Romney went from pro-abortion to neutral in his speech and from pro-abortion to pro-abortion in his governance. That is one issue.
He pushed the gay agenda in the schools, moreso than his legislature did. That is one.
He opposed the Bush tax cuts. He covered up the huge increases in taxes labelled as fees by cutting other taxes. That is one
He said he would work for constructionist judges after appointing mostly Liberal/activist ones. He did not change the board recommending them, even though the positions are held at the pleasure of the Governor. That is one.
He suddenly opposed illegals after working to support the sanctuary cities in his state. That is one.
The list is longer than that.
False. He went from pro-abortion to pro-life, in word and deed. Every action he took as governor on the issue of abortion, he came down on the pro-life side.
There's a reason Massachusetts Citizens for Life support him, strongly.
I do grant you that abortion is the one major issue on which he changed.
He pushed the gay agenda in the schools, moreso than his legislature did. That is one.
False. In fact, he cut funding for gay agenda programs that were put in place before he came into office.
He opposed the Bush tax cuts.
False.
He covered up the huge increases in taxes labelled as fees by cutting other taxes.
False. Fees are not taxes. Fees are prices charged for government services that only benefit a segment of the population. Romney believes, as do most conservatives, that users of such governments services ought to pay the cost of those services.
So yes, thanks to Romney, users of public golf courses pay the full cost of their upkeep. The people who drive on the Massachusetts turnpike now pay a greater percentage of its costs. People who get duplicate drivers lisences now pay full of providing it to them. The people who use the state's septic tank pumping services now pay the full cost of it.
That is the conservative way of governing. Romney rightly wears his fee increases as a conservative badge of honor.
He suddenly opposed illegals after working to support the sanctuary cities in his state.
Also false. He never supported a sanctuary city.
He said he would work for constructionist judges after appointing mostly Liberal/activist ones.
All the judges he appointed to higher courts that hear constitutional cases were solid strict constructionists.
To low district courts that hear petty criminal and civil cases, he appointed tough-on-crime judges. Two of them happened to be gay. So what? These courts never deal with issues related to constitutional law. Do you think the fact that a judge is gay matters when he decides how long to sentence a shop lifter? Will it impair his judgement when deciding on how much in damages to award a man whose neighbor damaged his roof when trimming his tree?
He did not change the board recommending them, even though the positions are held at the pleasure of the Governor.
The board was appointed by his Republican predecessor. Why should he change them? And how is that a flip-flop?
The list is longer than that.
If it's anything like the list above, I'm pretty confident it will be easily debunked. Bring it on.
FYI, when evaluating a candidate, I would recommend using sources other than propaganda put out by his opposition.