This post was originally published on May 14, 2012 on BNV. The impetus for it was the narrative that emerged around that time that Mitt Romney was a bully during his prep school days at Cranbrook. Indeed, strong evidence supporting that notion did emerge in May, but was ultimately brushed under the carpet as “youthful indiscretion.” Some at the time said, “Once a bully, always a bully,” (perhaps me included). But while I am not sure that redemption and transformation are necessarily unattainable for bullies in general, I am certain that Mr. Romney has neither been redeemed nor has he undergone substantive transformation in that regard…although he has of course undergone a complete ideological transformation before our very eyes during the last month (but that’s a different post!). One need look no further than the second presidential debate  earlier this month for concrete evidence that Mr. Romney remains a bully indeed.    

Specifically, during the course of the second debate, Mr. Romney repeatedly heckled and interrupted the President of the United States. The manner in which he glared at Mr. Obama during the Benghazi exchange, the condescension he exuded and the aggressive body language directed toward the President revealed more than just a competitive nature, but they revealed a powerful sense of entitlement and superiority. At one point, Mr. Romney’s heckling prompted President Obama to suggest, “Please proceed Governor,” just to get him to move on.  Regardless of the fact that the President is Mr. Romney’s opponent, his egregious disrespect of the President was inappropriate and bully-like.  But more pointedly, Mr. Romney’s complete disregard for the moderator’s direction was over the top, rude and, in a word, bullying. Mr. Romney, without apology, ignored moderator Candy Crowley, aggressively speaking over her on several occasions and showing a contempt for debate rules and her direction.

In addition, Mr. Romney’s (and his wife’s) wholesale dismissal of women’s issues as “unimportant,” his bluster on foreign policy (before embracing President Obama’s positions in the last debate) and his frank disregard for the working poor (and  the“very” poor for that matter) are consistent with and further illustrative of a bullying mindset. Here’s what I wrote in May: 

Much has been written and said about this issue over the last few days, so I will be brief on the background. In some of the reporting, the implications of what Mitt Romney did almost fifty years ago have been sometimes rationalized as a “youthful indiscretion.” According to five of his former classmates, when Mr. Romney was an eighteen year old senior at Cranbrook, a prestigious prep school, he didn’t like the looks of fellow classmate John Lauber. Specifically, he didn’t like the length of Lauber’s bleach-blonde hair and was reportedly indignant about Lauber’s lack of both decorum and sense of conformity. Lauber was a relatively new student at the school, and was soft-spoken and thought to be gay. Ultimately, Romney and his friends grabbed him, held him down against his will and chopped off his hair with a pair of scissors. Romney was apparently the ringleader of the mission and was the one who did the cutting. The Washington Post described the scene as follows:

“They came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”

As it turns out, John Lauber was gay. What’s not clear is if Romney and friends did what they did because they were aware of it. In some ways, it’s immaterial.

In a radio interview after the story broke, Romney actually chuckled as he denied remembering the incident as if the “hijinx,” as he has described it, sounded like fun and he was sorry he didn’t remember it. Still chuckling, he apologized if the story was true because it “may have gone too far.” If I’m not mistaken, the appropriate human response to discovering that you were an exceptionally cruel bastard in high school who tortured some gay kid should be horror, or at the very least, remorse. That seems to be the response of his former classmates when recalling the incident (which they state they will not forget), anyway. It is of course also curious how five of his classmates can remember the incident with such clarity, and Romney cannot even recall it. Although that is surely incredible, it’s not really the issue. It may be just a matter of being a politician to deny it, but it is clearly a matter of character to have done it at all.

Some have said that one should not be held accountable for a bad decision that took place so long ago. After all, it’s true enough that many of us made stupid mistakes when we were in high school. But there’s a huge difference between cheating on a test or stealing your parents’ car for the night, and purposefully being the cause of another’s misery. And, not to bring this up again, but seriously, who puts a beloved family pet on the roof of the car (in a kennel) when going on a long trip? And there are more stories of Romney’s “pranks,” like harassing other effeminate male students and leading a blind teacher into a wall. It’s ironic that the Romney campaign’s objective was to humanize Romney by recounting some fun tales of when he was apparently young and engaging. Needless to say, their plan has failed miserably. Instead of showing a more human and fun side of Romney, the stories that did eventually come out showed us a Mitt Romney who seems to be devoid of the capability to feel empathy or compassion for another, be it a human or a dog. If you consider this when examining his apparent absence of convictions and the verbal gaffes that more often than not are insensitive to less fortunate folks, it starts to add up.

According to many developmental psychologists, personality and character are pretty well formed by the time one is in Kindergarten, never mind a senior in high school. The more we get to know Mitt Romney, I suspect the clearer it will become that he remains just a spoiled rich kid with a huge sense of entitlement and little concern for anyone but himself.

