[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below]
Well, well. A Tea Party Republican I know, who lives in the Midwest, added me to his email list for this commentary on Mitt Romney, published in the right-wing webzine American Thinker, warning that the GOP risks flying apart if MR is its nominee, regardless of the outcome in November. Here’s the last part of the piece
Mitt Romney, by his actions in Massachusetts both campaigning for the U.S. Senate and as Governor, has shown himself to be more than willing to compromise with the Left and the Democrats. He has proposed and passed the socialist RomneyCare policy, pro-abortion regulations, and gun control, and raised numerous taxes and fees while increasing spending dramatically. During the current campaign he refuses to call Barack Obama what he is; instead Romney refers to him as just “being over his head.”
If ever a candidate mirrored the mindset and approach of George H.W. Bush, it is Mitt Romney.
This is the last hurrah of the Republican establishment. The conservatives and libertarians will vote for Romney in November, but only because he is not Barack Obama. There will be no enthusiasm, which will hurt the down ballot contests for the U.S. Senate, the House and state governorships. Despite the factors weighing against Obama in this upcoming election, it will be a much closer contest that it should be; perhaps a razor thin victory for Romney.
If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise. If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation’s problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.
This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.
I tend to agree with this article. If Romney is the nominee, whether he wins or loses the election, it will mark the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as we know it today. There will be a major split because the economic conservatives will bolt and form a third party. I will join them.
UPDATE: The right-wing website RedState has a striking commentary by Erick Erickson on Gingrich’s victory in SC and which echoes the sentiments of my Tea Party correspondent above. The famous GOP “base” really does not like Romney. They absolutely do not want him. This is going to be interesting.
2nd UPDATE: Ann Coulter, who supports Mitt, sniffs that “South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.” She also thinks that in view of the vote on Saturday, “South Carolina is going back to its Democratic roots.” Oy vey!
3rd UPDATE: On Newt Gingrich’s asking Marianne for an “open marriage” and how this reflected traditional behavior on his part.
I agree with you Arun!
But the war will begin in less than an hour when Mitt loses big in South Carolina tonight. No candidate who lost the SC primary has gone on to win the GOP nomination.
The MSM and establishment elites in the US and France have all missed the obvious in this race.
I don’t think there will ever be a candidate Romney, let alone President Romney. Almost 70% of those on the Right want the UN-Romney because we know he us fatally flawed and could never win a Presidential election.
7:01 pm CNN & FOX just called the race for Newt… that mist likely means more than a 10% win….. a landslide!
I see their point. Romney has always been an establishment Republican and fairly moderate in his views. This is a fellow who will compromise. When I hear some of the nonsense he’s been spouting recently, I just think he’s trying to win the nomination and that he will change his tune in order to win the general election. And this will infuriate the more extreme elements of the party.
@Arun: I agree with you: If a nomination of Romney dooms the Republican party and takes the Tea Party off to form a fringe group of extremists, then I say, Go Romney!
See the commentary in the update.
If you had your ear to the ground and were in touch with real American conservatives, and 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative, not just media elites like Erickson, you would understand that Romney is not an acceptable candidate. Many would never vote for him, preferring to see a neutered Obama with a conservative congress.
Every poll and every caucus and primary tells us the same thing: voters don’t want Mitt. And his being a so-called moderate has nothing to do with it.
Look to the reason Mitt is so reluctant to release his tax returns. It has nothing to do with his tax bracket, the Cayman Islands, or the fact he is rich. Look to his “charitable” contributions of money & stock, and tax deductions for the answer.
All of those who who do not live in the US, and this who blindly follow Obama like lemmings, be careful what you wish for.
Well, as you wrote in a comment last October 15th, “We conservatives don’t want [Mitt] either, but if he is the candidate, we’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him.”
@Arun
Times have changed, and many of the things we now know about Romney were not known then. The more people see him, the less they like him. Not surprisingly, Newt is now leading in polls in Florida.
I haven’t definitively decided about November.
I knew next to nothing about the Mormons back then, and less about Romney’s role as a Bishop in the Mormon Church and his massive donations of tens of millions of dollars in cash and stock in his publicly owned companies. The more I learn, the scarier it is.
