While I’m busy declaring war on the GOP establishment, I ought to make mention of another thing that burns me up. Some of you will have noticed throughout the primary campaign season that certain GOP candidates seemed unwilling to go after Mitt Romney on a number of issues, and always seemed to defer to him in various ways. It’s true. Some of them seemed more interested in blowing him kisses than in defeating him, and to be blunt, some of you along with me thought at times that they may have been conspiring with Mitt right along. If to withhold one’s criticisms of one’s opponents is to evince some sort of collusion, I must now ask you what it must be if Mitt Romney does it with respect to Barack Obama. This business of Mitt Romney repudiating the examination of Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and other leftist radicals is disgusting.
Mark Levin commented on this subject last week, and he properly flogged Romney. RightScoop provides the audio.
Levin is spot-on here. Romney used every conceivable advertising gimmick and revisionist historical fraud to attack Newt Gingrich, and he and his surrogates left no stone un-turned in seeking to hammer the former House Speaker, but when it comes to Barack Obama, some things are simply off limits. Ladies and gentlemen, I must ask you with a sense of grim foreboding: If you believe that Ron Paul held fire on Mitt Romney in exchange for something, why do you suppose Mitt Romney is insisting on holding fire against Barack Obama? Answer it. If you believe there is a quid pro quo in the first instance, please tell me what you believe about the second instance? Don’t tell me that Romney is “unwilling to go to the gutter,” or some such nonsense. He was more than willing when his opponent was Newt Gingrich. He was more than willing when any of the would-be non-Romneys rose, even momentarily. Sure, he used surrogates, but what is this business about leaving the Rev. Wright issue alone?
Does he believe it will buy Obama’s silence on Romney’s religion? It won’t, and the evidence is that it hasn’t. Knowing this, why would Romney seek to repudiate all of those who raise the issue of Rev. Wright? When it was about obtaining the nomination, Romney was a “no-holds-barred” and “hey, that’s politics” sort of guy, but now that it’s Barack Obama, whose defeat is the object of this entire campaign, he’s pulling his punches?
Don’t tell me that the GOP establishment wishes to defeat Barack Obama. Don’t tell me they don’t constitute a “fifth column.” Don’t pretend to me that Mitt Romney is anything but another statist placeholder who will lead us into defeat. I have taken all I am inclined to take when it comes to the Republican establishment. It’s not that they don’t know how to win, but that they don’t want us to win. Holding back on Barack Obama’s associations with radicals isn’t a strategy to “keep clear of the gutter,” as some would suppose, but a strategy to let Barack Obama go un-vetted for a second consecutive election cycle, and the only reason somebody, anybody, could possibly want that is…
You see, there are those who have already begun to argue that Romney, if he loses, will do so because of a lack of support. The idea is to shift blame to conservatives, Tea Party folk, or anybody else who will not step up and vocally support or at least vote for Romney. I reject that thesis as a scandalous lie. Don’t tell me Romney wants to win but doesn’t want to talk about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or Bill Ayers, or the whole rogues’ gallery of philosophical villainy that accompanies Barack Obama. Then, after rejecting these obvious problems with Barack Obama, I’m to blame if Mitt Romney loses?
If Mitt Romney loses, it will be because he failed. He failed to be a conservative. He failed to insist on talking about Barack Obama’s radical associations. He failed to rally the base of the Republican party. He failed to motivate conservatives. He failed. If you want to blame me for a Romney loss, have at it, but I won’t accept blame. Here we have a candidate who saw no problem in hammering his Republican opponents in dishonest ways, but who now shrinks from talking about the truth of Barack Obama, and some wish to blame me?
If you will not call a monster by name in public, why would you be surprised if others will not view him in that light? After all, we elect Presidents because we expect them to tell us the truth even when it’s unpleasant. If we know the truth about Obama, but Romney won’t say it, what could be the justification? At what point does somebody step up and ask Romney: “Why won’t you talk about Obama’s radical associations?” Why, after saying he cannot tell the superPACs that support him what to do, when it came to Newt Gingrich, is he now going out of his way to dissociate himself from any discussion of Obama on this subject by those superPACs? What he’s done is to “call off the dogs” on this, something he refused to do when it came to Gingrich just a few months ago, laughing it off as the nature of politics.
I am beginning to think Mitt Romney will have a good deal for which to answer if/when he loses in November, because if he refuses to talk about Obama’s past, he’s helping Obama to win. Every conservative in the country must know this, lest a parade of the “political analysts” tell us it’s our fault.