Why Tea Partiers Support Romney  

Thursday, June 07, 2012

OK.  Before I go forward with this, let me emphasize that my support for Mitt Romney is conditional on two things: 1. Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional in its entirety, and 2. that Mr. Romney's choice for VP is eligible for office to my satisfaction (see Vattel).  I also do not see Romney as an appropriate candidate for office given his Clintonesque flip-flopping on just about everything.  He will have to be watched more closely than any to previously hold the office with the possible exception of the clown who holds it illegally today.  The purpose of this post is to speculate as to why Tea Partiers (not necessarily myself) are supporting Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney says what you want to hear.  You want him to be pro-life, he's pro-life.  You want him to be pro-choice, he's pro-choice.  He has flip-flopped on just about everything: Abortion, Stem-cells, RU-486, Bailouts, Gays, Campaign Finance, Gun Rights, Socialist Healthcare, Socialist Security, and Taxes.  These flip-flops are in addition to his anti-Tea Party positions on a slew of other things.  This man is no one new; he's Bill Clinton.  I am not suggesting we're going to find much in the way of a blue cum-stained dress in his closet, but the guy is so Clinton from a governing standpoint, no Tea Partier should be voting for him with any sort of enthusiasm.  So why all the Tea Party support?

The Republican Party has been of no help.  Romney was chosen as the candidate from the get-go, and sold as the only candidate who could beat Obama.  Yep, folks, the same tired argument that was used in the 2008 McCain campaign was used yet again.  ANY of the candidates presented: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul, could have easily handed Obama his ass.  Strangely enough, the one LEAST likely to beat him was chosen.  It's 2008 all over again.  In addition, the big name being floated for VP is Marco Rubio, who is great, but not legally eligible to hold the office, when much better candidates are not even being considered.  Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has recently proven himself capable of beating back liberals.  Luis Fortuno successfully dug Puerto Rico out of its depression - and did it by beating liberals.  These men are evidently not being considered, yet Tea Partiers still support Mitt Romney.

I think the answer lies in a comment from Sage four years ago.  Sage suggested that it wouldn't be long into the Obama non-presidency that we would be yearning for the Bush years.  Sage, who could never have been accused of being a fan of George W. Bush, was completely on point as usual.  His point was clear: Obama would do such a crappy job that even Bush-hating libertarians would be wishing for the return of ol' Dubya.

So has it come to pass.  Elected primarily by racists who would put concealment of their racism before the well-being of the Republic and the Constitution, this clown has not only destroyed the country's economy, but by also destroying the freedoms that made her great, he has simultaneously destroyed the only effective means of recovery.  Indeed, even those who hated George W. Bush are longing for the "good ol' days".

How is it that a man can bitch about the way Bush did things and promise change, then expect to be re-elected by doing all the same wrong things he complained that Bush was doing, and changing the things that were changed for the worse?  He bitched that Bush had a penchant for deficit spending, for example, then not only engaged in more such activity than Bush, but than ALL PRIOR HOLDERS OF THE OFFICE COMBINED!  Healthcare was in shambles and needed big reductions in government interference; Obama, going completely opposite of what needed to be done, attempted to put the whole thing into the hands of the government.  This is NOT the change America needed or wanted, and it's only the tip of the iceberg.  The fear of what this man would do in a second term without an election hanging over his head is formidable, real, and understandable.  It's also a huge concern that he could engage (as those in his party are known to do) in election fraud in order to secure that second term.  To these Tea Partiers, his removal from office must be swift and decisive, even if a lying Democrat pretending to be conservative is the alternative.  I cannot say that I do not see that point.

I support Romney only as far as I supported Scott Brown: Elect him if you must, but it's time for Americans to watch these asshats more closely.  Had Americans been more knowledgeable of their intended role and more involved in the entire process, Obama's shenanigans would have been irrelevant.  He would have been forced to the will of the people and their Constitution.  Romney will do a great job as President of the United States IF the people learn and stand up for the Constitution, just like Obama would have had they chosen to do so since 2008.  The sad part is that the Tea Party hasn't had the kind of influence it should have, and that such involvement by the people is unlikely if not impossible.  Again, think Scott Brown.  Tea Partiers were all too excited to see a Republican take over the Kennedy Senate seat - to the point of calling me all manner of nasty things for trying to educate them ... until he showed his true colors.

The same will happen with Romney.

So enjoy your economic recovery under President Romney - IF he is able to overcome his weakness as a candidate and the strength of Donk voter fraud.  If you aren't personally willing to fight to keep the freedoms you will lose in the process, it won't mean a damned thing.