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 canHe’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.



Posted on November 5, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. awkwardcustomer

    Who is more likely to give USA backing to an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities – Obama or Romney?

    • I do hope Romney would order the attack himself rather than leave the Israeli to do it for them. Obama would probably choose your solution, or more probably would be put from the Israeli in front of the fait accompli.


  2. Let us all hope and PRAY that Romney wins so you are able to see that he is a GOOD leader and a great businessman……and actually a wonderful caring HUMAN BEING!

    • Let us hope, Elizabeth, and I do think he’ll win comfortably (but don’t listen to me, I have been wrong in the past).

      I do think you’ll be disappointed, though… 😉


  3. Mundabor,
    I agree with your reasoning about Romney and Obama. If I were an American I would vote against Obama, that is “for Romney”. After a possible victory one would have to hope for strong pressure from the conservative base of the GOP to keep Romney at least somewhat in line.

    Regarding the outcome, I will go out on the same limb I went out on a few months ago: Romney will suffer a catastrophic loss for three main reasons:
    (1) Obama’s base will turn out strongly for their false godling. The “47 percent” will be at the polls and they will support anyone who promises to give them more free stuff. The same goes for the culturally leftist, feminist, pro-abortion base, even though Romney has embraced much of their anti-Christian philosophy throughout his political life and also during the current campaign.
    (2) Romney’s base will not turn out strongly, because Romney has done nothing to galvanize them. He campaigned as a bland moderate (which, for him, is already a turn to the right). Bush won Ohio, the critical swing state, in 2004 on the back of a record-breaking turnout in evangelical, rural parts of the state. They turned out for a president who was one of them, recognizably Christian, and pro-life. They turned out for a state marriage amendment that was on the ballot in Ohio in 2004. All this will not happen again. Because of anti-Obama sentiment, Romney will get a good conservative turnout, but not a great one – and he needs a great turnout on election day to overcome Obama’s early voting advantage and his large vote margins in the big cities.
    (3) America has continued its cultural and demographic leftward slide since 2004. There are more blacks, hispanics, single women, college women and so on today than eight years ago. Cultural leftism has become the majority faith of America. The culture is getting away from conservative Republicans. Their base continues to shrink – the Democratic cultural base continues to expand. This has made Colorado and Virginia into left-leaning states and North Carolina into a toss-up (they were safe Bush-states in 2004). Because of this, Nevada and New Mexico are solidly pro-Obama (Bush won them both in 2004). To overcome the growing leftist majority among the voting-age population, an extremely strong conservative base turnout is needed, but Romney is unable to deliver it.

    My prediction:
    Romney will hold all states McCain won in 2008. That is, he will perform better than I thought three months ago – he will not lose Georgia, Montana and Arizona. Anti-Obama sentiment is too strong for the base to stay home completely. Romney will win Utah by a record-breaking margin.
    Compared to 2008, Romney will improve on McCain by winning Indiana solidly and North Carolina by one point. Florida will be very close, but in the end, Obama will have the slimmest of victories. Obama will carry all other swing states he won in 2008 (Virginia by 3, Colorado by 4, New Hampshire by 2, Iowa by 4, Nevada by 7, Ohio by 4, Pennsylvania by 6, Wisconsin by 4, Minnesota by 10, Michigan by 8 and New Mexico by 12). This gets Obama to 332 electoral votes, and Romney to 206.
    Obama will win the (meaningless) popular vote 51-48.
    Of course, I have been wrong before, too.

    • Very interesting observations as always, Catocon. My take on them is as follows:

      1) I do not believe the 47% want to scroung, and will vote. Many want to be in employment again, and many will not go to vote (lazy and apathetic people tend to be apathetic even when it is about their own immediate profit). It seems to be Obama is struggling to motivate his own “clients”, certainly more than 4 years ago but probably more than Kerry did.
      2) I fully agree, Romney didn’t ignite the conservative imagination: how could he?! Even I would have been tempted to tell him go frock himself… Still, in the end I would have voted Romney, and in the end I think many others will. I am reading many reports of the evangelicals having done a huge work on the ground particularly in states like Ohio. Romney is, God knows, no Bush, but I think it will be more than enough anyway.
      3) Well, we’ll see. In 2010 Obama and his took a big pounding, and it looks like it’s going to get worse. In my eyes, a truly conservative candidate (a Perry, a Gingrich) would have fired “deep America” up as Romney never could, but he might catch some “moderate Democrats” uncomfortable with Obama’s extreme ideas in matter of pretty much everything.

