While I generally disagree with Romney in policy, his words are often at least slightly correct (the same goes with most major players in the political theater). The government has no place "owning" land, preventing its use by the public. Collectivism has its serious flaws, but statism is no substitute for patriotism."Unless there's a valid, legitimate and compelling public purpose, I don't know why the government owns so much of this land."
The problem with this argument is that it promotes the sort of social thinking that runs rampant in states that push socialism on their citizen subjects. Also, one can hold environmental issues in high regard while also being in support of liberty. Romney is just as unfit for the office of the President of the United Sates as Obama, the man with whom he shares so much in common, yet purports to be the best replacement.
One need not be a tree-hugger to see why this man should not be put in charge of the United States. He says it all in one sentence. He does not accept the idea that serve to ordinary people is a legitimate and compelling purpose.
"Is there any long-held, much-cherished American principle that Republicans/Democrats and their media outlets will not renounce? "— Tim Egan
As Ron Paul says, liberty has been lost in this nation for the better part of the twentieth century.
Wake up, America.