The Mormon thing is huge. Normally a person’s religion is of little interest. I have a cousin who is a run if the mill Mormon, not a high Mucky-Muck in the Mormon Church and its financial empire.
Mormonism is a deal breaker for many evangelical Christians, which is one of the reasons Romney can never win in the South.
A look at the demographics of the S. Carolina primary shows that in counties that are heavily Evangelical, Romney came in fourth. Ditto for counties in the eastern part of the state which are heavily Scots-Irish.
‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ about honor killings among Mormons in the US in 1984 is a terrifying book about the Mormons culture & belief system.
On a different note, this website and FB page have gone viral : DOGS AGAINST ROMNEY It’s really RUFF!
http://www.dogs against Romney.com/
As to your earlier point, I don’t believe that one-party government and destruction of the opposition party on either side is healthy politically in a Republic like ours.
My political allegiance is to my country, not to any political party.
I will wait for polling data to see how Romney’s Mormonism is affecting his candidacy. I think it will be similar to the racial question for Obama in the 2008 campaign. It was only a problem in the South, in states that a Democrat had no chance of winning in any case. I thought early on that race could pose a problem for Obama in PA, OH, and MI, but this turned out not to be the case. If Romney is the candidate some evangelical voters may not vote for him, but as such voters are concentrated in the South, it won’t matter, as Romney will win those states anyway. Perhaps there will be an effect in MO and CO. We’ll see.
OoOps!
The website is
DOGS AGAINST ROMNEY
http://www.dogsagainstRomney.com/
@Arun
The question of whether race was an element in 2008 is the wrong place to look, IMO.
The place to look is in the Hillary/ Obama racial and class divide in the primaries. White working class voters overwhelmingly voted fir Hillary in the states you mentioned. Had Hillary not been so arrogant, expecting her coronation, not a fight, she would not have skipped the early caucus states.
IMO there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary & Obama- both far left Saul Alinsky style radicals. The difference is style, not substance
Re Romney & the Mormons, it is a huge factor. One of the reasons he is tanking. The more one learns about Mirmonusm, and it’s all-controlling hold it has on the lives & thoughts of it’s members, the scarier it is.
Using their massive genealogy data bases to cull names to actually baptize dead people, needless to say, without their consent or that if their families. Baiting people who were slaughtered in the holocaust. The secrecy of their finances. Romney gives $2+ million to the Mormon Church every year. It isn’t charitable giving as Christians and Jews understand it. The Mormons only help their own, not at all like Catholic Charities, the UJA, or Orotestant Welfare Fund or Salvation Army.
Read up on Mormonism.
Of course, Obama and his ties to the extreme far left & the racist Black Liberation Theology & Louis Farrakkan is equally noxious, and even more dangerous.
And then again, there is the question of his record, or lack if it, his ginning up class warfare and racism in a way we have never seen.
“Fundamentally change Anerica” to his very UN-American views? Nit on my watch!
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/why-evangelicals-dont-like-mormons/?ref=opinion
CCinna
“ll of those who who do not live in the US, and this who blindly follow Obama like lemmings, be careful what you wish for.”
I think you have some erroneous assumptions about Americans abroad that I’d like to clarify. I’ve encountered many Americans in the home country who assume that the overseas military vote goes Republican and the civilian American emigrant vote goes Democrat. Nothing could be farther from the truth – both parties are well represented wherever large numbers of American congregate. As for this election I am wondering if Obama might do very well among overseas military voters. It’s the civilians abroad who may vote against him because of the recent IRS witchhunt against Americans abroad. Obama may be well-liked but when people are faced with losing their retirements savings and the closure of their local bank accounts that does tend to hit home, doesn’t it?
Just an interest historical fact to finish – back in the days of President Ford there was a bill up for signature that would extend the vote to overseas Americans. Ford wasn’t that keen on it until Barry Goldwater called him up, told him he was a fool and explained that there were more Republican voters in Paris or London than there were in Detroit. Ford signed and that is why overseas Americans (all 6 million of us) have the vote today. I hope we use it wisely in the next election, 🙂
@Victoria: While I agree that Americans abroad are of all political persuasions, I would disagree with you about them all being people who will only vote their own self interest. I understand the enormous anger you (and many others) feel about the new tax laws, but there are also many of us who have never voted on that kind of issue.
