Mitt Romney gave a game-changing convention speech. Rebranded as a centrist, he looks like a winner … Mitt Romney's convention speech may have redefined both the man and the candidate. It was like a reverse Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Mitt went to bed a pod person and woke up a human being. The speech was warm, humble and hit Obama hard. Most importantly, it sold Mitt as Mitt really was all along but struggled to show it – a technocratic, pro-growth business nationalist. This is the Romney that won Democratic-leaning Massachusetts in 2002 – a moderate conservative who can appeal to women, independents and perhaps even minorities. It's a Romney that now stands a much better chance of winning the White House in 2012. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney began as a flip-flopper and ended up as a warm and fuzzy leader of men – and women.
Free-Market Analysis: The most salient fact you need to know about Mitt Romney is that during his term as governor of Massachusetts, he passed a state-only version of "Obamacare" and now he's going to run AGAINST it – basically – on the national level.
One can ask what Mitt Romney stands for and why he wants to be president of the United States of America so badly. People always mention power but there is little power in being the president of the United States, certainly from a policy standpoint.
There is evidently and obviously a power elite that wants to create world government. They have taken over the United States government on a federal level, certainly, and there is continuity from one regime to the next, regardless of part.
What are symptoms of this continuity? Well, the tax regime continues to be enforced and expanded even though it is universally considered to be a horrible way of deriving revenue.
The US central bank, the Fed, continues to gain more powers even though millions understand now how it works and how destructive it is to civil society.
Corporatism continues to expand in the US and around the world even though the system of incompetent multinationals resembles the USSR more than capitalist faculties.
The military-industrial complex continues to expand even though polls show that Americans are sick and tired of expending blood and capital overseas.
Regulatory democracy continues to expand like a vast sunspot, darkening all it touches.
Mitt Romney, were he elected, would change none of this. Barack Obama changed not a whit of it. George W. Bush made few changes from the policies of Bill Clinton. What does a politician do, after all, but survive?
In the modern day and age, there is little latitude for stamping one's own perspective on the office or larger firmament. Even the article excerpted above, which is a pro-Romney post, seems to recognize this:
Mitt Romney, of course, dreams of becoming President. His public personality to date has been a mix of the stiff and the self-serving – all the flagrant flip-flopping and audience pleasing of populism with none of the entertainment.
For twelve months, we've watched an empty suit deliver empty speeches to crowds that looked bussed in. He had to do something special on Thursday night to make us believe he was more than a political android.
He delivered. The first part of his speech was devoted to his family life, and the emotion he barely controlled communicated just how important it is to him. This passage stood out: "Mom and Dad were married 64 years. And if you wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local florist – because every day Dad gave Mom a rose, which he put on her bedside table. That's how she found out what happened on the day my father died – she went looking for him because that morning, there was no rose."
On the page it probably reads as clichéd. But in person – coming from dull old Mitt and delivered in a voice that quivered with emotion – it was a revelation.
Yes, this must be the crux of it for these people. THEIR lives suddenly take on an import beyond others', beyond even what they ever expected. They believe they are becoming part of the fabric of history, and in a sense they are – but not in the way they think.
In fact, they are stitching their lives to a larger institution, the facility of Leviathan itself. They will not be remembered for their achievements but for their furtherance of the larger nation-state.
Artists, writers, creative people of all kinds have the opportunity to be remembered for their own good works. But those who go to work for the government are inevitably subsumed by the larger agenda.
They can affect it but to a great degree they cannot change it. This is inevitably why people have mixed feelings about politics and politicians. These people derive their identity and accomplishments from Leviathan. Their accomplishments are, in a sense, not their own.
The article goes on to tell us that Romney described Obama's ambition as broadly overreaching, having to do with slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet.
"My promise," he said solemnly, "… is to help you and your family."
But Romney cannot do this any more than Obama can slow the rise of oceans (were they actually rising).
In fact, were he to win (and he probably won't), Romney would be in much the same position as Obama. He would be in charge of implementing policies that are gradually destroying the US nation-state.
This is because the power elite seeks world government and needs to inflict maximum chaos on the West. Only when people are sufficiently miserable will they acquiesce to even more government in the guise of a full-on globalist enterprise.
The article analyzes Romney's predictable lurch to the center − which was evident during his acceptance speech – and gives him credit for having the savvy to position himself as a middle of the road candidate, one hopefully attractive to women and Hispanics.
It is all a kind of window-dressing. Were Romney to win, nothing will change because he will not be in charge any more than Obama is.