Every four years, the political analysts and pundits predictably proclaim, “This election is the most important election in a generation,” or some such hyperbole. While I’m not certain if that statement is generally true this time around, the damage that a Republican administration could plausibly inflict upon this nation (and especially its women) if President Obama loses this election is breathtaking.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must be stopped.

On the domestic front, we need look no further than the last two Republican House Budgets that came directly from Mr. Ryan, as he is the House Budget Committee Chair and the author. Based upon the analysis of Robert Reich, in my previous post,Is the GOP Morally Bankrupt?, I noted, “Mr. Ryan’s budget, which would be the law of the land if the GOP controlled the Senate and the White House, is a surprisingly diaphanous attempt at upward wealth redistribution and class warfare. It should be required reading for any civic-minded American and be treated as a cautionary tale when pulling the lever in November.” Mr. Romney has endorsed the Ryan Budget on several occasions, which, according to Mr. Reich, dramatically cuts programs and eliminates tax credits and deductions essential to the poor, seniors, the working poor and middle income families in favor of a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. In addition, Mr. Romney promises to reduce the deficit. So, essentially, a Romney/Ryan Administration would implement an austerity program similar to the recently catastrophic European example; but here’s the cherry on top: instead of reducing the deficit with the savings from draconian spending cuts to vital programs and the elimination of tax credits and deductions upon which the middle class depends, they would kick much of the proceeds upward to the wealthy where it may just sit in off-shore accounts accruing interest (if they follow the example of their hapless reverse-Robin Hood leader) vs. being pumped into the economy. To be fair, many wealthy folks would actually welcome a more progressive and equitable tax regime in this country.

When it comes to our personal freedom as individuals, women should be particularly alarmed at the prospect of a Romney/Ryan administration. Neither man generally supports issues that are important to women, including issues of equality and the personal right to make choices regarding her own reproductive health. Mr. Romney is opposed to making contraception accessible by requiring health insurance to cover all or part of the cost of various forms of birth control. Incidentally, birth control reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions (DUH!). Some forms of contraception even reduce the transmission of disease… How ‘bout that!? During Tuesday night’s debate, Mr. Romney said he would leave it up to the discretion of the employer to determine whether or not contraception would be covered via that employer’s insurance plan. It’s interesting how the folks on the Right are always warning that one day, liberals will devise panels of bureaucrats to “ration your health care, but they apparently have no qualms in allowing employers to do that very thing, even with something as personal as family planning. On the issue of abortion, Mr. Romney magnanimously makes an exception for the victims of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life may be compromised by giving birth. While Mr. Ryan is now bound to the positions of his counterpart and boss, his previous record on women’s rights is abysmal. Most recently, he co-sponsored legislation with the now infamous misogynist, congressional Republican and senatorial candidate Todd Akin, that would re-define rape more narrowly, making it harder to convict rapists in certain circumstances. Of course, one of the more troubling features of a potential Romney/Ryan Administration would be their inevitable ability to place one, and perhaps two, right-wing extremists (a.k.a., mainstream Republicans) on the Supreme Court in place of retiring liberals. If they are elected, the delicate balance on the already right-leaning court would change emphatically, both in character and the manner in which they hand down decisions. The votes would surely be there to overturn it, so there is no reason to believe that Roe wouldn’t be fair game. To believe otherwise would be naïve.

Regarding foreign policy, Mr. Romney has shown himself to be uniquely inept. From his statement that getting bin Laden was not a priority or “worth moving heaven and Earth for,” to jumping the gun on the Libyan consulate attack by immediately holding a press conference to score some cheap political points by criticizing the Administration when he had yet to obtain the facts, or when he criticized the Brits on their organizational acumen during the Olympics (while he was in Britain!) which by most accounts was a wild success, he has shown a singularly acute ability to say or do the wrong thing at the wrong time. This assertion was proven spot-on in Monday night’s Presidential debate when Mr. Romney was fact-checked in real time by the moderator regarding his statement that the President did not characterize the attacks on the Libyan consulate as terrorism until two weeks after they had taken place. But even more problematic is his incessant drum beating and bluster regarding Iran. His myopic overtures seem more than a little dangerous, and could ultimately lead to yet another ill-advised ground war in the Middle East if he is our next Commander-in-Chief.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must be stopped.  Get out and vote in November!

