Deception 2008: Mitt Romney

Welcome to Deception 2008. This will be a series of articles looking at the Presidential candidates our nation is faced with.

The world sat by and watched as Bill Clinton sat in the White House for 8-years. The elections never stirred the nation's voters into much of a frenzy. Then in the Fall of 2000 the circus that insued and it again sparked the nation's interest in our leadership. With 9/11, the War on Terror, and the 2004 Presidential elections the nation was constantly being tuned into the happenings of our President, with the media's help. Then in the Fall of 2006 the people of the US voted in a liberal-controlled Congress.

With such issues as defeating Islamic Jihad, illegal immigration, and the War on Terror the nation's political stars have, in my opinion, prematurally started their campaigns of vanity and mudslinging. As our candidates start to build up their empire of money to slam each other I thought I'd take a chance and look at the candidates from a Conservative's point of view.

The Republicans I will be seeing if they are true Conservatives or just liberal Republicans, or RINOs. The Dems I will see what they will be standing, or not standing, for. As of right now (this may change), I don't see any strong conservative leader that can stand up and that I'd vote for. The first candidate on my list to see is MITT ROMNEY:

Willard Mitt Romney
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Party: Republican

In the beginning of his campaign he wasn't known in comparison to the other candidates. I dub him the the "The Little Republican that Could". Among the religious right he has the task of proving his faith since he would be the first Mormon president in our history.

At the moment he stands as the #1 Republican when it comes to campaign funding. What I like to point out though is that money doesn't necessarily mean he's getting his name out nor does it mean he's getting a popular view.

I started looking at his and he would seem to be a good candidate, but then you look at his history when he ran as governor and senator for the state of Massachusetts. That state seems to produce more flip-floppers than I have ever seen.

When running as Senator against Kennedy his stance on abortion was pro-choice:

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal this country. I have since the time that 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 that 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.

And again when he was running for governor:

I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and I am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’s pro-choice laws. And with regards to this issue of age of consent, it is currently 18-years-old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that, one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn’t go along, one can go to a judge or justice to get that permission. And so far in Massachusetts history when a young woman has gone to a judge, not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. And so I am in favor of retaining our current law which is the age of consent remaining at 18.

Sounds pretty liberal to me. But during his time as governor he says his views changed, but most believe (myself among them) that this was to win over the Right; personal gain vs what he thought was right.

Most on the Conservative/Right side are staunch fire-arm supporters and hate liberal gun control laws. Romney again shows his colors when he stated:

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.

Spoken like a true RINO.

He reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress's crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases:

I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect, Romney said.

If it won't have an affect on crime why have it? He is starting to sound like Feinstein or Pelosi:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,’ I would have done it.
--Feinstein

If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
--Pelosi

Now in recent years the ACLU has attacked the Boy Scouts of America for their anti-gay stance. During his campaign to become a Senator he stated:

I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.

When it comes to marriage he says he won't force his beliefs on the world, that the state should be the ones who decide on this issue, and believes that the Republican party should do more to support the gay community.

Now I'm curious about his loyalties. In 94 when he was running for Senator, Kennedy stated that Romney was trying to bring back Reagan/Bush Sr. conservativism. I'd personally be honored to say I was bringing back Reagan conservatism, but Romney got all defensive and stated:

Look I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush. My positions don’t talk about things that you [Kennedy] suggest they talk about. This isn’t a political issue.

Then a very astute man said the day after:

Romney demonstrated very clearly in the debate last night that he has more in common with liberal Democrats that he does with Conservatives…Conservatives should not let their disgust and anger with Ted Kennedy’s big government liberal record blindly lead them to support Mitt Romney
--Brent Bozell (10/26/94)

This country is a capitalist society. You get what you put into. A survival of the fittest society where the best and brightest succeed and are subsequently burdened with helping out the rest and the less fortunate. Liberals usually try to dampen this with a socialist view and make a status quo to force the government burden themselves with less able employees or those who may not have credentials. Now I'm not saying that minorities or women are less qualified, but affirmative action usually discriminates against the qualified and screws them over so don't take me as a sexist or a racist. Romney on the other hand believes that if you are a woman or a minority that you can't get a job on your own and you need the governments help:

Woman. Woman are concerned about the glass ceiling. Woman that I have seen in organizations have not been able to have the opportunity they deserve to have in getting ahead of organizations. If we are going to compete as a nation we got to draw upon the skills of woman and minorities, and I see organizations from the Federal government to corporations that are not drawing on the skills of woman and minorities.

I believe that public companies and federal agencies should be required to report in their annual 10K the number of minorities and woman by income group within the company. So we can identify where the glass ceiling is and break through it. And I think that the market of America will say 'that company has not promoted woman, has not promoted minorities' and will put pressure on American corporations and agencies to respond.

He basically wants to guilt trip corporations to fill positions with those who MAY not be qualified. So much for equality.

After all this I don't think there is any Conservative bone in this man's body, but he says:

The current system puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders...and increase legal immigration into America.

Then in 2004 Romney vetoed a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship.

Yet he doesn't seem to quite get it when you see his policy:

3) A temporary worker program that enables willing foreign workers to be matched with participating employers to meet increasing workforce needs;

4) Provisions that will allow undocumented workers to earn legal status so that they can continue to remain in the workforce.

Most politicians don't seem to realize that illegal immigration is a wound in America's side. They just want to put a bandaid on it and call it good, but you can't heal it if you don't stop the bleeding (in and out) you won't fix the problem.

Well, he seems as conservative or right for the job as Hillary does. He seems to be spouting Conservative thought to win us over, but I guarantee will turn over once in office. He doesn't seem to have a solid conservative foundation to sit on. I have some advice for him; to win, change the (R) to a (D) and spout all that crap and you're in.

This ends the first installment of Deception 2008. I will get the rest out when I have the time.