Mitt's track record shows that he's closer to Obama than people are willing to admit. Sure, he got things done in Mass. By raising taxes and squashing freedoms.
Sorry, but I don't see it. Mitt took over a budget that was in serious trouble in Massachusetts and
balanced it with a combination of cutting spending and by ending certain deductions and closiing corporate loopholes that had never been intended to exist, and did that without substantially pissing anybody off. And he subsequently promoted and signed legislation to reduce taxes in Massachusetts 17 times.
He did pass Romneycare through bipartisan support in the legislature and with the blessings of most of the people--contrast that with Obama getting no bipartisan support for Obamacare and passing it against the approval of most of the people. The final vote was 239 to 213 which is pathetic considering Obama had a super majority at the time. Only two members of the Massachusetts legislature, one Democrat and one Republican, voted against Romneycare.
When Mitt left office, Massachusetts was 22nd in per capital tax burden, boasted very low unemployment, one of the highest per capita incomes, at or near the best rated schools in the country, and, other than the mandatory part of Romneycare, I fail to see that he trampled on anybody's freedoms. And at the state level, it isn't a restriction of freedom.
The Founders deemed that freedom included the right for the states/local communities to form whatever sort of society they wished to have, and that included the right to do it poorly or wrong. The states are free to organize as they want and the federal government would not step in to stop people from having whatever social contract and society that they want.
Romney and Ryan understand the difference between states rights and federal powers., and Mitt was reassuring about that in the debate. I don't believe Obama does.
I can't imagine Mitt pushing through any major legislation without strong Congressional support and without the approval of the people.