(Graphic by Steven T.)
As the election draws nearer, Mitt Romney has left much of the public rather bemused as to exactly what kind of an agenda he would pursue as president. After his brilliant, metamorphic slight-of-hand during the first of three presidential debates a couple of weeks ago, even those of us who pay close attention to politics are scratching our heads. To be clear, this is nothing new with Mr. Romney, who has been on every side of every issue during his illustrious career in politics, and much of the flipping (or is it flopping?) has occurred during his almost six year quest for the White House (see Mitt Romney: The Shape-Shifter). But what he did last Thursday night was no ordinary flip-flop. It was pathological. Sometime recently, after years of incessant pandering, Mr. Romney has come to the conclusion that once he makes a declarative statement, then by definition it becomes an unimpeachable fact despite what he may have said the day before.

So, if today Mr. Romney denies the existence of his proposal to provide the wealthy with another $4.8 trillion tax cut after months of touting it, then it simply never existed. If he says that his proposed tax cut (regardless of how big it is) will not increase the tax burden on the middle class or blow up the deficit, then his statement becomes fact despite the analysis of most economists who have studied his proposal. And if he says his healthcare plan (like he even has one aside from repealing the ACA!) will not exclude those with pre-existing conditions, then it is so (of course this “fact” was immediately walked back by his campaign after the debate). And if he says he’s not really going to dramatically increase the defense budget (by $2 trillion over 10 years), but has repeatedly said he will right up until he took the stage for the first debate, then it suddenly is just not true. I could continue, but I think I’ve made my point. Wait, wait! One more: If he says he’s a huge champion of higher education for the middle class, yet he will cut Pell grants and other means by which the middle class can afford higher education, well, it’s true and cannot be denied.  Sorry, I can’t stop…If he says his main domestic priority is the welfare of the middle-class, yet his proposals might just snuff out the American dream once and for all… then…he is a $#%&@^% LIAR!  I know, I threw you off there!  I just couldn’t help it.

Clearly, he was off his game, but it’s no wonder that President Obama was flustered that night he finally met what he thought was going to be… Mitt Romney, Severe Conservative! How can one respond to a guy who is wholly unencumbered by facts, or even by anything he himself has previously said to be true of his own proposals? How can one debate someone who suddenly states in steroidal earnestness that he cares about the needy, the elderly, the poor and the middle class, after years of campaigning on policies that will prove devastating to those very populations? Who the hell does he think he is all of a sudden? George McGovern? FDR? It would be laughable if the potential result wasn’t so frightening. Personally, I think the President should have made an earnest statement himself, perhaps something like, “With all due respect Mr. Romney, you sir, are a big, fat, liar!”

What’s particularly troublesome is that more than just a couple of folks bought into his eleventh hour Kafkaesque transformation. The news junkies and politicophiles who have been acutely watching the process unfold all year saw it for what it was: the obvious culmination of the candidacy of a conviction-devoid panderer. Regretfully, the folks that aren’t included in either party’s base and have just tuned in to the process will cast the votes that determine this election. God help us! Our future depends on the whims of the undecided.  To be candid, not a good situation! But if the real President Obama shows up tomorrow night armed with a list (not unlike the bullets in my previous post, Our Herculean President) of his copious achievements…and he exposes the egregious violation of the public’s trust that the magnitude of Mr. Romney’s lies constitute, then… game on!

We loyal lefties have had to endure some hits this go around. From the ACA (“ObamaCare”) without a public option, to necessary bank bailouts with no strings attached, to the continued wholesale tax giveaway to the rich and corporate welfare for Exxon/Mobil and the like, to watered down legislation of all varieties, it hasn’t been a perfect ride. But I do not blame President Obama for that. He’s been getting so egregiously hammered by the Right, unlike any of his predecessors except for perhaps Bill Clinton (sans the racism), and has been up against the most obstructionist and singularly motivated opposition in our history; all this with the corrupt corporate influence of Citizen’s United and the brave new world of heretofore unseen influence of multi-billionaire characters such as the Koch brothers (et al.)  still to come.

During his tenure, and certainly during this campaign, President Obama has been accused of being the following (this is by no means an all-inclusive list):

•    A usurper and an exotic foreigner and therefore illegitimate

•    “The worst president ever”

•    Weak on national defense

•    A socialist

•    The creator of a “government takeover” of  healthcare (when the ACA clearly remains a market-based system)

•    Treasonous (Yup! He was accused of treason by his post-fact opponent(s))

•    Incompetent and ineffective

The President, did however,  repeatedly commit one monumental error during the last four years: He allowed his PR folks to take a powder when they should have been busy indeed trumpeting his achievement de jour, from rooftops if necessary. If his PR team were effective, the electorate would be perfectly clear on the President’s triumphs over adversity and almost heroic accomplishments. Here are some of his more Herculean, albeit, un-celebrated, efforts:

•    He prevented a second Great Depression (As if that isn’t enough by itself! This is considered a fact to any economist of merit.)

