Mitt Romney is a chance America can’t afford.

The “Give Romney A Chance” article defends the gaffe-making nominee with his own record as the governor of the “liberal-ish” state of Massachusetts. It is a good defense; Romney as governor was, if anything, a moderate. He enacted “Romneycare,” a plan which many note as a precursor and possible model for “Obamacare.” In 2004, he raised the Massachusetts minimum wage. His administration tackled environmental issues, while reducing waste within the departments asked to handle the job. He even voiced support for wind farm projects. This is a great record; it is anything but conservative.

Since his departure in 2007, and his pursuit of the presidency in 2008, Romney has shifted farther and farther to the right. Like the Republican party at large, his moderate views have evaporated. Held at gunpoint by the ultra-conservative Tea Party and their media voices, his policies have shifted, and then shifted again. His appeasement of the far right has pushed him into the land of social conservatism; he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He’s flip-flopped on the issue of gun-rights, once supporting reasonable limits (5-day wait on gun sales, assault rifles off the streets), now promising to, “fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.”

As President, Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office. Other promises include permitting construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, something environmentalists have vehemently opposed since its introduction. He has expressed hopes of dismantling the EPA – America’s environmental regulation agency founded under Richard Nixon. His budget plan – or rather, that of Vice Presidential Nominee, Paul Ryan – has been described by Newt Gingrich as “radically conservative.” The non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities claims that his plan “would cause the incomes of large numbers of households to fall below the poverty line.” It also notes that his Medicare plan “could jeopardize beneficiaries’ access to care.” All of these positions negate the merits of his governorship. You can’t give Romney a chance based on his moderate record as governor because his presidency would be nothing like his governorship.

Another detail: defending Romney with his business record does not support the idea that he could be as successful president of the United States. Business leadership and government leadership are fundamentally different positions. Whether or not you enjoy Domino’s Pizza, a product of a Bain Capital investment, should have nothing to do with your political support of an individual. The main argument in Romney’s defense is that at Bain he held the role of job-creator, and that this is something that could be brought to the presidency. That is a ridiculous argument. The presidency is not a position in which one can simply create jobs. To further this, Romney’s position at Bain was not that of a job-creator; Bain was a private equity firm that shuffled money around and made investments.

The next point to pick here is the issue of college tuition, since it is a concern of both the previous article and soon-to-be college students.  The Romney-praising article attacks Obama’s record with a major misunderstanding: that college prices are rising because the government is subsidizing universities. Increases in college tuition are not the result of government subsidies. Costs don’t rise when a government subsidizes something. Costs fall. Take, for example, oil: the oil industry is heavily subsidized by the government, and compared to Europe, where oil is not subsidized, gas prices in America are relatively cheap. So, what is causing the tuition spike? Higher-education institutions keep on pushing prices up because although students loathe paying ever-rising tuition fees, they have not refused to. Prices are increasing because they can. To remedy this, Obama has doubled funding for Pell Grants and established college tax credits — the opposite of what “Give Romney a Chance” claims. Mitt Romney would cut Pell Grants and eliminate the tax credit as part of his limited government budget. Obama has capped federal student loan repayments at 10% of income and has asserted that student loan interests should be kept low, ensuring that student debt won’t ruin someone after college. This progress would all be lost in a Romney-Ryan administration.