Tweet
First, it should be noted that I think Mitt Romney is an honest and moral man. I have no real “personality” criticisms to cast at him. But, I have not yet been “won over” to support him in this election cycle. My problem with Gov. Romney is one of personal and political principle. I despise it when people simply parrot the rhetoric of the particular candidate that they are supporting. Accordingly, the premise of this blog flies in the face of that value since Newt Gingrich has made it a mantra of his campaign to refer to Mitt as “a Massachusetts Moderate”.
I reject most candidate stump rhetoric since they, by definition, have a vested interest in their own positions. Therefore, when there are opportunities to validate or defeat a candidate’s rhetoric from independent sources, it MUST be explored. Such an opportunity presented itself to me this morning and it hit me like a load of bricks. I would like to share this with you as we Conservatives proceed down the road toward nominating a candidate that can and will “un-Occupy the White House” and the price that Conservative America might or might not have to pay for that eviction.
The State of Massachusetts is, on balance, an ultra-liberal battlefield. How else could you describe a state that has nurtured, raised, and elected a cast of political characters that includes the names of John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Barney Frank, Tip O’Neill, Cass Sunstein and his wife Elizabeth Warren, and Peter Orszag (recently resigned Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget). But then, in 2010, the people of Massachusetts elected erstwhile “TEA Party- backed” Republican Scott Brown as one of its senators. And, that is where this discussion begins.
Scott Brown, much like Mitt Romney, sought to be elected from this uber-liberal state as a Republican. And, surprisingly, he won in what was considered to be an upset. Republicans throughout the Country rejoiced that their voices were finally being heard, and the direction of the Country might well be on the way to a more Conservative track. Be wary, though, of the difference between the words “Republican” and “Conservative”. While generally corollary, they do NOT represent the same meanings. Certainly, no aspersions are being cast at Scott Brown, nor, frankly, at Mitt Romney, but it is undeniable that every person, you me, Brown, Romney…we are ALL products to varying degrees of our environment. Given that, let’s look at this whole situation by treating Scott Brown as a surrogate for Mitt Romney.
Brown’s “earthshaking” victory in 2010 was signaled by the MSM and the left as “the sky is falling. Massachusetts, liberal Massachusetts, has actually elected a conservative Republican to the Senate”. Well, not so fast. As will be demonstrated below, Brown might be a “conservative Republican” by Massachusetts standards, but the interview I discuss below, would never be confused as coming from a “conservative Republican” in my home state of Mississippi.
On Fox and Friends this morning, Sen. Brown stated that he was in full agreement with Barack Obama’s recent, highly controversial, “recess appointment” of CFPB Head Richard Cordray to head up Obama’s financial consumer protection agency…you may know this better as the implementation of the Dodd-Frank (remember Barney…from Massachusetts?) bill. The circumstances surrounding this appointment are diabolical in the eyes of Conservative America to begin with, but it is not specifically the appointment at issue. Conservatives are vehemently opposed to implementation of the job killing, regulation burdened, government expanding bill on its face. It is a liberal program that we do not need, cannot afford, and will not support. So, it’s interesting to know why Scott Brown is not bothered by the Obama appointment, even though its constitutionality is very much in question. Sen. Brown admitted, point blank, that he supported, voted for, and continues to support the Dodd Frank initiative.
Do I think this stance on his part is just evil or that it makes him a bad man? No, I do not. But what I do think, in fact, what I do know is that Scott Brown is a Massachusetts “conservative”…in Mississippi, he is considered to be merely a moderate liberal. Why is he the way that he is? That’s simple. I submit that it is impossible for any REAL Conservative to win any election for any post in the state of Massachusetts. It’s no more his “fault” than it is mine that I am a southern Conservative. Hmmm. But Mitt Romney was elected governor in this same state. Mitt is bright, he is articulate, and I believe he is morally upright. But is he Conservative? No, I do not believe he is. If he were he would never have been elected to statewide office in Massachusetts.
Let’s look at one more aspect of Sen. Brown in a geographical ideological context. Early polls in Massachusetts indicate that Scott Brown is very likely to be defeated this November by his Democrat opponent. That opponent, wife of Obama Regulatory Czar (the most powerful man in America), Cass Sunstein, Elizabeth Warren is probably the most radically left Congressional candidate we will see in the 2012 elections. Conventional wisdom is that Warren will easily defeat Scott Brown because Brown’s positions are too far RIGHT for the electorate in Massachusetts. That conclusion would be unbelievable unless the American people recognize just how liberal Massachusetts is. So, yes, while Mitt Romney is a probably a very good and decent man, I don’t believe there are any “Conservative former Governors of Massachusetts”. That leads me to conclude that in our search for a Conservative president, Mitt Romney represents little more than a “Massachusetts Moderate”. Liberalism is an undeniable fact of life in the Bay State. In conclusion, we Conservative Republicans, or we Conservatives, or we Republicans should consider whether we are first Cs or Rs or RCs. The answer to that question should drive the selection of the ultimate Republican nominee. We the People must decide.
The sad fact of the matter for those of us who ARE Conservatives is that the choices we now face are all less than desirable. Personally, any candidate who considers Woodrow Wilson and FDR as the "greatest Presidents of the 20th century" are clearly out of step with 21st century Conservatives. Newt's prior actions and comments belie his position that he is "the Conservative Republican". For us Conservatives, we are in a quandry with respect to which of the frontrunners we should support. It is a pitiful state of affairs when we aren't given a real Conservative option. I suppose this is merely indicative of how far Conservative America has fallen in the war of ideas against the liberal, statist, globalist left. Regardless of how we each decide in this matter, we need to do so armed with as many facts as can be presented...and we simply MUST NOT FAIL in November. Another term for Obama and his ilk, I fear, will be the doom of America as the world's leader in freedom...along with the existence of freedoms at the individual level in this great Nation.