I too wish that the Obama had not signed the tax laws. I actually wish that Obama hadn’t done many things that he’s done (that I consider far worse than the tax law…see my other comments to this and other posts). But in the end, a vote against Obama is a vote for someone who is too terrible to contemplate as the President of the United States.
As you say, it is impossible for anyone to speak for the large number of Americans who live abroad. Some may well take your part and consider the tax law so terrible that it makes it impossible to vote for Obama. Others may well take my part and consider the alternatives to Obama no alternative at all.
It looks like CCinna removed her comment. I think it is indeed the case that are as many GOP voters living overseas as Democrats, if not more (at least until the GOP started lurching rightward). E.g. FWIW, until the ’90s the election eve straw poll at Harry’s Bar in Paris was invariably won by the Republican candidate. I doubt overseas voters will go against Obama this year on account of FATCA. Most voters – and especially those who are educated – are not driven by single issues and this is, in any case, not an Obama issue. He did not openly advocate FATCA. He simply signed a bill passed by Congress and which he had no reason not to sign, as he was no doubt not effectively lobbied no to do so and certainly had no idea as to its perverse effects. A Republican president would have done likewise.
@dojero – I should clarify – I am honestly not sure who to vote for this year. As you say it’s not one issue but many that need to be considered. One thing, quite honestly, that sends chills up my spine was the killing of an American citizen abroad without due process. I just about hit the floor when a very progressive friend of mine in Seattle told me that “it was OK because he was a terrorist.” And I have to ask myself, is there a sane person (Left or Right) still standing in the U.S. or have the lunies taken over the asylum?
@Arun – I do understand that – neither Congress or Obama had any clue about the impact of FATCA. Most politicians, whatever country they represent, focus very much on local issues and don’t overly concern themselves over how those laws interact with the laws of other nations and how they impact a country’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. A great recent example in France is the Circulaire Gueant – the poor man seemed genuinely surprised at the international uproar over this policy. Surprise, your name, sir, is now known around the globe but not in a way that makes people want to have you over for dinner.
I must confess that I am thinking about throwing in the towel. I have an opportunity, if I receive French citizenship, to relinquish (not renounce) my American citizenship. I’ve been very much influenced by the writings of Peter Spiro and I think that he may be right – someone who has lived abroad as long as I have and who has no real strong ties left to the US simply doesn’t need an American passport. Would probably make the French happier too. 🙂
@Victoria: I don’t know what the difference is between relinquishing and renouncing citizenship. It’s the same thing, no? I also don’t know why you would want to give up US citizenship, given that you’re an Américaine de souche. Citizenship is about more than a passport. When I tell Americans that I’m a French citizen – acquiring French nationality par déclaration in 2005 – I make it clear that I remain an American and would have never taken out French nationality if it had entailed renouncing my American citizenship, as citizenship is also about identity, where one is from and is all about culturally. And for all the years I’ve lived in France and become acculturated into this place, I remain culturally American (and of course have many ties there, which I imagine you do too). Renouncing one’s citizenship is no small matter. It is a symbolic – and often concrete – tearing out of a part of one’s identity. It is not par hasard that countries that oblige candidates for naturalization to renounce their citizenship of origins – e.g. Germany – have relatively low rates of naturalization. Likewise for Mexicans in the US until the late 1990s, who lost their Mexican citizenship when taking that of another country. When Mexico changed its law and authorized dual nationality, the floodgates opened in the US, with many Mexicans requesting US citizenship. I am personally convinced that my father, who was obliged by Indian law to surrender his passport when he naturalized as an American in the early ’60s, was deeply affected by this symbolic loss and through his life (he never talked about it but I felt it). I am quite sure that the majority of Americans who renounce their citizenship – and their numbers are not great – end up regretting it, not only for concrete reasons – of no longer being able to live or work in the US and having to enter as a foreigner and not as a matter of right – but also for personal identity reasons.
