The Ohio straw poll results were more a reflection of how GOP insiders viewed the candidates as opposed to the candidates’ organizational strength or popularity, according to Politico:
The event was tethered to the state party’s annual dinner, and such straw polls usually tend to be dominated by party insiders as opposed to an event like Ames, which is more widely attended and reflective of a campaign’s organizational abilities.
There is little doubt that the GOP establishment is pleased with the former Massachusetts Governor’s performance, as it is being made increasingly clear through their mainstream media outlets that he is their man. Mouthpieces of the party declare him so regularly.
Given the slate of contenders vying for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, it is curious that the powers that be in that party would have already tied their hopes to one man so far in advance of the primary elections. Or is it?
Romney’s record and indeed his rhetoric reveal him to be an ideal representative of the milquetoast conservatism (and bold globalism) that define the modern Republican Party and guide its foreign and domestic policies.
While there is likely no candidate that reflects every Republican voter’s ideal image of the perfect President, Mitt Romney seemingly has more than his share of important issue positions that are incongruous with those taken by the majority of conservative Republicans.
First, there is the former Governor’s ever-shifting stance on abortion. Before running for President in 2008, Romney took a “pro choice” position on the issue. Unsurprisingly, he changed his publicly declared position in order to avoid alienating the substantial bloc of pro-life voters that are extremely active in that party. Witness this statement made by Romney to the Boston Globe in 1994:
I don’t really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it’s an effective morning-after pill and I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills…. I would favor having it available.
Then there is the issue of rights for homosexuals. While serving as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney legalized same sex “marriage.” In a statement published in 2002, he openly declared his very liberal position on the issue:
I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
And this from a 2002 campaign flyer:
On Gay Rights: All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Perhaps the most obvious demonstration of Romney’s dedication to these “rights” is the fact that homosexual “marriage” became the law of the land in Massachusetts only through a stroke of Romney’s pen and not through the act of the representatives of the citizens of that state.
The circumstances of the legalization of same-sex unions in Massachusetts were described in a recent article published by American Thinker:
In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state’s marriage law was unconstitutional — but the Court did not rule, contrary to what is claimed, that gay marriage must be legalized and that the state constitution contains a "right" to marry. Yet, as soon as the ruling was issued, Romney commanded state agencies, by executive order, to start issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
Of all the highlights of Mitt Romney’s less-than-conservative career in public service, none is more prominent (or less conservative) than the socialized medicine behemoth he foisted onto the citizens of Massachusetts, and by extension, the United States of America, as much of that scheme was imported into the ObamaCare legislation.
When confronted with the undeniable consanguinity between the two healthcare plans, Romney shrewdly attempts to distinguish them by defending the Massachusetts version as an example of a state exercising its constitutionally protected right to govern itself as a sovereign entity.
While it is true that it is a central principle of the doctrine of federalism that states are free to legislate in all areas and to govern themselves, the fact remains that Romney’s healthcare law violates the more fundamental principle of liberty that government may not force the governed to purchase a commodity, regardless of how “good” that commodity might be.
As has been said so many times in reference to ObamaCare, if government may mandate such purchases on the people, then there is nothing that falls without the sphere of governmental power. Today it is health insurance, tomorrow it is food, housing, schooling, etc. No less a source than Vladimir Lenin himself is quoted as having said, “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of a socialist state.”
Most telling of all (and prescient for the fate of a United States living under the ObamaCare package) is the fact that Mitt Romney’s pet project has failed to control the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts and in fact has left that state reeling financially and on the precipice of outright bankruptcy.
Finally, there is the question of whether a Romney presidential administration would promote the elimination of all unconstitutional federal programs, policies, entitlements, and agencies. Would President Romney “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” as the oath of that office demands, or would he continue his decade-long practice of overreaching and usurping power and imposing his will by executive fiat?
Given his very liberal record of actions taken as the chief executive of a state and his propensity for the timely switching of positions on a variety of issues (abortion, “gay rights,” and socialized medicine) crucial to many Republican voters, constitutionalists say there is little hope that Mitt Romney would be the man to throw himself into the battle to save the Republic from plunging headlong into the abyss of economic and social destruction.
