Hey, Simfan24, I know this won't sound good to you, and I'm sure not trying to influence your vote, since I don't like Romney either. But, it seems to me, Huntsman's and Romney's approaches to governing in Utah and Massachusetts were not all that different, actually.
Romney had to push forth, on occasion, conservative ideas upon a liberal legislature. Huntsman had no such problem, but on occasion put forth liberal ideas. Huntsman's tenure saw strong growth, job creation, and social reforms, while Romney's tenure was marked by an abysmal record of job creation, the implosion of the state GOP largely due to the blatancy of his ambition, and a health care bill he doesn't like to talk about. He's always talking about his time at Bain, which for me is truly indicative of the failure of his term as governor- he never mentions that. The approaches might have been similar, but while for Huntsman it was the right approach, Romney clearly needed another one. Don't begin on the flip-flopping and general lack of sincerity.
The reason that MA and UT saw such different job creation rates is partly explained by the fact that UT is a sunbelt state with unlimited potential for population growth, vast natural resources to be exploited, with lower tax and regulatory burdens. Massachusetts though, has to rely on a relatively stagnant population with limited potential for growth because of size, and few resources that can be exploited that aren't currently being so (Nat gas off the coast, but that will never be done because of politics), not to mention high tax burdens and regulatory impact. To use the figure that Huntsman kept peddling about MA being 47th while UT was number 1, is misleading. If you think MA has the ability to rise to number 1 or even into the top 25, I got a bridge you might be interested in. It's like the US growing at 2% to 3% while the Chinese grow at 7% to 9%. There is more to economic growth rates then just gov't policies. The developing country will have higher growth rate and thus a higher job creation rate, as well. There are better methods to cast aspersions on Romney's job creation record as Governor. This was stupid on Huntsman part, to emphasize this.
This is the second time around that I have heard this claim that Romney "imploded the GOP" in MA. The last time was in 2007. In fact it sounds much like what the McCain people were claiming. All that happened was a slight decline in the legislature (The GOP went from 15% to 10%) and they lost of the Governorship at the end of his term. It is MA, do you really think that it could go on electing GOP Governors forever? Sooner or later it had to end, and why is it surprsing that it was 2006? Which I will remind you, Bush was in the 20's in these states. If someone destroyed the GOP during Romney's tenure, it wasn't Romney, it was Bush and the Iraq war. Without Romney, the Governorship would have been lost in 2002 because Swift was in the 20's or so when she left office. Romney actually led an effort to regain some ground in the legislature in 2004. It failed, largely because of Kerry's presence on the ballot and Bush losing it by so much. There wasn't anything that happened in MA, that didn't happen elsewhere in 2006. There were places were the losses were much greater. The MA GOP has been "imploded" since JFK beat Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. They lost half the legislature then and the other half in 1958.To use such terminology to describe what happened when Romney was in office, is an insult to JFK.
Since when does Romney not like to talk about his healthcare act? The pundits say he doesn't like to talk about it becuase it is his achilles heel so it would make sense that he would want to avoid it if he could, but lets not to jump to that being what the candidate actually thinks. He has done quite well in many of the instances were it was discussed, and he hasn't abandoned, or run away from it. Whether he would prefer to not to talk about it or not, is irrevelant because he has to talk about it and he has.
He talks about Bain because he wants to emphasis his non-political experience. He talks about the Olympics for the same reason. People clamor for that kind of experience and especially business experience amongst the GOP. It is not because he doesn't want to talk about his term as Governor. I have seen him mention his time as Governor serveral times. Why are they mutually exclusive, why can he talk about only one or the other?
The problem here is one that is typical in primary campaigns. You get caught up in the rhetoric for your guy and by extention rhetoric against the other candidates. It's nothing to be ashamed of, mind you, that is simply the way of it. For instance, the reason I would never vote for Huntsman in the primary is because he reminds me too much of McCain. I was a McCain supporter before I switched over to Romney in 2006, now I oppose candidates who even remind me of him.
