No, it isn’t. First of all, Romney was not particularly bound by the MA legislature: according to his own words, he was convinced by a business owner who told him that healthcare costs were ruining his business. The impetus for a state healthcare bill came from Romney: he can’t hide behind the legislature when he brought it up as a political topic. Moreover, Romney a) did not make an attempt to convince MA voters to embrace a free market alternative, and b) did not, at the time of passing, note any problems with the bill. If the legislature had bound me, I would have screamed to the high heavens about the problems with the bill, and tied it to the Dems. Instead, as late as the Presidential election, Romney was touting it as a great conservative bill that reduced costs etc. Despite this, he might have salvaged a little bit of his credibility on this issue if he’d flip-flopped on RomneyCare (not like he hasn’t flip-flopped before). Despite this, he chose to defend his bill. Any Republican who opposes ObamaCare must in good conscience vote against Romney: he initiated the discussion, he galvanized support for his proposal among Dems, and has continued to defend it long after its failures were evident.

Because for most of us, “successful” governance means limiting the scope and reach of government programs, simplifying/streamlining the tax code and other government services, delegating as many government functions to non-coercive, non-state actors as possible, and ensuring that the laws on the books are just, fair, moral and enforced. IOW, returning power to the individual, preventing injustice and serving justice to all who have been unjust. Huck fails on all of those counts: the tax code was made more complex through the addition of 100s of loopholes perversely called “tax cuts”, government spending and taxation went up (with Huck’s full support), and of course, justice was abrogated by the record number of commutations and pardons that Huck issued, with little thought put into them and terrible rationales for said commutations.

As a bonus, Huck is also rhetorically bad on the issues that he could not influence as Gov: on foreign policy, for example, he claimed in a Foreign Affairs op-ed penned by himself that Bush’s “arrogant bunker mentality” (his words, not mine) was to blame for our problems in the world, and that what we needed was a good ol’ kumbaya session to get the world to like us better. I’m not Bush’s biggest fan on foreign and domestic problems, but Huck attacked him on that issue from the *left*, not the right. Likewise, on illegal immigration he questioned both the Christianity and the racism of a Republican colleague who introduced an anti-illegals bill. I’m certainly not in the mainstream on my views regarding immigration here, but impugning the Christianity and racism of colleagues and of supporters of the bill is a bridge too far (esp since the bill was simply meant to limit state expenditures on illegals). I can dig out some more if you’d like (but I think RWM did just a stellar job ripping your “argument” to threads on that other thread, so I won’t steal her thunder).

Huck is a failure and a moron. Who better to represent him on this site than a loudmouth who wouldn’t know a good argument if it pimp-slapped him on the face?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

*pauses for air, gasping*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Let it never be said that 20jan is not amusing