Daily Archives: November 5, 2012
One More Romney Endorsement
I will try to make it (rather) snappy.
I don’t like Romney. I don’t like him, I don’t trust him, and I think he is a weak candidate who will be – for a Republican – an even weaker President.
I think that he will, like Cameron, do whatever he can do to shift to the left (socially, rather than in what concerns the economy) from the very day he is elected. I do not think he has a political spine, or morals, going beyond his own electoral interest.
I think that if he wins, we (as in: the Western world) will be stuck with Cameron’s smarter and richer cousin for the next eight years.
Finally, I think that if the conservative voters succumb to the logic of the lesser evil, they will in all eternity be stuck with candidates who are just a tad less evil than their democratic opponent; because if this is the logic, where will it stop? One will apply this reasoning every time and will vote for the candidate just a bit less evil, every time…
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Still, if I lived in the United States I would, after a rather tormented reflection, vote for Romney.
The reason for this is that, upon reflection, I think that this 2012 election might, in fact, be rather unique. The unprecedented attack on religious freedom perpetrated by the Obama troops is not likely to be repeated, particularly if he loses, then the unavoidable awakening of the Church would make such a game more dangerous in four and even more in eight years’ time. This is, I think, the moment of greatest emergency, and one which might not be seen again for a long time.
Mind, I have no illusion Romney will make every effort to deliver as little as he can. He’ll start to repeal Obamacare as little as he can get away with, push for economic reforms as little as he can get away with, protect “civil partnerships” (and, if the occasion is given, so-called “gay marriage”) as much as he can, from day one. He will do this and much more than this because, like every flip-flopper, he does not see principles, but votes. If he is elected, his march toward the Democratic electorate will begin on Wednesday. I have seen all this happening with Cameron, and I assure you it is not a pretty sight. Cameron is, admittedly, more liberal than Romney, but so is the country at large: the way of thinking and the art they will operate once in power is, I think, the same.
Still, there is no denying that even a flip-flopping Romney will have great difficulties in getting much nearer to the Democratic positions, and in the end I’d prefer to have one scared of conservatives in power than one not caring two straws, because he does not even have to be reelected.
Also, the advantage with the flip-floppers is that they can, well, “flop” as well as “flip”: scare them enough into a socially conservative politics and this is what they will deliver, as once again our now serially humiliated Prime Minister is slowly trying to do (too late, I am not afraid…). If the election of a tepid centrist in love with electoral consensus like Romney is strengthened and sharpened by a vocally conservative electorate, you’ll see him with his nose on the trail like a good old hound, and like a good hound he won’t miss the trail.
And then, there is all the rest: from the economy to Israel to the defense forces. All things which would not persuade me to vote for him if he actively promoted intrinsic evil; but hey, he doesn’t do it (very vocally) yet, and Obama does it every day, without any shame, and gagging for more when he is free from the pressure of re-election. I have not yet heard Romney take a hard stance against, say, homosexuality; but hey, for a flip-flopper it’s par for the course.
The other one, though, reminds me rather of the Antichrist. At that point, even I would choose the flip-flopping Mormon.
Therefore, my – rather hard – decision is that it does make sense to vote for Romney; that the probable burying of a suitable candidate for the next eight years might be a price worth paying to kick out the rather satanic tool in power now; and that in the end this is one of those occasions where one can at least pick tomorrow’s enemy; and if this is so, he should do it wisely.
This is why, if I were an American Citizen, I would still vote for Romney on Tuesday.
Mundabor
Share this:
The HHS Mandate Cartoon Reblog
Share this:
The “gay president” reblog
After 2000+ years, Christianity is in need of a remake, our hero must have thought. Why not introduce a Chris 2.0 version then, full of PC applets for the gullible.
Here it is:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should…
View original post 493 more words
Share this:
The (real) “war on women” reblog
And so the PRENDA, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which would have made it illegal to kill a baby in the womb because of his gender, has failed to get the necessary 2/3 majority.
Planned Parenthood was obviously opposed to the bill: they plainly admit to proceed to gendercide (“Good morning Mr Chang. Your wife is expecting a girl? Bad, uh? Don’t worry, we’ll deal with the problem”) and clearly would not want to have any abortion banned, for any reason. The health of the girl is clearly at stake… erm…
Still, the bill was also opposed by the President, who was in this occasion not concerned about the “war on women”, but on the way of protecting the doctors who fail to see the intent behind the abortion.
I gather from this the President is concerned about the women who have already been born or who, more specifically…
View original post 64 more words
Share this:
The Michelle Obama Pre-Election Day Reblog
An old letter has resurfaced, in which the worst first lady ever takes a stance on child killing that would make Heinrich Himmler shiver.
You can read the letter here. Please note the woman (“lady” is, I am afraid, too much) does not even accepts the use of the words “partial birth”, which she evidently considers too politically incorrect as it reminds one that someone is being born, and there is a life at stake. Birth is clearly not a worry here; “legitimate medical procedure” is the expression of choice. With this reasoning, if the law allowed for old people to be smashed to trees like new-born kittens, this would be a “legitimate medical procedure” to her.
As the concept of “birth” must be kept away from the reader’s mind, the woman prefers to use the words “so-called partial birth abortion”. Not really a birth, then. An unwanted…
View original post 203 more words
Mundabor's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.