Romney Not Perfect – Still Voting for Him

Mitt Romney is a politician that looks slick. There’s something about him that’s just not right, but nobody can put a finger on it. He’s smooth. No, he’s not too perfect, he’s just, well, a politician.

I’m going to vote for Romney in tomorrows primary here in Connecticut, but here are some reasons why most conservatives do not want to vote for him.

2nd Amendment
I’ve got some serious issues with Romney when it comes to his lack of support for the 2nd Amendment. He’s pandering to the top 2nd Amendment lobby – the members of the NRA – by signing up for a Life membership within the past year and saying he’s a hunter. That’s like telling people I’m a deep-sea fisherman since I watched my friend pull in a Marlin off the Tongue of the Ocean with some friends three years ago.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he supports the “feel good” legislation of assault weapon bans. They do nothing, and I mean nothing to stop crime. What is an assault weapon anyway? A clear definition is not even possible. Kind of like “I don’t know exactly what an assault weapon is, but I’ll know it when I see one.” So if it looks mean – ban it! Stupid.


Q: Are you still for the Brady Bill?
A: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality.

What the heck is a weapon that poses extraordinary lethality? Is there going to be some line drawn where some weapons are lethal and some are really lethal? Dead is dead governor.

We all know about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but what does the Massachusetts Constitution say? It’s covered in Article XVII:

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

By the way, why does the Commonwealth charge an unreasonable fee – more than $100 per year – to get a non-resident permit to carry a handgun? Thanks for helping us out on that one Mitt.

He likes the plan put in place by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to force everyone to buy healthcare insurance. He signed it and think it’s working.

On Sunday, December 16, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romny told NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, “The plan we put together in Massachusetts I think is working in Massachusetts.…I happen to like what we did. I think it’s a good model for other states.”

Oh yeah? Let’s see how well it works after the first year or two it’s been implemented.

Massachusetts was the first state in the country to impose an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face some significant penalties. Most employers — those with 11 employees or more — also face a mandate: Provide health insurance or pay a fine.

This is not a conservative position. And if you do not buy insurance you can get fined!

But this argument ignores some other important conservative principles: one being that we don’t like the government’s micromanaging our healthcare.

Romney and others like to respond by noting that almost every state requires people to buy auto insurance. True enough, but the auto insurance mandate has been so unsuccessful that millions of Americans buy uninsured motorist coverage to protect themselves against uninsured drivers. The fact is that the auto insurance mandate is seldom enforced in most states, and when it is, the penalties are usually minor.

Not so with the Massachusetts mandate. Those who don’t get coverage will face a $219 fine (tax?) for the first year (2008), but that fine will go up to at least $150 per person per month in the following year, according to the Boston Herald.

And that’s why some of the other Republicans were chiding Romney: An annual $1,800 for each uninsured person can be a significant penalty on a lower-income family of three or four. So significant, in fact, that the state recently decided to exempt 20% of the low-income uninsured from the mandate.

Right there – the plan is blown to bits. Feel good legislation. Worthless. This simply translates into another entitlement program. They steal money from one group and give it to another.

Romney is not too bad when it comes to tax reform, but his example about why the Fair Tax will not work does not fly with me at all.

Q: The FairTax would eliminate the income tax, estate tax, payroll tax and capital gains tax and replace it with a 23% sales tax. Do you support it?
A: It’s good, but it’s not that good. There are a lot of features that are very attractive about a FairTax. Getting rid of the IRS is something we’d all love. But the truth is, we’re going to have to pay taxes. Completely throwing out our tax system and coming up with an entirely new one is something we have to do very, very carefully. The president’s commission on tax reform looked at this and said: Not a good idea. Some of the reasons are the FairTax, for instance, charges a 23% tax, plus state sales tax, on a new home, when you purchase a new home. But if you buy an old home, there’s no tax. Think what that might do to the construction industry. We need to thoroughly take it apart before we make a change of that nature. That’s why my view is, get rid of the tax on savings and let middle-income people save their money tax-free.

For what it’s worth, I can come up with better reasons why the Fair Tax will not get implemented. What Romney fails to mention is that due to all of the embedded taxes that contractors have to pay when they are building the new house, the price of new houses would actually drop about 23 percent when – and if – the Fair Tax is implemented.

When running for Senate in 1994, he wanted to abolish the Department of Education, but now his position has changed and he likes No Child Left Behind. A true conservative understands that there is no benefit at all to the federal government getting involved with local education programs.

For a Republican candidate, I think he may be the best choice when compared to McCain. But he’s not a conservative either.

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.