Mitt Romney Is No Conservative

Mitt Romney is no conservative, he is whatever it takes to get elected.

Mitt Romney’s moral compass is whatever it needs to be that will gain him what he wants, and in this instance it’s the presidency. His positions today are completely different from the positions he held and ran on in 2007 and 2008.

He and his wife have donated to Planned Parenthood, and it’s not the amount of the donation that counts, it’s that his donation helped pay someone to murder an unborn child. A 2007 American Spectator article said: “when it comes to verbal gymnastics on abortion…Mitt Romney deserves a gold medal.” (ABortion-Contortions; W. James Antle, III; 2/22/07)

In a 1994 Senatorial debate against the late Ted Kennedy, Romney said: “[I] recognize the right of all people to believe as the want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support the law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.” He was then criticized by Kennedy for being “multiple-choice,” because of his flipping back and forth on the subject. In his 2002 race for the governorship of Massachusetts, he said: “As governor [I] would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts.”

And it appears, that like Obama, Romney has problems with familial events pursuant to civil rights – his claims that his father and Dr. King marched together having been exposed as lies.
As governor his legislation calling for a certified pool of capital case lawyers who would serve to ensure a fair process for criminals in a capital case was to far out even for the liberals in Massachusetts. The legislation also called for an increased standards of “no doubt” which differs from “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

He was pro more government spending on public schools as a means to increase better grades and outcomes. Like Obama and Bush, he has uses threats and blackmail to get his way, even if it’s extortive. As governor he insisted Connecticut pay $75 million as a “blocking fee” or he would bring casinos to Massachusetts that would have directly impacted the people of Connecticut.

Romney claimed to support the Second Amendment, but in past campaigns he freely claimed to be a supporter of gun control. He supported the Brady Bill, and he supported a ban on assault weapons. Add to that that there is evidence that refutes his claim to be an avid hunter.

Despite the fact that he claims to support traditional families, he has been all over the place on homosexual issues and homosexual marriage. He refused to sign a pledge to honor, uphold, and defend traditional marriage and to oppose homosexual marriage in July 2011. He turned around and then only one month later, in August 2011, he publicly condemned homosexual marriage. It is my opinion that his signing the 2012 presidential pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, isn’t worth the paper it was signed on.

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Romney claimed to oppose pornography, but as Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council pointed out – he did absolutely nothing to prevent Marriott Hotels as they started making it available in their hotels – even though he served on the Marriott board. He claimed not to know Marriott was making substantial profits from the pornography, even though he served on the board’s financial audit committee. He has attempted to straddle the fence on embryonic stem cell research and in 2009 he supported Obama’s stimulus plan. And we know that he has been all over the place on healthcare.

He wrote a NY Times op-ed saying he supported letting “Detroit go Bankrupt,” i.e., allow the automakers to go through bankruptcy, as a means to work out their debt issues. Only to turn around and say that he supported rescuing the automakers with government backed loan and warranty guarantees, preferring instead that they go through a managed restructuring process at what amounted to taxpayers expense.

These are but a few of the issues on which Mitt Romney has flipped-flopped and flipped again. He has used his mother as a prop for abortion, just as Obama his mother as a prop for healthcare.

Of concern for me is the fact that as much as he denies being a Washington insider, Mitt Romney is surrounded by Washington insiders and it is those insiders who are doing all they can to get him nominated. There are also the media marionettes and the party apparatchiks. As much as Karl Rove now pretends to be neutral, he as neutral about Romney as Chris Matthews is about Obama.

We’re told that Mitt Romney has reinvented himself since the 2008 election. But what does that say? Are we supposed to be excited about a person who is the equivalent of a Mayan political Mestaclocan, i.e., shapeshifter. Said political efficacy is not the capacity we should be looking for in a leader, in fact it is the exact opposite of what we should be looking for in leadership. It should be noted that Obama displayed the capacity to present himself as something other than he is and we see how that worked out.

Are people so eager to get rid of Obama that they are willing to thoughtlessly elect the likes of Mitt Romney? Beauty contests don’t turn out well for the voters when it comes to elections, and as another example I point to Arnold Schwarzenegger.