•    He stopped the U.S.from hemorrhaging the almost 800,000 jobs a month we were losing when he took office

•    He facilitated more than two years of monthly gains in private sector jobs at a time of lackluster economic growth and near economic calamity

•    Here’s one that our Republican friends should really appreciate, but don’t: The value of the stock market has essentially doubled during his tenure, again despite a tepid economic recovery

•    He made health insurance available to almost 40 million Americans

•    He ended healthcare insurance “redlining” (no loss of insurance for pre-existing conditions or reaching a cap)

•    He made a politically difficult decision to save an entire banner industry (auto)

•    He reversed the trend of a waning manufacturing base inU.S.(knowing that a lost manufacturing base is a last indicator of empire in decline)

•    Good or bad, he has radically increased domestic petrol-based energy production over almost all previous administrations, including the Bushs’

•    He allowed gays to serve proudly and openly in the military

•    He substantively improved benefits for military families and veterans

•    He directed a sorely needed  overhaul of the student loan program by cutting out the banks from the middle and saving student’s money (thereby making college more affordable)

•    He vastly improved K-12 education via Race to the Top

•    He dramatically decimated al Qaeda’s command structure, including the elimination of their top 20-30 leaders

•    He liberated Libya by taking Gaddafi out with minimal risk to our blood and treasure

•    He made a courageous decision to take out Osama bin Laden that would have crushed his re-election prospects and legacy if it failed

•    He ended the war in Iraq in a timely manner

•    He has thankfully demonstrated an acute awareness that austerity at times of sluggish economic growth is a path to economic catastrophe (via Europe’s example)

•    He fought to preserve women’s right to dictate their own reproductive healthcare choices

•    He signed into law a provision to allow for equal pay for equal work for women

•    He appointed two high-caliber progressive women (one a minority) to  the U.S. Supreme Court

•    He effectively wielded his power to circumvent a “do nothing” congress by issuing Executive Orders to achieve some of his agenda

•    And just for good measure (for those who disparage the notion of “collective good” and fail to realize that reasonable taxes are a price one must pay for a civil society, he cut taxes numerous times for the middle class and small business.

…and the list goes on.

Compare this partial accounting of the President’s noteworthy achievements to any Republican…or Democratic administration, even those of two terms. In fact, in one term, he has arguably more significant accomplishments than any other President in the modern era…perhaps in any era for that matter. How can anyone criticize this President with a straight face? My bet is that Romney and Ryan and McCain and all of their minions share in a good laugh at the frivolity of their own public statements when they are out of public view. Let’s just hope the folks in swing states realize that.

It should be noted that my post originally appeared several months ago, just subsequent to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal that would end Medicare as we know it by replacing it with an inadequate voucher program (more below).  To be fair to Mr. Ryan, who now holds the dubious honor of being Mitt Romney’s running mate and the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate, his more recent proposals to do in Medicare are not quite so rabid in tone.  Be that as it may, we as citizens should continue to hold him accountable for his initial draconian proposal that would wreak havoc on the lives of the sick, the elderly and the destitute.  From what I have read, his “softer” back tracking of late is no picnic for the most vulnerable either.  What’s especially crazy-making, is folks like Ryan speak of cutting Medicare and other social safety net programs  in the name of austerity against a backdrop of corporate welfare, wholesale tax giveaways to billionaires and the bolstering via incentives of the already dream-like bottom lines off Big Oil, Big Pharma and the like.

**********************************************************************************************************

As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha!”  I guess that was too easy!  Maybe a better query is, “Should governance be moralistic?”  At least it’s a bit more challenging.  Assuming that governance in the U.S.is all about “we the people” and the “collective good” is the ideal, then the answer should also be a resounding “Yes!”  Of course, if we’re talking about some right-wing dictatorship (that we, the U.S., were so fond of aligning ourselves with a few decades ago and are now in the business of removing at gun point- oops! I can feel a tangential rant coming on…then of course all bets are off.  For the sake of clarity then, we’ll confine this discussion to the “we the people” paradigm of U.S. governance.

First off, I’d better define morality, since it seems to have lost a good amount of depth in recent years.  I am not referring to the narrow conceptual definition of morality that the right-wing in this country has foisted upon the rest of us.  That puritanical version concerns itself largely with personal sexual matters…almost exclusively.  As we lefties are aware, there is a hell of a lot more to morality, if indeed personal sexual matters are issues of morality at all, than just who we choose to sleep and when, and how often and for what purpose we do it.  (Disclaimer: non-consensual sex and statutory rape are issues of morality.  For the record, bestiality is not a moral issue, unless of course it is non-consensual (Give me a break PITA!).

So, what is morality then?  According to Dictionary.com, the first definition of morality reads, “moral or virtuous conduct” and the second reads “moral quality of character.”  Admittedly, the third definition mentions “chastity,” but it’s third people!

