Just when I thought Hillary was wrong

You know, I thought Hillary was nuts when she blamed the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" for all her husband's woes years ago. (Classic "enabler." Always defending the sinner.)

Based on her statement at the time and what we know now, she was nuts. From the friendly Clinton News Network (CNN)

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 27) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy" against President Bill Clinton.

Of course, the famous blue dress proved Mr. Clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman. There was no vast right-wing conspiracy. Just the truth.

But at the risk of sounding like Hillary, you can hardly listen to so-called "Conservative talk radio" lately without wondering if there isn't a vast right-wing conspiracy now in the Right Wing Main Stream Media. How else do you explain the mantra being rammed down our throats in lockstep, that you should vote for Mitt Romney. Not because he's good. But because John McCain is worse. (As always with our wonderful, god pleasing system, the lesser of two evils.)

"Don't vote for John McCain. A McCain Presidency will destroy the Republican party as we know it." (Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, Coulter and of course, promiscuous Romney cheerleader, Hewitt.) The implication, and Rush said it outright a few days ago, is that you should vote for Mitt Romney, not because he's the best man, but because he's not Senator McCain. (No mention of Ron Paul, who seems to me to be the truest Conservative.)

None of these "leaders" in the Conservative movement seem to question any of Mitt Romney's flip flops, instead naively being he's a Conservative today because he says so... today. (Mike Allen of Politico says "WHATEVER he REALLY believes (?), now is locked in stone...")


There are two exceptions I know of in this. Michael Medved and the Wall Street Journal. (Sorry, I don't listen to Bennett or Gallagher to know where they stand. Savage keeps going back and forth on Romney.) Which brings me to the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. It's titled "Romney's Convictions" but it would better be titled "Romney's Convictions. NOT!"

WSJ editorial - sans Mormonism

If you're big on "anti-Mormon bigotry" and/or think "religion is a private matter" that doesn't affect your mores or character, you'll love today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal. There wasn't a thing about Mitt Romney's Mormonism in it. (Although I've argued in this blog that ALL of Mitt Romney's shifty characteristics are a direct result of his Mormonism. Mormonism is inherently Liberal. It's Progressive because their god is progressive.) Instead, the Journal focus only on the secular facts surrounding Mitt Romney.

They start out by explaining that a business man in Washington, D.C. makes no sense. I was planning to post on this someday, but I'm glad the Journal beat me to it.

Project Head Start

First, I'm not convinced Mitt Romney is a great business man. He had quite a head start, with his family background and family money. You know the old saying, "it takes money to make money." It's a lot easier to be successful if you start out with a big bankroll than if you don't. Just three short years after college Mitt Romney was hired as vice president of management consulting firm Bain & Co. (Not Bain Capital, which Mitt Romney started later, after raising 37 million dollars.) Like a woman becoming chief of police in just a few years, that all sounds too fast and too much to me.

Like a runner who wins a race after having a HUGE head start, it's hard to know if that runner is really good or won simply because he had a huge advantage.

Mormon Olympics?

Second, everyone points to Mitt Romney's success during the Olympics. BUT—and this is a large but—he did this in Mormon Utah. We're back to the cheating runner analogy again.

In Utah, Mitt Romney had a lot of connections. In Utah, Mitt Romney had a lot of Mormons who would willingly do whatever  he commanded. I'm sure Mitt Romney could call on the now dead 'living prophet' of the Mormon church to get whatever he needed to fix things and make things happen.

IF MITT ROMNEY HAD TO FIX THE OLYMPICS IN A NON-MORMON ENVIRONMENT, WOULD HE HAVE BEEN AS "SUCCESSFUL?"

We'll never know. But I don't think you should be so quick to assume he's Superman. (Or SuperMITT?)

Back to the Journal. They point out that a business man in politics makes no sense. I hate to say it, but Hillary was right about that the other night in the Dem Debates. (Maybe there is something to this two party system. They're often useful.)

In a business, you have the ability to hire and fire. That's a great motivator to get people to do your will. Not so in government. And you can't make people do what you want by sheer will. Look at the trouble Arnold Schwarzenegger is having in California. As I recall, he intended to change things as The Terminator. It just doesn't work. In fact, politics is downright frustrating for those used to the business world, where things happen quickly and you can eliminate the deadwood.

The Journal's take away line is:

The fact that someone as bright as Mr. Romney doesn't recognize this Beltway reality [that bringing a business model to broken Washington won't work] risks a Presidency that would get rolled quicker than you can say Jimmy Carter.