I tell Americans – mainly my students – that no one in their right mind gives up US citizenship. As for matters like FATCA and the predatory behavior of the US government toward its citizens abroad, this is politics and which can find a resolution though collective action. FATCA is so outrageous that it will surely be revised and/or watered down. But even if you were to relinquish your US citizenship because of this, the IRS would still hit you up with a confiscatory exit tax. Better just to fight it until victory.
Thank you, Arun, for the very thoughtful response. I will try to be equally thoughtful in my reply. The context has changed dramatically and I’ll try to give you a recap of some of the arguments I’m hearing and the information I’ve gathered that I find very compelling as I dive into this subject.
1. There is a world of difference between renouncing and relinquishing. The former is complex, takes time and costs money. The latter is not as well known but it is very simple and costs nothing. At this time you can be a dual US/Other citizen provided that, even though you commit an expatriating act (like being naturalized in another nation-state), you have no intention of giving up your American citizenship. Well, what if that *is* your intention? Yes, you can do this. All you have to do in this case is inform the State department that you have become the citizen of another state with the *intention* of relinquishing your American citizenship. And you’re done. Yes, you still have be OK with the IRS (I am) but you don’t pay any fees or have to go through any interviews. The State department simply mails you a CLN (certificate of loss of nationality).
2. We never used to know much about renunciation because generally people who did it, didn’t talk about it publicly. That has changed. There are entire forums devoted to this subject (Isaac Brock is just one among many) and people are talking about it openly. More importantly they are giving each other moral support and comfort as people wrestle with this decision. For the first time we are hearing from people who gave up their US citizenship in 1973, for example, and have no regrets. People describing the day they took an oath to their new adopted state and how moved they were and how happy they are today to be Canadians or Italians. People explaining how the sky didn’t fall in when they gave up US citizenship – they still have family and friends in the US and they still visit often. Many are still great admirers of America and that brings us to point 3
3. What I hear is that people who are considering relinquishing or renouncing is that they make a distinction between severing one’s ties to the US government (the state) while still maintaining one’s love and admiration for the nation. If you were born in the US and are culturally American then you will always be, on some level, an American and that is separate, in these people’s eyes, from being a U.S. citizen. I suspect that this argument is gaining ground because of the increasing contempt Americans have (both on the Left and Right) for the US government. If this idea gains traction (and I think it is) I think a lot of Americans in the homeland will understand this and take a softer view of those who renounce.
That is the way the winds seem to be blowing these days. It should be noted as well that the US government statistics about renunciations seem to be questionable at best. There are people coming out of the woodwork who did renounce and their names never appeared anywhere which they found very amusing. :-).
Victoria, sorry for not responding sooner to your very interesting comments. I have a few of myself on what you’ve written. First, the difference between renouncing and relinquishing is still not clear to me, particularly as it affects one’s relationship with the IRS. Secondly, what you say about the spike in citizenship renunciations is new to me. This is an important subject and merits attention by the mainstream press (e.g. the NYT and/or other high-profile media organs should get on the story). I’d be interested in seeing a profile of these now ex-American citizens, to know if they’re Américains de souche who acquired another citizenship via naturalization, Americans who were born dual-national (and therefore maybe bi-cultural), or naturalized Americans who then had second thoughts. Third, when you talk about “mak[ing] a distinction between severing one’s ties to the US government (the state) while still maintaining one’s love and admiration for the nation,” you’re differentiating the state from the nation. But citizenship is more than allegiance to a state; it is also intimately bound up with nationality, of a sentiment of belonging to a national community. I think that many Americans who renounce their citizenship ultimately come to this realization (though this an empirical question that would have to be substantiated; voilà a good study for sociologists).
But if the US government adopts an arbitrary and predatory attitude toward a category of its citizens – in this case, those living abroad – and who lack the political means to have their interests represented, then it is putting them in a difficult, if not impossible, situation and where the act of renouncing citizenship may in effect be the only way out.
