Hunter raises a good question when he asks how Romney's political resume compares with others. In my view, his resume is pretty thin. Dave Holman notes Romney's "successful campaign in a tough state for a Republican," but as liberal as Massachusetts is, until this past election, it had a tradition of electing moderate Republican governors. In fact, every governor of Massachusetts had been Republican since Michael Dukakis left office in January 1991. With Democrat Deval Patrick now in charge and the legislature even more Democratic than it had been, you can even make a case that not only was Romney not a positive force for the Republican Party in Massachusetts, but he was actually pretty bad–the state party is now at its weakest in 16 years. (Granted, Romney defenders could point to national trends that were beyond his control.) Furthermore, the Romney who successfully won election there in 2002 was the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, Romney–not the "evolved" conservative Romney we know today. Also, his major successes as governor were turning a deficit into a surplus (good) and creating universal healthcare (very, very, bad). But beyond that, people touting Romney's candidacy have tended to focus on his vetoes of Democratic legislation rather than things he actually accomplished. For someone running for president in a time of war as the executive who gets things done, his actual political achievements are few and far between.