Thursday, November 1, 2012

Mittens Continues His Consistency Problem... Which Is It Mitt?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

There is always something to be said for prioritizing the importance of issues. The devastating force of Sandy and the resulting national disaster it brought about is representative of such importance.

CBS NEWS - There's nothing like a natural disaster to test the depth of politicians' preference for small government.

And so it turns out that after superstorm Sandy battered the East Coast, Mitt Romney is far more supportive of the government agency in charge of coordinating disaster relief. Only last year, as Romney hewed to the right while battling for the GOP nomination, he seemed to downplay the federal government's role in disaster response.

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction," Romney said at a debate last June. "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."

Asked by moderator John King of CNN whether that would include disaster relief, Romney said: "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids."

Now, a week before Election Day, after of a massive disaster, Romney's campaign is reassuring voters that his administration wouldn't leave disaster victims in the lurch. The public's attention is locked on the devastation caused by Sandy at a time when Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a close presidential campaign. With Obama heavily involved in getting federal funds to those in trouble, the Romney campaign moved quickly to reassure the public it supports a strong program of storm relief.

"I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters," Romney said in a statement supplied by his campaign Wednesday. "As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters."

Wednesday's statement came after the candidate ducked a spate of opportunities Tuesday to personally clarify his position and the statement essentially endorsed the current disaster aid system. {Read More}

One of Mittens biggest problems is he often speaks before he has thought something through. It has become abundantly clear this is his weakest characteristic and the result is no one really knows what Mitt's core values are. He has demonstrated he will change positions in response to political consideration in a way that he deems will engender support that will ultimately become votes. Sounds like a man who might sell his soul if he thought it would ensure him the presidency.

So, in a nut shell, here is the simple reality as I see it; A) Vote for Obama if you want a larger more intrusive federal government that over time continues to limit individual liberty, B) Vote Romney if you want smaller government and less regulation. But, be prepared for any one of many Mitt's to emerge, and expect changing priorities often. C) Vote Gary Johnson if you REALLY want a more limited federal government with more personal liberty and a true focus on the private sector without the burden of unnecessary regulatory controls. With Johnson, as with Obama you can expect consistency. We know Obama's record as President, and hopefully you've checked Gary's record when he served as the two term Governor of New Mexico.

On a final not, the only candidate that will really do something about reigning the defense budget is Gary Johnson. Both Obama and Romney are pretty much comfortable with the status quo.

That's my take, I know who I'll be voting for (his picture and link are at top left of the page). Soon it will be over and the people will have spoken. I would say may the BEST candidate win, but I know that is a probable impossibility.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. What? No one to the defense of Mittens?

    And no one to present to bash a man who is really a decent and honorable man?

    Perhaps there is hope for humanity after all.

  2. There's no Johnson for me to bash. Some dirty tricks by the other parties managed to censor him off the ballot in my state. He's like an abstraction to me, not a candidate, unfortunately.

    As for "Vote Romney if you want smaller government and less regulation. But, be prepared for any one of many Mitt's to emerge, and expect changing priorities often."

    I don't think that is true at all. He will grow government faster and at a less reckless rate than Obama. But do you seriously believe Romney will bring us smaller government, or even reduce the regulations which force businesses to fire people? Try as he may?

    1. No actually I do not believe Romney will reduce the size of government. He MAY grow it at a slower rate, just like Reagan did, but reduce the size, absolutely not.

      Military spending increases under a Romney neo con administration and social programs treads water. Equaling an increase in budgetary outlays. Anyone believing Romney's BS about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit is dreaming IMNHO.

      There are NO honest politicians in either the rEpublican or dEmocrat party. Lying and pandering gets votes, and at the end of the day that is ALL that matters to Frik and Frak and their respective parties. In a word POWER is the golden ring they all seek to wear.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.