Mitt Romney for president (insurance, how much, taxes)

[mechanic]

Looking for informantion on what kind of governor Romney was? Do think he will be a good president?

[dragonborn]

Doesn't matter because he's not going to win

[ogre]

It's a little tough to rate Romney as governor because a major plank in his platform was getting rid of waste, excess bureaucracy, etc., in state government. This state is kind of notorious for patronage, politicians creating high-paying make-believe jobs for political hacks, that kind of thing. This is so deeply entrenched in MA that it would take a sequence of governors across at least a few decades, all deeply committed to this same goal, to have any chance of really cleaning up the system. At a glance it seems difficult to rate Romney on this particular goal, since the task of cleaning up state government to any noticeable degree was something that could not happen during the tenure of a single governor, so he set his sights on a seemingly impossible goal.

However, what Romney did do was to successfully fire and/or pressure out several high-level bureaucrats who were notorious for having played the system to their advantage for years. The state budget also was trimmed/balanced/stabalized on his watch, without any increase in taxes. This would seem to indicate that he has some good skill with managing the fiscal side of government.

I plan to vote for Mitt, but I'll also point out that being president is a huge leap from governing a state, and there is only so much of a record on which to judge a one-term governor, so there's no way to be sure how he'd be as president. On the other hand, the same is true of any candidate. You won't know for sure how the candidate will do until he's in office. Still, there is at least some basis, in what he actually has done, for believing that Romney is capable of dealing with fiscal problems in govenrment. Something to keep in mind if that issue is a strong consideration for you.

I'll also point out something that might be viewed positively about the fact that Romney served for one term. That is the fact that he did not run for re-election once he had decided to work toward a run for the presidency, unlike many politicians who try to manage a presidential campaign while still holding office, often to the detriment of those they are supposed to be serving in office, since it's going to be nearly impossible to stay fully focused on the office a politician currently holds while that same politician is running for president.

By deciding not to run for re-election as gov. once he had his eye on the presidency, Romney stands in contrast to past MA gov. Michael Dukakis, who pretty much seemed to abandon this state altogether while still officially holding the gov.'s office, when he ran for president in '88. It's tough to be certain, because Romney is the only person who really knows all the reasons he did not seek a second term as gov., but at least the possibility that he may have felt he could not devote himself fully to that job while also running for pres. gives some cause to believe that he may be more ethically sound than many politicians.

[goyguy]

If handing insurance companies the cash cow derided on a national level as "Obamacare," and acting solely on the basis of returning profits for corporations at the expense of many terminated employees, signals a leader vested in providing the means to a good life for the majority of citizens? Then yes, Mitt would be a good choice. In other words, the "99%" would be forsaking their own economic well-being were they to pull the lever for the likes of him. But that hasn't stopped it from happening before. And politicians always flip-flop all over the place on issues to pander to their constituency of the moment, right?

I hope a moderator notices the bias made clear in this thread's title (no question mark) and questions - as I do - whether the topic belongs here in a state-specific forum.

[ogre]

Just a heads up, in the hope that maybe we can avoid having this thread really get going and turn into an ugly debate, I just saw another thread by this OP at the Michigan forum, asking what MI residents thought of Mitt when he was their governor (???). Now that I've seen that, I think a lot of us here might possibly want to keep that in mind when deciding how much effort to put into this (made my earlier post before spotting the MI forum thread). Not that every sound adult doesn't have the right to vote, but just a thought.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by goyguy

I hope a moderator notices the bias made clear in this thread's title (no question mark) and questions - as I do - whether the topic belongs here in a state-specific forum.

I don't see any (obvious) bias. I also think it is perfectly fine to ask the question on the MA forum as this is where he was governor (insight from those whom he served directly).

While Romneycare is a mess it does not go as far as Obamacare nor does it have the constitutional issues as healthcare has always been a state responsibility.

I do not think he was the greatest governor, but he has nothing on the other bad leadership we have seen over the past few decades. Ogre made a good point on his ethics, I wish our current governor followed Romney's example as his heart seems to be somewhere else as well.

[Valerie C]

I think that a state-specific forum is EXACTLY where this thread belongs. Outside of New England and Michigan, Romney seems to be a virtual unknown. So of course Massachusetts residents who experienced Romney at the helm will be asked about his leadership. Back when we were in primary season, I posted similar questions in the PA & UT forums requesting info about Santorum and Huntsman. And if not necessarily for this OP, then doubtless for the dozens of people who will be visiting this thread from all 57 states...

Originally Posted by goyguy

I hope a moderator notices the bias made clear in this thread's title (no question mark) and questions - as I do - whether the topic belongs here in a state-specific forum.

[Green_Wave]

Mittens is an embarrassment to Massachusetts. He railroaded his governors election campaign with plenty of money. When Governor he was never here. Which explicitly speaks to the fact that he did not care for the (****) + the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Republicans always debate with Fallacy (philosophical lies) using whatever strategy they can to abruptly run over their opposition without ever delivering on their rhetoric that is used simply to get elected.

[Ark90]

To be honest, neither Romeny or Obama look particularly appealing at this point.

[MA2NC2012]

Romney... He left the MA scene and started jumping all over the US for his president bid while he was still in office... What does it tell you about him?