Brooks is giving Romney begrudging credit mixed with snide cutting remarks. Romney, in fact, is anything but dull and has a lot of charisma. That’s what bothers them. But what they most dislike is that he got into the political scene on his own dime and his own merits. A kingmaker’s biggest nightmare is someone who has the means to bypass establishment screening.
There was even a nastier piece by Michael Kinsley on the Bloomberg website, full of the same kind of vituperative and character-ripping slights. Even communists get better treatment by the establishment: “If Mitt Romney ever becomes president, it will be because his [mainstream] supporters are convinced that he’s a liar [about
cozying up to the Right wing]. The Republican Party elite isn’t convinced by his attempts to reinvent himself as a right-wing firebrand [which
Romney is not doing—he’s playing middle-of-the-road]. The establishment Republicans, business executives and independents who are Romney’s natural constituency believe he is lying when he strikes a conservative posture on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and when he engages in fatuous Washington-bashing [Fatuous? Hardly].
“They believe that once in office, his true nature as an establishment, moderate, pro-business Republican will emerge. They believe he’s fundamentally sound [meaning, in their minds, liberal]. Meanwhile, the right-wingers who will soon be asked to bury their dreams and support Romney are not under any delusions about his true nature. But they’ll eventually prove willing to overlook it in their hunger to defeat President Barack Obama.”
These two mean-spirited establishment hacks demonstrates without question that the PTB are not going to like it one bit if they have to work overtime to control this guy. That’s why every commentary is laced with pejoratives and insults. So, why do they hate Romney so much? Why are the PTB so dead set against him, even as he does their bidding and surrounds himself with establishment advisors? Jon Huntsman, Ex-Ambassador to China and former Utah governor isn’t much different from Romney on policy and yet, the establishment loves him. What gives?
I think the difference is Romney has not committed to the globalist agenda as has Huntsman. As a result, the PTB don’t have confidence that they can control him if Romney happens to see some of the illegal operations going on in the White House should he be elected—and there is a lot of bad stuff (like gun running to Mexican cartels) going on.
While the establishment smothers Romney with CFR types and slick operators, they’re still nervous about how successful their control will be without leaning on him hard, as they did with Reagan (assassination attempt). Reagan succumbed and I think Romney will too. That is why I don’t think Romney would be a reliable opponent of the current government agenda. He has shown far too much compromise so far. My personal sources confirm that he is morally straight and faithful to his wife, but has far too much ambition to be trusted to fight against the establishment.
As further evidence that the establishment is fully engaged in the control-Romney agenda, his campaign just announced his foreign policy team and it is truly awful: Topping the list are Michael Chertoff (former corrupt head of Homeland Security), and Michael Hayden (national security advisor and CIA) and Coffer Black (former vice chairman of Blackwater). I consider Chertoff to be one of the great evil insiders of our day, and former CIA chief Hayden is a principal at the Chertoff Group. It looks like Romney got talked into letting Chertoff pick his entire foreign policy staff. Kissinger would be pleased.
There are dozens of others including such neoconservatives as Robert Kagan, Dan Senor, and Norm Coleman forming the new staff and they are aptly described by an enthused Nicholas Burns, globalist professor of international politics at Harvard, as an “impressive team…. serious people, [and gleefully] they’re internationalists.” That’s another admission that they are globalist just like Burns.
