Catching Mitt
Caught the tail end (or is that "fag" end) of Mitt Romney's speech today to the American Conservative Union on C-Span. Holy underwear, Batman! Curat Lex might be right. This guy may be just loathsome enough to get the nomination.
I've long considered the principle of "bet on evil" a good guide to sports and politics: the Yankees, the Lakers, the Cowboys, the Blue Devils, the Bushes, etc. In the race for '08, Mitt has just upped the ante. Here's his theme: victory through strength! How much V for Vendetta has he been watching, and exactly who was he rooting for? Romney declared that the "first principle" of conservatism is strength, a word he repeated over and over. He argued that conservatism was committed first and foremost to the idea that America was the world's sole superpower, and that we must be prepared to do anything and everything necessary to maintain that status against the alien hordes. His biggest ovation followed a screed against those who speak foreign languages. To call this pandering is to insult panderers. I've heard the rest of the speech was pretty juicy too. Must have been, if it immediately led neo-fascist Ann Coulter to give him her endorsement. Maybe we should call him "Schmitt" Romney.
Labels: Romney
5 Comments:
Any one else here remember that Romney's dad George was the governor of Michigan and ruined his career by claiming he had been brainwashed about Vietnam so he was reversing his support for that war? One wonders if Junior is setting himself up to repeat history. The last thing this country needs is another Oedipal mess in the White House.
Your "bet on evil" rule makes a great deal of sense to me, TMcD. A rule borne out by much experience in recent American politics.
Check out the Washington Times' front page treatment of the CPAC convention. It was practically an endorsement of Romney. He pushed all the right buttons, apparently.
I didn't know the story on Romney's dad, but that sure is interesting.
Frances, I'd add a corollary to my "bet on evil" principle for picking winners: embrace the lesser evils (as qualified goods) and disdain the moral purists. The Naders, and Bradleys, and Tsongases, and their ilk are born losers who will have little positive influence. Not as many "goody goody" candidates on the GOP side, since, well, they're the GOP. But I guess that would apply to Gary Bauer, Mike Huckabee types too.
No, it doesn't apply to Huckabee! I've learned that the reason he hasn't gotten the attention he deserves from the GOP is that he is not 100% solid on taxes, having agreed to some increases while governor of Arkansas. 100% purism on taxes is an absolute requirement in the GOP. Moral issues can be compromised before taxes can. Incidentally, a little populism on economic issues is Bauer's problem as well (in addition to no charisma or qualifications for office).
I prefer the bet on evil principle, unmodified, especially when I think of GOP nominations.
P.S. Nothing in the above post should be construed as support for any of the doomed crusades TMcD mentioned.
But I do dislike Hillary, though, and I hope we're not going to be stuck with her. It's true that she's no moral purist, but that alone doesn't recommend her. Why the Democrats would saddle themselves with her and her baggage, I'll never understand. Not to mention her total lack of charisma! Jeez, that party needs a major shake up.
Post a Comment
<< Home