Because there in a growing prospect that Mitt Romney will eventually be the Republican nominee for the Presidency (and therefore our last best hope for an Obama-free America), voters and analysts of all stripes should be examining the validity of the “flip-flopper” albatross which has been hung so heavily on the man — both by many of his GOP competitors and by the Barack Obama campaign.

No small wonder that Romney’s polling numbers have been stuck in the mid-twenties – when neither he nor anyone else has offered a convincing narrative as to why he is almost certainly not the unprincipled, unreliable “weathervane” that the derisive “flip-flop” label implies.

In this connection, please recognize that while Romney has, indeed, changed many earlier positions, all of these “flips” seem to have been in center-right and “moderate conservative” directions. And while there is no absolute GUARANTEE that these positions will remain intact, there has apparently been no “flopping back” to positions which were once more centrist or even center-left. For example, the new-and-improved Mitt has become

• Increasingly pro-Life (based on both medical science and 10th Amendment States’ Rights)
• Increasingly pro-Second Amendment “Gun Rights”
• Increasingly tough on illegal immigration and on border security
• Increasingly anti-ObamaCare (born of universal HillaryCare, not one-state MittCare)
• Increasingly supportive of Paul Ryan’s “MediChoice” versus Obama’s “MediCrash”
• Increasingly supportive of enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
• Increasingly supportive of Simpson-Bowles spending cuts & early Budget balancing
• Increasingly skeptical of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “ClimateScam”
• Increasingly tough on national security and Defense Department funding issues
• Increasingly a de facto Tea Parties Movement “ConCentrist” (a new part-conservative and part-centrist label for the politico-economic Center-Right) — which defines both the TPM and Mitt Romney (and perhaps his running mate, as well) far more accurately than do the “ultra-right” and “radical extremist” labels spouted by the Left.

And just as importantly, it lays appropriate claim to a major part of the “centrist” label that both the Obamanoid and Hillarian leftists so fervently and so deceitfully want to co-opt for themselves.

Note: With regard to the parentage of ObamaCare (# 4 above) a subsequent article will focus on a highly detailed June 10, 2010 Heritage Foundation study by the distinguished Dr. Robert Moffit, who describes the following six similarities between universal ObamaCare and universal HillaryCare – rather than major similarities to one-state RomneyCare. These are separated and numbered for ease of reading, as follows:

1. a highly prescriptive federal definition and control of the content of “acceptable” health insurance benefit packages;
2. individual and employer mandates to purchase federally approved health insurance plans;
3. multi-year Medicare cuts to finance the expansion of health care coverage;
4. centralization of federal control of health insurance markets, manifest in federally designed health insurance exchanges in the Obama version and geographically based “regional alliances” in the Clinton version;
5. federal control of health care financing, characterized by taxpayer subsidies and premium rate regulation in the Obama version; and
6. “premium caps” and a “global budget” governing all health care spending in the Clinton version.

Reagan’s Rule of “Trust but Verify”

At a time when “change” is all the rage, does this not entitle Romney to Ronald Reagan’s “Trust but Verify” chance to verify the stability and durability of his newfound ConCentrism?  After all, is this not the kind of change for the better we seek in millions of well-intentioned but confused independents and centrists who were so thoroughly seduced by the “OPRAH Land” (Obama-Pelosi-Reid-and-Hillary-Land) Plantation bosses in the elections of 2006 and 2008?

And for further verification of the man’s bona fides, we should notice that in the midst of all his policy changes for the better over the last several years, Mitt Romney himself has maintained and even strengthened his fine reputation as an exemplary family man, a serious person of religious faith and high ethics, a hugely successful and job-creating businessman, a proven manager of complex bureaucracies, and a thoughtful and experienced leader with sufficient wisdom and “gravitas” to be a great President.

