If you take a look a Mitt Romney’s record and his various changing stances, anyone can see that Romney simply takes the side of what’s good for politics, or rather, what’s best for him. Viewing Romney’s past stances on abortion and health care will show you that many of the positions liberals hold, Romney once sided with. In particular, it is hardly contestable that Romneycare is pretty much identical to Obamacare. With that clear example, it is obvious that Romney would actually pass laws and bills Democrats support.

As Mitt Romney debated with President Barack Obama during the build up to this year’s election, his positions have grown increasingly closer–if not identical–to the President’s. That fact is a sign that Romney is simply a politician who would pick a position and support it for the sake of appearance or for political favor.

I posed a question on my Facebook profile that prompted this piece:

If Barack Obama wasn’t able to get the things done that he wanted done because of Congress not allowing him to during his first four years, how is electing him for another four years will enable him to get things done that he wants to get done?

Liberals/Democrats constantly bring into any discussion about the lack of ‘success’ by President Obama to pass meaningful legislation beholden to leftist ideology the idea of an unwavering Republican Congress hellbent on seeing any legislation supported by the first African American president fail. That could be used to the advantage of Democrats if Romney was elected as president.

In no way am I a supporter of Republicans or Mitt Romney, but I am speaking of getting one’s agenda–particularly a left-leaning one–pushed successfully. If the goal of Democrats is to have their ideas introduced and pass successfully as law, what I write here is a surefire way to go about it. If the goal is to have a Democrat as a president, then simply electing Barack Obama and having a majority Republican House of Representatives to fight him tooth and nail is the best course of action.

Now, without a ‘villain’–Obama–to fight in the White House, the Republican Congress would certainly back almost any legislation pushed by its party head–a President Mitt Romney. Knowing Romney to be a flip-flopper, and at times supporting ‘leftist’ positions, Democrats could influence him to introduce such legislation to support liberal ideology. This would hardly be fought by the GOP in Congress, because representatives would view it as a Republican idea instead of “a Nazi Kenyan socialist government takeover” attempt. Albeit, there would be many advisers and lobbyists attempting to serve their influence, liberals could take the same approach. That is how the legislation would reach the mind of Mitt Romney to begin with. He has passed and supported such ideas in the past, so it’s not that far of a reach to say that he would, in some cases, support them today or a year from now. The debates have shown this.

Certainly, I have not gone into explicit detail about how to achieve such a feat, but the basis for accomplishment is here. What is best–a figurehead you like in power who can’t get anything done because of Congress or a figurehead you do not like in power who can have your legislation swoop through Congress in a matter of months? Of course, most of what I say will probably be written off, because most people have erred to relegating themselves to the positions of cheerleaders. Most Americans citizens who claim to be invested in the political process have chosen to join a team and believe that simply people who have that team’s designated letter and color on a letterman jacket is the best course of action for creating a better nation and society. But, what can’t be denied is Romney’s tendency to go with whatever position is ‘good’ at the time and that President Obama cannot pass ‘good’ legislation because Congress simply will place many barriers in the way and “shut that whole thing down.”

Liberals, do you want a team win or a more liberal society?

Tweet