Thanks very much for the reply, Arun. Those are good questions and I’ll try to answer as best I can. Concerning renouncing versus relinquishing, Peter Dunn has done the research (and just actually did relinquish) and he wrote about it here. This post is quite popular: http://isaacbrocksociety.com/2011/12/12/relinquish-dont-renounce-if-you-can/
In 2011 there were over 1,700 renunciants. Even during the worst of the George Bush era there were never this many. What is worrisome is that the tend is up – 2010 numbers were high as well. We also know that these numbers are not entirely accurate – there are people coming forward who say that they did renounce but their names did not appear on the list. The New York Times did pick up the story, I think, but it was buried in the back pages. The most coverage I’ve seen comes from mostly right-wing blogs that are using the numbers and trying to tie them to Obama. My personal view is that many people are lurking and gathering information before they make a decision – if nothing moves and it doesn’t look like the Obama administration is willing to do anything to reassure them, I think 2012 is going to be a BIG year for renunciations. Remember FATCA is coming on-line 2013/2014.
Who are these people? There is a researcher in Belgium who is conducting a survey and she is trying to figure that out. Have a look. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Americans_overseas. Not sure when she will release the results but should be interesting. The questions are quite good.
Based on the people I’ve talked to here are two situations that are quite common but were apparently unknown to the U.S. government:
Native-born Americans who are duals or who thought they had already lost their citizenship. This is a fascinating group. There was a mass movement Americans to Canada during the Vietnam war era. Many became naturalized Canadians and at that time losing your American citizenship was automatic. These folks are now having to prove to the US gov that they are no longer US citizens and haven’t been for 30-40 years. These folks are pretty upset.
In Canada and all over the planet are native-born Americans who became duals once the State department changed its rules around 1990 or who are long-term residents of other states. The vast majority were unaware that they were supposed to filing FBAR’s or tax returns and are facing fines of 50,000 USD or more simply for not filing the FBAR form. The people who are the most afraid are those who are in or close to retirement. They have assets – houses, retirements savings and so on. Let me be very clear – these people are not crazy or paranoid. This is actually happening. One fellow who woke up, joined one of the IRS “Amnesty” programs in order to get compliant, was finally handed a bill by the US IRS for 172,000 USD of which 150,000 USD was simply fines for not filing the forms (not taxes). ACA reported on another American woman in Germany who saw her entire retirement savings wiped out for the same reason. The latest news is that they were able to get those fines reduced but only after spending years fighting and paying very expensive tax attorneys in order to defend themselves. This is why people are not coming forward to get compliant. I ask you – would you be willing to put everything you’ve saved over the years, your house, the ability to send your kids to college and your retirement at risk? Or would you be looking for a way out?
Another group that is in a world of hurt (and I know because I belong here) are those married to foreign nationals. Our spouses were not aware that by marrying an American that they were going to fall under the direct influence of the US government. To fill out an FBAR, for example, an American must list all the joint accounts (new form will include joint assets) which means that the foreign spouse’s information is being sent to the US government. Some spouses are refusing which means that the American must either defy his/her spouse or not file at all. Some spouses are OK with the filing but feel at risk because of the potential for draconian fines and the cost of compliance. Others are in fear that their joint accounts with their American spouses will be closed by the local bank because of FATCA. The result is that foreign spouses are putting enormous pressure on their American wives and husbands to give up their US citizenship. I ask you – if your spouse of 20-30 years said to you that it was a choice between your American citizenship or your marriage, what would you do?
I’ll stop there since this post is getting quite long. I have not, for example, even touched the “Accidental Americans” (a diplomatic disaster in the making) or the Green Card holders who have an equally difficult situation. This is getting deadly serious. People are scared ****less of their government right now. I know people who are canceling trips back to the US to see family because they don’t want to go anywhere near the border right now. Others are afraid to call the US embassy or get passports renewed. A woman left a message on my blog saying that she is deliberately NOT going to get US citizenship for her grandchildren.
I have no idea what it will take to get people in the US to wake up but either the US government resigns itself to losing citizens in large numbers or it gets its act together to provide these people some reassurance and relief. However, even I am starting to lose any hope that it will.
