Romney: "I’m As Conservative as the Constitution and As Progressive as Lincoln"

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.




22 thoughts on “Romney: "I’m As Conservative as the Constitution and As Progressive as Lincoln"

  1. Sounds like your mind is made up.
    I'll go ahead and say what I think. I'll probably be the only one commenting here with this view.
    So, here goes.
    I like Romney. I actually trust the guy.
    Isn't that what we are trying to do– get our Republicans to endorse some of our conservative views? In my mind that's what Romney did on the abortion issue. I say he became more informed on the issue and changed his stand. I embrace that change. I don't call it a flip-flop, I call it for what it is. He sincerely changed his mind.
    I realize, that's just one problem mentioned that you have with the man.
    In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney balanced the budget first- pretty impressive– then he reached across the aisle to create a popular health reform program that was specifically designed for the unique needs of his state. As we know, Obama, on the other hand, created a huge new entitlement program in an era of record deficits by ramming an unconstitutional, one-size-fits all mandate through a reluctant congress and over the expressed objections of a majority of the American people.
    Big Difference!
    Many conservatives have me running scared that when the time comes, and I believe it will come, they may not show up to vote for him.
    To not show up or support Romney once he is on the ballot would be seriously irresponsible for every single person who is appalled at what Obama is doing to this country. Please tell me we're brighter than that.

    I have no doubt Romney would be just what this country is in need of– He's smart, actually loves America, he's strong-showing evidence of supporting a spine, and he can do the job and do it well. NO Doubt about it!

    Sure hope all of America- or at least the majority who are sick to the possibility of 4 more disastrous years, can get behind the candidate ending up on the ticket — Romney or otherwise, and rally up and win this thing.

    Just my thoughts.
    Like you Fuzzy, just disagree with you on this one. Have a great week-end.

  2. @Pedaling, heh, no worries, the polls suggest that a lot of people like Romney. I don't. RomneyCare is a one-size fits-all huge new entitlement, though, I'm not sure how you see it from wherever you live, but it's exactly like ObamaCare right down to the unconstitutional tax for not buying health insurance. People here are on the edge of their seats waiting to see what the Supremes do, lawsuits in hand. You are right, though, that this was not done in a shady, backroom kind of way . . . but only because it was a hit here in progressiveland.

    You don't mention illegal immigration or tax-payer funded abortion, so I'm guessing that you'll give him the same pass on that because of the blueness of MA? If so, how does that gel with your impression of him as principled or noble (or conservative)? If he wanted to, he could have run in Utah, a real red state (in fact, his eligibility was challenged here in MA because of his Utah residency), so why not just go there and not have to bend to the will (as you see it) of the sprogs in MA?

    As to his balancing the budget, yes, he did, but do take a look at how he did it (and what he didn't do). Do the ends justify the means?

    As to the rest, you're more than welcome to express your support for Romney here; I likes you, too. πŸ™‚ But I definitely disagree. He's a slime ball.

  3. you don't have to convince me. i so do not want to see romney as the nominee. in fact, so far, there are very few people i would be happy with.

  4. @Kerry, yeah, he's pretty heinous. I lived in Mass throughout his entire tenure as governor, and the man is unethical, slimy, and disgusting. But you're right, the GOP 2012 field is . . . just sad. And depressing. There is, so far, not one that I'd be happy with, but a couple that I could be sort of okay with if that's all we've got. 😦

  5. Fuzzy,

    Tis a sad state of affairs isn't it. I agree with you, Romney is a Progressive in Conservative clothing, and I don't trust him.

    How about a ticket with Marco Rubio and Allen West?

    By the way if Bro and I got any better, we'd be triplet!

    Lock & Load!!!
    Sons & Daughters of Liberty Unite!!!

  6. Sorry,

    We would be “triplets”.

    If you want to put a smile on your face, check out the latest post from (P) Where can I get a job like that?

  7. k- here's a bit more per our conversation.

    Romney opposed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses.
    He vetoed a bill to give illegal aliens the right to in-state tuition at public universities.
    Romney actually vetoed the section regarding insurance for illegal immigrants but of course, it was overridden.
    Quote: β€œI’m against an amnesty and against anything that provides an incentive for people to come here illegally.”

    Here's the deal with me. The last election, during the primary, I was fully behind Romney. This time I'm fully behind whomever it is I feel can win and can get the job done and our country back on track; somebody my gut tells me I can trust. I want someone smart and with some experience– who believes in the free market! Please can we have somebody who actually believes in America?!

    My first choice above Romney, right now, is Michelle Bauchman. I hope she throws her hat in. I'd vote Christie over Romney in a Primary, as well, if he were to run. Don't care for Huckabee or Newt. I like Sarah Palin. I hope she doesn't run. Honestly, I feel the left will continue to play the race card and I feel it's high time we on the right go ahead and play their game- as we have begun doing over the course of the last two years (organizing, rallying, getting more involved, speaking out) and I think we need a person of color (is it politically correct for me to say that??? who knows?) on the ticket- because the left will play the race card and it will continue to be effective, even though it's been proven ridiculous, at this point.
    What I'm trying to say, I guess, is even though I did not support McCain in the Primary, I got behind him in the election. Even though, I can't stand Huckabaee and don't care for Newt, I'd get behind them too, if that's what it came down to. I hope others will do the same and rally behind Romney, if and when the time comes.

