Riehl Reaming Romney

Whoa boy!  Here is what I am talking about friends!  Here is Romney sliced, diced and served up on a cracka!

Get you some.

SNIP:

To paraphrase Reagan, Mitt Romney is from the government and he’s here to help you. In the end, this is the Mitt we’d see in a general election, as he pivots back and tries to out Obama Obama in one fashion, or another. That will depend on what the polls tell him to say, I imagine.

MORE:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative

VIDS AT ABOVE LINK

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Correction: In 2003 Romney Channels Obama

Update: My bad. I should have linked the shorter clip at RCP, too. The video below is from 2003. Change!

You have to break down what Romney is actually saying here to fully grasp it. Video below. What it demonstrates is Romney’s Progressivism. I’d wager he’s trying to spin away his business past, given that it was 1993 2003. He claims he disagrees with the classical Republican view of getting out of the way of corporations to allow them to thrive. The only thing that can mean is regulation and taxation.

He defines the Democrats as believing in investing in government. He then pivots to claim that in contrast to those two views, he believes in “people.” But that’s where the spin unravels, as he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to say that in his view we must invest in people and to give them more freedom. At this point, he’s merely spouting gobbledygook. Government doesn’t bestow freedom when it acts, it always curtails it for some, if not all.

If he really believed in liberty, he’d say government should get out of their way. Instead, he says government should invest in them. Hello, that is precisely the progressive Democrat view he had just disavowed. It’s a lot of fancy words to say that he is, in fact, a progressive, if not a Democrat. Government can’t “invest” in people unless it taxes some to give to others – that’s wealth distribution in one form, or another.

In reality, he is saying precisely what Obama would say on the stump today. Liberty is not his focus, his focus is using government to give people “freedom” via education, or what have you. It’s a mash if you break it down but in the end it is pure Obama. Government must help people, left to their own device, they are incapable of succeeding. To paraphrase Reagan, Mitt Romney is from the government and he’s here to help you. In the end, this is the Mitt we’d see in a general election, as he pivots back and tries to out Obama Obama in one fashion, or another. That will depend on what the polls tell him to say, I imagine.

Dan on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 05:20 PM

Advertisements

~ by ladysforest on January 12, 2012.

2 Responses to “Riehl Reaming Romney”

  1. Over on Legal Insurrection blog there is a rather spirited comment stream, I thought this comment was very insightful and informative:

    “”Henry Hawkins | January 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Not to worry. Today Romney offered full cover to Obama’s takeover of GM and Chrysler on behalf of his union cronies, stating Obama was just trying to save these companies for the workers, and gee, it wasn’t a whole lot different than what he did with Bain Capital. Well, can’t ding Obama on GM/Chrysler bailouts without incurring yet another flip/flop charge. Way to go, Sparky.

    So, what are we up to now? A Romney nomination means attacking Obamacare is off the menu, Romney’s voiced approval takes federal bailouts in general off the menu, and now the horrific, pure socialism GM and Chrysler bailouts are specifically off the menu.

    Not to worry. I’m sure a Romney campaign against Obama can focus solely on Cash For Clunkers and succeed. Oh, wait… that was a federal bailout too.

    Let’s see… there must be *something* Obama did that Romney hasn’t already approved…. Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?””

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/add-bain-to-list-of-things-we-cannot-discuss/#comments

  2. What it all boils down to is politics. Why would any member of our government actually be HAPPY that such a thing like this has happened? Simple: It’s politics, and the worse the ‘other side’ looks, the better off he’ll be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: