Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.