Mitt Romney Is Not the Answer

Yesterday, Mitt Romney announced he is a candidate for President. As I have never been a fan of Mr. Romney I had low expectations and as a result thought he did well. Mine was clearly a minority view as other reviews were underwhelming.

Mitt Romney has been correctly identified as a political opportunist. Frankly,that doesn’t bother me as a healthy dose of cynicism requires me to believe all political figures are opportunistic. It’s a matter of degrees. If Mitt Romney were to succeed in his effort to face Barack Obama there is no doubt how I would vote. I’d rather deal with Mitt in the White House than Obama. As I write though,Mitt Romney is not our standard bearer and there are many valid reasons why he ought to be deprived of the honor to face off against President Obama in a general election.

First is the most profound of all. I am pro life. It matters to me. I’m not an activist but it is a firm conviction. Mitt Romney is now pro life. Good for him. He used to be pro choice. In fact, he ran as a pro choice Republican in his 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts. He was elected on that position. Fair enough. That’s why we have elections. Then after assuming office he changed his mind. He was now pro life. OK. I can’t read his mind or objectively determine whether his change was sincere and he ought on a personal level be given the benefit of the doubt. But I also believe in electoral integrity. Abortion is the most passionate issue since slavery in the nation. It’s not just another run of the mill,flavor of the moment issue. If I were a pro choice Massachusetts voter and voted for Romney because he said he was pro choice, well I’d be angry and it would be fully justified. If I voted for someone who was pro life and they governed as pro choice, I  would be angry. Romney toyed with the emotions of Massachusetts on the most sensitive issue in America today.

What about this change of heart? How does a man of his age suddenly change his mind on an issue as profound as abortion? While Mr. Romney is entitled on a personal level to be taken as genuine it is entirely proper to question his motives in his pursuing the White House. Mr. Romney opted out running for re election as Governor of Massachusetts to seek the G.O.P nomination for President. A critical eye recognizes that just as you cannot get elected in Massachusetts as Pro Life, you cannot become the Republican nominee for President as Pro Choice. So you run for governor and are pro choice as needed to be elected and conveniently flip to Pro Life when you decide you want a promotion to the Oval Office. Once again, Romney is entitled to the benefit of the doubt personally. But in politics it’s difficult for me to believe that Mitt Romney having been elected as a Pro Choice Governor suddenly had an epiphany while taking a stroll on the Harry Blackmun Expressway.

Secondly, is his clear support for a significant role of government in regulating health care. I will briefly defend Romney Care from a classic conservative position. As a resident of Florida, I could care less what Mitt Romney foisted regarding health care in Massachusetts. I don’t care because what Massachusetts does stays there. Conservatives have consistently positioned the states as the “laboratories of democracies”. Massachusetts is a laboratory I choose to avoid. That’s the beauty of a federated Republic. But he supported an individual mandate. If I’m a betting man I’d bet a President Romney” would seek to “mend not end” Obamacare. Unacceptable.

Mitt Romney just today as Chris Christie the other day said he believes the earth is warming and man has contributed to the warming. I am frankly am not in a position to rebut all the “science” out there on global warming. My concern is the clear cover up of contradictory evidence. Moreover, no one has adequately explained historical evidence of prior warming periods. The absence of industrialization in those eras calls into doubt the claim of significant human contribution to any warming trend. There are evident natural warming and cooling periods. This seems to be ignored.

Mitt Romney seems unwilling to question the science and the motives driving it. One of the first things you learn in school as a kid was to ask questions if you’re not sure or confused. But the most potent or extreme advocates for Global Warming insist the debate is ended,consensus has been achieved and any questions are unscientific. In short, we’re no longer allowed to ask questions. Just take our medicine. Mitt Romney and many others must stand up for taxpayers and defend our future economic vitality by posing relevant inquiries into the science. He has not demonstrated a willingness to question the “experts”. Not a good start.

In the end Mitt Romney must be rejected because he has failed to abandon a big government point of view. For all his expertise in economic matters, Mitt Romney has rejected limited government as a principle of a prospective administration. We must look elsewhere.