Except for the fact that Romney governed Massachusetts as a hardcore liberal, and only changed his tune when he wanted your vote.
Mitt instituted gay marriage, completely homosexualized the public schools, signed a permanent “assault” weapons ban, and pushed through socialized medicine complete with taxpayer-funded abortions, and a whole lot more.
Does a politicians actual record mean nothing anymore? Or, are lying words enough?
“Does a politicians actual record mean nothing anymore? Or, are lying words enough?”
The actual record means a great deal. Without having studied it very hard, I figure, about half the stuff he did was bad. I think the fact that he had a liberal legislature may have a little bit to do with it, but still, he could have done a LOT better.
Comparing it to Obama - his stalwart opposition to babies born alive being given life support, for example, I still find Romney preferable. My point is, I don’t think of it as doing “evil.” I vote for the guy who is closest to my values. Not voting is a way of voting, too. I’d rather have abortions legal through 6 mos. than abortions legal up to and after a baby is born. That doesn’t mean I favor abortion under any circumstance.
I also am uncertain, on many of these issues, how much control Romney would have. The big deal is the appointment of justices. Would he appoint better judges than Obama or Clinton? I think so. I can’t possibly know, but I think so.