Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 5: Reaction to Romney op-ed tantrum shows RINOs on the run in DC

Rand Paul











It’s been a week since Senator Mitt Romney’s obnoxious anti-Trump scolding disguised as an op-ed was published by the heinous Trump-hating Washington Post and people are still buzzing about it. The talk isn’t so much concerning Romney’s enormous gall in assuming the position and stature to write such unfounded and unsupported reproaches of our current president, but more so from the standpoint… was there a shard of truth in Romney’s barbs?

Does one’s notions of a president’s character trump his deeds done in official capacity? Senator Rand Paul doesn’t think so. Paul Bedard reported at The Washington Examiner, “Paul, R-Ky., tweeted that Romney is a ‘Big Government Republican’ and a faux conservative, and a top Paul aide said that Trump is delivering on his promises.

“In reacting to Romney’s attack in the Washington Post on Trump, Paul also made clear that he does not think Romney … has any affinity for former President Ronald Reagan.

“Paul tweeted Wednesday morning, ‘Like other Big Government Republicans who never liked Reagan, Mitt Romney wants to signal how virtuous he is in comparison to the President. Well, I’m most concerned and pleased with the actual conservative reform agenda @realDonaldTrump has achieved.’”

This is serious. In 2019’s Republican-land it’s no small insult to be accused of not revering and honoring Ronald Reagan. The Gipper’s been gone from the Washington scene for just about 30 years and Americans still mention him in practically every other breath -- especially conservatives and Republicans. To dance on Reagan’s tomb is truly playing with gasoline and lit matches if you claim charter membership in authentic conservative circles.

Paul was merely stating the obvious -- Romney’s no principled conservative -- but does the Kentucky senator’s fierce defense of The Donald now mean conservatives are seeing the New York celebrity as one of their own? It’s a complicated question, one lacking an easy answer.

Certainly, with Nancy Pelosi entrenched in the House Speaker’s office it’s much easier to rally ‘round the standard of President Trump and his Make America Great Again agenda. Practically everything Pelosi and her gang of socialist thieves will come up with leaves a wretched aftertaste in conservatives’ mouths. It’s not enough just to be a liberal and believe in government’s total domination of everything -- Pelosi leads with an unruly panache that naturally turns liberty-minded people off.

Democrats don’t see it that way, of course. But as one of her first actions Pelosi passed a Homeland Security funding bill without any coin for Trump’s border wall. It was the legislative equivalent of flipping the president the proverbial bird. Coming off more face-to-face negotiations on ending the government shutdown it took a boatload of audacity to be so brash.

But that’s what Democrats like Pelosi do. What Romney did was just as bold, but in Mitt’s case he’s effectively isolated himself from his support group in a similar way to former (feels great to say that!) Arizona Senator Jeff Flake. It’s understandable how Romney would desire to establish himself as an intraparty foil to Trump early on in his tenure (Mitt’s 71 and a freshman senator…is this really how he wants to spend his golden years?) to give himself some sort of purpose for being, but he’s not going about it very smartly.

Paul was right -- Romney is a big government Republican, a designation that’s increasingly disgraceful due largely to the actions of non-conservative Donald Trump. Gone are the days when the Bush presidents bloviated about “A Thousand Points of Light” and “Compassionate conservatism.” These men and their ideological kin hid their true aims -- big government -- from Americans for too long. Today, to wax eloquently about believing in “compassionate” government is to kick someone square in the gut.

In truth, #NeverTrump establishmentarians like Romney despise Trump not due to his foppish, roguish and villainous manners but because of the president’s complete disregard for the staid and boring ways of the swamp. Coming from outside Washington, Trump possesses no memory or affinity for the way things have always been done. Further, Trump doesn’t care about making friends and he’s not the least bit hesitant to name names and call people out -- even within his own party.

To Romney, Trump’s style is heresy. But principled lawmakers like Rand Paul recognize the difference. Expect to hear more and more of the same as time goes on.

Pelosi won’t change things either. Like Romney, Democrats are believers in big government -- she just wants different “stuff” than establishment Republicans. Democrats don’t care about the budget (except when it comes to paying for Trump’s priorities), deficits or fiscal sanity. Heck, the rules package Democrats adopted automatically lifts the debt ceiling whenever spending bills are passed. Romney and Pelosi may stem from different branches of the ruling class family tree, but they’re cut from the same government do-gooder cloth.

Trump just wants what’s right for America, which many see as “flexible” and “transactional.” And fools like Romney don’t intimidate him either... is it because they’re too similar? John F. Harris wrote at Politico Magazine, “Beneath stark stylistic differences, as politicians they are more similar than Romney would ever wish to admit.

“At important junctures of his public career Romney—like many or perhaps most politicians—has revealed himself as a supremely transactional figure, flexible in altering his words and his positions to align with self-interest as the occasion demands. If Trump is the more transactional figure—boasting about his deal-making savvy rather than trying to defend his gyrations as rooted in some higher morality—this is only a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

“Once the debate leaves the field of principle and moves to the field of results, there is no denying which of the two transactional figures is better at the game. Thus Trump’s rejoinder Wednesday: ‘I won big, and he didn’t.’”

Harris’s theory is interesting and would explain why both Trump and Romney claimed to be for seemingly opposite policy positions (than they do now) at different points in their lives. Most Trump supporters don’t see Trump as “transactional” as much as his unique-to-Washington emphasis on deal-making and ends-oriented desire for accomplishments.

Everyone knows politicians talk and promise until they’re blue in the face, but once they win their races and arrive at the capitol steps they meld into the swamp like alligators in an algae-infested bog. Trump doesn’t see it that way and his is a much simpler worldview -- say you’re going to do something… and then go do it.

Senator Romney’s modus operandi is to say anything he thinks will get him elected and then position himself as a “principled” politician by appearing to be “bipartisan” and “neutral.” It only gets respected folks like Rand Paul assaulting his squeamishness and predicting there’ll be a backlash for being so stupid as to stab the president in the back in print.

Joining with the enemy makes you a traitor and earns nothing but derision from decent people. If you don’t believe it ask (former) Senators Flake and Corker how they’re feeling these days. Mitt Romney will survive his latest brush with political death -- but he shouldn’t go tempting fate any longer.

Share this