      Again, we shall see.

      I will stay up during all the night (or sleep a bit before midnight if I can), so I will see the drama as it unfolds…


    • Heavens, Catocon,

      I am checking now your prediction and your numbers are uncannily accurate!

      Where I still disagree is in the fact that this be a catastrophic defeat. In the end, the country is split in two and Romney has lost for a fairly thin margin; as I speak even Florida has not been lost yet.

      The election result looks to me more like a failed occasion, with an uninspiring candidate unable to mobilise sufficiently the conservative electorate, than the unavoidable result of demographic shifts or social changes. He was better than McCain, but not as good as Bush; which tells me – though it is easy to say so – Perry would have carried the day. But no, you make a couple of faux pas on TV and suddenly you are not a suitable candidate for the Republicans anymore. This is the result.

      In the end, I think it is men who make social changes and shift the electorate, who catch their imagination or let them stay home. Romney was another tentative to win the White House without having the guts to be authentically Republican. Much as I dislike the perspective of having Obama further four years in power, I’d say the GOP deserves to lose as long as they keep stubbornly supporting the wrong candidate.

      In 1976, Carter won fairly easily. Only four years later, he was crushed. I’d say it’s men who make history, not demographics. Romney wasn’t one of those men who make history, because the Republicans have not had the gut to run the risk of selecting a bravely conservative candidate.

      At least there is one good thing: the next election will not have the specter of Romney spending gazillions to become the Republican candidate. Perhaps the GOP will wake up.


  4. Mundabor,
    men make social changes and shift the electorate, indeed. I completely agree. There is no such thing as an impersonal, irresistible force driving mankind. Therefore we will find men making social changes at the root of every shift in the electorate, including the current one mentioned in my previous comment. Sometimes there will be demographics-defeating charismatic personalities like Ronald Reagan. They are rare, but they exist and are able to overperform expectations based on demographics alone.

    But there are two types of men who drive electoral shifts: Those who do it based on their personal charisma, like Reagan, and those who do it by introducing policies aimed at changing the electorate of the next generation. Either you win by playing very well, or you win by shifting the playing-field in your favor. Reagan did the first; FDR and Johnson did the second. The “New Deal”, Social Security, Civil Rights legislation, including reverse racism (Affirmative Action), the Immigration Act of 1965, the Great Society, Medicare and so on – all of them have one thing in common: They helped remaking the electorate. These changes were indeed driven by men; they are not impersonal forces impressing upon a free people. Often, these changes were opposed by a majority upon introduction. But they were never repealed, and, over the years, shifted the playing field ever more to the left. (By the way, this is why the collective-bargaining reforms Walker pushed through in Wisconsin, will be, if they continue to stand, the most significant legislative accomplishment by Republicans in this decade. They will change the very structure of the state electorate to the right.)

    Those who enacted these key laws (and a few others) thereby drove the very demographic changes now putting many states out of reach for a “normal” Republican. Because of legal abortion, contraception, no-fault divorce (signed into law first by a certain Governor of California named Ronald Reagan…) we now have a social structure favoring the kind of single woman that almost always votes for leftism. Because of open-border immigration laws (and amnesty, signed by a certain President named Ronald Reagan…) we now have a rapidly growing hispanic population that votes three-to-one for leftism. The racial grievance industry of political correctness, created by men who transformed the Civil Rights movement into a movement for reverse racism, created the lockstep-leftism of black voters. The list could be endlessly extended. It is the government electing a new people. It is the strategy of “fundamentally transforming” the country (to quote Obama himself). If you want to transform a country, you have to transform the people. Democrats have been working on it for at least a century, as have leftists all over the world. They can use every crisis. They come to power – it does not matter how – and “never let a crisis go to waste” (Rahm Emanuel) to enact fundamental transformation of the host country.

    Republicans – and conservatives – do not tend do this. Reagan was the best president of the United States at least since Calvin Coolidge. He is fondly remembered even by many Democrats today. But he did not fundamentally transform the playing field of American politics. He won a couple of landslide victories based on his personal charisma and his ability to connect and communicate with voters. But this personal effect could not be replicated. It did not change the fundamental demographic realities. He did not even attempt to change them.

