Who is Mitt Romney?
Is he the business-savvy Washington outsider that he claims to be? Or is he tied deeper than he would have you believe, thus attempting to be the tip of the spear that forever rips the liberty from the souls of all Americans?
Whether you are anti-Obama, or just pro-any GOP candidate, you have likely spoken words, or heard and agreed with someone else’s words in defense of Romney and his flip-flopping (or, "natural evolution"), outsourcing, business-crushing, socialism-promoting, business and political careers. It always sounds kind of like this: “He took advantage of loopholes that were not illegal,” or “He says that the states should handle health care,” or “He listens to people and his opinions on topics changed accordingly over the years.” Never mind that every piece of evidence points to his requiring amnesty for some of his financial decisions, or his investment in Chinese companies that he openly admits “employed” young women working long hours for “the pittance they earned, living in dormitories with, uh, with little bathrooms at the end of maybe 10, 10 room rooms…(of) 12 girls per room with 3 bunk beds on top of each other…surrounded by a fence with barbed wire and guard towers,” or that he openly desired to make his health care a national program, or that he has evolved multiple times on several issues, apparently finding it difficult to discern who is giving him good advice and just trying all of them until something sticks.
This election season has seen the national Republican Party , normally “independent” of any candidate until certain that a presumptive candidate can be named, become an extension of Romney’s campaign before Ron Paul ever stopped openly campaigning. In doing so, the RNC has waged a not insignificant battle at caucus state conventions across the country in an effort to disenfranchise delegates that were fairly elected and may or may not be casting votes for Romney at the convention. Considering that Romney has some 1,500 delegates, it shouldn’t really matter what a few hundred delegates do, right? Wrong, because a plurality of 5 states can nominate someone other than Romney at the convention and cause a major ruckus on live television for the normally unknowing country to see. This possible split was unacceptable to the RNC and Romney so they took to the offensive. By now you have heard about the bone-breaking, rule-breaking tactics employed by the RNC at these state conventions. What you may not know is that despite these tactics, as many as 8 states elected a plurality of delegates in support of Ron Paul. So, this past week, the RNC refused to seat all or part of the delegations from those states, ensuring that Ron Paul cannot be nominated at the national convention. Instead, Paul's supporters got this:
So now that Romney and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, have disenfranchised Paul's supporters, even going so far as to place all pro-Paul delegates as far from the main floor as possible so as to keep them off camera, the GOP electoral war machine has turned its efforts to disenfranchising third party candidates like Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode. On Wednesday, August 29, a GOP challenge administered by the RNC and Romney’s attorneys in Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Michigan against Gary Johnson and in Virginia against Virgil Goode will be decided. If successful, these challenges would remove Johnson and Goode from the ballots of the states in question.
Big deal, right? Wrong. In Virginia, Virgil Goode is polling at around 4%. All of that 4% came from Romney, providing Barack Obama a commanding lead in the important swing state. If Romney can get Goode off the ballot, he hopes that those 4% come back to him and make the race a dead heat. Goode has already removed himself from the Pennsylvania ballots, where he was polling as high as 5% after the RNC challenged the 30,000 signatures his campaign submitted. Why did he willingly withdraw? Because his campaign received a letter from Romney’s attorneys stating that if Goode were to lose the RNC challenge, his campaign would be responsible for the Romney court fees in excess of $100,000 plus his own fees, estimated to exceed $50,000 according to Pennsylvania state law. Goode was not willing to risk money he didn’t have and has withdrawn.
Gary Johnson has much more cash in his coffers than Goode and has stood firm in defense of his appearance on the ballots for the states in which he is being challenged. He has vowed to force the courts to submit to the RNC and remove him forcibly.
Finally, the RNC has decided in private that they are going to present rules changes that will allow future candidates to remove any and all delegates from any and all states and replace them with delegates of their choosing. This would basically allow future GOP nominees to completely remove any grassroots movements from the political process, thereby taking complete and total control of the party. This proposal has met stiff competition, not just from Ron Paul supporters, but a much higher percentage of Romney supporters. They are not happy with either the public perception of such a move, or the reality of what it does to the state parties, essentially rendering them meaningless.
This is an unprecedented move by any campaign or political party in the history of the United States electoral system. Furthermore, it should serve as a very bright and shining example of the sort of power- hungry, liberty-crushing man that Mitt Romney really is. Of course, he feigns complete ignorance of any of these proceedings. He knows nothing of the challenges. He knows nothing of the delegate removals. He knows nothing of the physical attacks and overt fraud at state conventions. Finally, he knows nothing about this most recent power grab at the national convention. He claims that all of this is handled by his campaign and the RNC, and he knows absolutely nothing about it. Really? Nothing?
I would present two possibilities about who Mitt Romney is. Either he is the always-listening and evolving, liberty loving, upstanding businessman, who is completely ignorant to anything that his campaign and political allies are doing on his behalf to break any non neocon segments of the GOP, or he is a complete and utter liar whose thirst for power is unquenchable, which will only lead to more laws like the NDAA. Which Mitt is Mitt? For me, it is obviously the latter Mitt. He will only serve his financial masters in the Washington lobby. His willingness to openly crush any resistance to his campaign is brutally scary when I think of what he may do as POTUS. Take your pick America – with either Mitt you lose. Get the unknowing puppet that just loves to talk to people, or got the power-hungry elitist.