Mitt Romney, Tear down the Phony Wall You have Built!

It is truly difficult to write an article which combines “Mitt Romney” with “phony,” “flip flopper,” or some similar terminology, not because it’s a complex point to prove, but the contrary. There are so many examples that it’s impossible to be all inclusive in a single article. Even a quick review of each topic and all his false or contradictory statements results in a list so overwhelmingly powerful, it is best compared to a gushing waterfall which storms day in and out without an end.

Indeed, many journalists and bloggers who have spent months attempting to cover a complete list of two-faced behavior have come to the conclusion that it’s a job that will always remain unfinished for the list is ever-growing. I’ve therefore opted to zero in on a few specific recent examples which were extra-outrageous, mind-boggling, and simply breathtaking in their audacity.

Let’s begin with one of Romney’s purposefully phony behavior which requires almost no additional explanation once presented with the facts.

The Romney campaign has repeatedly stressed that Romney is the only DC outsider in this race and that Romney's firmly opposed to earmarks. His campaign has played this game while simultaneously slamming Santorum (& Newt) as Washington insiders who fought for earmarks. A seemingly unrelated and separate focal point of the Romney campaign is Romney’s having led the Olympics in ’02 out of the red straight to success. They fail to mention that the true saviors were the taxpayers since Romney didn’t balance the budget; he simply used his inside connections with Washington to procure 1.3 billion dollars in federal bailout money.

These two campaign strategies are thus extremely contradictory and it seems the Romney team simply hopes the voters don’t make the connection between Romney’s cries against earmarks and his boasts that he arranged billions for the Olympics despite them often taking place mere minutes apart. It surely seemed quite successful since despite his team reiterating this contradictory message repeatedly throughout the primary, no one in the media has thought it to be necessary to take his bluff to task.

During the Arizona debate last month, Mitt Romney played the game once again and accused Santorum for having “fought” for “The Bridge to Nowhere” thereby suggesting Santorum was someone who was desperate to waste taxpayer money on unworthy projects. The obvious question - why on earth would Santorum have fought for a bridge in Alaska, a state far removed from his own – remained unasked.

The truth, of course, is that Rick didn’t fight for it. Like many earmarks, it was an unwanted expense attached to an important piece of legislature which included defense funding. Santorum supported the actual piece of legislature which consisted of lots of important allocations and the earmark was a minor flaw which unfortunately came along with the bill. This is a far cry from Romney’s accusation that pretended Santorum invested energy specifically to arrange funds for “The Bridge to Nowhere” the way Romney did for the Olympics.

Unlike Romney and his phony two-faced behavior, Santorum readily admits to having supported many earmarks in the past, including Romney’s Olympics earmark and his honest and straightforward explanation serves a foil for Romney’s hypocrisy.

Santorum’s reply to Romney at the Arizona debate - why he pretends to be anti-earmarks if he too loved earmarks and continues to boast of his success in obtaining them –highlighted the stark difference between the two. Santorum is extremely honest and speaks openly of past mistakes. Romney, on the other hand, refuses to be up-front with the people and admit that he often asked for his buddies in Washington to bail him out including during the Olympics and Romneycare, and is the extreme opposite of honesty.

The obvious contradiction Santorum had pointed out - that Romney loved earmarks but only those of which he personally benefitted from - hasn’t caused Romney to stumble. Instead, he attacked Santorum and anyone who came to Rick’s defense as whiners since according to Romney’s standards a whiner is someone who dares to expose any of untruths as being such.

Additionally, Romney contradicts himself so often, he hadn’t even realize that his argument during the Arizona debate that Santorum was “busy” with the “Bridge to Nowhere” while he was fighting for the Olympics earmarks was a direct contradiction to his claim that he’s a Washington outsider and staunch opponent of all earmarks period! Perhaps he had realized but thinks that we the people are too stupid to remember what he said just a few moments earlier. That would explain the millions of dollars in ads his campaign had spent to criticize his opponents on their support for earmarks earmarks while simultaneously running additional millions of dollars in separate ads in which they boasted of Romney’s role during the Olympics which amounted to amassing lots of earmarks.

As an aside, if we’re on the topic of earmarks, Mark Levin has put the on the McCain/Romney earmark nonsense. Levin had said (and I like most conservatives whole-heartedly agree): “I would rather take One Hundred “Bridges to Nowhere” then the power-grabbing Romneycare/Obamacare. I would rather take One Hundred “Bridges to Nowhere” then the power-grabbing TARP bailout which was many thousands of times the cost of the “Bridge to Nowhere” and which Mitt Romney has supported and fought for. I’d rather take One Hundred “Bridges to Nowhere” then the power grabbing and several hundred times the cost “Cap and Trade Bill” which Mitt Romney has supported and fought for. For when one looks at the important issues Romney stood on the wrong side of each and every one of them while Santorum supported the conservative view.