Tim M.
I reject most candidate stump rhetoric since they, by definition, have a vested interest in their own positions. Therefore, when there are opportunities to validate or defeat a candidate’s rhetoric from independent sources, it MUST be explored. Such an opportunity presented itself to me this morning and it hit me like a load of bricks. I would like to share this with you as we Conservatives proceed down the road toward nominating a candidate that can and will “un-Occupy the White House” and the price that Conservative America might or might not have to pay for that eviction.
The State of Massachusetts is, on balance, an ultra-liberal battlefield. How else could you describe a state that has nurtured, raised, and elected a cast of political characters that includes the names of John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Barney Frank, Tip O’Neill, Cass Sunstein and his wife Elizabeth Warren, and Peter Orszag (recently resigned Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget). But then, in 2010, the people of Massachusetts elected erstwhile “TEA Party- backed” Republican Scott Brown as one of its senators. And, that is where this discussion begins.
Scott Brown, much like Mitt Romney, sought to be elected from this uber-liberal state as a Republican. And, surprisingly, he won in what was considered to be an upset. Republicans throughout the Country rejoiced that their voices were finally being heard, and the direction of the Country might well be on the way to a more Conservative track. Be wary, though, of the difference between the words “Republican” and “Conservative”. While generally corollary, they do NOT represent the same meanings. Certainly, no aspersions are being cast at Scott Brown, nor, frankly, at Mitt Romney, but it is undeniable that every person, you me, Brown, Romney…we are ALL products to varying degrees of our environment. Given that, let’s look at this whole situation by treating Scott Brown as a surrogate for Mitt Romney.
Brown’s “earthshaking” victory in 2010 was signaled by the MSM and the left as “the sky is falling. Massachusetts, liberal Massachusetts, has actually elected a conservative Republican to the Senate”. Well, not so fast. As will be demonstrated below, Brown might be a “conservative Republican” by Massachusetts standards, but the interview I discuss below, would never be confused as coming from a “conservative Republican” in my home state of Mississippi.
On Fox and Friends this morning, Sen. Brown stated that he was in full agreement with Barack Obama’s recent, highly controversial, “recess appointment” of CFPB Head Richard Cordray to head up Obama’s financial consumer protection agency…you may know this better as the implementation of the Dodd-Frank (remember Barney…from Massachusetts?) bill. The circumstances surrounding this appointment are diabolical in the eyes of Conservative America to begin with, but it is not specifically the appointment at issue. Conservatives are vehemently opposed to implementation of the job killing, regulation burdened, government expanding bill on its face. It is a liberal program that we do not need, cannot afford, and will not support. So, it’s interesting to know why Scott Brown is not bothered by the Obama appointment, even though its constitutionality is very much in question. Sen. Brown admitted, point blank, that he supported, voted for, and continues to support the Dodd Frank initiative.
Do I think this stance on his part is just evil or that it makes him a bad man? No, I do not. But what I do think, in fact, what I do know is that Scott Brown is a Massachusetts “conservative”…in Mississippi, he is considered to be merely a moderate liberal. Why is he the way that he is? That’s simple. I submit that it is impossible for any REAL Conservative to win any election for any post in the state of Massachusetts. It’s no more his “fault” than it is mine that I am a southern Conservative. Hmmm. But Mitt Romney was elected governor in this same state. Mitt is bright, he is articulate, and I believe he is morally upright. But is he Conservative? No, I do not believe he is. If he were he would never have been elected to statewide office in Massachusetts.
Let’s look at one more aspect of Sen. Brown in a geographical ideological context. Early polls in Massachusetts indicate that Scott Brown is very likely to be defeated this November by his Democrat opponent. That opponent, wife of Obama Regulatory Czar (the most powerful man in America), Cass Sunstein, Elizabeth Warren is probably the most radically left Congressional candidate we will see in the 2012 elections. Conventional wisdom is that Warren will easily defeat Scott Brown because Brown’s positions are too far RIGHT for the electorate in Massachusetts. That conclusion would be unbelievable unless the American people recognize just how liberal Massachusetts is. So, yes, while Mitt Romney is a probably a very good and decent man, I don’t believe there are any “Conservative former Governors of Massachusetts”. That leads me to conclude that in our search for a Conservative president, Mitt Romney represents little more than a “Massachusetts Moderate”. Liberalism is an undeniable fact of life in the Bay State. In conclusion, we Conservative Republicans, or we Conservatives, or we Republicans should consider whether we are first Cs or Rs or RCs. The answer to that question should drive the selection of the ultimate Republican nominee. We the People must decide.
The sad fact of the matter for those of us who ARE Conservatives is that the choices we now face are all less than desirable. Personally, any candidate who considers Woodrow Wilson and FDR as the "greatest Presidents of the 20th century" are clearly out of step with 21st century Conservatives. Newt's prior actions and comments belie his position that he is "the Conservative Republican". For us Conservatives, we are in a quandry with respect to which of the frontrunners we should support. It is a pitiful state of affairs when we aren't given a real Conservative option. I suppose this is merely indicative of how far Conservative America has fallen in the war of ideas against the liberal, statist, globalist left. Regardless of how we each decide in this matter, we need to do so armed with as many facts as can be presented...and we simply MUST NOT FAIL in November. Another term for Obama and his ilk, I fear, will be the doom of America as the world's leader in freedom...along with the existence of freedoms at the individual level in this great Nation.
Tim M.
NBA is a joke
Comment