Depending on the building and what the handicapped accommodations were like already, I would consider his veto for a handicapped elevator to be an adequate talking point. But I don't know enough about the circumstances. If the building had no accommodations for the handicapped to access other floors to begin with, that is grounds for a court order. On the other hand, if the existing elevator is just fine, who cares? There are an awful lot of renovations that people would like but we just shouldn't do out of a need to cut expenses.

Car elevators are also popular where space is a premium, such as Japan, where garages have cars stacked in shelves, or even in windowless Ferris Wheel type structures.

When "your guy" has failed as a president, especially in regard to the economy, the only thing you can resort to is scrape up idiotic comparisons such as this to besmirch the character of his opponent.

Over a year ago I predicted that this upcoming election in America was going to be THE DIRTIEST in recent memory. Obama's cult-like supporters will say and do ANYTHING to keep their numero uno Jesus-like guru in power for another 4 years ... or longer.

@DCDebbie doesn't understand that he'd have been spending SOMEONE ELSE's $40,000.

Liberals cannot comprehend this. They sincerely regard Obama's brutalizing public debts as evidence of generosity. This guy's in a position to permanently deform the progress of civilization, and they think he's being kind.

The cannot comprehend.

And yet again, I'm appalled by Robert W.'s intimate, hands-in-the-brassiere fascination with the politics of a nation other than his own.

This has been going on for year. What is that?

What Crid said.

If you go to the various places this article has appeared, essentially none of the comments understand the difference. What Romney does with his own money is his business. The fact that he refused to spend taxpayer money is something completely different - and amazingly laudable.

Crid:

If you refuse to spend all the other people's money, then of course, you cannot use any of your own until such time as you used it for spending on what you didn't spend others for.

Or you're a poopyhead.

Ow. My brain hurts.

Uny- Neener! Haha!

If he had paid to put in car stairs then I would really question his judgement.

Or a car Batpole.

Or, for that matter, a pirate elevator...

I googled and rephrased in numerous ways the paragraph:

On June 26, 2006 Romney vetoed an improvement project with the price tag of $40,000 with his line item veto. The project would have allocated the money to Woburn Development Authority for improvements to an elevator to meet the standards set in the ADA.

The nearest I could find to an "honest" discussion was this one. From what I can tell is that there is no elevator from the garage and there is one from a lobby.

But they don't really discuss it or look at the details. It sounds like the handicapped would have to go through the front and use an elevator. From my guess the elevator to the 4 apartments was not essential but nice to have.

The rest is all the same paragraph again and again in all the blog entries.

I look at it as lemmings and cliff. That is just my humble opinion.

Will this be the dirtiest election? I do agree with the premise that President Obama has a hardcore base following. However, I seem to hear the phrase "this will be the dirtiest election" every four years. I suspect in 4 years we will be hearing about it being the dirtiest election of all time.
An incumbent can position his campaign strategy in one of two ways: 1) tout his/her record while in office or 2) he/she can make the alternative candidate a less acceptable choice than reelecting themselves. (they will use both but one or the other will be the dominant strategy).

Since the Obama campaign is not out on the stump singing the virtues of the Affordable Care Act (and considering that is by far the single biggest achievement of his campaign), option 2 is the strategy they are going with. And when using the 'the alternate is less acceptable' playbook, page 1 says play dirty. Page 2 says use dirty to hit and neutralize your opponent on their strengths. Romney brings business credentials to the table, Obama does not. So the Obama campaign, its surrogates and their more diehard supporters are going to parrot the line "Romney is a man too wealthy to understand the common man's plight. For god sake he has an elevator for his cars! He probably eats caviar while making his servants eat two day old chicken McNuggets while rifling through their pockets to take their spare change".
People, that's just politics. In the last 20 years a democrat has garnered at least 46% of the vote (pretty sure of that), that's a lot of potential people to parrot the democratic candidate's talking points (whether it is fair or unfair, dumb or salient). They will say anything they think will resonate with that 46% + 4.01% (or 3.7% if factoring for third candidate voting percentages).

So, this is nothin' but a fixation on the concept of "elevator," right?

I forgot to make clear what I should have said on my original post: what Mitt Romney spends of his private money -- on car elevators, or whatever -- is completely irrelevant.