A "Bang Bang" Return For The Mittster

While Rick Perry hypes “Teabagg’n 2.0” (here), Mark Sanford finds himself forced just about at gunpoint by the South Carolina State Senate to accept stimulus funds (here), and Sarah Palin fends off more ethics complaints (here), it may be easy to forget about a certain Willard Mitt Romney still lurking out there somewhere, vying for a place in the 2012 campaign (yes, I apologize for noting that – I can’t deal with another national election campaign at this moment either).

But just to make sure that a few hangers-on who still pay attention to the Repugs (such as your humble narrator) don’t forget, Romney gave a speech today to the NRA full of the typical “red meat” bloviation you would expect to reach that values-voter “base” that his party relies on, and which is shrinking with the passage of time (and by the way, there are no policy proposals or ideas at all – for anyone who wonders how the Repugs became the party of near-irrelevance given what we currently face….well, here’s the proof).

Here are some choice excerpts from his speech (after the obligatory homage to The Sainted Ronnie R, who also never served in combat)…

There was a time when the right to bear arms was a lot better appreciated in the state that is home to Bunker Hill. No one questioned the importance of a responsible, armed citizenry back when Paul Revere was in the saddle and patriots were throwing the king's tea into Boston Harbor—except maybe a few Tories and King George himself.

If the right to bear arms was supposedly “unappreciated,” using Romney’s code language, then I would say that he has more than a little bit to do with that, as noted here…

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."

And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."

And speaking of gun-related tragedy, don’t forget this Romney gem, saying that “pornography and violence” were responsible for the Virginia Tech slayings.

Continuing…

Four out of five NRA members have sworn to defend the Constitution in a uniform of the United States military, or have family that did so. That's an extraordinary record of service to our country. And that is why, on Armed Services Day, I'm proud to be with members of the NRA.

As noted here…

Before college, Romney earned a draft deferral by going to France for a two-year missionary tour with the Mormon Church. As such, he was able to avoid military service in Vietnam.

And it’s particularly crass for Romney to comment on the military, given the fact that he was a big Iraq war cheerleader, while none of his sons enlisted (alluded to here), to the point where Romney equated military service with working in his campaign (here).

Continuing…

The liberal Democrats who control our government also want to put Washington in charge of healthcare. The rest of us want to reform healthcare to make sure that every American has insurance they can afford, and that cannot be taken away if they change or lose a job.

But the best path to health care reform is to let the American people make their own decisions, not have those decisions forced on them by government.

From ’05 here (by Joe Klein)…

Massachusetts now spends about $1 billion a year to provide emergency health care for at least 500,000 uninsured citizens. About 200,000 of those are young people, predominantly male, who are making enough money to buy health insurance but figure they don't need it. They would be required to buy a relatively inexpensive health insurance policy, with higher deductibles and co-pays—that's where the "mandate" comes in. Another 100,000 are extremely poor people who are eligible for Medicaid; a concerted effort would be made to bring them into the system. The remaining 200,000 are the people who have been most neglected by the system in the past: the working poor, people who have low-end service jobs or work part time for employers who don't offer health coverage.

Continuing…

Did you see that California Republicans and Democrats finally reached a budget compromise? Salaries will be reduced for some state workers, and programs will be cut. But President Obama does not feel constrained by the Constitutional guarantee of federalism and states' rights: he has dictated that California won't get federal money because he doesn't like the plan that they themselves have agreed to.

I assume Romney is talking about this (from Tuesday)…

On Monday, the Obama administration said it has not finalized a decision on whether a budget provision that reduced California's contribution to wages for home health workers will jeopardize $6.8 billion in federal economic stimulus funds, the Los Angeles Times reports (Nicholas/Halper, Los Angeles Times, 5/11).

…

On Monday, HHS spokesperson Nick Papas said, "No final determination has been made. We are continuing to work closely with the state of California, and a legal review of the requirements of the Recovery Act (the stimulus law) with respect to this issue is ongoing."

Continuing…

(Obama’s) administration has won the favor of liberal commentators by pledging what it calls reform in the treatment of terrorist detainees. He's released top secret memos about interrogations, but we're still waiting for other top secret memos that tell us about the attacks prevented by those interrogations.

Really? And what attacks exactly were prevented by torture, Mitt?

I think this gives us the answer.

Continuing…

The President has also promised to close down Guantanamo, without giving the slightest indication of the next stop for the killers being held there now.

And for all of these decisions, he has received the predictable applause from the usual quarters.

But here's the problem. That is the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of September 11th. And the approval of left-wing law professors and editorial boards won't be worth much if this country lets down its guard and suffers another attack.

Given the fact that Romney said here that “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch (bin Laden)," I would say that Romney has automatically forfeited the right to say anything at all about 9/11.

And frankly, I’m surprised that Mitt didn’t remind those in attendance of this promise, seeing as how you apparently love Guantanamo so much (and, as noted here, former governor “lighten up” has always been such a big fan of the president).

Romney more or less concludes with this…

The liberals may fool some of the people for some of the time, but that time will draw to a close.

We’ll see if you turn out to be right, Willard Mitt. But your time is already up; all that remains is for you to realize that and stop performing these “dog whistle” antics for the true believers, now distinctly in the minority as the remaining three-quarters of this country continues the epic chore of undoing the eight years of mess, overwhelmingly from your party’s ineptitude and malfeasance.