Posted on 01/09/2007 6:41:03 PM PST by Reagan Man
With the 2008 presidential campaign looming just on the horizon, speculation about political fortunes abounds. On the Democrat side, Lady Hillary is waiting in the wings, and the media's profilers have found their fair-haired boy in Barack Obama. On the Republican side, the picture is murkier. Often the Vice-president would be the logical choice to carry the incumbent party's torch, but Dick Cheney won't be running and, even if he did, he wouldn't win. Of course, Arizona Senator John McCain is still around, but he arouses suspicion among conservatives. Seeming worn, tired, erratic and untrustworthy, many think the old soldier should just fade away.
Enter Mitt Romney. Inching ever closer to a presidential run, the former CEO and outgoing Governor of Massachusetts is emerging as the Barack Obama of the GOP. And the analogy is apt. He has the resonant voice, the good looks, the statesman-like bearing and, going Obama two better, great hair and unobtrusive ears.
But Romney shares another commonality with Obama: He's a liberal in his party masquerading as something more palatable. Yes, sugar and spice and dealing the deck twice, that's what little politicians are made of.
As to this point, another politico he can be compared to is Al Gore. Like Gore, Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, only in the other direction. While he now claims to be pro-life, he supported legalization of the "morning-after" abortion pill, RU-486. Moreover, as recently as his 2002 run for governor his platform stated,
"The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
Of course, Romney says that his views have "evolved." But I strongly suspect his adaptation relates more to the evolution of political ambitions than that of conscience. Call me cynical, but unless you've been cloistered in an ancient monastery for the duration, I'm very suspicious of deep personal growth occurring between ages 55 and 59.
According to Romney, unlike himself, the "paradigm" of marriage is not "evolving," and his high profile stand against anti-marriage has garnered him much publicity of late. But here, too, Romney has been about as consistent as March weather, with a track record that belies his newfound traditionalism.
In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney hailed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a "step in the right direction" and "the first of a number of steps" toward homosexuals serving "openly" in the military.
Then, Brian Camenker points out the following in The Mitt Romney Deception:
- "Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's ‘Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
- Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.
- Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
- The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents - including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
- Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it.
Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time." My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left.
Equally damning, though, is that in a very ominous way he can be compared to yet another infamous poseur, Hillary Clinton. On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed 1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother's infinite wisdom, determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help, Mitt. Or, is it "Vinny the Chin"? I mean, this sounds like an offer you just can't refuse.
To justify his socialist brainchild, Romney uses the argument that it is no different from requiring people to carry car insurance. Ah, speciousness, thy name is Romney. Mr. Governor, you can choose not to own a car.
Everyone must have a body.
But remember this when Romney touts his credentials as a fiscal conservative. While he may boast of his steadfast refusal to raise taxes, it rings hollow when he turns around and mandates citizen expenditures and levies fines. But liberals are adept at revenue-raising sleight-of-hand; when another tax increase would raise voter ire, they simply deem it a toll, fine, fee or, I love this one, a "surcharge." I prefer honest theft myself.
President Bush is often excoriated for betraying his conservative base, a perception that contributes to poll numbers lower than Ted Kennedy's jowls. What is forgotten, however, is that while campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush accused the Republican Congress of trying ". . . to balance the budget on the backs of the poor," a line that could have been culled from Democrat talking points. Folks, the president never cast himself as anything but exactly what he is. We just weren't listening.
Are we listening now?
Ah, those Massachusetts liberals: Studds, Frank, Kennedy and Willard Mitt Romney. It just seems to roll off the tongue.
Bernie Sanders for veep, anyone?
You see, I can concede stuff, in your favor. I don't mind at all! Try it sometime. Cheers.
Ah, but you don't have the harpie brigade nipping constantly at your heels. ;-)
No matter what they say, I like you Torie. Again, I think you're honest, even though we profoundly disagree on so many things. It's the liberals here who constantly masquerade as conservatives who turn my stomach.
I admit to being a moderate conservative over all, with centrist tendencies, who is quite conservative on some issues, centrist on others, and liberal on a few. That is what I admit. Your "liberal" tag about me is your tag, not mine. I don't think it is an accurate, or useful, generalization. But I really don't care about how folks label me. Let them decide. I care more about the debate on individual issues, and that is what I do, rather than debate labels. Debating labels is just so entropic. And it is boring.
Anyone they don't like is 'a liberal' or a 'RINO'.
You are to be commended.
EV is drunk on conspiratorial kool-aide.... He's the uber-right's Harold Ickes's nephew's friend's roommate, without the looks or charisma. Or room.
Not that I say I am liberal on this or that, but dang man, you are honest and I like it.
Question for you: Are babies that die because of political "middle-of-the-roaders" just as dead as those who die because of 'radical pro-aborts"?
Sorry, but I'll stick with my opinion. On this very thread you expressed support for gay marriage. You can call yourself a conservative or a moderate til the cows come home, but that is a radical Left position. Keep it up and I might have to revise my opinion about your honesty.
I favor legalized abortion for pre-sentient fetuses in the first trimester, oppose it in the third trimester, absent the most dire health issues with respect to the mother, and in fact consider absent that, aborting viable fetuses, simply murder, which should have legal consequences that comport with that. Second trimester abortion should probably be illegal, but with lessor penalties. That is what I believe. That is my opinion. Characterize it how you like. I have had that opinion now for about 30-35 years. And it is an opinion, I have stated many times on this very forum.
You're welcome.
Interesting. What do you call the narcissistic whack jobs of which you 'nip' the legs every election cycle?
I am liberal on the gay marriage issue, as that term is commonly used with respect to that issue. That is absolutely true. And I am liberal on a few other issues.
For the babies who die, that is the only part of your sentence that matters in the least.
Who are you FOR, Ev?
You wait it is going to be ugly for anyone trying to get the Dems go ahead for nomination.
Don't have a candidate yet.
Roy Moore?
I kid...:)
This person thinks Obama is good looking???!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.