Sonikku wrote: So are you saying that Romney is the kind of economic powerhouse mastermind that kept Massachusetts thriving the same way he will at the national level, or that Mass voters calculated a scheme of leeching the most federal funding so they can eat their cake and have it too while everyone else goes bankrupt?
The latter. But as I also said, this election has nothing to do with the economy, but moral destiny, for which the economy is only a safe cover.
KiBa wrote: Massachusetts generally votes for Republican governors and Democrat presidents.
Sonikku wrote: That still doesn't explain why Santorum very nearly beat Romney for his own state in the primaries before going bat shit crazy on JFK/ultra conservative insanity.
Ah, most perceptive, sahib. Allow me explain. The Massachusetts Republicans who take part in the primary are not voting for a Massachusetts governor, but a President of the United States. Only pro-abortion, left-wing Republicans can get elected to office in Massachusetts, because the commonwealth is dominated by Democrats who desire fiscal conservatism and moral liberalism. However, Massachusetts Republican voters are the same as Republican voters everywhere. Ergo, they desire a fiscally and morally conservative candidate for President. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he was a Republican only in name. On all essential points, he was a moderate Democrat. He was pro-abortion and pro-socialized healthcare, and implemented the latter in Massachusetts. Therefore, while Romney was the best Republicans could hope for in Massachusetts, they did not want him to rise to the Republican Presidential nomination. Now that he has, every Massachusetts Republican will naturally vote for him, for they have no other choice.
P.S. I use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the colloquial sense. In truth, they have no real meaning besides "anti-Christian" and "Christian," respectively, in regard to moral values, and less and less relevance to the current mindset of the people. The other important issues of small government versus large government, totalitarianism versus limited government, unitary versus federal organization, globalism versus protectionism, interventionism versus isolationism, concentration of capital versus distribution of capital, etc. are not serious issues up for debate, as if there were two solid sides. Rather, the current parties are in the middle of a confused crisis on all these points. The only thing being voted on, in general, is moral values. Whether you favor one or the other candidate is based on his proximity to your moral vision. Practical plans of action for the, say, the economy, are not at issue here. Rather, the economy is slapped like a shuttlecock in order to avoid talking about what may be offensive, even if that is precisely what now divides Americans.