It is also noteworthy to mention that most of the earmarks Santorum had proposed weren’t earmarks to benefit him or his buddies, but for the good of the country. They had consisted of national security projects which the left refused to pass, thus leaving the conservatives with no other option but to smuggle them into bills in the form of earmarks. Thanks to Santorum and other conservatives, the Pentagon was able to receive funding for stealth jets and other important weapons.

Romney’s repeated despicable behavior has dulled many when they hear of yet another Romneyism. It is important though to keep spreading the word since a majority of the voters are oblivious to the true facts. This brings me to Romney’s falsehoods regarding Romneycare/Obamacare.

Romney had come prepared with another great-sounding albeit false line to the Arizona debate, ready to fire to at any attacks that Romneycare had been the blueprint of Obamacare. When Santorum pressed Mr. RomneyCare how he’ll be able to take on Obama on one of the most important issues in this election, Romney dumped the entire blame of his and Obama’s actions in saying that if Santorum wouldn’t have endorsed Arlen Specter in ’04 then ObamaCare wouldn’t have passed.

The falsehood of this Romney statement is mind-boggling on many levels. Firstly, if Santorum was supposed to foretell that two years later Romney would create Romneycare and that the future President Obama would use it as a blueprint to create Obamacare another couple of years down the road, and Specter would be the 60th vote in favor of Obamacare, why hadn’t Romney – the then-moderate Governor from Massachusetts – run to save the country through endorsing Toomey?

Secondly, even if Toomey would’ve beaten Specter in the primary, how can Romney now be so sure he would’ve won the general election in the year of 2004 - when anti-Republican emotions were extremely high - if he barely eked out a victory in ‘2010 - the year of the Tea Party revolution? Thirdly, if Toomey would’ve been the Republican nominee and then lost the general (as would’ve probably been the case in blue PA back in’04) then Romney’s statement that Santorum’s endorsement of Specter having provided the 60th vote is utterly false. Obamacare would’ve passed with a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, and in addition to Obamacare we would have also lost two staunchly conservative judges which had been appointed to the Supreme Court under Specter’s chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.

Romney has also reiterated at every campaign stop & debate that he supported Romneycare and mandates only on a state-level because of the tenth amendment and expresses his firm opposition to Obamacare which is on a federal-level. He conveniently ignores the many videos floating around internet & the op-eds he’d written where he urged Obama to adopt the individual mandates Romneycare had imposed on the citizens of Massachusetts and enforce them onto the entire nation.

Romney’s cheap blame tactics in saying Santorum carries more guilt for Obamacare than he does is so utterly ludicrous and Drew on Drew Musings has done a great job taking Romney’s nonsensical blame game a step further, thus highlighting the utter foolishness of his claim. Here’s an excerpt of his article written after the Arizona debate where he rightly compared Romney to an internet troll:

Wait, what? How about we blame Specter’s parents. I mean, if they hadn’t had him, he wouldn’t have grown up to be a lousy Senator.

I disagreed with Santorum and George W. Bush’s support for Arlen Specter but this is ridiculous. No one had any clue who Barack Obama was in 2004, let alone he’d win the presidency someday and 6 years later Specter would change parties and vote for a specific bill.

And if we’re going “there” let’s remember Romney endorsed and was endorsed by a very, very liberal Democrat. Oh and take a look at who has endorsed Romney.

Drew also took Romney to task in the same article over several other lies during the Arizona debate including Mitt’s phony claim that he was tough on illegal immigration.

Romney once again claimed last night that he “enabled our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws”. This is misleading at best, a lie at worst. But Mitt, like a troll simply makes assertions without any regard for the truth. They both hope you are simply too stupid to catch them.

Fortunately, the voters in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi have proven this week to possess more brains that Romney would’ve cared for them to have.

Romney has also presented a tough facade during the debates in regard to foreign policy and the dangers of a nuclear Iran. As Mark Stein has discovered though, this too is a phony front for in 2009 Mitt sang an entirely different song regarding the dangers of the Islamic radicals. Here’s an excerpt of Stein’s article:

Speaking of persecuting Christians, Andy McCarthy, Nina Shea and Conrad Black were shooting the breeze on Islam and “co-existence” in these parts yesterday. By chance, I happened to come across Mitt Romney’s analysis of the global scene in 2009:

I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it’s quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world’s great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future. There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism… It’s by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

Uh, really now. Anyone who still believes jihad and Islam are two entirely separate entities can join Gingrich on his lunar colony.

Although as mentioned earlier there is no issue in this campaign that Mitt had touched which he hadn’t turned into a bloated lie and it’s therefore impossible to cover it all in one article, here are a few more quick examples which highlight the phony behavior of Romney.