I would suggest that morality is about how we treat each other and how we treat our planet, how we treat an ailing elderly parent or a hungry stranger, how we conduct our business and how we raise our children.  Morality is also about matters of war and peace, friendship, tolerance and humility…but most importantly, morality is about how we treat “the least among us.”  Jesus had a bit to say on that topic.  I felt momentarily compelled to use language with which the Right might logically identify, but at once realized that the Right is so Old Testament.  It’s interesting how they seem to discount the New Testament where Jesus teaches a broad notion of morality.

What compels me to write on morality at this moment in time, is the shameful proposal put forth last week by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-WI.  Ryan’s budget, which would be the law of the land if the GOP controlled the Senate and the White House, is a surprisingly diaphanous attempt at upward wealth redistribution and class warfare.  It should be required reading for any civic-minded American and be treated as a cautionary tale when pulling the lever in November.

According to Robert Reich http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/republican-budget-plan_b_1369347.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=032112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief, Mr. Ryan’s budget would, in conspicuous fashion, upwardly redistribute the wealth in this country; specifically, he wrote, “This would give the wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year… The money would come out of programs for the elderly, lower-middle families, and the poor.”  Just breathtaking!

The moral to this tale of morality is thus:  We (the Left) must not cede the mantle of morality to the Right.  We own it, because when we’re good, we walk it, live it and breathe it.  Let them cede the lion’s share of moral issues to the rest of us in their quest to serve a divisive few, and when they do, let’s call them on it!  Sooner or later, it may just catch up with them and the truth will be revealed.  One peak at Mr. Ryan’s budget might just set you free.

In some states, Evangelical Christians comprise more than 50% of the Republican electorate. In addition, the Republican electorate is, in 2012, almost exclusively right-wing in ideology. It is therefore accurate to say that generally, right-wing Christians make up the majority of Republican voters. The question is, “Is the term or the notion of a right-wing Christian an oxymoron, either literally or essentially?” Put in another way, is saying the term right-wing Christian tantamount to saying something like “gay Nascar?” Alright, alright, give me a break! Of course there are gay folks who enjoy and even participate in that predominantly red-neck, macho sport, but you get my point, right? Would it have been more accessible to have said, “Straight Judy Garland fan”(for those still scratching their heads, Judy Garland is a gay icon — I don’t get that either)?  To clarify, my point is this: the words right-wing and Christian are often mistakenly juxtaposed, for few things are more poorly matched or antithetical.

To be clear, I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar or a theologian, but I am more than passively acquainted with those all important words in red. In addition, I am a politico-phile and on occasion have a more than pedestrian command of the English language. So let’s just say this: At least Ibelieve that I have an informed opinion on this rather touchy topic. You may agree or disagree… and you may have clarity of thought or be defensively deluded. That’s your business.

Let us review some facts (even though they will be dismissed by right-wingers as having a liberalbias). First, let’s see what an objective source says about the two terms we often hear together… mistakenly, in my opinion. According to Dictionary.com, “right-wing” means conservative, which in turn means: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones and to limit change. As evidenced by their behavior of late (like the past 32 years, for instance), we can safely characterize right-wing as the latter definition. When considering Rick Santorum’s desire to restore the tradition of clubbing your woman and dragging her into your double-wide cave if she gets uppity or demands too many rights, this makes perfect sense. To further define right-wing in the context of today’s political environment, we might consider its antonym, liberal (a word, incidentally, that would nicely precede the word Christian,which means free from narrow prejudice and bigotry.  On the political continuum of communist to fascist, right-wing or conservative and liberal are indeed opposite each other.

According, again, to Dictionary.com, the word Christian means: of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or his teachings.  Ah-ha! Therein lies the rub: Jesus’ teachings, including his words and actions, were incontrovertibly liberal. Sure, RWC’s will vehemently negate that fact, but I would argue that being a follower of Christ, one who is Christian in more than name, would likely entail the belief that the words in red do not lie.

Again, I am no authority on Jesus, but what I do know is that it takes but a brief moment of studying the New Testament to discover that Jesus taught and demonstrated love, tolerance, compassion, charity, truth, generosity… and free universal healthcare  . And he specifically engendered all these wonderful traits when addressing the least among us, or those in need. Furthermore, he made it crystal clear that paying one’s fair share of taxes is essential for civil society (…render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…) and didn’t consider taxation a form of state-sponsored theft as do more and more on the far right. Considering these things, it only follows that utilizing tax revenue to administer to the sick, elderly and poor (the least among us) is the Christian thing to do.

