What does Mitt Romney really believe?

The more I think about it, the more I think I might be too conservative to be a Republican. On both the local and national level, I’ve seen things that have made my head spin. It has me wondering if I would be better off as an independent, without the baggage associated with the hypocrites and flakes.

Republicans have rightly criticized Barack Obama for his socialist-leaning views, and their warning that things will get worse if he were to be reelected. My problem is with the revisionism and lack of insight amongst many in our party.

Obamacare is an abomination that deserves to be struck down by the Supreme Court. The only positive thing about this legislation is that it mobilized conservative organizations to take action. The problem is that some Republicans agreed with some of the basic tenets of Obamacare in the past and only changed their mind when it became politically expedient to do so.

We have Mitt Romney, author of Romneycare, whose healthcare plan as Governor of Massachusetts bore a striking resemblance to Obamacare. Now, he’s attempting to split hairs, grasping for details that differ between Obamacare and his own socialist scheme. Besides Romney, there’s Newt Gingrich, who was a vocal proponent of a mandatory health insurance, until it became politically unpopular. Plus, let’s not forget about Newt’s couch time with Nancy Pelosi.

Those who oppose Obamacare also bemoan the ever increasing size of government, growing deficits, repeated debt-limit increases, and an intrusive government. Here’s the problem: During the Bush Administration, we had the prescription drug plan, increases in the size of government, growing deficits, repeated debt-limit increases, and an intrusive government. Sound familiar? Granted, these similarities are far worse now than during the Bush administration, but where were the Republican complaints between 2001 and 2008? This failure to speak up has caused many Republicans to look like hypocrites, which damages the party’s credibility.

Any Republican candidate would be better than Barack Obama, but this still puts us in the lesser-of-two-evils mindset. With Mitt Romney poised to become the Republican nominee, I expect him to do the right thing for as long as it is politically popular to do so. That’s why it’s important for fiscal conservatives to stay vigilant and continue to voice our displeasure with big government and attacks on liberty. We cannot become complacent.

“Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC.

“That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.”

When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.”

“I don’t think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it’ll strike a lot of people as being very accurate,” Hinchey said. “All you have to do is look at the exact circumstances and see that’s exactly what happened.”

“When our military went in there, we could have captured [the Taliban],” he insisted. “But we didn’t. And we didn’t because of the need felt by the previous administration, and the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq.”

Democrats rarely miss an opportunity to blame George W. Bush for something, and now they are fabricating conspiracy theories. It should be rather obvious that Maurice Hinchey is a fool, but even so, I’ll take a few minutes to debunk his theory.

Think about all the criticism leveled at the Bush administration regarding Osama Bin Laden. His capture would have raised the President’s profile and quieted criticism of the war on terror. Do you remember all the press Sadam Hussein’s capture generated? That would have been nothing compared to the press surounding Bin Laden’s capture. Why would George W. Bush intentionally wreck an opportunity to achieve a major goal that would have been a huge moment in his Presidency? Oh, that’s right…to justify invading Iraq.

If you think back to the weeks and months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, it had nothing to do specifically with Osama Bin Laden. The rationale centered on Hussein ignoring U.N. resolutions, potentially having weapons of mass destruction, and possibly being a breeding ground for terrorism. If Osama Bin Laden had been captured, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that Hussein had attempted to dodge weapons inspections or could have had weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden’s quick capture might have actually energized those who wanted to invade Iraq.

I have no doubt that George W. Bush and his administration wanted to capture Osama Bin Laden. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and is obviously a partisan shot.

Senator Levin is right about the opportunity that was missed. If Osama Bin Laden had been captured, we might have had most of our soldiers out of Afghanistan. What I find interesting is that Carl Levin and his colleagues in the Democratic party are seizing on this report, yet they seem to conveniently ignore some missed opportunities that were even more damaging.

The first attack on the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the African Embassy bombings, the Battle of Mogadishu, and the Khobar Tower bombing all occurred during Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Clinton made a few half-hearted attempts to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but nothing substantial. How many more acts of terrorism was Bill Clinton waiting for before he launched a full-scale military operation?

In sum, Carl Levin is right. If Osama had been captured in Tora Bora back in December of 2001, our involvement in Afghanistan could have been finished long ago. Of course, this wouldn’t have been an issue if Bill Clinton had gone after Osama Bin Laden more aggressively. Not only would we probably not be in Afghanistan, but 9/11 might have never happened.

One of the major problems with the Obama administration can be summed up by this Bush quote:

“the role of government is not to create wealth, but to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive.”

I couldn’t agree more. Government should take care of the basics, then get out of the way. Some will succeed and some will fail, but it isn’t the government’s job to pick winners and losers, only to make sure the playing field is level. From listening to Barack Obama and following his actions, he thinks government is the solution to all our problems. George Bush seems to say the right things, but let’s not forget that he’s the one who helped open the flood gates.

Barack Obama spends money like there’s no tomorrow. He has no equal. With that said, George W. Bush was far from a fiscal conservative. A true conservative wouldn’t have run up deficits, and would have paid down a substantial portion of the National Debt during his eight year presidency. He would have made sure prescription drug coverage and wars were properly financed. Most importantly, he would have slashed the size of government.

George W. Bush opened the flood gates and made Barack Obama’s exorbitant spending and ideas acceptable. This is where the term “too big to fail” began to gain traction. In 2008, TARP was created, a $750 billion price-tag was announced, and no one seemed to know where the amoun came from or how the money would be used. We had the Big Three car companies begin the process of looking for handouts, along with AIG, which turned into a financial vacuum sucking up every dollar in sight.

Many people, both Democrats and Republicans, will argue that TARP, and other bail-outs were necessary to avoid economic conditions even worse than those we are currently experiencing. To some extent, they may be correct. Things might have been worse if the government hadn’t bailed out the dregs of corporate America. We’ll never know for certain. What we do know for certain is that a precedent has been set. If you have a poorly run business, you might end up needing to file for bankruptcy, but if you’re “too big to fail,” the taxpayers will be there to give you a hand. I might be wrong, but that doesn’t seem like a free market approach to me.

When voters begin learning about new congressional candidates in 2010 and Presidential candidates in 2012, I hope they can look past the buzz words used by neoconservatives like George W. Bush, and seek out true fiscal conservatives who can bring order to the economy. Our economic future depends on it.