Replies

Y’know what, I look at peoples’ records, I look at what they’ve done, and then I decide what I think about them. I look at Romney’s record - his record as governor, not as a hedge-fund manager - and I see ugliness everywhere, I see actions that are consistently liberal and anti-American. In this, I see no difference between Romney and Bloomberg (NYC mayor): both had years and years of experience in private business, both got wealthy that way, both call themselves republicans, and when both assumed political office, both stopped being republicans and started acting like hard-left liberals. Bloomberg’s business experience - which is arguably better than Romney’s because Bloomberg is a lot wealthier - hasn’t had any effect whatsoever on how he runs New York City; in fact, given the City’s budgets have been running consistently over inflation, in particular where it comes to hiring more and more union parasites, Bloomberg’s business experience has simply been chucked out the window.

There is only one rational conclusion to draw from that: if a politician when in office acts like a liberal, and fails to apply any of his business experience to informing his political policies, then his business experience is irrelevant. Mitt Romney - on his record - acted like a liberal when he was governor of Massachusetts; he was as anti-business as any of his predecessors - he didn’t lift a finger to try to change the anti-business laws in Massachusetts, he utterly failed to apply even Business 101 principles to the matter of trying to control health care costs in Massachusetts and instead simply leapt to the radical - and radically liberal - conclusion that every resident of Massachusetts should be forced, on pain of penalties and/or prison, to buy health insurance, he didn’t work to try and reduce the tax burden on businesses, he ramped up enforcement of all of the pre-existing, liberal, taxes on businesses, etc, etc, etc.... Romney’s business experience is therefore utterly irrelevant to how he will act if he becomes President.

When I look at Romney’s record as governor I see the man who invented the individual mandate - the law requiring every individual to buy insurance at the risk of being fined or tossed in jail. I see the man who created an ungodly mess in Massachusett’s health care system - a mess so bad the current governor is trying to impose price controls - and who still refuses to admit that there’s even a single problem with his abortion of a baby, Romneycare. I see the man who lied through his teeth about not increasing taxes and instead just called his tax increases “fees.” I see the man who one year ago was calling Social Security tantamount to a criminal enterprise, and is now defending it from similar remarks because he wants to bull$h&t seniors to buy their votes.

I see precious little difference between how Obama has acted and how Romney acted when he was governor; the actions of both are those of liberals, not of conservatives, or even of ordinary Americans.

If you want to call those the actions of a man who loves his country, so be it; I don’t. A man’s record speaks for itself, and Romney’s record - as opposed to the bull$h!t he’s peddling now in his glib “debate” answers - does not speak kindly to the love for America that you have willy-nilly ascribed to him.

Funny thing, last time around, in 2008, Americans fell in love with the sweet nothings Obama spoke and ignored his record which, scant though it was, plainly indicated that he would be a hard-left liberal, and look where that got us. Now it’s conservatives who are falling in love with the sweet nothings of Mitt Romney and are ignoring his rather detailed record which plainly indicates that he governs as a liberal; why would any rational person think the results are going to be materially different this time around?

You want empty wind and claims of omniscience? Go find a mirror.