Comment: Taking credit for everything

(See in situ)


Taking credit for everything

Watching the Romney/Kennedy debate is essential to understanding the psychosis of this man and his deliberate willingness to take any side, to ford any river, to enhance any position, to change any equation, all to get elected.

Willard Romney took credit for every success going on in Massachusetts, all the while claiming government can't do anything for the general welfare of the people that a business can't. This hypocrisy of his knew no limitation.

Coming from a northeast state myself, I think one of the main things that lost him in Massachusetts was claiming, during the debates with Ted Kennedy, that he was pro-choice, would protect Roe v. Wade, for an aggressive expansion of the school system, etc. Essentially, he said and did everything that liberal democrats and left-leaning Republicans in that state wanted to hear.

In reality, once he did reach governor of Massachusetts, he angered the legislature so much, that both sides of the aisle overrode his vetoes on more than one occasion. This included refusing to increase salaries for state teachers even while the state was ranked the top in education. Fast forward to the presidential debates, and he was claiming he was responsible for the best education system in the country. As part of his spending cut program, which was reasonably successful, he also attempted to cut entitlements in the state that most of his constituents, including conservatives, had grown accustomed to. Since not every state operates the same way, reasonably, and since some prefer more government subsidized controls than others, people were reasonably horrified to see Governor Romney proposing measures to eliminate programs that were reasonably effective in that state and took decades to implement.

Mindful that what works in Massachusetts would not necessarily work, in say, Texas, Romney gained a reputation for his Romneycare system, that was simply a step forward from efforts made by previous state governors and the state legislature. As Romney wrote in his novelization of events, this system was suitable enough to be enacted on a national level. He did, in fact, change the content of his book, to placate the national Republican base during the primaries. This is not a hogwash conspiracy theory, but the plain old truth, as many readers still owned copy of the original book.

It is not easy to be a conservative governor in a traditionally liberal state, but it is even harder to pass off a record of success that doesn't exist when running for president after serving in that state. Thus, any success he had as governor came from running a liberal agenda in the state. This, again, reiterates my point that Romney lost to his own record. At some point near the end of his governorship, he was vetted by the GOP to run for national office. I note that Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is currently the governor of the state.

It is unlikely that incumbent Romney would have won re-election after his vetoes had been repeatedly overturned by the legislature, and as his governance record there became increasingly criticized. Indeed, late into his term in office, the same criticisms he faced on the national stage polarized him locally in Massachusetts, and he had privately enraged most of the Republicans in the state government by that time, whose constituents had just about had it.

Remember, Romney did run to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy on a number of issues for the state governorship. Ultimately, this is saying a lot about Romney's lack of character or principle. For most of us, it would be torturous to hold office, implementing ideas that we did not necessarily believe in, but this is assuming that we have core beliefs. I am still not sure that Romney has ANY. Flashback to his debate against Kennedy, and you will see what I am talking about.

During the primaries, Romney claimed he wanted to OUTLAW ABORTION. Meanwhile, during the debates with Kennedy, he claimed that he SWORE TO HIS OWN MOTHER that he would uphold Roe v. Wade. That kind of change is PSYCHOTIC in an adult male.

I will not even go into his issues whereas blacks were not allowed into the Mormon church while he was a GROWN, ADULT participant of the church. In fact, he became a Bishop of the church. When confronted on the issue, he claim he remembered when the church was desegregated. He claims he was driving alone, in his car (as a multi-millionaire... hmm), and heard the news on the radio. He pulled over to the side of the road and wept, because he knew the church had done the right thing.

This is a man whose lies were so severe, that I truly fear that had he defeated Obama, the country would actually be in great turmoil within a short number of years, far more than we have seen in a long time. It is obvious he was going to allow Israel to unilaterally, or with American support, launch an attack on Iran. This is without even looking at the national security situation or having security clearance. In his religion, the destruction of Israel, as well as part of the United States, would be in fulfillment of scripture.

When you start to look at where this was leading with Romney, it was a dark and quite creepy place. For all his money, the man is a liar and his record on job outsourcing is also quite dubious. I suspect we would have done much better with Presidential candidate Paul at the helm. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have given Obama a run for his money, and if elected, we would be in a much better place.

For more reference, you should go look at what TMOT, a well-known Paul supporter, has had to say about Romney. I couldn't agree with the man more.