But in stark contrast to Mitt Romney’s many “flips” forward to the ConCentrist Right, Barack Obama seems always to FLOP BACKWARD toward the Progressive Socialist (ProgSoc) Left –

• on job creation (flop),
• on energy policy (flop),
• on budget balancing (flop),
• on “Stimulus” spending (flop),
• on transparency (flop),
• on accountability (flop),
• on bipartisanship (flop),
• on the “Global Warming” scam (flop),
• on healthcare reform (flop),
• on avoiding pay-to-play “crony capitalism” (flop),
• on excluding “fat cats” and lobbyists from his entourage (flop & flop), and
• on scores of pretenses, spins and scams which merit “SCAMALOT” as his legacy label

Search for the Optimum Running Mate

In due course, these innumerable FLOPS to the Left on Obama’s part can be correctly exposed by Romney, his excellent running mate, the objective media and the public as “progressively wrong” failures of both policy and practice. That task will be the all-important agenda of this entire year – with the future of America at stake.

Assuming that Romney’s so-called “flip-flop” issue is greatly minimized or eliminated in this way, what about the vital quest for a forward-looking and equally well qualified running mate to replace a failed Obama-Biden administration – by defeating a more-than-likely Obama-Clinton ticket?

All things considered, it was once my belief that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich might be our best bet – most electable, best in debate, most innovative, most experienced in dealing with Congress, well respected in national security circles, generally acceptable in “TeaParties” circles, and also fitting the “ConCentrist” label — as opposed to the “radical right” and “extremist” and even “fascist” labels that the Democrats like to stick on their opponents.

But now that the relationship between Newt and Mitt has deteriorated from merely adversarial to one of enmity and disdain, that combination of personalities may no longer be as workable as once thought – with the currently “surging” Senator Rick Santorum now being Romney’s most plausible running mate and eventual Vice President.

Among the man’s several positives would be…

• substantial and productive service in both the House and Senate,
• a high standing with the Christian Evangelical and “Family Values” movements,
• a respectable center-right record on fiscal, budgetary and national security affairs,
• a decent record of working across Party lines,
• a record of attracting “Reagan Democrat” support,
• a “favorite son” standing in vital “battleground” state,
• a good “no baggage” family man, and
• an overall record which is more conservative and “TeaParties” oriented than Romney but still of the “ConCentrist” rather than the “right wing” variety.

A final recommendation to pollsters: Stop polling only the candidates for President one-on-one — but focus, instead, on the two-person tickets of Obama-Biden (or –Clinton) and their “ProgSoc” extremists on the one hand and the Romney-Santorum (or –Huckabee?) teams of moderate conservatives and talented “ConCentrists” on the other.

Prediction: A 55-45 blowout in favor of the latter rescue team on Election Day 2012. This will be particularly true if these Republican running mates are proactively assuring voters of a Superstar Cabinet of highly experienced and no-nonsense Department Secretaries and senior support staff.

Imagine, please, a Cabinet with such stalwarts as John Bolton at State, Rudy Giulliani at Justice, Mitch Daniels at the OMB, Herman Cain at Commerce, Sarah Palin at Energy, David Petraeus at Defense, Patrick Michaels at the EPA, Michelle Rhee at Education, Peter King at Homeland Security, Art Laffer at Treasury, Condeleesa Rice at the UN, Evan Bayh at Transportation, Bobby Jindal at HHS, Gary Johnson at Interior, Buddy Roemer at Agriculture, etc. – all of this in sharp contrast to the gaggle of left-wing academics and largely unaccountable regulatory “czars” who now surround and reflect the cleverly masked “Transitional Marxism” of Barack Obama.

So, will the real “flip-flopper” (President “Scamalot” himself) please stand up? But, of course, he will not. At least not until the second of two historic NO CONFIDENCE elections in just two short years – the next one scheduled for November 6 — eventually forces him to stand down, instead.

JIM GUIRARD — TrueSpeak.org       703-768-0957      Justcauses@aol.com

A DC-area attorney, writer and national security strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak.org Web site is devoted to truth in language and truth in history in public discourse.