I submit to you that Mitt Romney isn't that bright. Like all things Mormon, it's just an illusion. (I WILL allow that he's a hard worker though. As in a "Busy Bee." They don't call Utah the Beehive Sate for nothing. Mormons have to work hard to prove they're worthy enough to become a god someday.)

The courage of your convictions

Then the Journal dances around the fact that Mitt Romney has no convictions. That he's a flip flopper. That he panders. They said it without coming right out and saying it.

All the more so because we haven't been able to discern from his campaign, or his record in Massachusetts, what his core political principles are.

[Hint: He's been campaigning for more than a year. You would know by now if he had any. He doesn't. Why are you all so blind? If Mitt Romney was a declared Democrat you'd have no problem picking him apart.]

Mr. Romney spent his life as a moderate Republican, and he governed the Bay State that way after his election in 2002. While running this year, however, he has reinvented himself as a conservative from radio talk show-casting, especially on immigration.

[The reference to "talk show-casting" means it's all an act.]

The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy.

[Bzzzzt! Close. The right answer is: ALL OF THE ABOVE. Mitt Romney IS a Liberal. And he panders, lies and flip flops, as necessary, like John Kerry..]

RomneyCare - This is Conservative?

They go on to talk about RomneyCare. Which, by the way, he promised us again in a recent debate a few days ago, assuring us it wouldn't be like HillaryCare. NOT!

Rush Limbaugh was talking about health care a couple weeks ago and said that he's purposely worked hard so he can afford his own health care so he doesn't have to rely on the government for it. Good for him! But, if Rush lived in Massachusetts right now, he would have to PAY to NOT have health insurance! Wake up, Rush!

Governor Romney experimented with his consultant-centric approach in the Massachusetts laboratory, and the result was the "universal" health-care program the state adopted in 2006. As he tells it, the experts crunched the data. As he doesn't tell it, his initiative became a petri dish for the latest liberal health-care theories.

[Amen! His RomneyCare just kicked in a new tax this year. But since he's not in office there, you can't blame that on him. Can you?]

Insurance in Massachusetts is among the most expensive in the nation because of multiple mandates, such as premium price controls and rules dictating that coverage be offered to all comers regardless of health. Mr. Romney's cardinal flaw was that he did not attempt to deregulate and allow the insurance market to function as it should.

Instead, Mr. Romney saw the status quo and raised. At first he suggested mandatory health escrow accounts for people who decline to insure themselves. Once the consultants and the liberal state legislature were through with it, Mr. Romney's initiative became the "individual mandate," a first-in-the-nation requirement that residents acquire insurance or pay penalties. [Like when the Mafia comes by to sell you "Fire Insurance?" We used to call that extortion.]

The mandate in combination with other regulations effectively socialized the Massachusetts insurance market, and then Democrats on Beacon Hill added more subsidies and business penalties. Mr. Romney claimed victory anyway, heralding the new plan as "free market" as he plotted his GOP Presidential run. Inconveniently, however, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards made Massachusetts the model for their 2008 health-care proposals. [Oh, an Inconvenient Truth."]

... None of this would bode well for a President Romney facing a Democratic Congress that would be even more relentless than the one in Boston. Nor, for that matter, would it bode well for a fall campaign when Mr. Romney would attack HillaryCare as socialized medicine, only to have Senator Clinton and the media retort that her plan is simply modified RomneyCare.

They should have been harder on him. But the facts are all there, even if the emotion isn't.

The end of the matter

They briefly mention Senator McCain and his liberal lurches over the years. But they point out that Senator McCain has been consistent on many core issues—national security, spending (saving the lives of the unborn. They didn't mention that. I did. Senator McCain isn't like Mitt Romney and the famous You Tube footage.) You can disagree with Senator McCain, but at least you know where he stands. Not so with Mitt Romney. The Journal conclude by saying

If Mr. Romney loses to Senator McCain, the cause will be his failure to persuade voters that he has any convictions at all.

Except for Ron Paul, who's been consistent for decades, it's coming down to the devil you know (McCain) vs. the devil you don't. (Mitt Romney.)

Mitt Romney is like a box of chocolates

But go ahead. Vote for Mitt Romney. Ignore these fine secular reasons the Wall Street Journal editors are giving you. Just like that box of chocolates, with Mitt Romey, you never know what you're gonna get.

Except that it won't be good.

---

Got a tip? Send it to romney 'dot' tips at yahoo 'dot' com.  (May by blocked. If I don't respond in a few days, please leave a comment on this blog saying so.)

Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident

Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)