Cliff Kincaid
November 3, 2012
Romney's Russian connection a deal breaker for serious conservatives
By Cliff Kincaid

A breaking report in the New York Times of a Romney Russian connection could help cost the Republican nominee the election on Tuesday. This report, on top of the previous announcement of a controversial "Arab-Americans for Romney" initiative from the campaign, may be just enough to convince some conservatives that Romney is not worth voting for, and that it is better to fight and try to impeach Obama during a second term than elect Romney and see the Republican elites take conservatives for granted for the next four years.

The troubling news from the New York Times begins, "Matt Romney, a son of the Republican presidential nominee, traveled to Moscow this week seeking Russian investors for his California-based real estate firm just days before his father is to wrap up a campaign in which he has vowed to take a tougher stance with the Kremlin." The story says that, "...while in Moscow, Mr. Romney told a Russian known to be able to deliver messages to Mr. Putin that despite the campaign rhetoric, his father wants good relations if he becomes president, according to a person informed about the conversation." It went on, "The Romney campaign said it had no comment."

Officially, the Romney campaign says that, if elected, Romney "will implement a strategy that will seek to discourage aggressive or expansionist behavior on the part of Russia and encourage democratic political and economic reform." A Romney foreign policy document points out that Obama withdrew from President Bush's plan to place a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, "a move Russia strongly desired"; that Obama's New START treaty "gave Russia room to expand its arsenal while requiring the United States to reduce our own"; and that Obama "has glossed over the creeping authoritarianism of the Putin regime, even congratulating the Russian president on winning what was widely seen as an election marred by irregularities and manipulation."

How does all of this tough talk square with Romney's son Matt going to Russia and reportedly telling Putin and the Russians that this is all "campaign rhetoric?"

The "progressive" news sites are already saying this is a preview of "Romney Family Crony Capitalism" at work. The Nation magazine says, "...if Matt is going to deliver a foreign policy announcement about his father during a business meeting, isn't that a clear message to his potential partners that he has special access to policymaking?"

The previous October 12 Romney campaign announcement of "Arab Americans for Romney" was another slap in the face to conservatives. One of the national co-chairs of the effort is Samah Norquist, wife of the anti-tax activist, Grover Norquist, who was allegedly involved in efforts to facilitate the entry of Muslim Brotherhood activists into the George W. Bush Administration, with the consent of GOP operative Karl Rove.

During an appearance on Frank Gaffney's radio show, we discussed this matter. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, noted that "....one of the things that jumps out at you as you look at this material in the [Muslim Brotherhood in America] course and Grover's friends in the Islamist Brotherhood infrastructure in the United States, is how closely it seems to track, almost maps perfectly really, to the kind of subversive, clandestine operations that the Communists ran in their heyday in this country."

I responded, "This is where Grover's conduct leaves me almost speechless. I mean here's a guy who did recognize during the Reagan years the Communist threat and who now seemingly can't see that we're up against a global Islamic terrorist threat operating through front groups. That's exactly what the Communists did."

In addition to the outreach to the Russians and the Arabs, we have to take into account Romney's silence on such matters as the efforts in Maryland and other states to implement homosexual marriage. The Maryland Marriage Alliance is doing an admirable job of trying to uphold marriage as a union between one man and one woman by urging a "no" vote on "Question 6," which allows same-sex marriages. The group is up against Big Homosexual money and liberal and pro-gay Republicans and Democrats.

At a conservative gathering in Washington, D.C., I asked a representative of the Maryland Marriage Alliance what Romney was doing to support this initiative. He said Romney was doing all he could. But that was nothing. Romney says he is for traditional marriage, but he has not even spoken out against Question 6. He does not want to offend homosexuals, and has actually stated that he favors the inclusion of open homosexuals into the Boy Scouts.

A supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of Question 6 highlights two excellent videos from the Maryland Marriage Alliance. The first video captures the importance to children and society of holding out traditional marriage as the preferred structure in which to raise children. The second video captures the risks to parental rights if same-gender marriage becomes the law.

The second video points out that Massachusetts (under then-Governor Romney) implemented the nation's first homosexual marriage bill and "re-defined marriage." The video features a Massachusetts family warning that local schools in that state required that children in the second grade be required to be taught that "boys can marry boys." Students could NOT be taken out of these classes or even informed when the lessons were being presented.

The parents warned Marylanders, "Don't make the same mistake."

But is this a warning that might apply to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the father of gay marriage, becoming president of the United States by getting conservative votes. Can we in good conscience vote for Romney under these circumstances? He wants the votes of the Arabs and homosexuals, but seems to take conservatives for granted. It is a time for serious thinking about our moral and political choices.

© Cliff Kincaid

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)