Flip-Flopper Mitt Romney Seeks GOP Frontrunner Status in 2012 Presidential Election
Posted by Al @ 1:17 amAug 12
There’s not much to say on this one. Mitt Romney, with his failed Presidential run in 2008, is getting an early start on his attempt to establish himself as the GOP front-runner for the 2012 election. That’s a good thing, if you are not supporting any major party’s candidate in the next Presidential election. If there was any chance of an Independent or 3rd party candidate having a chance to become the U.S. President in 2012, it would be promising with Romney (r) and Obama (d).
I don’t think Americans will want to continue down the socialist/progressive abyss that Obama has us sliding into. So, I think he’s toast in 2012. Romney just doesn’t have a clue as to what he does or does not stand for, politically. I believe he’s another progressive Republican (think McCain, Lieberman, Specter) yellow dog. In other words, he will blow with the political winds of change. As reported by the Washington Examiner’s Gene Healy,
There’s more to the presidency than looking the part, however. Conservatives ought to take a good look at the Romney record and ask themselves whether a man of such flexible convictions is the best they can do.
Well Romney, as Massachusetts’ Governor, has instituted a health care system that Obama’s handlers have modeled their reform bill after. If you were not already familiar with that Romney disaster, here’s the breaking story in 2006. Yes, Mitt’s plan for coverage is compulsory, with fines placed on those who refused state sponsored health care, when it is not employer-provided. As noted in the article,
The governor’s plan was endorsed by Democrats. And before long, it had attracted a coalition of business leaders and consumer advocates, insurance executives and clergymen, hospital CEO’s and poor people.
Of course, the democrats supported it. Subsidizing anything with taxpayer dollars to redistribute wealth to the poor is a no-brainer with those folks.
Back to the Examiner article, Healy states,
Given Romney’s pernicious influence on the health care debate, maybe he should go on an apology tour himself.
I don’t think this guy needs to apologize. He is what he is, a progressive Republican. Romney’s great health care system reform accounts for approximately 1/3 of his state’s $1.3 bil budget deficit. That’s what America will receive if Obama gets this Romney-like plan for America passed.
If that wasn’t enough to convince someone that this guy is a progressive at heart, consider the fact, that he’s really a pro-choice supporter. Of course, he flip-floped on that issue when he entered the race for gop presidential nomination in 2008. He also was a flip flopper when he decided to run against fellow progressive Ted Kennedy for Congress in 1994.
When asked pointedly, he would not denounce the Presidential action of citizen detention without review and he supports military expenditure increases.
While Romney is no conservative, I hope he somehow fools the GOP into accepting his self-proclaimed front-runner status. This would be the best chance of beating both the (d) and (r) in the 2012 Presidential election. So with any luck, it will be ultra-progressive versus progressive-lite, with a 3rd party candidate stepping in to steal the limelight and become our next President.
I believe Romney is a conservative. I mean the guy doesn’t even watch R-rated movies, or drink for crying out loud.
The Massachusetts health care plan was:
1. Not Government run (still run by private insurance)
2. Did not involve a single payer plan and,
3. Was only a STATE program.
Mitt Romney has never said he would want to take the Massachusetts plan nationally. He has always been a proponent of states making their own decisions. Power to the states, not the Federal Government, was the original intent of the founding fathers of this country, and Romney has been adamant about his adherence to this principle.
Conservatives cannot be called Conservatives if they push legislation from a national level that supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage, abortion or other social programs. It is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to make global legislation of this sort (for or against). Those who propose this, like Palin and Huckabee, are not Conservatives by the standards of our founding.
Well, the fact that he doesn’t drink or watch R-rated movies has to do with his religious beliefs, not his political ideology. There are plenty of Christians, Jews and liberals of other religious persuasions who have similar beliefs. You’re simply perpetuating the stereotype that all conservatives must be religious fundamentalists, a non sequitur.
The Massachusetts Health Reform Law of 2006 expanded Medicaid coverage for the “poor” and subsidized coverage for those near the poverty level. In essence, you end up with a large percentage of the citizens being placed under a government run system. It also mandated that uninsured citizens purchase private health insurance or pay a substantial fine.
Is forced healthcare a conservative tenet? Is that the kind of thing a founding father would support? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Well, many of the founding fathers were Federalists and I wouldn’t necessarily conflate federalism with conservatism. A politician supporting a states’ right to allow abortion doesn’t make them a conservative. Too many politicians hide behind federalism in an effort to appear conservative, even though they are really progressives.
This is another non sequitur. A politician supporting a states’ right to allow abortion or some other progressive/liberal tenet doesn’t make them a conservative. Those who have true conservative and moral convictions, like a Mike Huckabee, will stand up and support a constitutional amended outlawing abortion.
Fact of the matter is, I can’t support Romney because I don’t trust him. I don’t believe he has any real convictions, other than what is politically expedient as the time. I’d take Huckabee over Romney any day.