“We are going to hash out the accusations one at a time.”
No, you’re going to dodge them one at a time. We’ll present them any way we like. You don’t make the rules.
We can get to those others at a later time.
Now please start digging for information on this issue.
I started the thread so please do not hijack it. There is time for the other things to be discussed.
We are not going to have a thread if I can help it with 15 different issues that are subverting from the original post.
Its not dodging... it is very very direct.
Short answers:
Healthcare: The legislature could have passed cuba-care and overidden his veto. Somehow he leveraged them into accepting some market-based reforms in their socialist plan. His national plan is strictly market-based and, unlike in MA, has no 'mandate.'
Abortion: Ran as pro-abort and later changed his mind, explained how he changed his mind and why, and admits he was wrong. He governed strongly as a pro-life governor, vetoing embryonic stem cell research, prevevnting sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics from becoming law, and fought and suceeded in getting abstinence curriculim into the schools. Unlike Fred Thompson, he supports a human life amendment and says that were the legislature of MA to send him the same abortion ban that was passed in SD, he would have signed it. There are some other little lies floating around on this issue, but I'll let you bring them up.
Illegal Immigration:
At one point he said that the McCain bill sounded reasonable. That's hardly high-praise and at the time he said it the bill still nearly done, and he was the first top-tier candidate to start criticizing it when he realised what it was doing. As governor, he voted drivers licenses for illegal immigrants - I think in his first year as governor before this was the highest pitched issue in the party. He opposed instate tuition and on his way out of the governorship ordered the state police to co-operate with ICE. He has been very consistent on the trail about how to solve the problem.
Gun rights: MA has pretty strict gun laws and he said as he was running for Governor that he wasn't going to change them. I'm going to cut him some slack on that because he was much more pro-gun when he ran for Senate and Kennedy beat him on that issue alone. He has said he supports the 2nd amendment and not just for hunting. Besides, I think that the gun issue, at least at the federal level, is dead and has been since 1994. It's really a state-level fight now.
Fees:I regret he hasn't articulated this better. When he came into office he used fee increases to close about 10% of the state's 3 billion dollar deficit. Increasing fees to be inline with the cost of services rendered is a good thing for tax payers - assuming that it results in a tax cut (as it did for Romney's constituency). One of the fees raised was for student's taking the bar exam. If the fee to take that bar exam is lower than the cost of administering the exam, that means the tax payer is subsidizing the cost. So if you forever oppose fees, and costs of things go up - inevitably - you are burdening the tax payer with more and more expenses. None of his fee changes were broad-based (like a gas tax). They were relatively specific and many hadn't been changed in decades.
He's a Mormon: Well, you got me there.
Grow up. He asked for the topics to be dealt with in an orderly fashion. If you can’t do that, then find another place to crap on.
I think that by his own vanity posts is what he means.
I also think that it might be a good idea to stay on one subject at a time concerning the issues so many have concerning this candidate.
Romney has taken many hits on this subject (with documentation always conveniently provided by some) that I believe to be largely worthless.
In 1973 Roe v. Wade was made legal and so then it was Nixon/Ford's fault would be analogous to blaming Romney for this gay marriage so called Law that was rammed down our collective throats (no pun intended) here in Massachusetts.