During a visit to Ohio yesterday, Mitt Romney declined to take a stand on Issue 2--a citizen-generated ballot initiative that, if voted down, would repeal Senate Bill 5, a law passed by both the House and Senate and signed by Governor Kasich. SB 5 revises collective bargaining laws concerning all public employees, puts teachers on a merit-based pay system, and requires all public employees to pay 10 percent of their pension and 15 percent of their healthcare--something that already applies to the private sector and Ohio legislators.
Peter Hamby from CNN tweeted that during Romney's visit to phone banks full of volunteers calling Ohioans to support Issue 2, Romney refused to take a stand. A Romney spokesperson later stated that “Gov. Romney believes that the citizens of states should be able to make decisions about important matters of policy that affect their states on their own.” But back in June, Romney wrote a Facebook post that said the following: “I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio’s leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending. Please visit www.BetterOhio.org for more information." And today, Romney, seeming to sense the mistake he had made, issued a strong endorsement of Issue 2.
Romney seems to support Issue 2 but why would he, in an Issue 2 supporter-filled phone bank, decline comment? So just because he supposedly feels strongly for states' rights, that means he now cannot make a reasoned judgement on anything completely within the border of a state? How was he able to talk about and come to a judgement on that same issue back in June, decline to support that issue yesterday, and now today, decide that he can openly support it again? This all makes no sense and does not bode well for a man who, to put it mildly, has not exactly held firm to conservative principles.
It seems that Romney is weak about Issue 2. And then he changed his mind. For a state issue, and more important federal issues, I don't know if he is the right person to be president.
ReplyDelete