on what he has said since January, 2007 when he entered the presidential primary against John McCain. I suggest you look at how he actually governed, and the results of his governance. There are many, many websites out in internet land that will compare the two for you.

Romney tacked right to try to defeat McCain. He governed left wing, even nominating two gay lawyers who supported same-sex marriage to the MA counts. That is NOT a conservative, by anyone’s stretch of imagination.

It is also easy for Romney to say “let there be foreclosures” when he knows that laws have already been passed to prevent them. That’s not policy, that’s wordsmithing. To understand where a candidate stands, you must judge them on the sum of the whole, not just right turns they have taken in the last four years.

That is beside playing the race card, campaigning on a cult of personality and his “likeability”, and blaming everyone else for his problems, I now give you:

http://www.caintruth.com

paid for by the Friends of Herman, his own campaign organization.

P.S. Remember stopthesmears.com put out by Obama?

Yeah, tell me again what a conservative this clown is.

He said:

“I don’t think the federal government should be in the business of paying for programs and building up huge debt out there.”

This is a solid 10th Amendment stance. There is NO Constitutional authority for the federal government to be taking money from one citizen to lend to another citizen for college tuitions. As a matter of fact, the DoE is unconstitutional on its face. No where in the Constitution does it deal with education and that issue falls to the states alone.

Part of the reason, and perhaps the most important reason, that university tuition are up is due to the easy money provided by the federal government in the form of student loans. Universities are not being forced to be fiscally responsible, paying professors for classes not taught, students not educated. Allowing professors to rape the system by taking a pay check from not only the taxpayer, but from research groups as well, cheats the student and the taxpaying public. Professorial salaries are absurd. Universities, like Harvard, are holding BILLIONS sponsor accounts (The University of Texas just bought $1 billion in gold that is being stored in New York). Yet with all those funds, just sitting in gold bullion, tuitions continue to increase and students are graduating with more and more debt.

Get the federal government out of the credit business and see how quickly those private institutions become competitive. When they have to compete with state universities, they will bring their tuition costs down. The prestige of having a degree from Harvard, Yale, Columbia or any of the other tony universities has been proven, time after time, now worth it dollar wise. A graduate of the University of Texas Law School actually earns more in the first five years of practice than a graduate of Harvard Law School (feel free to look it up). How do you then justify the cost?

Now, you may put a lot of stock into a candidates ability to articulate his positions. Frankly, that is really not of great importance. Record is, and on that, Mitt Romney falls quite short. Romney did not win in the state of John Kerry (who I consider to be a traitor to this nation, as well as a liar) and Ted Kennedy (who should have been prosecuted for neglectful homicide) because he was a solid core conservative. He wasn’t. And his record upholds that. He was elected because he related to the liberal leanings of his state, and because he had name power, much like Ted Kennedy.

You also point to a president you consider “unarticulate”, George W. Bush. Yet, Bush led this nation in a time of crisis that speaks to his ability to lead. Obama, on the other hand, is articulate (at least with TOTUS) yet has not been a leader, but more a promoter of his Marxist ideals. Obamacare is a prime example of Obama’s failure to lead. He did not write his own plan, instead allowing his Congressional lapdogs to do it for him.

The use of Christine O’Donnell is a bad example. O’Donnell, while possessing some great policy ideas, never had a chance. She needed seasoning, which she did not have. She was defeated on visuals, her young look that was equated to a lack of experience and therefor a lack of substance. Angle, her history, before she ran, was her problem. And the fact that Harry Reid brings home the bacon. Reid was the devil Nevadans knew, not the one they didn’t know.

to Romney, there is just no way you can run from his actual record, and the things he said, prior to January, 2007, on issues that are near and dear to conservative.

You say that Romney did not hike taxes. Well, you pay a tax every year to renew your licence plates. If you call it a “fee” that is paid to the state, is it any less a tax? Changing the name of a dog doesn’t make it any less of a dog. And I find it odd that you don’t mention that two of Romney’s climate change gurus are rabid environmentalists. One, John Holdren, is currently working for Obama, and Douglas Foy is doing what Douglas Foy does best, blocking all drilling. How was it sensible to not allow the Cape wind project? Because Teddy Kennedy complained it would ruin his view? In-state tuition? Romney had the authority to veto that bill because it was not passed by a veto proof majority. Yet, he had no trouble with illegals being put on Romneycare. Where was his provision to avoid that? Now MA is looking at how much illegals are costing Romneycare, and it ain’t purdy.

