Is Mitt Romney Conservative? Who Cares?

During the height of the GOP Presidential Primaries a popular argument among grassroots, conservative, activists was: "Is Mitt Romney actually a conservative?"

Regardless of who you were supporting at that moment in the primary season, if you weren't already in the Romney camp, the answer to that question was probably "no".

There is no shortage of evidence to support the claim that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Governor Romney has actually described himself as "a PROGRESSIVE-Republican", back before he described himself as "SEVERELY-conservative" at this year's CPAC gathering.

From his changes in position on issues important to social conservatives like same-sex marriage and abortion, to his embrace of "man-caused" climate change, to Romneycare, Mitt Romney has not been modestly, much less "severely", conservative.

During the primaries his conservative credentials, or lack thereof, was a valid and pertinent question to ask and debate. But now that Governor Mitt Romney is the presumptive - and yes inevitable - Republican nominee there seems to be little point in worrying about how conservative, moderate, or heaven help us, progressive he is.

Conservatives need not try to convince themselves, or anyone else, that Mitt Romney is the conservative candidate we had hoped for. For the purposes of the general election what is important is that Barack Obama is the worst U.S. President of modern times (arguably second to Jimmy Carter) and must not get a second term. If he does, he will be completely free to enact his radical agenda without any concerns about reelection.

President Obama has already diminished the stature of the United States in the world, by going on his apology tours, leading from behind and missing opportunities to support true freedom movements like the Green Movement in Iran, while quickly supporting Islamist "freedom" movements during the so-called "Arab Spring".

He has emboldened our adversaries and enemies - i.e. China, Russia, North Korea and Venezuela - while leaving our traditional allies - i.e. England and Israel - wondering if they can count on the United States to support them.

President Obama has increased the polarization of the American public, not just along party lines, but among economic and  racial lines as well. The post-racial President has turned out to be anything but, inserting himself in every racially charged controversy without all the facts. He has inspired the "Occupiers" by stoking class-envy and demonized private citizens for the "crime" of being successful.

And of course those are just a couple of his greatest hits. Let's not forget the trillion dollar "Stimulus", Obamacare, allowing his Justice Department to sue Arizona over SB1070 and the scandals of Solyndra and Fast and Furious.

The question is no longer, "Is Mitt Romney actually a conservative?" Now the question is, "What will America look like after 4 more years of Barack Obama if we allow Mitt Romney to lose?" '


Let's not find out!

It's Been A While...

It's been a while since my last posting, almost 3 months. My personal life has been in turmoil and it's been tough to get motivated to write about politics. However, things are starting to look up - at least slightly, so hopefully I'll be getting back to regular postings.

Thanks for your patience and support! Keep checking back for new articles and listen to CRF Radio w/Steven Rosenblum & Daria DiGiovanni every Saturday evening from 6:00-7:30pm ET.

GOP “McCained” (Redux)

John McCain gave the '08
election away to Barack Obama.
Now he wants to tell us who to
nominate to defeat Obama?

In the 2008 primaries Republican voters allowed the liberal, “mainstream media” and establishment, moderate, inside The Beltway “Republicans” to choose our nominee.

The result was a fatally flawed GOP presidential candidate, who generated only the merest modicum of enthusiasm for his candidacy with the grassroots when he selected a little-known, plainspoken Alaska governor by the name of Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The base of the Republican Party was "McCained".

McCain was the media’s GOP darling during the primaries of the 2008 cycle. They helped to resurrect his struggling campaign several times, which should have been a red flag to Republicans.

After he won the nomination John McCain infuriated conservatives and GOP activists when he didn't challenge then Senator Obama on his associations (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers anyone?), his voting record (is “present” really a vote?) and his public policy statements (“energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”).

If that wasn’t bad enough, McCain then proceeded to temporarily “suspend” his campaign so he could return to Washington, DC to participate in creating what would become known as TARP along with President Bush and Senator Barack Obama.

