When it comes to getting the middle class back to work, Mitt Romney says, "No." When it comes to respecting women's rights, Mitt Romney says, "No." When it comes to letting people marry whomever they love, Mitt Romney says, "No." When it comes to expanding access to good health care, Mitt Romney says, "No."Even though assertions are a dime a dozen, these deserve a closer look. Most of his assertions fall flat when countered with "Based on what?". The first assertion devolves into a muddled mess when this question is asked. Keynesians and Austrians may disagree on the stimulative effects of their policy proposals, but on what basis does one conclude that one or the other doesn't want to 'get the middle class back to work'?
Actually, Mitt Romney said, "Yes," and now he says, "No." Governor Romney has undergone an extreme makeover, and it ain't pretty. So here's what we're going to say to Mitt Romney. We're going to say, "No."
Moving right along, the second assertion is emblematic of the demagoguery of the left. The 'women's right' spoken of here was personalized by Sandra Fluke's presence at the convention. Apparently, all women's rights and healthcare issues are reduced to unlimited access to abortions and free birth control. Would anyone be taken seriously if they argued that the canary in the coal mine for men's health or men's rights is the availability of free condoms? So much for nuance.
The next call prompting a "no" response is a non sequitur ad absurdum. The left continually says that wanting to define what constitutes marriage in a society is equivalent to telling people who they can love. This is nonsense on stilts. Many people claim that they love multiple partners and would like the state to sanction this by legalizing polygamy. By not sanctioning this, is the state forbidding the love that underlies the desire to marry multiple partners? Why isn't the gay marriage crowd as vociferous on behalf of polygamists or incestualists? If two brothers claim love for each other and want their loving relationship acknowledged by the state, can't they similarly claim that the state says "no" to allowing people to marry whomever they love? Since many Democrats oppose sanctioning polygamy and incestual relationships, are they in the same boat that Castro puts Romney? Nobody is telling anybody who they can love. Everybody is defining custom for society by defining marriage - Democrats and Republicans alike.
Discussing the ability for a society to pay for all the medical care that individuals in that society may want could be described as saying "no" to expanding access to good health care. But so could everything that is limited by financial reality. If a person is not able to have not just a car, but the car of his desires, is this saying "no" to access to good transportation? By explaining that bankruptcy might be the result of providing every person the home of their desires at the expense of fellow taxpayers really saying "no" to access to good shelter?
And then Castro goes all in. He chides that Romney was for expanding access to good healthcare before he was against it. Is this really where he should go given the Democratic presidential nominee has only recently 'evolved' to support gay marriage only after he said "no" after previously saying "yes"? Does Castro feel that Obama has undergone an ugly extreme makeover?
Castro's speech ain't pretty.