Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Mitt Romney's True Colors


Mitt Romney
is nothing more than a political hypocrite and his true colors are showing for all to see.

When questioned repeatedly by reporters and his fellow GOP contenders about his health care plan in Massachusetts, Romney offers up a couple of explanations.  First, he’ll point out that his plan is different than Obama’s.  When pressed about the similarities between the two plans, Romney will pull out his trusty States Rights card and say that the States can do mandated healthcare, but the Federal Government can’t because of the Constitution.

He’s actually quite right on that point.  Other conservative candidates like to employ the notion that if something is un-Constitutional on the Federal level, it must also be un-Constitutional on the State level.  That, however, is not how the framers envisioned things.  They wanted different systems in different States with the Constitution only requiring that States have a “republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4).  Some states even had State religions (Massachusetts being one of them).  This, of course is an argument for another article.  The point is, when Romney says that Massachusetts can have a mandated health plan, he’s right, but he’s inconsistent on this position.

Rick Perry came on the scene and upset the apple cart.  He talked frankly about Social Security.  In his book, he called in a Ponzi scheme (which, by definition, it is), and then he floated the crazy idea of letting the States decide their own Social Security implementation.  Several candidates and the media jumped all over these points.  Romney took the opportunity to sound like a Democrat, especially when he’s speaking to retirees in Florida, and quickly changed his tune about States Rights.  Romney, while talking about “fixing” Social Security, encouraged maintaining the status quo by keeping it as a Federally mandated and administrated program.

Portrait of Mitt RomneyWhat happened, Mitt?  Why are the States allowed to administrate mandatory health care, but not Social Security?  Conversely, why is the Federal Government allowed to administrate mandatory Social Security, but not health care?  I would love to hear his answers.

The truth is, Romney has no answers on this.  He is a snake oil salesman with a history of changing his tune when he is cornered.  Romneycare happened because he allowed himself to be dragged leftward by a Democratic Party controlled legislature.  Instead of standing on conservative principals, he decided to try to co-opt the Massachusetts healthcare debate and rebrand it as his own.  He now wants to take credit for the good while distancing himself from the consequences of his action.   That is something that true conservatives find reprehensible.

It gets worse.  Romney flip-flopped on abortion when it suited him to do so.  He used to be pro-choice way back in 2002, and now he’s, conveniently pro-life.  On gun rights, today he proclaims his NRA membership status, but he supported the Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994.  He currently supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but he has previously had no problems with tax increases.  In fact, in 2003, he openly opposed Bush’s 726 billion dollar tax cut plan.  He supported cap and trade before he was forced to say he didn’t.  But wait.  There’s more, a lot more.

What’s the icing on the cake?  Ask any conservative how he or she feels about our nation’s 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan, and you’ll get a whole list of glowing remarks and accolades.  Romney very publicly says the same sorts of things today, but when he was trying to take Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, he said, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”  When talking to a liberal Massachusetts audience, he apologizes for conservative values, but when talking to Republican primary voters, he tries to be the pinnacle of conservative candidates.

I see a very disturbing pattern here.  Romney, like so many politicians before him, is trying to be all things to all people.  When he’s talking to conservatives, he sounds like a conservative.  When he’s talking to independents, he sounds like a RINO.  Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up, grow a spine, and be heard?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Larry says:

    Jerry Owens, I hear this a lot about electability. So let’s think about this. On a national level Ron Paul stacked up very well on the issues nearly neck to neck in comparison to Obama so in my mind this would mean Ron Paul would have a very good chance of beating Obama and therefore should be considered one of the ELECTABLES as you have state. The truth is when I hear people mention this it is coming from those who are just trying to control and manipulate the Republican party into siding with the more leftist Republican. At one time being more left might help get the most votes, but today we have definitely got to reverse some things because we can not continue down the path we are going.

    I heard the same argument as to why the conservatives must walk the line and help the other Republican nominees into other seats. But the conservative movement/tea party movement showed both parties that they could make a difference. 87 tea party caucus members at the federal level but thousands on all other levels. So why walk to the line with whom the Republican party says is the most electable when really we should be focused on the person or persons who can change this country and get it back on track.

    I was told by some republicans they could care less whether they got my vote back in 2008 because they would win with the disgruntled Hilary supporters. This showed me that many in the Republican party can care less about the conservatives, tea party principled persons, right-wing, etc…. what ever you want to call the folks. But now that things are so bad the rhetoric is still being thrown around as if the conservatives had not been successful at all.

    I think Michelle Bachman said it best last night at the debate that if Obama must be beat and we must support the other person to beat him then why not nominate the conservative who will bring the best changes to Washington? I hear this too. We must beat Obama… and I agree. We must support who the party nominates…. and I agree. Obama is so bad that anyone can beat him… I agree. Any Republican can be better than Obama…. and I agree. Anyone on that stage is a better person for the job and can beat Obama…. I agree. So with that being said, no reason to not support the best conservative/principled person instead of just supporting what some corrupted Republicans think we must support in order to beat Obama.

  2. e can’t see the future so for someone to declare a year before the election that a certain candidate is electable and another not is purely opinion, a guess. In Florida 2010 it was the forgone conclusion that Crist would be Senator and McCollum would be Governor. I, and others, who backed the more principled conservative candidates were told they had no chance. “Principled” here means conservative/libertarian limited constitutional government views, strongly held. Well, Marco Rubio and Rick Scott who fit that description now hold those positions. My conclusion is, support the man of principle (or as close as you can get in this presidential race) and forget who others tell is “the electable ONE.” As for Romney, this article tells him like he is –unprincipled. Of course, he’s preferable to Obama but so is any name you can pick out of the phone book.

  3. Jerry Owens says:

    The name of the game is ELECTABILITY. So far, only Romney (not my choice) fills this requirement….

    • Michael Raymond says:

      This is where the rubber meets the road, then. The conventional wisdom is that Romney is the only electable candidate. That may not be true. Perry’s stance on illegals and in-state tuition doesn’t play well with Conservatives, but does play well with the all-important Latino vote in the general, so, his performance last night not withstanding, he, too is electable, just by a different measure. Perry also stands by his positions and doesn’t back pedel, like Romney has always done.

      Granted, Romney does look the part, but we must be careful not to pick someone who can talk pretty. That’s what the voters did last time and where did that get us?

      To be clear, there are problems with each and every candidate, and I will support Romney if it comes down to him or Obama, but I think it’s important to look closely at his record and make a wise choice based on values not on some perceived notion of electability.