Candidate McCain even botched the handling of his vice presidential selection. He failed to unleash Governor Palin and he also failed to defend her with passion from media attacks or to reign in or fire his staff when they spoke ill of Palin.

After the devastating losses of 2008 – led by the inept McCain campaign -- GOP and conservative activists resolved to learn from the experience and never again allow the media and Washington insiders to choose our nominees. The early signs were good that the grassroots were taking back the nomination process.

For instance, when then Republican Governor Charlie Crist (FL) announced that he was running for the US Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez and temporarily filled by George LeMieux, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) immediately endorsed him. This was extremely problematic since there were other more conservative GOP candidates vying for the nomination who had all entered the race earlier than Crist.

The Republican Party of Florida’s then-Chairman Jim Greer (a Crist appointee and confidante) even tried to invoke RNC “Rule 11” which would have allowed the Party to support Governor Crist in the primary. This move was blocked by State Committeewoman and RNC Treasurer Sharon Day (who is now the RNC Vice-Chair).

In particular, the former-Speaker of the Florida House, Marco Rubio, was very popular with many grassroots Florida Republicans and they wanted to choose their nominee via the primary process.

The result of all these establishment shenanigans was a grassroots revolt. The polls began to turn against Crist. The NRSC was forced to withdraw its support of Charlie Crist, after he broke a pledge and decided to run as an independent, when it became clear that Rubio would win the nomination.

There are other examples of grassroots candidates beating out establishment, “moderates” in primaries. Candidates like Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Rand Paul all defeated “RINOs” with grassroots/Tea Party support, though only Paul was successful in his general election campaign.

Fast forward to today’s GOP presidential primary field and we find Mitt Romney as the “presumed front-runner” with around 25% of GOP support nationally. Romney only enjoys the support of a quarter of the Republican base after running for president for more than 5 years. So why is he the presumed front-runner? And why are “conservatives” defending the record of a man that is in his own words “a progressive-Republican”?

"Romney is a taller, less heroric, younger John McCain,
with better hair and business experience".

Worse still for the conservative base of the Republican Party is the fact that arguably the best candidates to uphold conservative principles and defeat Barack Obama in the general election are now out of the race. Both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann would arguably have been the best standard bearers as truly conservative-Republican candidates.


Unfortunately both Cain and Bachmann put themselves out of the running. Though they certainly had help from the liberal media, the demise of both of their campaigns was largely due to self-inflicted wounds and unforced errors on the part of both the candidates and their national campaign staff.


So we come back to our “presumed nominee” in the person of Mitt Romney. He is the former governor of one of the bluest states in the union, “Taxachussetts”. He is a northeast “moderate” Republican (who called himself a “progressive-Republican”) who created the template for Obamacare with his healthcare reform in Massachusetts.


He has changed positions on major issues -- like abortion and gay marriage -- that are important to social conservatives. In addition Romney supported TARP and says he believes in man-made climate change.


Romney has been endorsed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (who doesn’t believe Sharia Law is a danger to the US and has scolded conservatives who disagree), he's also got the thumbs up from Meghan McCain (the useful idiot that thinks she represents young Republicans on MSNBC) and of course now by Senator John McCain himself – who tells crowd on the campaign trail what a great candidate Romney would be (as if he’d know a good candidate). To put it simply, Romney is a taller, less heroic, younger John McCain, with better hair and business experience.

Thank you to The Right Scoop for catching this gem.



The GOP may take back the White House with Mitt Romney as its nominee (depending on his VP choice). But a Romney candidacy is unlikely to generate enough enthusiasm from the base to make it a resounding victory.


If Governor Romney were going to generate broad and enthusiastic support within the Republican Party for himself and his candidacy -- he would have done it by now -- after more than 5 years of running for president. But as it stands Romney is stuck at around 25% support. Or to put it in starker terms: 75% of the Republican Party would prefer someone other than Mitt Romney as their nominee.


