Rawlein G. Soberano, Ph.D.
GERMANTOWN, Md. (June 15, 2012) — At one of the GOP presidential debates, Willard Mitt Romney challenged Gov. Rick Perry, R-Tex to a $10,000-bet (the man surely has deep pockets; you could afford those bets too if you are paying taxes at his level which is 15 percent) on Romney’s position on the individual mandates in the nation’s new health insurance law.
The requirement that Americans carry health insurance or face a penalty is the most controversial element in Pres. Barack Obama’s healthcare law, a clearly palpable component in Romney’s healthcare law when he was governor of Mass.
That challenge caught fire online. If Perry was genuinely starting to move up in Iowa, WMR didn’t hurt that ascent at all and may have helped himself a bit. While he wasn’t bad in the debate, he was not nearly as good, like thinking on his feet and message discipline. He made a rare but costly unforced error when he challenged Perry about what was more right on the position of the individual mandate. In times of considerable economic anxiety, it makes Romney look out of touch. It is a reminder of George H.W. Bush not knowing how much a loaf of bread cost.
His lying or distortion of facts is well-known. His frequent claims that Pres Obama went on tour apologizing for the US was a complete lie. He also knows it is not true. There was never any apology made to any nation.
He shamelessly suggests that BHO does not believe in American strength and greatness. What BHO did to neutralize al Quaeda and other terrorist groups speaks louder than any rhetoric in favor of or critical of any action to protect our national security. The unbridled enthusiasm of some of his right-wing supporters feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his exotic mixed-race background, is not one of us. Translation: he is not an authentic American. This accusation is exacerbated by Karl Rove who gave us GWB.
Michele Bachmann was one of the first among the GOP presidential wannabes to come out for Mitt Romney. Let’s look back at the harshest attacks she hurled against him earlier. One of the reasons she offered was his inability to win against BHO is that “WMR’s policy is the basis for Obamacare.” She also hit him on his pro-life record. She said that “Mitt Romney has been on the side of abortion [and] same-sex-marriage.” She also accused him of Socialist leanings, lumping them together, with BHO getting behind socialized medicine, sharing the same core political philosophy about the purpose of government. She also called him a chameleon, another term for being on both sides of the same issue, an impudent hypocrite. Finally she called him the corporate insider, another poster child for crony capitalism. But the dingbat from MN still endorsed Mitt Romney anyway after saying he could not win.
Every informed Republican (not that many who think independently and speak openly) knows that WMR clinched the nomination because of his deep pockets and the departure of Newt Gingrich from the race. He will be the second least consistently conservative of the eight candidates who regularly participated in the presidential candidates’ debates last year. How did it happen? No deep explanation is required. The GOP typically nominates a center-right candidate who was next-in-line after the preceding primary process. This year that candidate is Romney He’s an attractive and well-financed guy.
One conservative candidate who might have beaten Romney was Rick Santorum. Santorum would have had a decent shot at derailing Romney because he had a solid conservative support base. WMR would not be the nominee today if Santorum had won in Iowa on the day of the election rather than on a recount; won Michigan where he lost by three percentage points and won Ohio where he lost by less than one point. Santorum might have accomplished this trifecta if conservatives have taken him seriously and rallied around him after Perry’s campaign disintegrated. Instead, they rallied around a weaker, less plausible candidate.
Did WMR survive to claim the nomination because he was the least-worst candidate? Gingrich was not considered because of his political and personal baggage and was past his “sell by” date. He called Romney a “liar” many times during the primary. Romney proved him right and still does with his lies even by June 2012. Santorum was the antithesis of the Tea Party as a big government social conservative who took pro-union and pro-organized labor positions, more concerned with what was happening on bedrooms than boardrooms. He devoted his time entirely to hard-hitting conservative social values but didn’t focus enough on relevant issues. Pawlenty lacked the necessary fire in the belly and never got voters excited. Bachmann would have done better but didn’t because of her acerbic attacks and far-fetched malicious lies against Pres. Obama. Bachmann and Pawlenty are unpopular in their home state of MN. Bachmann has an unfavorable rating of 34-57 while Pawlenty has negative favorability at 39-50. Perry was not ready for prime time and absolutely bombed out in debates.
Herman Cain endorsed Gingrich during the primary, calling his tax package similar to his “9-9-9” plan but added that he was comfortable supporting Romney if he is the GOP nominee. His influence on the race is minimal but he retains an enthusiastic base of support among Tea Party backers. He reminds them to vote in November, even if WMR is not their primary choice, or Barack Obama stays in the White House. Ron Paul made it clear at the outset that he finds it hard to imagine himself as Romney’s running mate. Some say he is refraining from criticizing Romney in order not to hurt his own son Randy Paul’s chances in the GOP. As long as he doesn’t attack WMR, he can ensure the nominee to look favorably on his son.
Jon Huntsman believed he would not make it unless he pandered to the right-wing base of the party. But his wife threatened to leave him if he sacrificed his principles, e.g., believing in science. In this political climate, he knew he had no chance of winning, not even in Utah. But he is not the only loser in these conditions. The tax-cutting, amnesty-supporting, cut-and-running Ronald Reagan would have trouble navigating the Republican Party these days. He took a shot at his own party comparing it to China’s Communist Party and criticizing its standard bearer in a wide-ranging interview. The GOP withdrew his invitation to a Florida fund-raiser after he publicly called for a third party. The GOP wants docile, unquestioning, non-thinking zombies and yes-people, either as plain members of the party or running for office under its banner and direction.
WMR wants to be president for the wrong reasons. He is a good businessman (so he claims; let’s grant him that) judging from his record at Bain Capital where he destroyed many more jobs than he created, ran companies aground and simply walked away with no less than $100 million in profits leaving thousands of workers, their children and families in fatal penury and hopelessness. He gleefully admitted his joy in firing people and wants to do for America what he has done for Bain Capital. Americans are just too smart to swallow his bull and let him get away with his pathetic record as a businessman.
Losing 40,000 manufacturing jobs, twice the national average, while the state ranked 47th in job creation made his state’s economic record one of the worst in the country. Instead of creating jobs at home, he outsourced them abroad to India, cut taxes for himself and other millionaires and raised them on the middle class and left the state with a $2.6 billion in debt. That’s why he did not run for reelection. Now he wants to be president, claiming he speaks the language of business and knows how to create jobs. We’ve heard that claim before and found it to be lies then. What makes it different now? He can’t run on a record “non-record.”