Saturday, January 14, 2012
In 2008, when Barack Obama became the Democrat Party's heir apparent, nobody could touch him or anyone associated with him. We were warned to leave his wife alone, leave his children alone, leave the Jeremiah Wright connection alone, and had he had a record at the time, we would've been told to leave that alone as well. He was to be protected so he could be elected--and come hell or high water, he just had to be elected.
Fast forward four years later, and cross over to the other side of the aisle. The Republican Establishment has made it clear who they want as the Party's nominee this go around. Mitt Romney must be feeling pretty good right about now. He has made history by winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, has unbelievably weaseled himself out of being held accountable for Romneycare, and while he has gained some endorsements that--let's be honest--amount to nothing much at all, he has also received some key endorsements, including one from Tea Party favorite, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. (Still shaking my head over that one.)
Recently, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have questioned Romney's actions at Bain Capital, and one would think they questioned his citizenship or something. Outrage ensued. Anger ran rampant. Shouts of the Scripture, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" could be heard up and down these United States of America. Romney's rivals, it seems, have done what "thou shalt not do"--and I'm not even talking about an assault on free market capitalism, as they have been accused of waging, because does anyone really believe that either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich is an anti-capitalist? I'm talking about their greater "sin" of suggesting that the presumptive GOP nominee, the GOP version of The Anointed One, undergo some serious vetting now so that, as Governor Palin keeps warning, there will be no "October Surprise."
The responses to this suggestion have been apoplectic.
As usual, Governor Palin, however, puts things in the proper perspective:
I don't agree with attacks on free market capitalism at all, but I don't believe that that's really what is at the heart of Governor Perry's criticism of Romney and his time at Bain. This isn't about a politician making huge profits in the private sector. I think what Governor Perry is getting at is that Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and people are wanting to know is there proof of that claim and was it U.S. jobs created for U.S. citizens?
I believe that that is what Governor Perry is getting at, you know, own up to the claims that are being made. And that's fair. That's not negative campaigning. That's fair to get a candidate to be held accountable to what's being claimed, especially when it comes to job creation because so many of us are so concerned about what's going on on Main Street as well as Wall Street.
The Governor goes on to explain that no one should be surprised that demands for transparency are being made, that this all needs to come out. Instead of being in a state of shock and outrage, Romney should simply provide records and information to put the issue to rest because, she states, whether he deals with it now or deals with it in the general election, should he secure the nomination, he will have to deal with it.
Governor Palin understands fully the value of flexing those vetting muscles. Romney's record at Bain, including the manner in which he went about his hiring and--especially now--his firing (his use of the term having already become a Debbie Wasserman Schultz tool), will undergo intense scrutiny. So what's the problem? Instead of tackling the issue by getting it all out on the table, the Right is caught up in how "crude," "disturbing," "indefensible," and "desperate" this line of questioning is, according to The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, and Senator McCain respectively.
As Governor Palin pointed out, why shouldn't conservatives look into what the buyouts at Bain were all about and if Romney's actions there resulted in government bailouts that profitted him? None of us can speak for Perry or Gingrich and what they meant exactly with the precise language they used, and candidates must be honest and forthright in their assertions, yet something tells me that there's more here than the Establishment has recognized--or wants to investigate. Instead of majoring in, "Oh my goodness, I cannot believe they suggested that Romney did something untoward," perhaps they should cry out for more transparency on Romney's part.
Hillary Clinton came under attack because she posed a threat to the man the Left, in cahoots with the media, was determined to place atop the throne. Those propping him up got what they wanted, and many who voted for the unvetted Barack Obama soon learned that they should have looked a little more closely beforehand. No one should get a passing grade before taking the test. No one should get a pass, either. Being tested is what Governor Palin refers to when she talks about the "rough and tumble" part of the process. Each candidate needs to undergo this, no one should be exempted, and everyone's record is fair game. When it's all said and done, may the best candidate in the race emerge victorious--or at least the candidate who withstood a rigorous, aggressive, and full-throated process. Anything short of this will give Republicans a candidate ill-equipped for the next round, where things will really get ugly.
The GOP Establishment clearly wants their shot at what Democrats--and America--got in 2008: a smooth-talking, Harvard educated, insulated "Messiah." The Establishment is determined to transition Primary Candidate Romney into General Election Candidate Romney, and if they think vetting him now at every angle is "crude," "disturbing," "indefensible," and "desperate," just wait till President Obama and his campaign get ahold of him as they work to make sure he doesn't become President Romney. After all, President Obama still thinks he's The Anointed One, and he's not interested in playing nice when his crown is on the line.
"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" does not refer to Mitt Romney, GOP, no more than it should have referred to President Obama in the last presidential election. So for the sake of this country, do your due diligence and encourage the "rough and tumble" vetting process.