Apparently all the lessons of the 2008 elections have been forgotten (or ignored). The remaining crop of Republican candidates leaves conservatives with a few unpleasant choices:

1. “Settle” for the most “electable” candidate – who just happens to be the next in line – the “progressive-Republican”, Mitt Romney.
2. Select a candidate like Rick Santorum who is a former-senator that lost his reelection bid in 2008, endorsed Arlen Spector and is as willing to legislate his far-right social agenda as Pelosi is to legislate her far-left social agenda.
3. Opt for Newt Gingrich who sat on a couch, bought and paid for by Al Gore, with Nancy Pelosi to support “Climate Change” legislation and is a Washington insider with ties to Freddie Mac.
4. Choose Ron Paul who is a libertarian, not a Republican (much less a conservative), is anti-Israel and who is to the left of Obama on foreign policy.

Without a strong candidate and running mate at the top of the ticket -- and a decisive popular vote victory -- there will be no coat tails down-ticket to ensure that the GOP increases its numbers in the House of Representatives and retakes the Senate with the filibuster-proof majority that will be required to repeal Obamacare and reverse all the damage done by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.


Looking at the surviving Republican candidates does not inspire confidence or enthusiasm that any of them can defeat Barack Obama (at least not resoundingly). The GOP will more than likely go into the general election led by a “moderate” and the conservative base of the Republican Party will have been “McCained” again. In fact, we already have been.

2012 Could Be a Train Wreck

Is the Cain Train just the first derailment of 2012?

The meteoric rise and catastrophic derailment of Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain should be a cautionary tale for all grassroots conservative/Republican activists and for the leadership at the NRCC, NRSC and RNC.

Herman Cain’s ascent in the polls and popularity with “tea party” activists came about due to the candidate’s approachability, his straight-talking style and his common sense approach to solving the problems that confront our nation.

His embrace of his outsider status and his quick-witted answer when his political inexperience was brought up as an issue also won Cain scores of supporters.

When asked about his lack of elected experience he would simply remind people that we’ve been sending people to Washington, DC who have political experience and then simply ask, “How’s that working for you? How about sending a problem solver to the White House?”

Unfortunately some of the very things that made Herman Cain such an attractive candidate to many, also led to his ultimate demise.

Cain talked a lot about “making sure we are working on the right problem” and“surrounding yourself with the right people”. On both counts his campaign, and therefore he, failed miserably.

Herman Cain’s biggest problem, other than his inexcusable lack of understanding of foreign policy and national defense issues, as well as, his apparent inability to learn – despite allegedly discussing the topics with distinguished experts like KT McFarland and John Bolton – was his senior national campaign staff.

Cain’s national campaign chairman, Mark Block, has his own FEC scandal smoldering in the background. He is a man that was barred from involvement in elected politics for 3 years and he obviously lacked the knowledge and experience to deal with the firestorm of controversy and allegations that inundated their operation after the first Politico article was published.

JD Gordon, Cain’s communications director/foreign policy advisor, was completely incompetent in dealing with the Politico story despite having 10 days advanced notice that it was coming. He infamously called Geraldo Rivera’s cell phone while Rivera was on the air and gave an amateurish interview that was heard through Geraldo’s lapel microphone.

Additionally, each time candidate Cain made yet another unforced error – whether it was not knowing the Taliban isn’t in Libya, his tortured answer about negotiating with Al-Qaeda to get a captured soldier back:

Or not being able to clearly articulate his own position on abortion:

– Gordon inevitably came out with a statement that tried to explain each gaffe away by blaming a lack of sleep, the media and/or the public for being unable to understand Cain’s answers.

You can read JD Gordon’s biography here. I’ve read it several times and based on the bio, his performance and my personal interaction with him, I’ve come to two conclusions: 1) Based on his resume Gordon should have done a much better job at both damage control and interacting with the media. 2) He lacks the expertise to call himself a “foreign policy advisor”.

