“Moderate” Mitt’s Bipartisan Record
One of Mitt Romney’s more impressive feats of late has been holding a straight face while attacking President Obama for a lack of bipartisan-spirit. This is laughable for several reasons. On the one hand, anyone who has even casually observed Obama’s presidency has seen a man willing to bend over backward for the cause of bipartisanship — even to the point of being roundly made a fool by Republicans in Congress. In fact, this yearning for bipartisan accord is the most infuriating thing about the President to many in his own party. On the other hand, Mitt’s attack is absurd because bipartisanship requires two willing parties, and the ‘Party of No’ has definitely not been willing to dance these past four years. But perhaps the most laughable thing of all is Romney’s own record of bipartisanship.
Mitt Romney has a mere four years of experience in government, and they weren’t filled with the kind of kumbaya hand-holding he’d have you believe. Far from working with the Democratically-controlled state legislature, in just one four-year term, Gov. Romney issued 844 vetoes and was overridden a total of 707 times, many of them unanimously. In both debates so far, Mitt has tried to point to his own ability to work with the opposition party. But it’s just not true.
In Mitt Romney’s 4 years of political experience, he signed 844 vetoes. He was perhaps the most vetoing governor in Massachusetts history. He claimed in the debate with Obama that he was good at working with the opposition party which controlled 87% of the legislature. In reality he was an obstructionist, the embodiment of “No”. Because the legislature 707 times overrode his vetoes, he was an ineffectual governor. He suffered a great defeat in the midterm elections. Having spent 3 million to defeat Democratic legislators, his campaign increased Democratic legislators. [...] Of his 844 vetoes, 707 were overridden. (IndyBay)
In short, Mitt Romney was a failure as Governor of Massachusetts, acting as nothing more than a speed-bump for the actions of Democrats in the legislature. (Not that he’s above taking credit for their successes now.) By the end of his term, his approval rating had fallen to 34%. There’s a reason Mitt Romney didn’t run for reelection: he couldn’t win.
But how did someone like Mitt Romney get elected as Governor of Massachusetts in the first place? By doing exactly what he’s doing right now: saying whatever he thinks he needs to say. During the primaries, that meant some pretty startling right wing positions. This month, it means playing the moderate, giving the moderate answers, promising moderate policies. Anyone thinking of giving Mitt a chance ought to take a lesson from what he did in Massachusetts:
Candidate Romney ran on a proposal to increase the minimum wage; but when a bill came across his desk to do just that, he vetoed it. Luckily for low-wage workers in Massachusetts, his veto was overridden.
Candidate Romney said he would uphold Roe v. Wade; but Governor Romney criticized Roe v Wade in a veto signing while rejecting a bill mandating access to emergency contraception.
Candidate Romney expressed broad support for embryonic stem cell research; but given the chance, he vetoed a bill to fund such research.
Candidate Romney said he supported age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education in schools; but Governor Romney introduced abstinence-only education into Massachusetts schools.
I think you’re starting to get the idea…