Posted on | January 16, 2012 | 32 Comments
Update: thank you, Political Clown Parade:
The title is inspired by a post at Legal Insurrection, quoting Andrew McCarthy:
I keep hoping to hear those three words [about RomneyCare]: “I was wrong.” But they’re not coming. Romney supporters on the right keep rationalizing that he is just doing what he must do to stay viable: resisting a colossal flip-flop that would be more damaging than all the others. The candidate, however, says no, and attests that he is defending Romneycare because he believes in it. I usually worry that politicians lie. I’m worried that this one is telling the truth
The recent circling of the wagons around Bain leads me to believe that the Republican Party and conservatives, or at least almost all of their most vocal pundits, are unable to see the reality of what is approaching.
This is at the heart of the Mitt contradictions: if he’s such a hard-nosed capitalist, why RomneyCare? Is he somehow a victim of Bain Dramage? Or is Mitt more of a crony capitalist than a laissez faire capitalist?
Via Just a Conservative Girl, we have Colberts “Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow” delivering “Attack in B Minor for Strings”:
Nicely done, blatant hyperbole. But can Mitt deliver? Our Federal government, metaphorically speaking, needs a few trillion $ worth of “Heeeere’s JOHNNY!”, right in the over-reach department.
Yet, as Darleen notes over at Protein Wisdom, emphasis original:
Romney has promised that he’ll grant a waiver to all states in regards to Obamacare once he becomes President, effectively killing the legislation. But such a waiver doesn’t mark Romney as committing to limited-government principles. Indeed, such a waiver granted while continuing to defend Romneycare on risible reasoning is highly suspect of future proposals from President Romney done for our own good.
It gets down to the point that the Progressive improvements for our own good in the last century are:
- contrary to the spirit of individual liberty in the Constitution,
- have proven suicidally unaffordable,
- have had the unintended consequence of breeding a quasi-aristocracy in the form of Federal bureaucrats (warm folks, individually, parasitic as a whole), and,
- have bred a generation of dependent fools of the sort who would think #Occupy is a boffo idea.
Finally, note Joel Pollak at Big Government:
I had dinner with several Democrats recently–some “leftist,” some moderate–and their views on the Republican primary left me feeling rather uneasy. The fact is that many Democrats are eager to face Mitt Romney in the fall, no matter what they might say in public.
. . .
4. Democrats don’t trust Romney because they believe conservatives don’t either. Though Democrats tell themselves Romney is extreme, they sense he lacks the full trust of the conservative base. Their explanation is not that Romney has taken positions to the left of his party, but that he is a “flip-flopper.” Right or wrong, the fact that conservatives seems to have doubts about Romney is seen as a point against him, not in his favor.
In summary, Mitt is about as opaque as Barack. If it proves to be the case that Mitt has the best campaign machine (money, grip on the state-level GOP, phalanx of offpsring to campaign for him) after the August convention, then fine. But the blogs are going to continue to support Not Mitt Romney in the overall Not Barack Obama effort, so long as he remains such a distant, unknown figure:
Update: linked at Daily Pundit.
Once we do understand them, we conservatives will probably have no alternative but to destroy the party and then rebuild it. I don’t think we’ll naively believe it can be reformed.
Yet, I’m still contending that this approach will be easier than starting from scratch.