For a couple of weeks I implored Herman Cain on Twitter, on my radio show and anywhere else I could to fire Mark Block and JD Gordon and get his campaign back on track and back on message. Unfortunately he did not heed my advice and the emergence of a woman accusing the candidate of engaging in a 13-year extra-marital affair became the preverbal last straw.

The “Cain Train” was the best vehicle for the GOP to reach the White House in 2012. With the train derailed some activists find themselves taking another look at Newt Gingrich or one of the other remaining candidates. But unfortunately none of them have the combination of qualities that attracted voters to Cain.

Gingrich is the biggest Washington insider of the group, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. Yet he seems, at least for the moment, to be convincing some voters that he is the consistent conservative they’re looking for.

Despite having a firm grasps on the economic, monetary and other domestic policies, Paul’s foreign policy stances make him a non-starter for most GOP primary voters.

Jon Huntsman is a Republican In Name Only and would actually get more traction as a Democratic challenger to Barack Obama.

Rick Santorum’s best arguments for his candidacy are his accomplishments as a US Senator. Not the best position to be in when the electorate is looking for outsiders.

Rick Perry’s accumulated gaffes and flubs have pretty much eliminated him from consideration by many grassroots activists.

It seems only fair to have an obligatory mention of Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer. Done.

Michele Bachmann surged early, especially in Iowa, then lost some of her luster – and a lot of her traction -- due to unforced errors on the part of both her national campaign staff and herself. She was widely seen as behaving like a “diva” on the campaign trail. One of the chief complaints from people on the ground was that when booked at an event (Lincoln Day dinner, etc.) she would arrive late and leave early – sometimes not even eating at the dinner – annoying event planners.

Bachmann also had a bout of campaign-threatening foot-in-mouth decease where she said things that were factually untrue, and/or absurd, or she would make a great point in a debate only to blow her momentum by taking her argument just a little too far (see Gardasil).

Perhaps her most grievous error though may have been co-opting the Tea Party label and movement for her personal political gain, which makes her look like a “typical politician”.

Founding and chairing the House Tea Party Caucus might have been a great idea, if Bachmann were staying in Congress and continuing to fight for lower taxes, less spending and smaller, more constitutionally centered government. Not so much when she appears to have done it only for political benefit.

So now Republican primary voters have a choice to make and less time to make it than many average voters may realize. The first in the nation caucuses will take place in just over 3 weeks – less considering Christmas and New Years – and the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls is not generating excitement within the base. It’s down to Romney or “Not Romney” and that’s not going to generate enthusiasm (think John McCain in 2008).

Short term there seems no doubt it’s Newt Gingrich that benefits from derailment of Herman Cain’s campaign and his departure. With or without Cain’s endorsement, and there is some doubt as to whether it’s forthcoming or even desirable, Newt is already seeing a bump in his poll numbers. But Newt has a long and colorful record for the media, his opponents and his former congressional colleagues to revisit and expose. Can the former-Speaker weather the storm that is inevitably coming his way?

What has happened thus far in the current primary season leads to questions about the “inevitability” of a Barack Obama defeat in 2012. But beyond that it also raises questions about the GOP retaking the Senate and increasing its majority in the House.

The coattails of a successful presidential candidate cannot be overstated. Down ticket candidates can be helped or hurt by the enthusiasm and voter turn out generated by a strong top of the ticket candidate.

Looking around at some of the declared candidates for senate and house seats around the nation, there are some excellent candidates and some not so exceptional candidates. Some of the excellent candidates are in tough races. Some of the not so exceptional candidates are in impossible races.

Perhaps more troubling is that in some of the house and senate races there are 11 or more candidates vying for the GOP nomination. These fields are as wide as the Grand Canyon and about as deep as a rain gutter. Quality would be more desirable than quantity in defeating entrenched incumbent Democrats. Even in an anti-incumbent atmosphere incumbency is a powerful tool.