Jesus also taught that is it is essential to welcome foreigners into your country and home, and treat them with the utmost respect, generosity and kindness. Consider the plethora of mean-spirited and draconian anti-immigration measures that have been proposed by Republican governors (again, a majority of whom are Christian) in the last few years. Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor, yet the Republicans have traditionally opposed Medicare and Food Stamp programs that do just that, and have proposed to slash funding for such in the recent House GOP budget. Jesus preached equality among men and women, yet the right-wing has historically sought to suppress the rights of all who are not white males, and has of late launched a soft war on women’s rights to reproductive healthcare. Jesus taught peace, yet most right-wing Christians are militaristic hawks. He warned against worldly riches, yet the GOP seems to put the pursuit of mammon above much else.  And the list goes on…

Here’s where RWC’s implore that they give to charity and give to their churches that in turn administer to the poor and needy. They insist that Jesus meant for individuals, families and churches alone to ameliorate the suffering of those in need. The problem with that sentiment is, Jesus made no such distinction. It would seem that achieving the objective is what is important, not necessarily the means. And while it is admirable, worthwhile and necessary for individuals, families and churches to perform such functions, there is infinitely more need than there is capability from such sources. The government is the only entity with the ability to adequately address the existing need in this country. If taxes are OK, then what’s wrong with helping folks in need with the proceeds? Answer: Nothing.

This is the point in the debate when RWC’s call all liberals baby killers. That, of course, is a non sequitir and a ridiculous assertion to boot….and clearly for another post!   

This post originally appeared on BNV in April. However, it has been edited and updated and remains relevant today.

I’ve written quite a bit about the Republican presidential candidates. I mean, who could resist that certifiable and hapless bunch? From the rank hypocrisy of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann (and the rest of them for that matter), to Rick Santorum’s misogynistic overreach, from Newt’s baggage (which would rival the contents of the cargo hold on a 747), to Ron Paul’s list of pathologies that likely appear in the DSM-IV, they have provided me with endless fodder upon which to opine….and about which to be horrified. But there is a conspicuous omission from this list of characters from which I’ve derived such reluctant and ambivalent pleasure: Willard Mitt Romney.

Alright, so the obvious question is, “Why would I take a pass on such an easy target?” The answer is in the question (of course, they were all like hitting the broad side of a barn). However, since Mr. Romney has clinched his party’s nomination, it is now my civic duty (and anyone else’s who has a venue in which to rant) to make sure this guy’s myriad foibles are exploited to the hilt. To that end, let’s have some fun!

Let’s first establish what type of guy Mr. Romney is. This one word sums him up quite neatly: chameleon. Even with the absence of a darting tongue, this much is apparent. By the way, chameleon, according to dictionary.com, can be defined as a changeable, fickle, or inconstant person.

Much has been made of Mr. Romney’s political shape-shifting and glaring lack of core convictions… and rightly so. He has flipped (or is it flopped?) on every major issue that he was cornered to take a position on during the rabid, Republican primary. In fact, he has shape-shifted and painfully pandered on more than a dozen issues…some momentous…since launching his candidacy for the last go around in 2008. In the interest of time and space, here are just a fatuous few that I would consider biggies:

Universal Healthcare (specifically, the individual mandate): We all know that Mr. Romney signed into law a version of universal healthcare coverage when he was governor of Massachusetts that is remarkably similar to the federal Affordable Care Act (which is incidentally facing a constitutional challenge in the SCOTUS with regard to the so-called individual mandate).  Even as late as 2009, Mr. Romney wrote an op-ed during the national healthcare debate supporting the Massachusetts plan for the nation as a whole, and he specifically supported the individual mandate.  He has distanced himself from his position to such a degree that he now criticizes the President regarding the same mandate for which he advocated, and he has vehemently pledged to “repeal Obama Care.”

Man-Made Climate Change: Mr. Romney once reasonably believed that the issue of man-made climate change was settled by climate change scientists (as factual), of which 98% concur that man is contributing substantively to global warming. Not to be outdone by his primary opponents who unanimously derided the idea of man-made climate change as a hoax during the primary regardless of their previously stated positions, Mr. Romney now speaks eloquently (well, maybe not eloquently) the language of his right-wing cohorts.

Immigration: Once advocating a path to citizenship for “illegals,” Mr. Romney lurched so far right-ward in a transparent maneuver to out-flank his opponents during the primaries, that observing his conversion could have given you whiplash. He now proposes that the government round up the folks that are here illegally (all 12+ million of them!) and send them packing. What a douche… Sorry. That was lazy…but it’s the truth, right? It should be noted that since initial publication of this post, President Obama has gotten out in front on this issue by signing an Executive Order that would functionally allow young folks that come to the U.S. illegally with their parents to stay here without threat of deportation. This has left Mr. Romney literally speechless as of this date, despite incessant questions from reporters regarding the matter.  

