Mitt Romney Shows True Self – Moderate-RINO, Not Constitutionalist-Reformer



Mitt Romney’s performance as a candidate for the President of the United States is just as I suspected and feared.
He has been and always will be a moderate – too indecisive to be a servant of the people of the United States as a supporter of the Constitution of the United States, and why the GOP bosses (establishment) pushed him as their “poster boy” candidate.

As Chris Cillizza observed at Morning Fix, Washington Post:

In a speech Wednesday night at the University of Miami, Moderate Mitt Romney reared his head. In the course of a single night, Romney said:
* On his “47 percent” comment: “This is a campaign about the 100 percent.”
* On health care: “Now and then, the president says I’m the grandfather of Obamacare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment, but I’ll take it.”

* On immigration: ”I said I’m not in favor of a deportation — a mass deportation effort rounding up 12 million people and kicking them out of the country.”
* On gay marriage: “I would like to have the term ‘marriage’ continue to be associated with a relationship between one man and one woman, and that certainly doesn’t prevent two people of the same gender living in a loving relationship together having gay domestic partnership, if you will.”

Concluded NBC’s “First Read” of Romney’s remarks: “Last night was the candidate many of us expected to start seeing in June or July, not in September — it was the Romney of 2004.” We’ve long wondered when the centrist Romney might emerge — particularly as his statement on the protests in Libya and even his initial handling of the “47 percent” video seemed driven by a “reassure the base” strategy that, to our mind, is almost entirely unnecessary. Polling suggests that the conservative base is — and has been almost since the moment he became the GOP nominee — strongly behind Romney. Heck, even Bill Clinton doesn’t think the Romney-as-flip-flopper narrative will work.

It would be naïve of me to ignore the fact that politics is just as much a strategy game as football. However, can the Tea Party movement and citizens who demand a constitutional government of which moderate does not apply – the Constitution of the United States is foremost above all political compromise – are back-stabbed, again.
However, the question can be:
Is Romney moving central to obtain votes from the 47 percent, and then do what conservatives chose him to do, and be strong to carry it out once President of the United States? His past record of indecisiveness and not sticking to the guns, more worried about pleasing everyone and end up pleasing no one is showing. It is why the Obama percentage is so close, and if polls are correct, may exceed that of Romney. He will lose the election just as he did in the past in the primary election and for the same reasons. Moreover, it is not for telling the truth about the 47 percent.
Cillizza also makes another valid and truthful point:

Romney is tonally [totally] a moderate. While he — like virtually every politician who has managed to rise to such a high level — has been required to adjust some of his policy positions to suit the party base, Romney’s natural inclination is to be the problem-solver in the room, not the partisan warrior. And, the more a politician can be publicly who they actually are at their core, the better chance they have of winning.

Cillizza also is testimony of what I have accused of the political campaigns of last couple do decades to date:

… the RNC has a $76.6 million to $7.1 million advantage over the Democratic National Committee — more than 10-to-1. The money virtually assures that Republicans will far outspend Democrats down the stretch in the presidential race, especially when you add in outside groups.

This represents the atmosphere of elections today. It is not the ideology and/or what a candidate stands for that is paramount, but how much campaign cash is available in deciding the winner – or vote for – directly or indirectly. Huge amounts of cash is because it is expensive to advertise negative campaigning, ads that make the other guy look like dirt. The issues either remain watered down or obscure, like what Obama meant in 2008 about “Change We Can Believe In” scheme.
However, the problem with Cillizza is that you read in his articles all the bungling, negativity, and somewhat objective remarks about Romney – but not equally with Obama.
This does not give the Washington Post good marks on their media report card in terms of objectivity and fair reporting and opinion columns in dealing with Election 2012. 
Ron Paul is needed as always has been needed. 


Advertisements