So recently we’ve been seeing a string of complaints coming out the less intelligent, less thoughtful, and more populist/progressive quarters of the Right once again attacking Romney. And the problem is that the vast majority of these arguments boil down to two problems. The first problem is that they’re trotting out the same complaints that they used 4 years ago and were shown to be utterly without fact, basis, or sanity 4 years ago…and the second problem is that if you had a candidate to actually put up you would be singing their praises and not attacking the only competent candidate there is. But the clearly the kind of people who prefer populists and progressives are the kind who like to repeat lies that have already been struck down, we might as well cover why these lies are horseshit once again…
So the first thing that all small minded people claiming to be conservative like to point to is Romneycare. They claim it’s the origin of Obamacare.
Let’s look at this claim.
In reality the actual history of Romneycare is that the Massachusetts legislature proposed a universal healthcare measure. It was a measure that would have completely nationalized all healthcare in the sate of Massachusetts and made Obamacare look like a dream come true. Governor Romney knew he couldn’t just veto the bill (he vetoed 844 bills and line item measures, 707 of those vetoes were overruled…he must have known just vetoing it would have been a fruitless measure).
So rather than just give a pointless veto that would be overruled and result in the death private healthcare (which would result in actual death) Romney went to the Heritage Foundation and they gave him the outline for what we now call Romneycare (individual mandates and all…which by the way are Constitutional under the Massachusetts constitution). So if Romney is a liberal for taking the advice of the most conservative think tank in America to stop a far more liberal bill…then what exactly qualifies as conservative? Are you only conservative if you get results? Then Reagan’s a filthy liberal for not destroying the Department of Education.
Now the final bill that passed the legislature was not exactly what Heritage suggested and because of that Romney vetoed 8 portions of the final bill. These vetoes were overturned. There were further changes made after he left office (those are the really bad parts). But I’m sure that’s all Romney’s fault.
Add to that the promise last time to give immediate exemptions to the entire US via executive order and then work to repeal Obamacare…it is a simple fact that to attack Romney for the healthcare system in Massachusetts can only be made if you are completely ignorant of all the facts involved.
He’s a flip-flopper on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.
To call Mitt Romney a flip flopper on the issue of abortion is to say that no man may have a change of mind or heart in the span of nearly 2 decades.
A flip flop is something that Obama does. A flip flop is when a politician says one thing and six months later they deny that they ever said it, while stating the exact opposite.
What a flip flop is not is a politician who believes something in 1994 or in 2002, but receives a shocking change of heart in the year 2004 due to some new information or even just a new view on the issue(in this case Romney changed his view because of the stem cell research debate), and admits in 2011 that he no longer believes his previous position to be true or the best possible position for him to hold.
Mitt Romney is no more a flip flopper on the issue of abortion than a woman like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a flip flopper on the issue of her religion.
As for the issue of gay marriage, another issue that Romney is consistently called a flip flopper on, the accusation bears very little merit as his opinion that gay marriage is a state’s rights issue has not, to my knowledge, ever changed. The only accusation that can be leveled on the issue is that he implemented the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court when it gave it’s verdict in 2003 on the subject. His position before and after that moment has remained much the same when it comes to state’s rights.
He’s for Gun control
Then clueless critics want to hit Romney over his stance on gun control. I’ve heard people say Romney is weak on the 2nd Amendment. Odd, given his B rating from the NRA. Why a B and not an A? Well he seems to favor assault weapons bans, background checks (although as we now can do near instant background checks he doesn’t believe in the waiting period now), and slightly stronger control in cities. Honestly, reasonable people, are any of those things wrong?
Would I like someone who said something like it is the right of every American who is not a felon or mentally unstable to own a gun…and it is probably their responsibility to do so as well, or at bare minimum know how to use one. But I’m not getting that this year. The one bill about guns he signed in Massachusetts lessened state licensing laws for gun ownership…not exactly the gun control boogeyman he has been portrayed as…and certainly not the lunatics who tried to use a convoluted and criminal scheme to flood the cities with illegal guns as a justification to crack down on gun ownership.
He increased taxes in Massachusetts
The claim is that Romney was a tax raiser is also outrageous when you consider where the actual $300 million in increased tax revenue came from.
The concept of closing tax loopholes is not one unfamiliar to conservatives who want to fix the tax system. That is precisely what Romney did in Massachusetts, closing several loopholes in the state tax code which raised revenue.
Romney also reduced taxes in several ways, but was unsuccessful in convincing the state legislature (which was held by Democrats by a wide margin) to reduce the state income tax to the promised 5% from 5.3% where the legislature froze it, regardless of the fact that voters had successfully voted for a decrease to 5%.
Like at so many other turns during his governorship, Romney’s hands were tied in fully accomplishing his goals by a Democratic legislature.
