I don’t like Mitt Romney. I think he’s a smarmy, slimy, flip-flopping, which way’s the wind blowing opportunist. I also know that he’s not a conservative, so any time I see a post that seems to be seriously considering Romney for 2012, I feel compelled to respond. I’ve tried to get someone, anyone, to explain to me how RomneyCare is substantively different from ObamaCare (obviously, RomneyCare is much smaller and didn’t include student loans or other random crap), but no one can really tell me. I’ve asked and asked someone, anyone, to explain to me what part of the government (in RomneyCare’s case state, not federal, of course, but what part of the government) mandating that every citizen who can, as deemed by the state, afford health insurance either purchase it or pay to the state a fine/tax/penalty (a rose by any other name . . . ) or go onto the government-run healthcare plan (and oh, yes, MassHealth is government-run healthcare, make no mistake about that) . . . what part of that is “conservative”? By normal people’s definition of “conservative”?
We all know that Romney’s views on abortion are, to borrow a term from the current politician whose ideology best matches Romney’s, “evolving.” What this means is that if he’s playing an “independent,” he’s pro-choice, but when he’s playing a “republican,” he’s pro-life. Let’s not forget that the only reason he became a republican was for political expediency–he wanted to be a senator, and Ted Kennedy was up for reelection that year, and for the first time since Teddy’d taken it in 1962, that seat looked winnable. This was in the wake of the disastrous leftward-lunge that Clinton took during his first two years in office, including HillaryCare that horrified the American people because . . . well, because we don’t like the idea of government-run health care.
Remember, this was in 1994, the year of the Gingrich GOP revolution. It was the year to (pretend to) be a conservative if ever there was a year (to that date anyway), so guess what, “independent” Romney wakes up one morning, reads a couple polls, clacks the numbers and implications around in his scheming, well-quaffed head, and decides that he’ll be a republican. Just like that. Kerry (the other senator from Mass then, as now) wasn’t up for reelection until 1996; Romney knew that the conservative momentum would wane before then; granted, he probably didn’t know that the GOP would so spectacularly botch their chance to lead, but he had to know that if ever there was a time to unseat Ted Kennedy, 1994 was it.
But even then, he was still pro-choice (this was before he evolved into being “personally pro-life” but pro-abortion for everyone else . . . which in its turn was before he became “pro-life” all the way down the line–or, as Teddy Kennedy said so aptly, Romney was “multiple choice”), a fact that is reflected in RomneyCare, actually, because not only are “abortion services” covered by RomneyCare but the taxpayers actually pay for them.
Let that sink in.
He’s actually bragged that RomneyCare (get this!) reduces the number of abortions that taxpayers fund (btw, we get huge chunks of federal cash for MassHealth, so your tax dollars are funding RomneyCare abortions, too). Note that this issue is usually discussed as being solely about abortion. It’s not. It’s the role of government. Should the government “spread the wealth around” under the guise of . . . well, anything. Is that the government’s job?
By the way, this isn’t just about abortion and the role of government, it’s also about illegal immigration because MassHealth (aka RomneyCare) absolutely includes taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants, but apparently this was all before Romney’s view of amnesty “evolved” from ignoring sanctuary cities here in Massachusetts when he was governor to his current (or at least last I heard) stand against amnesty and sanctuary cities–Martha Coakley, the ridiculously evil Attorney General who failed so miserably in her bid for
Teddy’s the people’s seat, has famously stated that it’s not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts. Pretty much Mitt’s policy, too, when he was governor. But I’m sure that’s changed. You know, for now.
