Why Mitt Romney Cannot Be the Nominee

With the Iowa caucuses starting today, I think it's the perfect time to go a little more in depth into Mitt Romney. I keep hearing how Romney's going to win Iowa tonight, how Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama, and so on.

But let me offer a different view- and this may come across as surprising- but after Ron Paul, Romney is probably the weakest candidate in the field.

First, if Romney becomes the nominee, there is no doubt that Obama and his henchmen will use Romney's flip-flops against him. They will portray Romney as someone without a core set of values. It's already starting:

Romney supporters will start saying at this point "But he changed his mind!" Well, not exactly. Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner:

Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.

According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life. (emphases mine)

Yes it is a good thing that Romney is truly pro-life. But the point here is that clearly Romney is the kind of politician who will say anything that will get him elected. And he knows that he has to come across as a conservative in order to win the nomination.

Romney can't even take a side until knowing whether or not it will benefit him politically! Thomas Beaumont and Kasie Hunt report from RealClearPolitics:

For his part, Romney largely took a pass on the payroll tax matter despite casting himself as an outsider with the business expertise necessary to fix Washington and the economy. He has spent much of the year declining to weigh in on the hot-button fiscal issues Congress has wrestled over.

He stayed out of the summertime fight over raising the federal debt ceiling, urging cooperation but stopping short of endorsing the House GOP's one-year extension or the Senate's two-month extension. He eventually opposed the deal.

In the spring, he was initially reluctant to embrace Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which would have essentially transformed Medicare into a voucher system. Since then, he's endorsed parts of it.

Seriously, the only thing consistent about Romney is that he's a consistent flip-flopper. Even in recent months, he still flip-flops!

So did he change his mind? The answer is: we don't know! That's why to look at a politician's true colors, you have to look at what they did, not what they say.

Let's take a look at some of Romney's policies while he was governor of Massachusetts shall we?

First, Romney raised taxes by $740.5 million by raising fees and "closing loopholes" (which were really corporate tax increases).

Furthermore, Romney actually increased spending as governor. At the beginning of Romney's term as governor, the state budget was $22 billion. When he left office, the budget was $25.7 billion.

On top of all that, Romney's most famous achievement is RomneyCare, which he worked on with Ted Kennedy. This essentially takes the ObamaCare issue out of the general election should Romney be the nominee. Despite Romney's objections to the contrary, RomneyCare was the basis for ObamaCare. Sure there are minor differences but the structure of both is the same.

Romney and his supporters claim that it was ok to try it at a state level and because of that he will be able to talk about what's good about it and what's bad about it. Here's the problem with that argument- in all the debates, Romney defends RomneyCare instead of talking about what a failure it was. Not only that, he has said in the past that he'd only repeal parts of ObamaCare. What kind of conservative would repeal only parts of ObamaCare? A true conservative would get rid ALL OF IT.

What's bad about this is that Obama will accuse of Romney of hypocrisy for supporting a health-care plan similar to his while running against ObamaCare. Voters would be unable take Romney's argument seriously for reasons I just explained. This would be a shame, because ObamaCare is Obama's Achilles Heel- notice how he never talks about it in his speeches nowadays. And the majority of the public is against it. Taking the ObamaCare issue out of the general election would be a huge victory for Obama.

Supporters of Romney will say "But he had to deal with a Democratic legislature of course his policies were liberal!" Well therein lies the problem- imagine if the Democrats take back Congress in a couple of years, and Romney has to work with Pelosi, Reid, Durbin and Schumer. Even if that doesn't happen, imagine Romney working with Republican establishment leaders Boehner and McConnell. Either way, there's no guarantee that Romney will adhere to the conservative philosophy, because he certainly compromised way too much as governor, and he will definitely compromise with the Democrats if they retake Congress and possibly even the establishment Republican leaders (think Bush-era spending). And that's what's wrong with the current Republican leadership today- they give in too much to the Democrats.

Even with all that, Romney has expressed support for cap-and-trade and defended TARP while sounding like a Democrat on Social Security and other entitlements. Do you honestly think Romney will roll back the scale of government, given his timid economic plan, and the opposition he will face from Democrats and the Republican establishment? I don't think so. He will just trim around the edges- surely an improvement over Obama, but not really doing enough to save the country.

Romney supporters will then claim that Romney's more-moderate stance is necessary because that will ensure defeat for Obama. Well I have to disagree. In the past, we were always told that the more moderate, Republican establishment-backed candidate is needed win. Where has they gotten us? Bob Dole and John McCain fit this formula, and both got their asses kicked. The candidates that fit this mold who have won in the past have led to big leftist Democrats being elected right after them. Nixon/Ford led to Carter. Bush 41 led to Clinton. Bush 43 led to Obama.

Plus, this is the perfect election to elect a solid conservative. Obama is a very, very weak candidate. There is nothing to be proud of in his economic record- 8.6% unemployment, spent more than any other president combined, nation's AAA rating got downgraded to AA+ for the first time ever, and an unfriendly business environment through massive taxes and regulation. According to a Gallup poll, Americans fear big government more than big business and big labor by massive amounts. And on top of all that, Gallup also recently put out a poll showing that the majority of Americans are conservative.

If a solid constitutional conservative, like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum, were to win the nomination, the conservative base would be excited and would have a higher turnout at the polls. Siphon off some of the votes from Independents and Democrats (which is very possible considering that Independents have a 55% disapproval rating of Obama) and there's no reason why a solid conservative shouldn't win the election. A solid conservative would provide a clear, contrasting view of Obama's big government policies that the majority of Americans clearly disapprove of.

And don't argue that Romney needs to win because he's the most articulate. Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and yes even Perry (he looked very good in the last debate) are all just as articulate or better than Romney. And honestly Romney's voice and the way he talks is starting to annoy me.

Having a mushy flip-flopper who keeps us guessing is clearly not the better alternative. It has been an experiment that's been tried, and has failed. If you agree with Romney and you want to vote for him, then fine. But don't vote for him because he's supposedly the only "electable" candidate. I have faith that if you're reading this right now, you are a smart human being who is capable of making your own decision. Don't let the media decide who you should vote for.