Right to Choose: In 2002 while campaigning to be governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney stated, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”  Now, of course ever pandering to the right wing, he is ardently pro-life.  He does, however, magnanimously make an exception for the victims of rape and incest, unlike many of his brethren on the Right.

What will be so very fascinating to observe for we political junkies, will be Mr. Romney’s artful (or more likely, painfully inept) two-step back to the center in an attempt to appeal to the more moderate electorate in the general election. You really can’t pay for that kind of entertainment. Although it remains inevitable before November, Mr. Romney has not yet made any inevitably awkward maneuvers to claw his way back to moderation to gain the support of many independents. As such, there is yet much to look forward to in the upcoming campaign. His first jerky movement to the center will no doubt be his eventual response to the President’s bold…and yes, political…action on immigration.

Dear Mr. President:

With all due respect sir, please wake up! You are one of the most brilliant men that has ever occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (you’d even give Bubba a run for his money!), yet sometimes the most expedient course seems to be just out of your long reach. Why can you not see what is sometimes so apparent? Is it your advisers? If so, they should be hung for treason (….or at least replaced)! I’m not going to dwell on the past, but let me at least give you a couple of examples of this matter to which I refer.

You were elected with the clearest mandate since Reagan’s re-election in 1984. And we controlled both Houses of Congress. The sky was the limit! But you, mistakenly, in my opinion, ceded your power to Nancy Pelosi and Max Baucus (headed up health care reform in the Senate). I know that you saved us from a second Great Depression with the stimulus act, but did you have to let Ms. Pelosi and the House Democratic Caucus make such a mess of it? It’s easy to see 20/20 in retrospect, but I felt the same way when it was happening in real time. And didn’t you realize that the Right was going to skewer you as a Socialist regardless of the truth of the Affordable Care Act, whether or not it included a public option? At the time, even I could see that coming a mile down the road. What I said you should have done then was Medicare for All, and I believe it now. You would have taken the same heat, it wouldn’t have taken two years to write and more than four years to implement, and you may have emerged with some of that once abundant political capital in tact. One more thing sir, and again, I am just trying to help. How is it that Republicans were able to lead you right into a debate about austerity in the middle of a recession?? As a good Keynesian sir, I know you know better! Well, no use in dwelling on what could have been. But it’s not too late for you (and us!) if you could just listen up.

As you know sir, this election is going to be a squeaker. How this is so is mind-boggling to say the very least. I mean, honestly, Mitt Romney isn’t fit to carry your water in my opinion, never mind lead the country with all of its existing and imminent challenges. But the truth remains that we are a divided nation and that a full half of the electorate wouldn’t recognize an analytical thought if it was on Fox News. And it’s clear: the only job the Congress will willingly allow you to create is a job for Mittens. But there is a way to show the people that the GOP has allowed this economy to tank just for that purpose: Go big!

Give up on your paltry $140 billion American Jobs Bill and propose a sweeping infrastructure restoration bill…you know, a Rooseveltian WPA type program…that would put tens of millions of folks back to work. Barnstorm the country to promote it. It would be a sure winner if framed properly and included in your soaring, kick-ass stump speech. And then, sit back and watch Boehner and Mc Connell commit electoral suicide by shutting it down. The down side is you will be painted a tax and spend liberal, but they already laughingly call you that and worse anyway. A little bit of constructive populism might just go a long way.

Mr. President, so you know, many of us know all the wonderful things you’ve done in your first term despite what these yo-yo’s are saying about you. On behalf of all the thinking people out there, I would like to thank you. But you have just gotten warmed up.  Don’t blow it now and go big!

Respectfully,

A Concerned Constituent and Supporter

Let’s face it; the recession has been brutal on all of us.  My annual bonus has been stuck in the six figures for the last couple of years.  High six figures, but still, it’s hard to maintain five staffed homes on that pittance.   Most of us have had to make painful sacrifices.   I’ve had to put our Palm Beach home on the market, where it’s languished with nary the whiff of a decent offer.   And don’t even get me started on the price of jet fuel.   But, as bad as things are, they could be worse.

If Obama wins re-election, our beloved Bush tax cuts will likely expire.  You’ll hear our critics cry that eliminating those tax cuts on anyone making over $250,000 will reduce the deficit by about a trillion dollars over the next decade.   However, remember, those tax increases will be taking the same trillion dollars out of our pockets!  And that would only be the beginning…

Obama and the traitorous Warren Buffett have tried to push a new radical rule through that would force anyone making over two million a year to pay at least 30% in taxes.  Thanks to our Republican friends in the Senate, that bill was stopped before it could gather any real momentum.  Apparently, Obama and Buffett don’t know the first rule of economics:  All growth starts at the top and trickles down.