Now, you seem to operate on the premise that health care is a right. It is not. It is no more than a service you buy to provide you with a better life. If health care is a right, then so is water and food, and if I decided I don’t want to pay for those products, then you should be forced to buy them for me. Also, Romneycare is based on taxing the rest of the nation to keep it solvent. Patrick asked for over $400 million in federal funding to make Romneycare solvent. He got $764 million in the Stimulus bill. And I strongly object to having to pay taxes to insure people in Massachusetts. Taxing others, and making the decision that others have the responsibility to provide people with health insurance that should be a personal responsibility is not conservative to anyone but liberal northeasterners.

Military/Nat’l Guard bill: Gee, “Welcome Home?” How nice. Unlike Governor Perry who lobbied for, and got, legislation that abolished ad valorum taxation for veterans who suffer 100% military related disabilities. Give me a choice between a welcome home sign and no taxes? Ummmm? Let me think about that for a minute.

And have you looked at the results of Romney’s tenure as governor? Checked on the pro capita debt lately? Or the debt to GDP? What is the budget of Massachusetts for slightly over 6,000,000 people? If Romney was such a successful conservative governor, why is he not running on that and only seems to be running on his business acumen? It is because Romney is smarter that his supporters. He knows his gubernatorial record does not stand up to conservative values, so he runs from it like a scalded hound. But business acumen does not a president make. Bill Gates was definately a bigger success than Romney, but I would not have wanted him for president. Or Steve Forbes, or Mark Cuban.

Actually, I think Newt is the smartest kid on the block. My problems with Newt is that he has a tendancy to wander off the farm not knowing where he is going. Was he an affective speaker? You betcha. But that was then, and this is now. And I don’t know that he won’t wander off the farm again.

Bush did well in his second term until January, 2007 when the Democrats took over. He was pretty much a lame duck then. The Democrats thwarted everything Bush tried to do, including taking a good hard look at the GSEs as he continually warned they were in deep trouble. But two more northeastern idiots, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, assured us the GSEs were sound. We learned differently, to everyone’s dismay.

The animosity stems from Karl Rove. When Perry was running for Lt. Governor, Rove tried to tell Perry how to run his campaign. Perry understood that there were fundamental differences between him and G.W. (G.W. son of a wealthy northeasterner who had a degree from a tony university vs. farmer’s son with a degree at a state university, fiscal responsibility above all else vs. compassionate conservatism)

Perry pretty much told Rove to stick it, he would run his campaign his way, not Rove’s way. That started the fued. Even to this day, Rove is bitter. But Perry won out as his way was what was right for him. I think Perry and G.W. pretty much like and respect each other although they have different ways of governing.

In the last gubernatorial election, Rove, Karen Hughes, Ma and Pa Bush came out for Kay Bailey Hutchison. But G.W. stayed out of the fray, as did Laura Bush. I don’t think G.W. will involve himself in the primaries. Not his way.

One thing I would like to add: when G.W. was elected POTUS, everyone said that Anita Perry could never fill Laura Bush’s shoes because Ms. Laura was so beloved by everyone who worked for the state. And although Anita Perry is less involved than Laura Bush was with the everyday workers of the state, they love her. She is a kind, gentle woman, as is Laura, and I have never heard one hard thing about her.

since you seemed to have used it to determine that you are funding my retirement. Better get a new one if it tells you that you can determine something about a person merely using their moniker as imput. And perhaps if the federal government hadn’t spent all the money, you would not be able to accuse people of leeching off your payroll taxes. Thanks for proving it is a Ponzi Scheme.

Christine O’Donnel holds no interest for me, so I didn’t bother to respond. I don’t think you can hold someone accountable for what they do when they are barely out of their teens. Christine vs. Mitt? Christine. At least she showed possibility. What’s the point in voting Republican if all I am going to get is Democrat Lite?

You also seem to know little about Texas. Yes, it’s considered a red state, and we finally have a filibuster proof Republican majority in the state house. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have enclaves that are blue; Houston, Austin, San Antonio, the area we call “the valley”, all pretty blue. Why do you think we still have that crook, Lloyd Doggett? It hasn’t been that many decades since we were a blue state.

Perry also ran against what some think was a very popular independent. That took votes away from Rick Perry. You see, Texans are not monolithic. They are more independent than anything else. But Perry has done one thing that Mitt could never accomplish; he moved his state farther to the right, the red, side. Mitt couldn’t do that because Mitt was not a true conservative.

differences. And I have decided that they are in definition. You think Romney governed as a conservative. I disagee. Romney’s style of governance is not conservative to me and Romneycare is a prime example of that. It doesn’t matter that it is turning out to be a very expensive experiment, it is that I view it as unconstitutional. Had it depended on the tax revenue from Massachusetts citizens only, I would say “yes, he could do that.” But it doesn’t. It relies on tax revenue from all of us, and it a prime example of big government.

