Cliff Kincaid
Romney takes conservatives for granted
By Cliff Kincaid
If Romney talks like a conservative, he can win. That doesn't mean he is a conservative, only that talking like one can win votes. He is a smart businessman. Is he smart enough to realize that he needs conservative votes? Or does he want to win without them?
Conservatives remain the largest ideological group in the United States, polling 40 percent of Americans compared to only 21 percent describing themselves as liberal. Another 35 percent say they're moderate.
Romney's talk at the GOP convention about family values sounded conservative. Both Romney and Paul Ryan have nice families. That's the heart of America's strength. But it's something else to have a pro-family policy that is designed to save this structure for our country and future generations.
Romney talked about his family in moving terms. That contrasts with Barack Obama's horribly dysfunctional family, involving a Kenyan "goat herder" said to be his absentee father, and a communist, Frank Marshall Davis, who indoctrinated him as he grew up in Hawaii and may in fact be his real father. I don't blame Obama for his family or upbringing. But I do blame him for covering up the truth about his family background. I do blame him for taking those "values" and trying to impose them on the United States.
Romney should expose and refute those values. However, except for a brief mention of the sanctity of human life and respect for the institution of marriage, social conservatives had nothing to applaud during his speech.
For his part, Obama could have said — in his memoir, Dreams from My Father — that he rejected the views of his Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. He could have exposed Davis as a communist and sexual pervert. He did not. Instead, he concealed Davis's identity and acknowledged going to college and seeking out, among others, Marxist professors. We know where Obama stands. What about Romney?
The problem is that Romney seems oblivious to the culture wars targeting our families. He is the father of gay marriage in Massachusetts. As a presidential candidate, he refused to endorse the protests on behalf of Chick-fil-A after its CEO spoke in favor of traditional marriage. Romney has reiterated that he favors the admission of homosexuals to the Boy Scouts.
We must separate the rhetoric from the reality. Even some of the rhetoric, such as that the Chick-fil-A protest was NOT part of his campaign, is objectionable. How could any "conservative" politician distance himself from tens of thousands of pro-family conservatives?
Let me give you another concrete example of the Romney problem.
I have a story posted on my web site: GOOD NEWS: Romney Wants to End Federal Funding of Public TV
This may seem minor to a lot of people, but not to me. I have been exposing left-wing bias that dominates public TV and radio for years. I admire Romney for taking a stand against federal subsidies for the media. Whether he follows through as president is, of course, something else. But at least he is saying the right thing and taking a stand. The liberals hate him for this.
Here's the problem: If you read my article, you will see that Romney opposes the subsidies purely on economic grounds. He says we can't afford them, and he's right. But there is another reason to oppose these subsidies — and that it that public broadcasting is unfair, unbalanced, and too liberal. Even if we were flush with cash as a nation, we should not send federal money to the liberal media.
This is my problem with Romney. He does not seem to be grounded in an ideology or philosophy. He is strictly a businessman who analyzes the bottom line. He seems to have personal pro-family values but doesn't want to make them part of his campaign. He seems to believe that, as long as he can protect his family and faith, what is happening in the rest of the society at large is beyond his concern.
Romney seems sharp on business matters, but the Marxist destruction of our nation is both economic and social. That is why Marx called for the abolition or private property and the abolition of the family.
We need the kind of thinking that comes from a sharp businessman. But we need much more. Can Romney assume that role? Or would it be too phony for him to do so at this point in his career? We shall see. He has a lot of work to do.
If he does not perform as a conservative, at least in terms of rhetoric, then what is the rationale for social conservatives to vote for Romney? The answer is that they are scared to death of Obama. This fear has been transformed into support for any Republican alternative. As such, Romney may figure that conservatives have nowhere else to go. So he takes them for granted and even insults them.
But if Romney wins and leaves the Obama policies of social liberalism in place, Obama will have won by losing. The Republican Party will be like the Conservative Party in Britain, which now endorses homosexual marriage and is willing to lose the support of millions of Christians. It is the case that Obama's destruction of our social fabric, through adamant promotion of pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and anti-family policies, is as serious as our economic decline.
If a Republican wins the White House and leaves many liberal social policies in place, it means that the fiscal house may be reorganized but the culture will continue to deteriorate.
If Obama wins, conservatives will keep up the fight. If Romney wins, the danger is that many conservatives will give up the fight, thinking that the Republicans will save the country. The only other area of major concern, foreign policy, got a few applause lines from Romney, who talked tough on Russia, Cuba, and Iran. He also said he opposed another round of defense cuts, mostly because people will lose their jobs.
Can you in good conscience vote for someone who does not really want your vote? Shouldn't a politician earn your vote? What has Romney really done to earn the votes of conservatives? Ask conservative Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin about that. He was stabbed in the back by Romney and told to get out of the race because of some misunderstood comments he made on abortion and rape that were blown out of proportion by an Obama SuperPAC, the liberal media, liberal and "moderate" Republicans, and even some "conservative" pundits.
Interestingly, Akin may be able to win without Romney's endorsement or official Republican money. After a decline in support caused by the controversy, a new poll shows Akin in a virtual dead heat with liberal Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. The race is winnable after all.
There is a lesson here for Romney. It doesn't pay to treat conservatives like dirt.
