Replies

Sorry, Mitt. Romney was a terrible governor.
He imposed gay marriage and RomneyCARE deathpanels without a vote (you like that, right?)
and he covered up the BIG dig (you like that, too?)

Economically, Romney TANKED Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney got a "C" rating from CATO.
And that was BEFORE Romney's failure re: Socialized medicine. He would get an “F” now.< br>

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace."

The courts imposed gay marriage. Or rather they mandated it if the state couldn't come up with an alternative like civil unions. The legislature wouldn't go for that, so gay marriage came. It wasn't Romney's doing.

Mitt took over when the state was already losing jobs every month and had a large deficit. I can't say he solved those problems, but things were better during his term than they were when he came in and a lot better than they are now.

Massachusetts is one of those states like California that are locked into a high tax, high rent pattern. There are limits to what any governor can do to create jobs in one term, especially when the legislature is dominated by Democrats. But Mitt wasn't the worst and I wish he'd run for reelection (as do a lot of people in the state, considering who we got instead).

My point isn't that Romney's perfect or that he ought to be president. I don't think so. But he isn't as awful as people make him out to be.