One tiny aspect of the monstrous horrific Obamacare has been discovered to force religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees even though this directly contradicts with many religious beliefs. Although Romney claimed that he opposed the part of Romneycare which similarly forced religious institutions in Massachusetts to provide contraception contrary to their religious beliefs, the facts have shown that Romney had made a turn-about and had indeed supported the unconstitutional act.

Although some attempt to portray his outrageous behavior as a minor issue affecting only religious institutions, it is extremely significant since it limits the people’s rights to liberty which are protected by the constitution yet trampled on with this government bill.

We’ve touched government intervention economically as in bailouts, attempted cover-up of ignorance in foreign affairs, and also the disruption of personal liberties such as imposing health care mandates and forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs. Socially, too, Romney attempts to turn the tables against the facts.

Santorum is known by all as a staunch social conservative. One of his landmark legislative achievements had been his successful leadership role in stopping federal funds to pay for partial-birth abortion. Romney, on the other hand, has claimed to be pro-abortion/life/choice etc. depending on the moment, although his political and personal record is quite the opposite of pro-life.

Santorum pointed out during the debate that his GPA according to NTU’s ratings was fifth out of 50 senators, and that the four Senators who ranked higher than him all came from strongly conservative States while he represented the blue state of Pennsylvania. Since the Romney campaign’s specialty is taking the facts and twisting them upside-down, Romney quickly created a fact in order to out-speak Santorum. What did he come up with? He shot back that he was a proud pro-life governor of blue state of Massachusetts and then slammed Santorum as a supporter for Planned Parenthood for having voted for the fiscal budget under the GOP administrations which included funding for Planned Parenthood.

The level of chutzpah it takes for someone who signed a Planned Parenthood pledge as a candidate for Governor in Massachusetts where he agreed with a majority of their leftist pro-abortion policies to suggest that the Senator who put his entire career on the line in order to fight for the ban of funding for partial-birth abortion is impossible to match. It was self-understood that Santorum was unable to prevent the funding for Planned Parenthood to take place, that the funding for Planned Parenthood was a one-liner in an entire lengthy budget, and that a vote for the budget doesn’t imply he endorsed every individual expense.

Romney, on the other hand, had not only talked the talk in support of Planned Parenthood, but also walked the walk, and in many ways. Since expressing his public support as a Governor wasn’t enough, Mitt Romney wrote a check from his own personal pocket to help Planned Parenthood in their baby-killing mission. Romney, as mentioned previously, is the guy who forced religious institution to pay for contraception and included in his health care bill five billion dollars in tax exemptions for Planned Parenthood. For him to announce on a national stage with a straight face that he was a pro-life governor of blue Massachusetts simply shows how much he values honesty and being truthful to voters; zero.

The pro-Romney audience ignorantly (or pretending to be ignorant) heavily applauded Romney for his audacious remarks and neither Drudge, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, or any other large “conservative” media considered it necessary to write the truth about Romney anywhere on their sites! This is unfortunately not a one-time slip, but a majority of the Romney contradictions –both those mentioned and those omitted of this specific article – are nowhere to be found on media which are considered conservative (they are also absent of the MSM, but that’s self-understood).

One last point.

On stage during the Arizona debate were three candidates who supported NCLB; Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. The BuzzFeed had put up three separate videos of Romney expressing praise of No Child Left Behind . Yet, those who are ignorant of the facts were left with the impression at the Arizona that Mitt Romney opposed it from the start since he slammed Santorum for having supported it as though he himself hadn’t done the same. 

Viewers were also left with the notion that Mitt Romney is a DC outsider despite that his entire 02 campaign for the governorship was based on touting his connections to DC and he that he’ll be able to squeeze out many federal grants. If he was “severely conservative” in MA as he proclaimed at CPAC this year, then why did he proclaim in his severely unsuccessful run to the senate that he was someone who’s to the left of Kennedy and why isn't he challenged about his previous statements?

This is so because the media has decided to give him a free pass so that they can unload on him during the general, while the Republican establishment has given him a free pass since he is their choice. He has thus remained largely unvetted and the average American has remained uninformed of the truth. Only those who’ve actively sought information have come across the truth. In a sense it would be simplest to always assume that the truth is the complete opposite of Romney’s campaign talk. Except that his talk, too, changes depending on the state or situation he’s in.

Since we already have a fake phony fraud in the White House and we don’t need another one in there, I support Rick Santorum who is strong and consistent in his position at all times. This article has taken me several days to write and it seemed quite unlikely Santorum would eke out even a single victory yesterday although we now know he won decisively in both Alabama and Mississippi. However, no matter if he’s momentarily up or down in this wild primary he remains my choice over the spineless liar from MA.