His record speaks for itself. His words speak for themselves even when–especially when–he seems to contradict himself (to put it mildly). Can we think of any other prominent politicians who espouse one lunatic leftist ideology one day (“I think when we spread the wealth around it’s better for everyone“) and renounce it the next . . . while quietly going about pursuing a progressive agenda? But Fuzzy, I hear you say, did you just imply that Romney is a progressive? Oh yes, that’s exactly what I just implied. In fact, that’s exactly what Romney himself best “likes to say”:
But what, you ask, can this possibly mean? As “conservative” as the Constitution and as “progressive” as Lincoln? Well, I answer, here’s the deal, Romney’s a progressive by his own admission. Big government, big spending, amnesty-supporting social progressives are nothing new. Heck, both President Bushes were, to different degrees, in this camp. They’re harder to spot when they’re also patriots who love America, but they’re even more dangerous because of that. What the heck was President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” if not “progressive republicanism“?
And lest we forget, the original Progressive platform (chilling to read today as we check off the long list of their accomplishments) was born of a breach in the republican party, the party of Lincoln, and is the same one that Hillary Clinton embraces as a “modern progressive.” Sure, the first progressive convention wasn’t held until 1912, and Lincoln died in 1865, so it’s easily arguable that he couldn’t possibly have been a progressive as the movement didn’t exist during his time. So while he may not have been a card-carrying progressive–indeed, he couldn’t have been, his words and actions were in line with the movement that was later born of his party, even of his own ideals and actions. After all, Lincoln was not a man who let a good crisis go to waste, and he amassed more power to centralized federal government than any other president before or after (with the notable exception of FDR): he established the Department of Agriculture, passed the first income tax (a flat tax, though, not the progressive monstrosity we’re saddled with today), determined that the federal government was more powerful than the states in many matters (in direct contradiction of the 10th Amendment, of course), and set up a central banking system (but not the fed). Baby steps.
He also did fun things like have journalists who dissented with his agenda arrested and jailed (or just sent in the military to take over a newspaper if that seemed more expeditious–this happened only once, but come on, the military storming two newspapers and literally taking them over?). And it wasn’t just journalists who were rounded up, but anyone who was suspected of sympathizing with the rebels. To do all this, he had to suspend habeus corpus. Not a problem, who needs those pesky constitutional rights against searches and seizures, arrest and imprisonment, due process, and redress of grievances? The man definitely did admirable things (if not for admirable reasons), but he was also a big government dynamo. Or as I guess is also accurate, Lincoln was, in many ways, a tyrant. Tyrant, progressive–tomato, tomahto. Romney, however, is happy to wear the “I’m as progressive as Lincoln” label, and that’s enough to make my blood run cold.
If you’re interested in learning more about Romney and his progressive leadership here in Massachusetts, check out Romney is a Fraud. It’s a leftist site that catalogs Romney’s disastrous governorship in Massachusetts, and it’s replete with every flip, every flop, and every progressive move this man made–many of which were not recognized as such by the leftist writing them. Nothing new, though, even today looking at BO, they can’t seem to see any “progressive” “change” unless it’s immediate–no “starter homes” will do.
It’s definitely worth flipping though the early archives (they go back to 2003) to catch some of the real doozies. It’s all there (with reference to original sources, mostly the Boston Globe and now defunct links to the Romney .gov site). But you can go read all about Romney’s “civilian intelligence network” (does that ring any bells for anyone? Shame he didn’t think about working with WalMart like Nappy or set up a “flag the fishy” site like the Fascist in Chief), the pandering to his benefactors and supporters, the increased regulations on things like air quality (he’s got the same “green” streak that all the sprogs seem to have, come to think of it) and elevator safety (and no, elevators weren’t crashing to the floor loaded with little old ladies, children, and puppies nor even were empty elevators barreling to the basement–the rumor was that he was giving contracts as rewards for support, not sure about that, but I do know that this “conservative” was zippy gung-ho to push through all manner of unnecessary regulations that hurt business and helped the government coffers), the . . . oh, the list of his big government, big spending, nanny state idiocy goes on and on.
If Romney is a conservative, then so is BO because I’m telling you, these two are ideologically simpatico (and they’re both craven narcissists as well, but that’s another post for another day). And if Romney and BO are conservatives, I need a new label for my political ideology. Now.