  8. @ L, yay, I'm so glad you and Born Again are doing so great. I *heart* you guys πŸ™‚

    Well, I have reservations about Rubio because of the financial improprieties, and there is some question about his eligibility (though that would be funny to watch because what is BO going to say? “Show me your birth certificate”? Ha!), and apart from that he's just not held office long enough. I do like him, though, just not for 2012. I really like Allen West, but again, the experience factor holds me back, and I wonder a little at how much he'd push the boundaries of the Patriot Act (granted only in pursuit of actual terrorists, but as we are seeing with this loon in the WH, once a precedent is set, a power in place, it just expands and gets used and abused by later presidents). *Sigh* The field just doesn't look good to me right now. I'm hoping someone will appear out of the ether, but I'm not holding my breath. This group may be all there is, and if that's the case, I like Cain or West (at the moment).

    @Pedaling, aw, let's not get all into it. I respect that you like Romney, but he totally ignored about six Massachusetts cities' sanctuary city status (they were and are very open about it). He never cut funding, he never challenged them, he did nothing. As for his vetoing that bill about in-state tuition, that's because his budget was focused on using tax payer money to teach illegals English (!). He was also employing a gardening or landscaping service that used illegal immigrants. In his yard. That we paid for. And he's NOT against amnesty; that all started literally WEEKS before he left the governor's office to run for president. And keep in mind that he uses language just like BO does. Romney says in one breath that he doesn't believe in or support amnesty, and in the next that he does support a path to citizenship (this re: the McCain-Kennedy AMNESTY bill). It was a sham, a semantics fake, a game–just like his views on abortion.

    I do agree with you people can and do change their views, God knows I've changed mine, but he's an opportunist each and every time. Look at his record. When did he become a republican? When did he become pro-life? When did he become anti-gay marriage? (and oh, yes, let's not forget that Romney is the one that brought us gay marriage in Mass). When did he get tough on illegals? Never until it was politically expedient to do so. Believe me. I was here, I watched it all, and it was ugly.

    I love Michelle Bachmann,and am looking forward to seeing what she does. I'm with you on Sarah. I'm having doubts about Christie, though I'd take him over Romney any day of any week. definitely not Huck or Newt. Ugh, it's so awful. The field is just . . . crap. 😦

  9. @L, I just posted somewhere else, that Rubio and West would be the dream team. It won't happen in 2012 though. I don't think.

    Romney and Huckabee are the 1st two liberals I crossed off my list.

    Romney doesn't even know what the question is let alone the answer. If through some insane trip to still yet another dimension, Romney ends up running, I will Not vote for president. I'll vote for Congressional and local races and of course NOOOOOO to any tax increases.

  10. I'm a big fan of Herman Cain. There are others I can support (Rubio, West, Bachmann….). Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich….no way. RINOs. I fear I will have to stay home if it's another of them.

  11. @Odie, me, too.

    @Kid and @Deekaman, you know, I've never stayed home for a presidential election, but if it really did come down to BO and Romney, what would be the point in voting at all? They're the same, and if Romney did somehow win, he'd almost certainly get a “democrat” (i.e. socialist progressive) Congress by 2014. And he'd do exactly what he always does, leap into progressive policy with both feet (when he's not ignoring sanctuary cities and working behind the scenes for gay marriage). I'm not sure that I could not vote for president, but I hope it never comes to that. McCain was just the same as Romney, and I somehow managed to vote for him. Ugh, it's so awful.

    @JACG, lol

  12. Fuzzy, Yes, plus having Romney in there would just make more people think, “what's the difference voting Republican, just as bad, if not worse.”

    He wouldn't be conservative and you'd Still have to hear the infantile media pound away on him for 4 years. If I have to listen to that * I want someone who is implementing conservative policy and making Democrats cry their little eyes out. Yahoooo !

    btw – I was on CL's blog last night and 'friended you' – that was the first time I've seen that, never saw it anywhere else, and wondered if that had been out there for a while or do you even know about it. It was the first time I'd been to that blog and popped up when I 'followed', so thought it was strange. Anyway.

  13. This is exactly why the GOP shoots itself in the foot almost every time. We don't blindly line up behind our GOP nod like the Dems do theirs(which I think is great). But when it comes time to win and rid of BO, many of us still won't support the GOP nod if it is Romney. This type of thinking and non-voting if Romney is on the ballot, leaves us with BO.

    Remember in 2008 Romney was the ONLY one in poll after poll who could beat Obama. Nothing has changed with that. Dems know it too, they are paying absolutely no attention to any other GOP contender.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s