<p>As a Mass resident, all I can say is that the best thing Romney did for the state was start his run for President two years before he left the governor’s office. He wasn’t here very much. We did much better with his benign neglect.</p>
<p>second mass resident to chime in … we DO NOT want Romney to be president … he was a massive empty suit as governer. I easily can be convinced to vote republican but I will NEVER vote for Romney … I would enter a write in vote before voting for him no matter who the dems put up against him (he was tht bad as gov here).</p>
<p>Well, when I listen to the debates, my viewpoints are more in line with Romney’s on issues that I feel are most important. The funny thing is that when I go to a candidate calculator on line they claim that my views are more in line with Clinton. I tried the calculators twice and they both came out with my being most in line with Clinton. When I listen to her, I do not see it that way, LOL. Go figure.</p>
<p>Yes, when you listen to Romney, as we did when we elected him, he says many things at are in line with peoples’ viewpoints. We learned the hard way that what he says and what he does may have very little to do with each other.</p>
<p>I don’t know a single person who supports Clinton, and I live in a heavily democratic part of NJ. I hear the kids talking about Obama, but Clinton has overwhelmingly negative reactions. It goes beyond policy, it’s something visceral. So how is it that she is where she is, at the least still in contention. I’m afraid people will come out in droves to defeat her in a general election.</p>
<p>Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The only Democrat up there now who can beat a Republican is John Edwards. If either Obama or Clinton gets the nomination, you can bet on McCain being President. McCain is smarter and more honest than Bush (no surprise there), but certainly in terms of Iraq, he will be no different. We will be spending billions on that forever, if McCain becomes president, and you can throw every other issue (health care, education, environment, etc) out the window. We won’t have money for anything.</p>
<p>So, my suggestion is to vote for Edwards! :)</p>
<p>disagree about McCain. While Hillary has extremely high negatives from the opposing party faithful, John McCain has high negatives from his base, the social moderate, but low-tax folks. My guess is that they stay home if he wins the nomination (which is exactly what happened to Bush I).</p>
<p>Well, Edwards has consistently performed very well in the debates. That the media wants us to concentrate only on Obama and Clinton is obvious, but while the two of them are arguing about race and who meant what when he/she said that-- Edwards is staying out of the fray and actually getting out there and talking to people. He has viable detailed plans that he had in place, long before Obama or Clinton would make a definitive statement about anything. I predict he will do better in SC than the media would have us believe, and he will do well in Nevada. That will, hopefully, get him more media attention and, consequently, more money, more votes, etc. He really is the only one up there who can hold his own against a debate with McCain. Edwards is superb in these debates. Clinton’s delivery is just off-putting. Obama just seems weak to me, which-- again-- I think becomes more evident as the field gets smaller.</p>
<p>“disagree about McCain. While Hillary has extremely high negatives from the opposing party faithful, John McCain has high negatives from his base, the social moderate, but low-tax folks. My guess is that they stay home if he wins the nomination (which is exactly what happened to Bush I).”</p>
<p>Not sure about that one. I’ve been very vocal in my opposition to McCain in the past, even to the point of being (rightly) chastised here on CC, but I’m now moving back. It’s my understanding as a member of the party faithful, that this is extremely common and is something of a wave. We aren’t in love with McCain, but would accept him.</p>
<p>" Romney destroyed the Massachusetts public schools. I would never ever vote for him. "</p>
<p>could you or someone else elaborate on that ?
I have relatives in the public school system in Mass, as well as teachers. I have not heard anything about this.</p>
<p>“What we need is a political party that is going to keep taxes low, spending low, and spending only for those that really need the money.”</p>
<p>What we need is a politicala party that will raise taxes on the rich, create an assets tax, create national health care (though that wouldn’t cost a penny more than we are spending now), put an end to the U.S. being the leading sponsor of state-sponsored terror in the world, put an end to the aggressive, hostile occupation of Iraq, provide aid for the next two decades to the four million refugees it created, and cut the military budget by two-thirds. Oh, and put an end to NAFTA, the WTO, and support for the World Bank.</p>
<p>In other words, put an end to bipartisan-supported corporate socialism.</p>
<p>^^^
do you think that because wealthy people who earn for example $ 500,000 a year, as compared to a person that earns $ 50,000 a year receives more from the government in terms of services and infrastructure ?</p>
<p>If not, why do you think that they should pay higher taxes ? Or is it resentment towards people that have more money than you do and you feel that they should hand over theirs to you because they just have more ?</p>
<p>If there was a straight income tax ( i.e. 10% for all ) the wealthy would already be paying more than someone less fortunate or who earns less.</p>
<p>Assets tax ? National health care ? aid to refugees ?
All of this should be paid by the wealthy in our country ?</p>
<p>Sorry, I don’t agree . You want major tax increases and it must fall upon the wealthy. Sounds like you like the idea of socialism.</p>