Why Mitt Romney Won’t Cut It

Looking for Backbone

When you boil it all down, one of the most upsetting things to many conservatives about Mitt Romney is his unwillingness to use the “S-word:” Socialist. Ann Coulter can poke fun at Tea Party folks and real conservatives if she likes, but the truth is that somebody who can’t seem to muster the courage to call Obama by what his own professions and pronouncements clearly make him out to be is somebody that we cannot afford in this election process to become the nominee of the GOP.  Asked by Bill O’Reilly if he thought Obama was a socialist, Mitt looked incredibly uncomfortable and half-stammered on the way to answering:

Here’s the problem, and Mitt knows it: If he now labels Obama as a socialist, people will necessarily remember Romneycare, Massachusetts’ health-care program signed into law by his own hand when Governor, and Obamacare, that is Obama’s signature socialist program, and conclude that Mitt is also a socialist.  More, Mitt doesn’t want to sound “bombastic” by using that term, as Ann Coulter would describe it, so instead Romney simply sticks to his talking points and describes Obama as a “big government liberal.”  Once again, if this is what Obama is, then we must ask: What is Mitt Romney?

This is one more reason that Romney has been unable to crack the 25-30% support level among the GOP electorate.  Most Republicans realize this is not the year for weasel-worded euphemisms, and the problem for Romney is that he has little else to offer.  He dare not use the term “socialist” at the risk of defining himself, so he sticks to something a little less “bombastic,” just in case.  Some people wonder why Romney doesn’t poll higher.  Here’s the answer.

Leave a comment ?

15 Responses to Why Mitt Romney Won’t Cut It

  1. black3actual says:

    I agree with the criticism of Romney, but how is it O'Reilly is given a pass in this? O'Reilly is steadfast in his refusal to call Obama a Progressive, yet, in America, "Progressive" means "European Socialist." Now, to be sure, there are many flavors of socialism in Europe, but this is true here, too. That is what accounts for the difference between the Parties.

    "Conservative: does NOT mean what so many believe it means. This is why we MUST know our history. Personally, I think it is past time for those who believe "conservative" means you align with the ideals and principles of our founding to leave their Party and look to reform American politics. If we don't, if we keep trying to play by the rules that the two Parties have designed, we will NEVER save the republic.

  2. mymati says:

    Indeed, Mark it was cringe worthy to see Mitt try to answer that question in his PC way. He does not seem to have the deep seated principles that we need to get through what looks to be one of the toughest economic periods of this country's history.

    • black3actual says:

      Could it be he DOES have core principles; they're just not "conservative?"

      • mymati says:

        No it could not be. While he may have solid personal principles. His principles of governing are all over the place. He is well practiced at spinning his record, but a close look reveals he is a political chameleon. A belief in limited less intrusive government is not really something a real leader should turn on and off depending on which way the political winds blow.

      • black3actual says:

        I guess I just happen to be of a mind to take him at his word when he said he is a Progressive. If you accept this, and you understand Progressives, then EVERYTHING he has done makes sense. There is no need to paint him as a leaf in the political wind, he's simply been doing what he needs to do to get "conservative" support when and where necessary, but his core principles shine through. But then, like I said, this is just me and I tend to think this way because it makes more sense (to me).

  3. Dave says:

    Mark, once again I agree completely.

    The media and the GOP establishment are getting worried. I just read an article on Drudge that says Ron Paul is winning in Iowa. The reaction by the establishment is to dismiss Iowa as unimportant. If that doesn't show you how much trouble we're in, I don't know what will.

  4. Gail says:

    I am for NEWT but if Sarah Palin jumps in the race…My vote goes to her.

    • black3actual says:


      May I ask you a polite question? Do you know Mr. Gingrich's past? He has ALWAYS been a Progressive. Now, I am not telling you not to support progressives, the nature of our country is that we are supposed to be free to support whomever we wish. But it seems to me that Ms. Palin stands for the opposite of everything Progressive (at least, what I know of her to date), so I do not understand the contradiction between your support for Newt and Palin??? :-/

      • mymati says:

        Palin supporter's second choices are all over. Some for Newt, some for Paul, some for Santorum, some even for Romney, ect… It all says more about Sarah than her supporters. She brings the complete package while the others are more flawed. We end up choosing who is second best. I have still not been able to make my pick now that Sarah is not an option. I will only vote for someone else if Sarah is still out when my primary comes along.

    • fRED says:

      excellent, Gail! I'm for her, too, and will support her through anything!

  5. Dennis McKeon says:

    Since I live in MA, I am somewhat familiar with Romney. He is a pragmatist, more than anything else. I think he was an OK governor, far preferable to the anti- American dimwit we have here now.

    Romney, imo, gets a bad rap for Romneycare. You have to understand MA, first. This is a state where there are often as many or nearly as many Green Party candidates on the ballot as Republican. We were going to have universal health insurance no matter what Romney said or did. He had no veto power, because this is essentially a one-party state. (unless you include the Green Party). Romney had to get involved, and knowing how things are done here, I'd guess that his input was a moderating factor, and that it would have been much worse otherwise.

    Now I don't particularly like Romney, but he is used to choosing his words carefully, possibly because of his experience as Governor of one of the most radical, communist-loving states in the Union. If you don't live here in MA, you really can't get a sense of how drastically un-American and profoundly corrupt politics is here, or how knee-jerkingly,self-flaggelatingly anti-Republican the electorate is . The congress tramples the Constitutions, state and Federal, at every turn, without regard for the people or for the consequences, because there are none as long as you tow the party line of the one and only party with any real power. The only change people ever seem to embrace here is one that leads to the further reaches of the wastelands of the left wing fringe.

    Romney had to exist here within that toxic, self-destructive atmosphere, and I suppose he feels he did the best job he could have under the extreme circumstance of MA politics and "culture".

  6. Does anyone really believe that the argument will not be made about Romney being a socialist due to 'Romneycare' if he doesn't utter the word? O's MO is always to use projection. Everything he is accused of will be turned onto his opponent. After watching this O'Reilly interview only one thing comes to mind: McCain 2.0. How many have the stomach for that? Palin is the only one to draw the needed contrast. What is she doing and thinking? How can she watch this debacle and do nothing? As for Coulter, the desperation and unhinged behavior is remarkable.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: