Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Romney for President. Sigh.

Or: Lowering Your Expectations Makes American Politics Almost Bearable!

I've made no secret about my disregard for one Willard Mitt Romney, former Governor of the Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts. He wasn't even my fifth choice in this cycle, and his record is in many respects indistinguishable from that of the President.

Including on the central issue of religious freedom. Yeah, Mitt's a bit of a giant liar on his record in Massachusetts.

But/However/Nonetheless Alert: He has promised in no uncertain terms to shred the HHS Mandate. Ditto his Catholic wingman, who made a big deal of it during the Veep debate.

Why do I believe Romney? Because it takes no political courage to shred it--it costs him nothing with any other constituency that's supporting him to do so. But it will needlessly alienate social conservatives if he doesn't. Being that Mitt's not remotely stupid, he'll do what he says on this one.

In other words, Bonchamps is right, and after much grim wrangling with the issue, that's enough for me. I want someone who will take the boot off the Church's throat, and hand it back to the Left. With the foot still in it.

"Here you go. Don't do that again, champ."

If the only guy who will do it is Romney, then that's the sway-backed, spavined rhino I have to back.

Oh, and there is a second reason: we'll have a free press of sorts again. For the worst, most self-serving and wholly cynical of reasons, but a free press. Of sorts. But that beats the hell out of the palace guard/fanzine media we have now.

9 comments:

  1. It sucks but it is what it is...because a second Obama term would be unbelievably scary. I know I'm not going to happy with what he attempts to do between November and January, should he lose...

    ReplyDelete
  2. The best reason to vote for Romney: President Barack Obama, the man who gives James Buchanan a running for the title of Worst President of these United States.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad to have you back, Dale. Generally only a lurker, but I do love your blog.

    If I lived in a less sure-fire, going Republican state, I might be persuaded to vote Romney as the ever-so-slightly less horrible choice. However, I live in Kansas, and will register my vote as a protest against both major parties.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, MaryMargaret!

    Oh, and please let me be clear for MM (and others who think similarly): I respect the heck out of someone who can't pull the lever for R-money and goes for Goode or someone else.

    The moral calculus on this one is very, very difficult, and I'm not going to browbeat someone who comes to a different conclusion.

    Even if Romney wins, this could very likely be the last vote I cast for a GOP presidential candidate. He's likely to have a unwholesome effect on the direction of the party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even if Romney wins, this could very likely be the last vote I cast for a GOP presidential candidate. He's likely to have a unwholesome effect on the direction of the party.

    Well, in the post-Eisenhower era, the Republican donor base and electorate have served up the following results:

    1. Political opportunists (1960, 1968, 1972, 1988, 1992, 2012)

    2. Capitol Hill fixtures (1976, 1996, 2008)

    3. And (in 2000 and 2004) a political scion who could keep commitments but whose motor seems to have been sheer competitiveness ("the most competitive man I have ever met" quoth Karl Rove). You recall his principal domestic policy initiatives: an additional increment to the socialization of medical expenses and a revamped program of federal aid to primary and secondary schooling.

    Somehow I doubt that Mr. Romney will have more than an incrementally disagreeable effect.

    --

    Did I mention Mr. Goldwater? At the end of the day, he was bad on social questions. Then there was Mr. Reagan. It is quite agreeable to have a President who is in politics for one reason: to push his issues. It is not so agreeable to have as a President a man who cannot cognitively process the incompatibility between the various goals he maintained. It was during Mr. Reagan's tenure that the top echelon of the Republican Party got real bad at math. That actually is an unwholesome legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is, IMNSHO, an EXCELLENT basis for state authority.

    Since that's not an option this year, I'll do what I feel I must.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Insightful, Dale.

    I'm having a really hard time with his foreign policy. Not that it can be much worse than killing 16 year American citizens via drone strikes, but I fear his own perceived lack of fear about intervening in Iran.

    I envy MaryMargaret. As a Floridian, I have a choice to make.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not that it can be much worse than killing 16 year American citizens via drone strikes, but I fear his own perceived lack of fear about intervening in Iran.

    Terry, your statement is functionally pacifist. Any politician who has to make actual decisions about foreign relations is bound to disappoint you. Suggest you move to Costa Rica to avoid that problem. (I take it the specter of Tel Aviv in ruins does not cause you any fear).

    ReplyDelete