"The fact that he didn't line-veto it speaks against him, as well." I thought presidents don't have the line-item veto power.
Regarding Secret Service protection: I would point out that Ron Paul, who had far fewer resources at his disposal, turned down Secret service protection and paid for his own security. When asked on Jay Leno why, he said he didn't want to take "welfare" from the taxpayer. Says a lot about how fiscally conservative he would have been as president relative to Romney.
As for foreign policy, we are now attacking countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanastan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and (via economic warfare) Iran who have--unlike Hitler--invaded no other nations. So we are not to be trusted on this front. Plus in the case of WWII there was a Congressional declaration, which means Ron Paul (being a Constitutionalist) would have definitely executed the war and done everything to win it. But going to war without a declaration, as Romeny and Obama would both do (they both pledged to do so in the debate; neither one gave the correct answer is "Well of course I'd have to have a Congressional declaration before I could promise Israel military action). This demonstrates Romney and Obama both have the same foreign policy of executing war in violation of the Constitution.
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: