Beyond 495

Eileen McNamara points out that Kerry Healey was lukewarm on choice before she was for it. It just depends on whose race it is. If it’s Shannon O’Brien’s she’s against, if it’s Willard’s she’s for it — or something? When Healey was working to get Romney elected there wasn’t any difference between Shannon’s position on choice and Mitt’s.

“There isn’t a dime of difference between Mitt Romney’s position on choice and Shannon O’Brien,” Healey told the Associated Press about her running mate and his Democrat opponent when she was helping to market Romney as an abortion-rights supporter in the 2002 campaign that sent them both to Beacon Hill.

Okay, so who’s telling the truth? The truth is that Romney and now Healey will say anything to get elected.

Here’s where Eileen makes the real point:

She has consistently supported the 1973 US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, but isn’t it fair to ask whether she turned a blind eye to Romney’s real feelings about abortion out of political expediency four years ago? If so, what does that say either about the depth of her commitment to abortion rights or her capacity for political independence? If not, why hasn’t she denounced the governor for intentionally misleading Massachusetts voters? (emphasis mine)

Because Romney/Healey have done nothing but mislead us since they took office. They haven’t lowered taxes. They haven’t improved the economy. The state infrastructure is literally crumbling and they’ve done nothing, except blame a legislature they should be working with, instead of against. Kerry Healey is running as fast as she can from her failed record, but I’m sorry. You broke it, you bought it.

Actually, I’m not sorry.

Isn’t there a soccer team in Beverly Farms in need of a coach?