© Cliff Kincaid
August 31, 2012
If Romney talks like a conservative, he can win. That doesn't mean he is a conservative, only that talking like one can win votes. He is a smart businessman. Is he smart enough to realize that he needs conservative votes? Or does he want to win without them?
Conservatives remain the largest ideological group in the United States, polling 40 percent of Americans compared to only 21 percent describing themselves as liberal. Another 35 percent say they're moderate.
Romney's talk at the GOP convention about family values sounded conservative. Both Romney and Paul Ryan have nice families. That's the heart of America's strength. But it's something else to have a pro-family policy that is designed to save this structure for our country and future generations.
Romney talked about his family in moving terms. That contrasts with Barack Obama's horribly dysfunctional family, involving a Kenyan "goat herder" said to be his absentee father, and a communist, Frank Marshall Davis, who indoctrinated him as he grew up in Hawaii and may in fact be his real father. I don't blame Obama for his family or upbringing. But I do blame him for covering up the truth about his family background. I do blame him for taking those "values" and trying to impose them on the United States.
Romney should expose and refute those values. However, except for a brief mention of the sanctity of human life and respect for the institution of marriage, social conservatives had nothing to applaud during his speech.
For his part, Obama could have said — in his memoir, Dreams from My Father — that he rejected the views of his Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. He could have exposed Davis as a communist and sexual pervert. He did not. Instead, he concealed Davis's identity and acknowledged going to college and seeking out, among others, Marxist professors. We know where Obama stands. What about Romney?
The problem is that Romney seems oblivious to the culture wars targeting our families. He is the father of gay marriage in Massachusetts. As a presidential candidate, he refused to endorse the protests on behalf of Chick-fil-A after its CEO spoke in favor of traditional marriage. Romney has reiterated that he favors the admission of homosexuals to the Boy Scouts.
We must separate the rhetoric from the reality. Even some of the rhetoric, such as that the Chick-fil-A protest was NOT part of his campaign, is objectionable. How could any "conservative" politician distance himself from tens of thousands of pro-family conservatives?
Let me give you another concrete example of the Romney problem.
I have a story posted on my web site: GOOD NEWS: Romney Wants to End Federal Funding of Public TV
This may seem minor to a lot of people, but not to me. I have been exposing left-wing bias that dominates public TV and radio for years. I admire Romney for taking a stand against federal subsidies for the media. Whether he follows through as president is, of course, something else. But at least he is saying the right thing and taking a stand. The liberals hate him for this.
Here's the problem: If you read my article, you will see that Romney opposes the subsidies purely on economic grounds. He says we can't afford them, and he's right. But there is another reason to oppose these subsidies — and that it that public broadcasting is unfair, unbalanced, and too liberal. Even if we were flush with cash as a nation, we should not send federal money to the liberal media.
This is my problem with Romney. He does not seem to be grounded in an ideology or philosophy. He is strictly a businessman who analyzes the bottom line. He seems to have personal pro-family values but doesn't want to make them part of his campaign. He seems to believe that, as long as he can protect his family and faith, what is happening in the rest of the society at large is beyond his concern.
Romney seems sharp on business matters, but the Marxist destruction of our nation is both economic and social. That is why Marx called for the abolition or private property and the abolition of the family.
We need the kind of thinking that comes from a sharp businessman. But we need much more. Can Romney assume that role? Or would it be too phony for him to do so at this point in his career? We shall see. He has a lot of work to do.
If he does not perform as a conservative, at least in terms of rhetoric, then what is the rationale for social conservatives to vote for Romney? The answer is that they are scared to death of Obama. This fear has been transformed into support for any Republican alternative. As such, Romney may figure that conservatives have nowhere else to go. So he takes them for granted and even insults them.
But if Romney wins and leaves the Obama policies of social liberalism in place, Obama will have won by losing. The Republican Party will be like the Conservative Party in Britain, which now endorses homosexual marriage and is willing to lose the support of millions of Christians. It is the case that Obama's destruction of our social fabric, through adamant promotion of pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and anti-family policies, is as serious as our economic decline.
If a Republican wins the White House and leaves many liberal social policies in place, it means that the fiscal house may be reorganized but the culture will continue to deteriorate.
If Obama wins, conservatives will keep up the fight. If Romney wins, the danger is that many conservatives will give up the fight, thinking that the Republicans will save the country. The only other area of major concern, foreign policy, got a few applause lines from Romney, who talked tough on Russia, Cuba, and Iran. He also said he opposed another round of defense cuts, mostly because people will lose their jobs.
Can you in good conscience vote for someone who does not really want your vote? Shouldn't a politician earn your vote? What has Romney really done to earn the votes of conservatives? Ask conservative Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin about that. He was stabbed in the back by Romney and told to get out of the race because of some misunderstood comments he made on abortion and rape that were blown out of proportion by an Obama SuperPAC, the liberal media, liberal and "moderate" Republicans, and even some "conservative" pundits.
Interestingly, Akin may be able to win without Romney's endorsement or official Republican money. After a decline in support caused by the controversy, a new poll shows Akin in a virtual dead heat with liberal Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. The race is winnable after all.
There is a lesson here for Romney. It doesn't pay to treat conservatives like dirt.
© Cliff Kincaid
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