    Of course, there may well be another Reagan out there, able to overcome all this by virtue of his personal ability. A very good football team will usually defeat a mediocre one even playing uphill. But between two equally good teams, the one running uphill will lose, every time. The demographic playing field for a conservative is not level anymore. It is becoming steeper and steeper every year, because of demographic changes that were, of course, started and facilitated by men.

    The margin of Obama’s victory is not catastrophic in itself. But it marks the first time an American President has been elected on an openly hard-left, anti-Christian agenda of cultural transformation. In 2008, he campaigned as a post-partisan uniter. This time, Obama did not even attempt to shore up the broad center. He did not appeal to centrists. He attempted to win – however narrowly – based on the strength of his leftism alone – and he succeeded.
    There is now a leftist majority in America – admittedly a slim one, and one that could still be overcome by an extraordinarily gifted candidate like Reagan, but it is growing a little bit every year.

    • I am not entirely sure all these shifts are intentionally made to start a decade-long process, Catocon. Some of them are, certainly; others are probably more a reaction to contingent circumstances, whose long-term consequences have not been imagined or fully reflected upon. I doubt Reagan wanted to destroy families in the long term, or the Italian legislators de-criminalising sodomy have “gay marriages”. But certainly things aren’t properly refecled at times, and the warning crimes of a minority dismissed as scare-mongering.

      I also think the democratic change relativises itself: for example, as the Italian community in the US became more established they became less Democratic, and now that the WASP component is in decline I doubt those of Italian descent are seen as “minority” anymore, simply “Whites” or “Caucasians”. I think the same will happen with the Latino community, because the dividing line between “conservatives” and “progressives” has an awful lot to do with age, income and social status.

      I do not even see a leftist majority in America: not a big one, and not a small one. The House in the hand of conservatives, some of them so brutally conservatives they would not have stood a chance in 1976, and even the Senate is now more conservative in this respect. What I think has happened is that an available conservative majority (at least economically and politically) has refused to follow Romney, and has preferred to back their own Congressional candidates instead.


  5. Mundabor,
    certainly not all those shifts are initiated intentionally. Im quite sure Reagan did not intend to destroy the American Majority and replace it with a social-democrat Mexican-Swedish one. I’m less certain in the other cases. Democrats knew even in the time of Johnson that more immigrants meant more votes for them – especially if they could be prevented from assimilating. Thinking the same way, immigration restrictions were loosened all over the West. a And so was born multiculturalism. Now immigrants were to celebrate their own culture, and Americans were told to celebrate diversity instead of unity and patriotism. Wasn’t this done in order to prevent the shifts from “relativizing” themselves, as you call it?

    Moreover, if you have a sufficient number of immigrants, they change the culture of a host country faster than the culture changes them, even in the best of times. All of this also requires that the immigrants actually want to become real Americans – the Italians certainly did, they were as patriotic as anyone else. But what about the hispanic immigrants booing the American National Anthem in Los Angeles? What about hispanic organizations like La Raza actively pursuing a policy of basically taking back those south-western parts of America that belonged to Mexico in the past? Are they trying to become Americans? Or are they trying to de-Americanize America?

    Regarding the leftist majority:
    Obama was re-elected. He won an election against a relatively weak candidate, sure, but he won it in uniquely unfavorable circumstances. For example, no President ever before in the history of the US was re-elected in an economic climate as bad as today. He actually lost independent voters – he did not need them because of his new leftist majority.
    Democrats actually extended their Senate majority by two seats – they won two seats they did not even win in 2006, a year previously thought of as a Democratic wave election!
    Anti-marriage initiatives prevailed wherever they were on the ballot.
    Minnesota’s Marriage Amendment was defeated.
    The same goes for nearly all other conservative ballot initiatives.
    And the House of Representatives? Well, analysts and commentators on the left and the right agree that Republicans got themselves a big advantage during redistricting in 2010 and “gerrymandered” their districts very well. But in fact, Republicans LOST the nationwide House vote by two to three points – the same margin Romney lost the Presidency. They kept their majority because district lines drawn by Republican legislatures in 2010 favored their candidates. There was no Republican house vote over and above Romney’s vote. Those who backed their Congressional candidates also backed their Presidential candidate.

    • I hear you to a point, Catocon.
      yes, there is a plan in this “diversity” culture. “Diversity” means, in the end, “minority”. Many minorities, many grievances, many votes. Though I think the “natives” accompanied this every step of the way, possibly not seeing themselves – in part – whereto this was leading.