Unless a Republican presidential ticket is chosen that offers a clear alternative to the policies of Barack Obama and generates the passion among the grassroots activists that actually win elections by knocking on doors, making phone calls and getting out the vote, 2012 could be a train wreck.

Occupy Wall Street: “The Left’s Tea Party”? Not Even Close

As the Occupy Wall Street protest/slumber party enters its fourth week and spreads to additional cities across the USA, it seems like a good time to examine the OWS phenomenon -- its origin, where it is now and where it’s going.

Occupiers: Anarchists and Marxists

Just as importantly, an examination of the reaction of the media and politicians to these protests is definitely in order, especially as a contrast to their reactions to the Tea Party, the genuine grassroots movement they so desperately want to compare to OWS.

The Occupy Wall Street protest that has been taking place for four weeks in Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan likely began as a truly grassroots, or bottom-up movement. Those who set out to protest the government bailouts of Wall Street corporations and big banks -- something they viewed as unfair when everyday Americans were left to fend for themselves -- had sincere and legitimate grievances.

But as the movement reached its peak and looked likely to be reaching its end, it was usurped by the usual left-wing suspects: major labor unions, Organizing for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Communist Party of America and other far-left, progressive groups. It was only then that the media, especially the left-leaning, so-called "mainstream" media began to not just report on the movement (albeit inaccurately) but cheerlead and romanticize it. This of course in stark contrast to the way they either ignored or maligned the Tea Party.

Interviews with typical OWS protesters reveal that most of them have no idea exactly what they’re protesting against, or asking for. They seem to have more a list of demands -- namely things that the government and taxpayers owe them, than any coherent and unifying list of issues they seek to resolve.

Even when the occupiers can articulate their grievances, they’re a muddled hodgepodge of complaints and accusations. Their proposed solutions range from the anarchists call for an end to all government, to the Marxists demands for an ever-larger and more oppressive one.

And it is this lack of a cohesive message and unifying issue that has led to the demonstrators and their movement being co-opted by the very sort of people they actually should be protesting against. They have become pawns, useful idiots and worst of all… expendable to those that want to collapse capitalism and democracy for their own ends.

As evidence of this fact you can look to AFL-CIO union organizers telling OWS protesters that they need to be prepared to be arrested to get their point across. You can also look to featured speakers denouncing peaceful and lawful protests (and even Gandhi) and calling for French Revolution style violence and a return to the guillotine. Or you could look to liberal media personalities like Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher encouraging OWS protesters, marching uptown to the homes of people like NewsCorp chairman Rupert Murdoch to threaten violence.

Most recently you can check out a video from the progressive propaganda machine that is MSNBC, where Donny Deutch told Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski that what the Occupy Wall Street movement needs is a “Kent State moment”. That sort of irresponsible talk from an analyst on a cable news outlet is akin to putting a match to gasoline.

But it’s also important to listen, not just to the rhetoric, but the way that it’s delivered and received by the organizers and participants in these rallies. The cult-like way that the organizers deliver their messages, known at the “human megaphone”, is disturbing and somewhat absurd. But the hand signals that the participants use to interject in the conversations their collective assemblies engage in is quite revealing and really ridiculous.

In terms of comparisons between the occupiers in the various cities around the country and Tea Party movement, there really are none.

TEA Party Rally

The Tea Party movement was largely ignored or maligned by the bulk of the media. Occupy Wall Street has been embraced by the media who agree with the anti-capitalist sentiments of the squatters in Zuccatti Park and around the nation.

Tea Party groups got permits for their rallies, self-policed their ranks, obeyed police orders to move or disband, paid for their utilities and extra security and left the areas where they rallied cleaner than they found them.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street folks have illegally setup tents, defecated in public, refused to follow police instructions, attacked and provoked police, stolen power, used drugs and left the areas they’ve occupied in much worse condition than they found them in. Ironic considering the left is supposed to care so much about being “green” and protecting the environment.

The Tea Party has a clear and concise reason for existing, namely a desire for constitutionally limited government, lower taxes and a return to founding principles. They love their country and proudly fly the American Flag.