You ignore Romney’s association with John Holdren, and Daniel Foy. They are not exactly small government advocates. Holdren now actually works for Obama. The very advisors that worked for Romney, advised Obama, and the Democrats on Obamacare. And you mention Perry’s performance. Now, I will admit that he has been less than stellar on the debate stage. But if I wanted someone who could perform brilliantly on a debate stage, I would vote for Clint Eastwood or Tom Selleck. At least they are Republicans, and they can perform. Since a man who is elected president is not required to perform, I have to put my faith in what they have done prior to being elected. But if you can give me any example of a debate that any president has been involved in once elected, I will cede that point.

You seem to think that these debates are a measure of the man. I guess you have forgotten the old adage “It’s not what you say, but what you do.” In the “do” area, Romney falls painfully short. His stance on “global warming” alone is enough to discount him for me. More and more we are learning that the whole “global warming” diatribe has been based on faulty data, or data that was manipulated for a desired outcome. “Hockey Stick” Hansen has been discredited, yet Mitt continues to say that humans contribute to global warmning, he just doesn’t know how much. Not a conservative stance. But we have his record as governor on that issue, don’t we? I truely believe that we will eventually learn the truth about global warming and that the reduction of warmth will prove to not be a science goal, but a massive redistribution of wealth scam that is designed to do nothing more than reduce the influence of the United States globally and to give our wealth to third world nations.

I believe the federal goverment has turned into a leviathan that would have the authors of the Constitution rolling over in their graves if they knew what a monster it has become. I don’t believe that Mitt Romney would do anything to reduce the federal goverment back to its Constitutional perimeters. He did nothing as governor to lead me to believe he would.

Fiscal responsibility: When Romney assumed office, the 2003 Massachusetts budget for nominal spending was $23,289,777,000.00, his first year in office. He was not responsible for that budget, but he was for the next four years and that [nominal spending] budget increased, under Romney’s guidance, to $29,913,923,000.00 for an over $6.5 billion increase. The actual spending increased to $34,194,834,000.00. That is for a state of slightly over 6 million people. (feel free to look those figures up. The are on the MA state website.) Those budget increases could only be funded two ways: higher taxes for the citizens of Massachusetts or greater funding from the federal government which requires tax revenue from every citizen in all 50 states. Which was it?

Now, compare that to say, the Texas budget which just passed for 2011-2012 is $87 billion for over 25 million people. An average of $43.5 billion/per year for over 25 million people compared to $34 billion for 6 million. Other states have similar fiscally responsible budgets compared to Massachusetts. No one who is a fiscal conservative can justify the numbers from Massachusetts. Your debt to GDP is over 25%. The per capita state debt is over $15,000.00 for every man, woman and child in Massachusetts. Compare that to Tennessee.

The Welcome Home Project: Since I am familiar with any legislation that was passed in MA with that name, perhaps you can provide me with a link. I am familiar with a federal initiative called “Welcome Home”, but not one exclusive to MA. But I am not aware of anything Mitt Romney did while governor to reduce the tax burder of veterans who suffer 100% military related disabilities. Our disabled veterans deal with the stress of their injuries every day. They should not have to deal with the stress of being over taxed on top of it.

You also referenced Romney’s veto of in-state tuition. Yet, it was in Boston, not Dallas, that Obama’s illegal aunt, ordered to deport, that continued to live in public housing and received a welfare check as well as all other social welfare benefits Massachusetts gives to illegals. Romney had a responsibility, as Massachusetts’ top cop, to turn the Lawn Service With A Heart into ICE for its hiring of illegal Hondurans. He did not do that. Had that been Rick Perry, immigration purists would have become apoplectic. You ignore it.

How can you claim Romney is a conservative, when we know that his stance on gay marriage, abortion, taxes (which he called “fees”) government control, mandates and other issues were in keeping with a progressive view point and he only adjusted those viewpoints to run to the right of John McCain (which, btw, was not all that hard to do)?
Again, it all boils down to what how you define “conservative” which seems totally opposite of my definition.

One last question: if Romney’s tenure as governor is such a great example of conservative governance, why is he not running on that record? Why is he running as a “business man” and his time at Bain, and not his time in the Governor’s office?