So did I, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in which Romney served as a one-term governor. He did not seek reelection, probably because the necessity of functioning as a conservative chief executive of the Bluest of the Blue States finally took its toll. There was simply no way for him to be effective in countering the deeply ingrained political corruption of Massachusetts machine politics.
Case in point: Had he not agreed to what subsequently became known as Romneycare — the litmus test for Obamacare — and had vetoed it instead, the partisans of state-mandated and controlled healthcare would have gone over his head, appealing to the Supreme Judicial Court to overturn his veto. And they would have, in all likelihood, done exactly that.
Reading the tea leaves, Romney avoided the inevitably bloody political fight by acceding to what the Commonwealth's General Court and Senate agreed to — supposedly reflecting the will of the people of Massachusetts — I gather in the name of public peace.
He understood that, as governor, he was a representative of the will of Massachusetts citizens. If Massachusetts citizens have given every indication that they favored such massive transformations of the healthcare system, then even if Romney thought they were morons to think that way, still, as governor, he "works for them" and what they want. He might have thought that what they wanted ultimately operated against their interests; but I daresay that Romney concluded that his job was not to suppress the free expression of what citizen/voters want. He could point out the unintended consequences of enacting their wishes, and did so. But in the end, he understood that the governor of any state is the tool of its people, and not the other way around.
I don't much like his theology. But I sure did and do like him as a capable, highly intelligent, honorable, and just man.
Merry Christmas—>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/6wxiaix3sdyf3hl/MerryXmas.avi?dl=0