Romney And The Uphill Slog Of Transaction With Tea Party Trust

The pressure is on the rest of the Republican presidential field to knock Mitt Romney down a peg after the former Massachusetts governor sailed to victory in the Nevada caucuses following his big Florida win earlier in the week. Romney won Nevada by a decisive double-digit margin. The field charges next into a quartet of contests that will either fuel or check Romney’s momentum. Caption & Image Credit: FOXNews.com

Romney And The Uphill Slog Of Transaction With Tea Party Trust

Mitt Romney wins big in Neveda - Romney 48% | Gingrich 23%. It says a lot about a man that due to his embrace of Mormon religious beliefs doesn't gamble, smoke, or drink to win by such a large double-digit margin in a state that made its name for a lax attitude for vices ... he deserves a serious look.

Mitt Romney claims he is a (big c) Conservative but has trouble proving it. When ever he opens his mouth shows he has a disconnect when it comes to firing people or the poor. We know what he meant to say but the method of articulation leaves a lot to be desired.

If one looks at the way Government has honorable business people follow the law, they actually believe the Government has adequate "safety net" program solutions to help the poor and if they need fixing, fix them. Afterall, businessmen provide jobs at every level of the scale and if someone wants a job ... they are available, even at a minimum wage.

This is one area a career businessman can be blind to the fact that minimum wage, which is legislated and has to be followed, may cloud the thinking on a Conservative level. It is hard to see the equation that a minimum wage creates dependency on a very deep level that can not be broken.

Mandated minimum wage, it could be argued, eliminated basic apprenticeship and building block skills through which young businesses learn how to treat entry level workers, and young entry level workers learn how to treat a businesses they work for.

Another issue that has voters uncomfortable with Romney is his ability to become a Chameleon in the face of what he feels is the path of least resistance to win. It is this quality, that if recognized to be the core political survival instinct of Mitt Romney, might be the path that Tea Party principled voters could embrace a Romney Republican party nomination for President of the United States.

This excerpted and edited from Townhall -

The Case For Romney
By: Jonah Goldberg - Townhall - Feb. 3, 2012

Years ago a friend told me a story from her days living in South America. The movie "Wayne's World" had come out, and she went to see it. She spoke English, but it was interesting to read the Spanish subtitles.

For instance, early in the film, Wayne says: "Shyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!"

The Spanish subtitles read: "Yes, when judgment day comes."

Needless to say, something was lost in translation.

This, in a nutshell, is Mitt Romney's biggest problem.
----
Romney doesn't speak the language naturally.
----
He speaks conservatism as a second language, and his mastery of the basic grammar of politics is often spotty as well.
----
Many conservatives argue that Romney's stiffness is a superficial objection, and that he's a solid conservative who can appeal to moderates and independents. Other conservatives think Romney's lack of fluency is a real problem, not because it proves he's faking his conservatism but because it would put him at a severe disadvantage in the general election in the same way authentic but stiff liberals like Gore and John Kerry suffered from their inability to comfortably interface with carbon-based life.

And others simply think Romney's a big faker.

It's this last group of anti-Romney holdouts I'd like to address.
----
The Tea Party arose in no small part out of a delayed allergic reaction to the rhetorical and, to a lesser extent, policy problems of George W. Bush's presidency and the deep resentment that came with having to vote for John McCain in 2008. These disappointments were visited upon the conservative base by something the naysayers (often problematically) call "the Republican establishment."
----
With the raised expectations from the Tea Party's earlier successes, conservatives are extremely reluctant to settle or compromise simply on the say-so of the establishment. For good reasons and bad, Romney seems like a compromise. And no matter how begrudgingly a conservative comes to accept the reality of Romney's nomination, the diehards immediately proclaim any support for Romney to be proof of membership in the establishment. In fact, it seems like the best definition of a Republican establishment member these days is simply someone who has made peace with his disappointment prematurely.
----
It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.

A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first 10 minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble. If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal ObamaCare, implement Rep. Paul Ryan's agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments.

Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to "fix" health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments.

In this light, voting for Romney isn't a betrayal, it's a transaction. No, that's not very exciting or reassuring for those who'd sooner see monkeys fly out their nethers than compromise again. But such a bargain may just be necessary before judgment day comes.
[Reference Here]

Before the Tea Party became the Tea Party, it was Tea Party principles that had George W. Bush withdraw Harriet Meyers name from being considered for the supreme court ... and GWB was never accused of having Chameleon political instincts.

Duty and purpose combined with Chameleon political instincts of Mitt Romney means that Mitt Romney could be turned through a dedicated focus put up from a Center-Right country. One might say that trust will not be earned or given, but ... applied.

After his decisive win in the GOP Nevada caucuses, if one were to count themselves as being convinced demand the best from Mitt Romney in his support of the Bill-Of-Rights, Rule-Of-Law, and an adherence to the Constitution of the United States.


- Article first seen as Romney And The Uphill Slog Of Transaction With Tea Party Trust at Technorati -

POV Point, Counterpoint – Global Warming Opinion Intentions

A general view shows the lower house of Parliament Bundestag inside the Reichstags building during a commemoration ceremony to mark the Holocaust memorial day in Berlin January 29, 2007. Image Credit: REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch (GERMANY)

POV Point, Counterpoint – Global Warming Opinion Intentions

When we, at MAXINE, see, listen, or read anything from longtime flame-throwing MSM liberal hack (Boston Globe, The McLaughlin Group (NPR), and go to “talking head” for biting MSM POV commentary for any political talk enterprise) we are stunned at the echo chamber logic expressed given almost any topic she jumps off into.

Usually, it is easy to just discount the views as coming from a very liberal, journalistic, and socialist camp.

That is, until her latest attempt to place people who want to deny that the Holocaust (where people of the Jewish faith were rounded up, taken to prison camps, placed in gas chambers, and executed) actually happened during WWII are used as the measuring stick for people who wish to debate against the proposition that Human activity is the primary cause of Earth’s temperature changes (Global Warming).

Dennis Prager makes it very clear as to how WRONG, damaging, and piously-political her latest column is on the subject of Global Warming in the Boston Globe through his latest column featured in Townhall.

Point, Counterpoint!

This from Dennis Prager, contributing writer for Townhall –

On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, February 13, 2007

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . "

This is worthy of some analysis.

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word "cruel." To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie -- as do Holocaust deniers -- for some other vile reason.

The belief that opponents of the Left are morally similar to Nazis was expressed recently by another prominent person of the Left, George Soros, the billionaire who bankrolls many leftist projects. At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Soros called on America to "de-Nazify" just as Germany did after the Holocaust and World War II. For Soros, America in Iraq is like the Nazis in Poland.

A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: "Question authority." In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

Third, the equation of global warming denial to Holocaust denial trivializes Holocaust denial. If questioning global warming is on "a par" with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis.

Fourth, the lack of response (thus far) of any liberal or left individual or organization -- except to defend Ellen Goodman -- or from the Anti-Defamation League, the organization whose primary purpose has been to defend Jews, is telling. Just imagine if, for example, an equally prominent Christian figure had written that denying America is a Christian country is on a par with denying the Holocaust. It would have been front-page news in the mainstream media, the individual would have been excoriated by just about every major liberal individual and group, and the ADL would have cited this as an example of burgeoning Christian anti-Semitism and Holocaust trivialization. But not a word at the ADL on Soros's comments about de-Nazifying America or Goodman's Holocaust-denial comment.

Fifth, and finally, the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history -- the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don't believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted.

Just watch.

That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet.

Or even 10.

Or even three.
Reference Here>>

Hey Ellen! ... Al! Surf's Up!

Good on ya', Dennis.