Admittedly Romney’s administration did shift costs over to fees and licenses for many services, but this is more a libertarian solution to raising funds than a tax increase in any case, as it puts the fees directly on those using the service rather than taxing an entire populace to run a program.
He’s for Amnesty
Then of course there are those that object to Romney’s realistic opinion that even after we shut down the border and put in e-verify that it’s simply not economically realistic to try and deport everyone who is here and came here illegally…nor is it legally sane to leave them as illegal immigrants. Yes, after we put in real border security, e-verify and reform the system to have the appropriate visa and worker program we still need to deal with the people who are here. Anyone who thinks the conservative answer is to expends tens of billions into rounding up every illegal and even more tens of billions (if not more) for the deportation trials of each of them (not to mention the even greater cost of political doing so). Such a policy is not conservative it is insane. Meanwhile Romney has in the past consistently stated a sane policy of border security, denying financial gains to illegals, but after those things have been resolved giving those who remain some form of legal status (at a cost):
“It’s very simply this, which is for those who come into the country legally, they would be given an identification card that points out they’re able to work here and then you have an E-verify system that’s effective and efficient so that employers can determine who is legally here and if employers hire someone without a card, or without checking to see if it’s been counterfeited, then those employers would be severely sanctioned.”
Gee what a concept, go after the employers and you kill the very thing that brings illegal immigrants in. Yes this will not solve the drug cartel problems, but this is one of the first steps to getting rid of the illegal immigration problem in this country.
“Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for it. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.”
And as far as I know he’s the only candidate who is consistently bringing up the problem that illegal immigration has on funding for schools. So, bravo Romney.
He was for bailouts
Then there are those who say he was in favor of bailouts. Let’s look at his actual statements:
“Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.
I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let’s not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects.” [italics added]
Wow, so his stimulus is across the board tax cutting! Exactly why are we opposed to that? And while we have become rather jaded when Obama says infrastructure repair, because I’ve yet to see a single pot hole fixed, let alone real work done…it’s not a bad idea in theory. Also notice in this January 2009 interview he predicted that we would have BS like Solyndra.
Now let’s take a good look at all the actual things he proposed we should do…not one of those things is not an endorsement of capitalism and small government.
That he appointed liberal justices in Massachusetts
As for Romney’s record with judges, it is true that he nominated more Democrats than Republicans, but it is also true that Romney’s governor council was composed of Democrats (chosen by the voters). His early appointments as governor were mostly Democrat and Independent, but toward the end he nominated far more Republicans, which makes sense in a Democratic state like Massachusetts where he would need to be more pragmatic in his appointments in the beginning of his term.
That he believe in Global Warming
It’s curious to me that Romney’s remarks on global warming would receive much attention at all. His comment that he believed the earth was getting warmer in 2011 is predated by the much more firmly worded statements he made in his book “No Apology” in 2010:
I believe that climate change is occurring–the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.
I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral US cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on the climate but could cripple economic growth.
Oil is purported to be one of the primary contributors to rising global temperatures. If in fact global warming is importantly caused by our energy appetite, it’s yet one more reason for going on an energy diet.
Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now.
Whether I agree with his statements or not, which I have to add are hardly conclusive proof that he believes that Global Warming is either 100% man-made or a real danger to earth, the main issue with conservatives should always been if he plans to actually do anything about his belief that the world is getting warmer.
His statement “I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral US cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on the climate but could cripple economic growth.” is proof enough that whether he believes in man-made global warming or not, he’s not interested in stepping in on a regulatory level. Which should be our only real concern on that particular issue.
He lost to Obama
Finally they like to point out that Romney lost. Twice. (Let’s ignore that Reagan lost twice before winning). But let’s looks at that last loss.
Romney got a larger portion of the US population than any non-sitting Republican president in the last century. A larger portion of the US voted for Romney than for Reagan. Yeah real failure there.
Second why did he lose? Well let’s see we all know that Hurricane Sandy and the good PR Obama got from that (thanks Chris Christie for sucking up to Barry as much as you did). We all admit that Romney’s program for getting voters out, ORCA, failed on election day for whatever reason it crashed, the 2014 election shows the GOP has fixed that program (had it been working the vote would have swung toward Romney). Finally Romney’s biggest campaign problem was he let the media define him as uncaring (a lie, but it’s what they portrayed)…which Romney has used the last two years to wipe away with public appearances, selfies from coach class and with various celebrities and slow jamming the news…that biggest problem is now gone. So the technology is fixed and the biggest weakness is gone…so if the weather will just cooperate we’ll win this time.
Certainly this isn’t the entirety of the lies about Romney…but by now you should get the point. If you bother to do the research, and we think you should, don’t just trust us (just as you certainly shouldn’t trust pundits who know they make more money when a liberal is in office) do the research for yourself. Click the links we put in. Read those articles. Do research of your own. We want you to. Because facts and reason show that we’re in the right. Now if you had a fact based objection to Romney we’d be open to hearing it…but we just have yet to see one.