Now the good news!  We have a candidate in Mitt Romney who represents us because he is one of us.  For starters, Mitt would make the Bush tax cuts permanent.   But he wouldn’t stop there.   He’s already said he would repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and do-away with the estate tax.  He’ll ax income tax an additional 20% and slash corporate taxes.   It’s estimated that the top 1% of earners should expect additional tax reductions an average of $150,000 a year.  And, I don’t know about you, but I trust and respect a man who managed to pay 13.9% on a twenty million dollar income.

With Mitt, not only can we further enrich our way of life, we can take the offensive again!    We can roll-back Affordable Healthcare, Medicare and social security, as well as get back to gutting those pesky agencies like the SEC and the EPA.   Along with Republican governors and state legislators, we can crush the worker’s right to organize, further setting capitalism free to fly unfettered by government restraint.  In short, we can get back on track, where George W. Bush left off.

The other side may have the numbers, but we have several advantages that should give us cause for optimism.  For one thing, our good old friends at the GOP have also been busy paving the way on the local level.  Requiring photo IDs, reducing early voting periods, and passing restrictions on registration drives will help tamp down voter turn-out.  (Special shout-out to the evangelical Christians and the Tea Party for doing all the legwork on the local level).  As we all know, democracy is a dangerous business, and the more we whittle down the voters in the bottom 90%, the better off we’ll all be.

While we may only be 1% of the population, we control almost 40% of the country’s assets!   We already own half the nation’s stocks, bonds, and mutual funds!  If we count the top 10%, we already control 70% of the nation’s wealth!   So don’t let anyone tell you we’re the underdogs in this fight.   Never before has there been such a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, with the exception of the late 1920s, a truly golden age for the 1%.

We also have friends in high places.  The Supreme Court has given “the corporation” his much deserved equal rights as a US citizen.  Now we are free to contribute unlimited amounts of money to Mitt through Super PACs, like “Restore Our Future” and Karl Rove’s “GPS Crossroads” (which has already raised $100 million).   You can even make your donations anonymously, so there are no excuses.  Several hedge fund managers have already donated $1 million each.  Thanks a million guys, literally.   Just remember, whatever you put in, you’ll be getting back many times over in the years to come.

Mitt is already uniting this country… From penthouses in New York to cattle ranches in Texas to chalets in Colorado to seaside mansions in Florida, there is a groundswell of support across this great land for our man Mitt!   This is a historic election and it’s imperative that we elect someone who will preserve our way of life.   Who knows?  With Mitt, we may end up owning 100% of all the nation’s assets, creating a reservoir of unprecedented wealth that will flow down to everyone else.

When Mitt wins, we all win.

Jeff Fulmer lives in Nashville Tennessee and is the author of the blog and the book Hometown Prophet.  If God spoke through a prophet today, would we really want to hear what he has to say?   For more information, visit the Hometown Prophet website.   He welcomes followers on Twitter and likes on Facebook.

Welcome to JWNAR.org! It’s been a while in the transitioning, but we have finally morphed from JWAD.org into our current (and permanent!) incarnation. For a more detailed discussion of the reasons why we chose to rename ourselves Jesus was not a Republican, please see the last blog post dated 3/7/12. Suffice it to say herein, that we decided it would be better to declare that Jesus was not something he definitely was not, than to say he was something he very well couldn’t have been. Now that that’s clear , we can move on.

As you can plainly see, our new site is similar to JWAD.org, with the exception of a few changes. Although not for a lack of ideal candidates, we have changed the weekly feature, Hypocrite of the Week (HOTW) to Hypocrite of the Month (HOTM). We just don’t have the man power to keep up with it weekly, and often fell short in the past. We’ll be sure to pack enough right-wing hypocrisy into each HOTM to last you the full month.

As for the Forum, we will again have a place for folks to express their opinions about a recent post, or about the issues of the day, whether they be age-old and tenacious “wedge” issues, or a current matter that has recently been in the news. We hope to have the Forum up and running in the coming weeks with a more accessible scope as described. Until then, you can voice your opinion after the blog posts, or on our facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesus-was-not-a-Republican/311925502180080.

Aside from those changes, our features will remain as they were on JWAD. Our blog will remain active, providing new and usually original content 2-3 times weekly. Our JWNAR Store is up and running where you can purchase our latest t-shirt designs (and other items) to spread the word. Please continue to support us because that makes this site possible! And of course, we truly appreciate it.

To find other sites with a like vision, please visit our Friends page. It will become more densely populated as we go.

Well, thanks for waiting for us! We hope you visit us several times a week to see what we have going on that’s new and insightful or just straight up in their face (that would be the GOP’s face).  We will do our best to keep you interested and informed.

Thanks again for all of your previous and continuing support.

Respectfully,

JWNAR.org (Rich, Trevor and Chris)