      How fast the immigrant change the culture of a country depends in my eyes of how much the culture of the country allows them to do so. Historically, the US have been very good at “americanising” the waves of immigrants. In Italy, I see the same phenomenon, with a brutal pressure to assimilation (we don’t do “minority” much, at least historically). La Raza and the like are fringe movements which would probably exist anyway, I wouldn’t read social phenomena in fringe groups.

      As to Obama, the simple fact -as I see it – is that Romney did not mobilise his potential voters, whilst Obama failed just a little less than he did. He had a difficult task, but I think with the right candidate on the other side the task would have been impossible. Romney will be remembered as the one who couldn’t defeat a president running with almost 8% unemployment. By which we are back to what we were saying yesterday, that the right candidate goes beyond the small unfavourable demographic movement.

      I do not make anything at all of the Minnesota & Co. events: the faggots are not discouraged when they lose 30 times, I am confident the Christians in the country will not be discouraged if they lose 300 times. It’s not that when they lose they are paving the way, and when they win there’s no going back. The important things is that the issue is now central, and the next years will – if they work hard – hopefully bring fruits.

      on the congressmen, it is a fact they are more conservative than they used to be. This indicates a reaction and a polarisation. In this context, who got 1% or 2% more is in this context not so relevant. Next time, if the right candidate is there, things might go better everywhere, but we are almost there even with the wrong candidate.


  6. Mundabor,
    the basic point is, Republicans lost against a mediocrity of a President, who ran an uninspired, crude hate-campaign against everything America stands for (from self-reliance to family and faith) in a very bad economy with very high unemployment. Yes, their candidate wasn’t that strong either, and he did fail to motivate parts of his base. But even five or ten years ago, the fact that the sitting President of the United States actively hates Christianity, America and the West would have been sufficient to defeat him regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent. Even Bob Dole would have won a landslide against that sort of candidate in that sort of climate as late as 1996.

    Yes, with a very strong candidate, Republicans might have edged out a very narrow victory once again. But it would have been extremely, excruciatingly close even then. This alone suffices to show the objective existence of the leftist majority.
    High unemployment? Fiscal disaster? Hater-in-Chief tries to abolish religious liberty? Tramples everything America has ever stood for? What is the answer of the New America? FOUR MORE YEARS!!

    There is in fact a New America – it is the detritus of the delirious deconstruction of the Old America – the America that was rightly called the “last, best hope of man on earth” and beacon of liberty. This New America is just another Europe in decline. On election eve, before polls closed, I happened to listen to Reagan’s great speech in favor of Goldwater (A Time for Choosing, it is called). He quoted a Cuban refugee: They had a place to escape to – but what if America loses her liberty? There is nowhere on earth to flee to.

    Well, the time has come to realize that America has indeed lost her freedom. The Republic has calmly committed suicide over the last fifty years. Obama’s re-election just ratifies this choice once again. He was elected in 2008 by a landslide. Now it feels like someone very high up had asked: Really? Do you really want to follow Obama down the road to statist ant-heap ideology? They were given the chance to recant their support – they did not wish to.

    New Americans are content as idolatrous wards of the almighty State, a more totalitarian version of King George without monarchy and Christianity. Republicans will survive this. They will adapt – just as Merkel and Cameron did.

    • But this leads us back to the original point, catocon. After Carter came Reagan, and after carter came (although in a rather circuitous way) W.

      Yes, the electorate has changed. Society has changed. Clinton signed Doma in 1996 and fifteen years later wanted to get rid of it. Society changes, but society always does, there’s nothing irreversible in this. What I think is happening, is that on the economic front Obama managed to mobilise the scroungers, whilst the Republicans did not mobilise the hard workers (not because the latter are stupid; but because they aren’t, and won’t be played with by Rove & Co.).

      As always in life, this things have a price. When the US have accumulated enough debt, the reaction will come and those who now support Obama will be screwed (by inflation, bankruptcy or fiscal rigor).

      On the social point of view, what I think is happening is that the progressive deterioration of Christianity is making itself felt: a country where (I am told) 40% of children is born out of wedlock will also vote accordingly.

      Also here, nothing irreversible, merely the fruit of 50 years of attempted suicide from the Christians (Catholic, and others).

