Last week has proven to be quite the shake-up for the Presidential Race. Mitt Romney was able to shine at the first debate, while Obama under-performed. Now, many Americans are giving Mr. Romney a second look, and his poll numbers are at their highest level since he started the campaign.
But one state is still not impressed… the great state of Massachusetts. You know, the only state that actually knows Mitt Romney as a neighbor, a businessman, and a Governor. Even after the first debate, the lastest Bay State polls have Barack Obama maintaining a 30-point lead over Mr. Romney.
Back in his 2002 campaign for Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney made a lot of promises too. One of the biggest ones was the promise of no new taxes for the Bay State. But Romney did find other ways to squeeze families for more revenue. Mitt Romney just raised “fees” instead.
Under his administration, Massachusetts residents were hit hard for all sorts of services. For example, the cost of a marriage license increased from $4 to $50, driver’s permits went from $15 to $30, hair dresser’s licenses from $38 to $57, mortgage recording fees shot up from $36 to $158, and even an additional fee of up to $1,000 for nursing homes to operate. These new fees hit small businesses in the Bay State especially hard, and many had to end up passing the new costs to their customers. So even if Mr. Romney didn’t “raise taxes” during his time as Governor, it sure seemed like it to most families. Here is the full list of fees raised under the Romney administration. One of the most pressing questions for everyone that looks at the Romney proposed national tax plan… “How can he possibly cut taxes by 20 percent, and not explode the deficit?” Massachusetts already knows the answer.
As Mr. Romney was raising taxes– err, I mean fees, on working families, his administration was simultaneously cutting vital aid to cities, schools and police forces. Are we to be surprised that it was in this climate of difficulty that he chose not to pursue a 2nd term as Governor?
Romney continues to claim that the only reason Massachusetts will not vote for him this November is because he is a Republican. But the state has just shown America that they can vote for Republicans… remember Scott Brown? Clearly, it’s less about the party, and more about the person.
If the GOP nominee were to actually win the Presidential election while losing his home state, it would be quite a feat. Only two Presidents in the last 100 years have successfully done this… Richard Nixon in 1968 and Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Every other election, whether it be Ronald Reagan, Republican from California or Jimmy Carter, Democrat from Georgia, has carried their home state. What does it say about Mitt Romney that the people who know him best, have the least amount of confidence in his ability to be a good President?
Perhaps Andy Hiller summed it up in live news coverage of Romney’s exit from office:
I think the legacy [of his term] is disappointment. Everytime I see Governor Romney, all I see is what might have been. The Governor is well-suited for this role as Former Governor, because frankly, it’s been a long time since he’s been the Governor of Massachusetts. As he leaves, more than half of the state’s voters believe Massachusetts is headed in the wrong direction, and was headed in the wrong direction with Romney, and more than half don’t think that he was a very good Governor.
But it’s going to ‘look’ great. All I would say is… looks can be decieving.