Romney Rejects Obama’s European Socialism – Sort of


By Mr. Curmudgeon

“He spent trillions of dollars on that,” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly said of Obama’s attempts to spend America out of an economic depression, “Listen, the guy’s a socialist – it’s class warfare that’s what he’s gonna wage against you if you get the nomination: You’re a rich guy, you’re out of touch. Is he a socialist?” O’Reilly’s question was aimed at the establishment GOP’s presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“Uh, you know,” stammered Romney, “I consider him a big-government liberal Democrat. I think as you look at his policies, you conclude that he thinks Europe got it right and we got it wrong. I think Europe got it wrong. I think Europe is not working in Europe. And I’ll battle him on that day in and day out. But I’m probably not going to be calling him names so much as calling him a failure.”

And there you have it. Romney believes the problem with Obama’s economic prescription for America – a larger version than was put into practice by the GOP establishmentarian George W. Bush (stimulus and bailouts) – is geographical and not political in nature. Wealth redistribution is not what is killing America, according to Romney, but Obama’s attempt to remake Washington into Paris. It’s understandable why Romney shies away from calling Obama a socialist: Romney, more than any establishment Republican before him, is socialism’s most adept practitioner.

As Doctor Donald Berwick, the Obama administration’s former Medicare administrator once said, “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must – must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” Romney most certainly believed as much when he worked alongside Massachusetts’ Democrats to devise a state medical plan that forces Bay State citizens, through an individual mandate, to redistribute their incomes in the service of Romneycare.

Romney can’t condemn Obama’s socialism without condemning himself. This is why Obama prays the Blue State Republican faces him in the general election. Republican primary voters would hand the president a last minute reprieve by effectively taking the central political question of the 2012 campaign off the table: “Will America continue down socialism’s destructive road or abandon redistributive Progressivism?”

Unfortunately, if polls are to be believed, at least 23 percent of Republican voters favor Romney’s socialism over Obama’s. Romney says his brand is as native as the Blue Ridge Mountains and is good for the country. Obama’s brand, insists Romney, hales from Europe and is bad for the country.

Oddly, the word “redistribution” is spelled the same whether written in American English or haughty Parisian French. Republicans – whether they wish to admit it or not – are becoming decidedly more French … with a thick American accent.


  1. Your play on words does not communicate the truth and I think you know it. I hope all who read your article are wise enough to not be misled.

    I believe that if Mitt Romney were not trying to help save this nation by running for its president, he may well be a leader in the tea party movement as long as we do not act like a herd of sheep and stampede right over the cliff to self destruction.

    I believe that our movement is critically important to save this nation from ruin, but please remember all, that we are not the majority and that at best our efforts can only serve to pull the pendulum back from socialistic disaster for which we we are are now headed. Realistically it will not swing as far to our conservative right as we would have it. Without our efforts, it may continue to swing to the left until it crashed right through the walls of our beautiful time peace measuring over 200 years of peace and prosperity.

    Romney must be and is wise enough to not dive into the tea and risk losing the independent voters. He is realistic enough and careful enough in his effort to win the election by not alienating a critical segment of the electorate such as the independent voters. This wisdom will serve him well when working to find enough middle ground in D.C. to actually get things done, yet he will not compromise the constitution, nor the fundamental principles of personal freedom held sacred by us.

    I submit that trust is the first and most important principle of effective leadership and that moral integrity is the most important behavior in earning trust. Let us also be wise and honest enough to support a man we can trust.

    • There is a fundamental flaw with your analysis, no matter how well intentioned. Romney is unacceptable precisely because he is antithetical to the single principle underlying the Tea Party movement – America’s return to Constitutional normalcy … a government restrained by the rule of law.
      It is impossible to explain away Romney’s Massachusetts health-care monstrosity as insignificant. It IS the single issue that makes him unacceptable to the Tea Party. By forcing free people through an individual mandate, to purchase a government product as the price of citizenship, Romney violated a free people’s God-given sovereignty. That violation proves that Romney, like Democratic Progressives, believes – as Nancy Pelosi said – the power of legislative government is “virtually unlimited.”
      “The first and most important principle of effective leadership,” you say, is “moral integrity.” However, by infringing on our Natural Rights – those God-given, native to our humanity and that pre-exist the founding of America and the ratification of our Constitution –Romney is morally ill equipped to govern.
      There is no getting around that uncomfortable fact. And if the Tea Party accepts Romney as its standard-bearer, it will lose all claims to moral legitimacy.

      –Mr. C