      It goes, I think, in waves. We are now witnessing a hardening of the fight against abortion (certainly harder now than when Clinton signed Doma), as in time the people start to react, and demographic changes take place (liberals don’t breed, conservatives do), and it appears a majority of the young voters is now against abortion. In time, and with proper work, the same will happen with so-called gay marriages, euthanasia, & co. Of course it can be that things get worse before they get better, but that’s par for the course, as in every other human endeavour.

      The same people who elected Obama will now pay the price. They wanted their Greek moment, and they will savour it to the end.

      But even after that, I think they are a great Country; a country that was able to regenerate itself many times in the past, and will do it again.

      A different cnadidate, though, and we would be now writing a different story.

      The Roves of the world have been as poisonous as the Obamas, and they will prepare for us other fifteen defeats like this one if they are allowed to. They are the first problem to be solved.


  7. Mundabor,
    no, the changes are not irreversible – but they will not reverse themselves. A society that falls as far as Greece, will not stand up on its own, because there is no strength left. They will revolt because the government tries to take away some of their toys.

    But focussing on the solution, instead of the problem, I will say the following:
    First, Republicans need to be prevented from compromising. America will need at least one party making the case for Old America against New America. For this to happen, the GOP will, as you say, have to get rid of Rove and the whole bunch of “Republican first – conservative second”-strategists. I do not expect this, because most parties moderate themselves after having lost a string of elections. But maybe Republicans will prove an exception to this rule

    Second, if demographic changes continue as they do now, there will soon be an insurmountable structural majority against conservatism and American values. The demographic changes have three main causes: Immigration, the breakdown of the family, and the whole abortion-contraception-sterilization complex. Therefore, both legal and illegal immigration need to be slowed down for America to absorb and americanize the immigrants already there; and “social issues” need to take on a much greater significance to economic conservatives, because their success depends on social conservatism.

    Third, a counterweight against the leftist dominance in the media, but most especially in education is urgently needed. Even if conservatives were to slow down immigration, had three children each, did not abort them and tried to instill a culture of life, they would still lose their children to leftism through universal indoctrination in the media and education system. What can be done? Homeschooling is the first thing that comes to mind. After school, children need to be able to go to real Christian (and ideally Catholic) colleges and universities. Exposure to leftist media must be limited until children are able to understand the pernicious ideology behind their “entertainment”. Conservatives need a counterweight in this area, too. There needs to be entertainment, but it must be Christian, or at least not un-Christian entertainment, which basically does not exist for the mass of Americans now.

    Having become weaker, conservatives and Christians need to learn to focus their energies to achieve lasting change for the better in critical areas. The most critical areas are those that influence the next generation so that they will learn their Christian, Western values before they are corrupted by leftist anti-Christian forces.

    This leads me to the final point to include all others. There is only one institution in America able to succeed in achieving the three main goals outlined above – the Catholic Church. And she has only one way to achieve it: by a resurgence of the traditional Catholic Faith. If Catholicism reawakens in America, America will be saved from destruction. If Catholicism continues to slumber, America will be fondly remembered as the nation that saved the world from Hitler and many other tyrants, but succumbed to interior weakness and home-made tyrants later.

    It all depends on the Church, which is exactly what Voris said in his accurate explanation of the state of things in the video you commented on in another article.

    • I agree with almost everything you say, Catocon, but in my opinion the American society has self-healing forces that will not necessarily depend on the Church, though you are absolutely right she is very important in the matter. If the Church fails, others (like the Evangelicals) will continue their work; many of the new immigrant will absorb “true” American values and desire to profit from a land of opportunities rather than scrounging; and the self-abortion of the liberal classes will give another opportunity. What I think makes the Church so important is that the sheer number of Catholics and the great influence Catholicism properly taught must have on the future voters can make of this a game changer in relatively few years. It is, as I continue to think of, a giant kept into a sort of drunken slumber by incompetent clergy both in Rome and locally.

      I sincerely do not know what the GOP will do, I think at this point they do not know either. But they have lost twice and at some point they’ll understand they will continue to lose if they continue this way. You need to be a Reagan to have “Reagan Democrats”, but there aren’t so many “McCain Democrats” or “Romney Democrats”.

      I also think when the economy presents the bill many Americans will start to wake up; I can’t believe 47% of the Americans want to live at the expense of the other 53%; if this were true, the danger of secession of the richest states or even civil war would become very real.


%d bloggers like this: