un-american, anti-liberty, socialist government run health care system and Romney’s unconstitutional, pro-death, pro-abortion, un-american, anti-liberty, socialist government run health care system?
Great article!
This writer is clueless. The point of 1787 federalism was that one size would never fit all and that the federal government needed to be strong enough to do a few things and do them well while being limited enough not to do (or attempt) everything.
I wonder whether this writer is even aware that 1776 was not the beginning of federalism. In 1776, we declared independence from Britain. We didn't begin formulating a lasting government until 1783, and that government, the Articles of Confederation, didn't work. Federalism was a philosophy that started in the 1780's.
In advocating that each state devise a system that best meets that state's needs, Mr. Romney is not rejecting the federalism of our Founding Fathers. He is instead embracing that federalism. I wouldn't want to live under the system that Massachusetts has, but I wouldn't want to live under most Massachusetts laws. This guy may be trying to praise Mr. Romney, but he's getting the facts exactly backwards.