@Victoria: The stories you recount here are terrifying. I had no idea the IRS was hitting overseas Americans with these confiscatory fines. Two years ago I decided to regularize my own situation with the IRS, as I hadn’t filed in a long time. I worked with a couple of agents by phone. At no point were they menacing in anything they said. They assured me that it was very common for overseas Americans not to know about the law and that many were not in compliance due to lack of information. When I asked – and more than once – if I would be fined, they said that if I didn’t actually owe taxes, the answer was no. I had to fill out 1040s for the previous five years, plus the 2555s. When one mentioned FBAR, I said that I hadn’t heard of it. So the agent asked me fill out FBARs for the previous five years and send copies of all my bank statements from that period, which I did. Once all was said and done, my situation with the IRS was regularized and I was not assessed a fine. Now I admittedly do not have a six-figure salary or complex assets, and am not a signatory on my wife’s account (if I had had to report that and send her statements, there would have been a problem, as she would have refused). At no point did I bring up with the IRS agents the unfairness – indeed outrageousness – of the US law requiring its overseas citizens to report overseas income to them in the first place – let alone pay taxes on it -, as it wasn’t their problem; they’re just agents doing their job.
In any case, this whole thing is so manifestly unacceptable – and such a brazen extraterritorialization of US law and violation of other countries’ sovereignty – that it cannot stand. If you and others form a lobbying group here and meet with representatives of the French state and EU, let me know. I’ll participate.
Yes, it is pretty horrifying. I agree that the IRS agents themselves are perfectly nice folks and are just doing their jobs. It is Congress and Obama who define their job and the rules. To your previous comment about how Obama did not (does not know) consider this quotation from a recent Treasury Department press release:
“When taxpayers overseas avoid paying what they owe, other Americans have to bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden,” Emily McMahon, the Treasury’s acting assistant secretary for tax policy, said in the press release. “FATCA is an important part of the U.S. government’s effort to address that issue and these regulations implement FATCA in a way that is targeted and efficient.”
So this is not an error or a misunderstanding. They are out to collect revenue from overseas Americans who already pay taxes in their country of residence and who use NO services in the U.S. Interestingly enough they are not going after the 50% of Americans in the Homeland who pay no taxes at all. Apparently the very fact that we live in France, for example, means that we can pay (and should). I’m actually not against the idea (I owed and paid last year – capital gains on a small apartment I sold in Toulouse) what I cannot tolerate are the draconian fines for honest mistakes and the sheer cost of compliance. Even when you are doing something very simple, the rules are complex and usually require professional help. I know because this is what I had to do last year and will do again last year. I’m beginning to reach the limits of my tolerance here. And others are as well. The Director of the Swiss/American Chamber of Commerce said «les binationaux dont le passeport américain n’a pas de vraie utilité seraient bien avisés de le rendre, car cela coûte simplement trop cher de le garder.” Article is here: http://www.hebdo.ch/pourchasses_des_americains_rendent_leur_passeport_146769_.html
Now here is the deal. Let’s say many of us take that advice. The result will be that other Americans overseas will be in an even worse position with even less influence. For the Americans in the homeland their citizenship will be devalued – nothing “exceptional” about a country that people are desperate to leave in large numbers. The biggest fear of many is that Congress will sit up, take notice, and make it even harder for people to renounce (right now the exit tax is only for the very rich). So the message is starting to be – get out while you still can. It is starting to be a very compelling message. I’m listening and I’m someone who has preciously kept her US citizenship over nearly 20 years of living abroad. Isaac Brock now has in a little over 2 months of activity 121, 000 hits and they are running at about 6,500 a day.
@Victoria: Isaac Brock needs to launch a major publicity campaign in the US, with op-eds in the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall St Journal. High profile journalists from opinion weeklies like TNR and the Weekly Standard – which are read in Washington – need to get on the story. Issac Brock needs an aggressively proactive strategy to inform the American public. If you hadn’t informed me about FATCA, I likely would not know about it today, and I’m directly affected. So what does one expect from Americans stateside?…
Arun, I’m working on it and trying to get some professional help here. The situation is quite complex and all the actors in this have very different objectives and strategies. I’ve immersed myself in trying to understand everyone’s position and how people are developing strategies to cope. I’d love to talk with you about it further and get your take on it but not in a public forum. If you would like to continue talking about it my email is v_ferauge@yahoo.com. (yes, that’s an underscore between v and ferauge)