Tea Party supporters have a grasp of basic economics and history that leads them to the conclusion that socialism is a failed model that always collapses, but not until after it leads to tyranny and suffering for the people that chose it.

They also realized that in order to achieve their goals they needed to organize beyond protesting and elect constitutional-conservatives to Congress and the White House.

The occupiers want two different remedies to their perceived injustices; depending on which camp they’re from. The Anarchists want there to be no government and to be able to take what they want from those that have more. The Marxists want larger more oppressive government that will take from the wealthy and redistribute it all to them. They don’t want to pay taxes, but they want the “evil” corporations and the rich to pay even more taxes.

In both cases left wing professors who have never held a job outside of academia have indoctrinated them. The protesters don’t understand that if they were to be successful in collapsing our democratic-republic and our capitalist system, they would be no better off economically and be far less free to express their discontent.

Many of them say they hate capitalism and that the United States is as bad as Al-Qaeda. If they have an American Flag it’s either been desecrated, flown upside down or is being worn like a bandana around their face to conceal their identity. They proudly display signs that say “Socialism in NOT a dirty word” and copies of the Communist Manifesto. 

In the past two-and-a-half years politicians and the media alike, all without a shred of evidence, have accused the Tea Party of being racists, spitting on black members of Congress and using racial epithets. 

The OWS crowd has been caught on video being anti-Semitic, in multiple cities and on multiple occasions. They’ve been caught using hate speech they would excoriate a conservative for using and all these occurrences have been caught on video in only 4 weeks.

Now the Occupiers are taking things to a new level. The Occupy DC marchers were heard chanting “No justice? No peace” and repeated that call in interviews. Isn’t that the chant that Al “Resist We Much” Sharpton – MSNBC’s “elder statesman” – led protesters with immediately before the deadly Crown Heights riots?

On the same day, occupiers in Rome rioted, torching cars and smashing bank windows. Youths wearing hoods clashed with police all over the historic city.

The only real commonality between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is that both groups oppose taxpayer funded, government bailouts of banks and big business. But even in this similarity there is a fundamental difference. The Tea Party wants that bailout money to go back to the Treasury to pay down the national debt. The OWS crowd wants that money to be redistributed to them in the form of government entitlements and handouts. 

Occupy Wall Street “the left’s Tea Party”? Not even close.

Adam Hasner Wins CPAC Florida Straw Poll And Addresses The Issues

On Friday Republican US Senate candidate Adam Hasner won the CPAC straw poll, narrowly defeating Mike McCalister by 4%. Hasner got 34%, McCalister 30%, former-Senator George LeMieux (who was appointed by Governor Charlie Crist) got 24% and the newcomer of the group, Craig Miller received 12% of the votes. 

The straw poll followed a day and half of speeches, a debate, lots of one-on-one conversations and handshaking with GOP primary  voters and activists at the American Conservative Union's Conservative Political Action Conference and the Republican Party of Florida's Presidency 5 events which took place in Orlando.

On Saturday morning I had the opportunity to ask Hasner, the former-Florida House Majority Leader, a few questions about his candidacy, his record and issues that some grassroots conservatives have expressed reservations about.

The interview covered his straw poll victory, the differences between running for state house versus statewide office, Cap and Trade, climate change, his strong support of Israel, President Obama's handling of the current Israel/Palestinian situation, the United Nations and more.

David Bossie of Citizens United Speaks

Citizens United- Fire From The Heartland

On Friday, September 23rd I had the opportunity to get an exclusive interview with David Bossie, President and Chairman of the Board of Citizens United who was speaking at the American Conservative Union's first ever "regional" Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Florida.

Bossie was also at CPACFL to screen two of Citizens United's movies: Fire From The Heartland: The Awakening Of The Conservative Woman-Starring Rep. Michele Bachmann and Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny- Hosted by Newt & Callista Gingrinch.