Mitt Romney is now, all but officially, campaigning for Kasich in Ohio.
I am mildly amused at the news. Romney, a clear loser against one of the easiest adversaries imaginable, has spent some time in the last days savagely attacking Trump and officially/unofficially letting it know that his candidate is Rubio (no, he didn’t say that. But he recorded a robocall for him, so there…).
Rubio’s chances kept sinking faster than the Titanic. In the last days it has become clear that Florida is more likely to be a humiliation for the two of them than anything else.
Well done, Mitt.
Not happy, Romney now looks for another candidate to whom he may give the kiss of death. This time, he is campaigning in Ohio together with , or on the side of, but not officially endorsing Kasich. You can begin to see the style here, and understand even more why one like him would lose even against Obama.
If I were Kasich, I would be terrified. For every establishment RINO who might decide to vote Kasich because of Romney’s endorsement you might well have two or three others who decide to cut it short and just vote Trump, to get rid of these clowns once and for all.
You would think Romney understand he is helping Trump. He doesn’t. The man really thinks he is important, and an asset to his dying bunch of losers.
Months of humiliations, and they still don’t get it.
Go on, Romney. Endorse (without saying it) Kasich after Rubio, and Hillary after Kasich. It can’t be bad for us.
You are the losers’ loser.
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.
I have not listened to the first presidential debate live (I do not stay up late for a flip-flopper, much less for Hussein Hitler) but this morning, when the ultra-liberal Classic FM* mentioned the debate without saying who was the evening’s winner I understood Hussein Hitler must have had an unpleasant evening.
Reading some article during the day, and looking at some short video during the evening, it became more and more apparent that the President suffered certainly not a complete meltdown, but probably a major accident. Hussein O. made on me the impression of one who still can’t really believe he made it to the White House in 2008, and has no idea what to do in 2012. The parts I have seen show a man so rigid and artificial, so – if you allow me the pun – authentically fake you wouldn’t believe there are people ready to consider him a great orator. I think their opinion of Obama’s teleprompter must have increased a lot in the last 24 hours, though.
The much-celebrated Romney certainly made a better impression and was pleasantly assertive compared to the verbose, hesitant, unconvinced, unconvincing, rigid (Italians say “woody”) Obama; but to this European Romney also looked construed, artificial, and efficacious by rote rather than by heart. You saw this by the pathetic marriage anniversary wannabe “jokes” (embarrassing, on both sides) and by the extreme studiousness of the gestures of both candidates, though Romney was certainly the better actor, and Obama unable to follow the script as he should have.
One could clearly see every gesture and facial expression had been carefully planned and rehearsed infinite times, and this lack of spontaneity is probably what kills the pleasure of many Europeans watching such debates. Still, one could not avoid noticing that Obama still hasn’t learned to avoid saying “er” every two and a half seconds, looked lost sometime and unassertive at all times, talked too much and exuded no statesmanship, and probably was too lazy to apply himself and learn the lesson as Romney did (don’t tell me he has a job; he seems to work from the golf course, when he works; then he goes around says he has killed Ob, oops, Osama).
The most vivid impression the bits of debate I have seen have left on me was, though, the one that Obama without a teleprompter is like a fish out of the water: he is just plain lost, and can’t articulate himself halfway decently ( I believe he never could, and was created by the Democratic marketing machine because his black skin and white background made of him the ultimate liberal weapon), let alone exude that aura of leadership one would expect from a President. The German Chancellor Helmut Kohl defeated several opponents in part because every kg of him (and he had many of those) looked and felt the part. Ditto Blair. Obama seemed as if he were looking on his notes hoping to find a teleprompter, and as if he would have loved to be everywhere else.
Hussein Hitler obviously also has the huge problem that one thing is to blabber on change and hope to the undiscerning masses, another one to explain how his 1-trillion-dollar deficit a year would be, er, Bush’ fault. Tough one to sell, this.
The change wasn’t good and the hope has gone, and what we clearly saw yesterday is a rather mediocre former social worker still unable to cope with a job so much bigger than himself.
He can thank allah (small a; Mundabor’s daily contribute to the culture of insensitivity…) his rival is a flip-flopping Mormon running against him. A man of conviction would have made mincemeat of him, Romney could only show he is smarter and better prepared. I don’t think it will be enough.
I’ve seen David “Chameleon” Cameron running for the leadership of the Conservative party promising to be just a sleeker version of traditional Toryism, and transforming the party in a bunch of liberal poofs in just a few years. That’s what flip-floppers do. They’ll tell you what you want to hear, and change their mind when it’s convenient to do so.
Romney already has a past on this, and I can’t see why he would change. If he is elected, I frankly do not even see why he should.
* alas, not fast enough in changing radio channel before the news
I wonder every now and then what I would do if I were in the fortunate position of having a US passport and were entitled to vote for the elections in 2012.
The answer that I would vote for Romney doesn’t come automatic to me, and whilst I might in such a case end up voting for him I am not persuaded I should do it, let alone I should as a Catholic feel a duty to do so.
I see Romney as the product of a rather hysterical – if extremely democratic, and beautiful to watch – system by which a candidate is selected thinking of what his adversaries will say of his private life and personal circumstances rather than considering what his agenda as a President will be.
Therefore, the choice for many seemed to be not only – or not really – between Gingrich’s robust Catholicism and Romney’s anodyne and flip-flopping attitude, but – all things considered – whether it would be preferable to have your candidate smeared because of his infidelities, or because of his religious ideas and professional past. As a result, we find ourselves with a – undoubtedly, bright and capable as a businessman – candidate who doesn’t drink coffee or alcohol – but is allowed to eat coffee ice cream, apparently ; I give up… – , doesn’t watch TV, believes that Jesus visited the United States and a lot of very strange things with that, and is a flip-flopper like very few at this level before him.
But hey, everyone knows no one is going to nail him with some past fling, so he must be fine.
Now, I am surely not the only one who thinks Romney may be professionally capable, but is also a non-coffee-drinking moral vacuum changing his political convictions according to the advantage they can give him. I think he is consciously flattening his positions on Obama’s ones as long as he thinks he can do so without losing the Republican vote altogether. The reasoning seems to be: “Dear Republican voter, however my positions may stink to you, you will end up voting for me because Obama stinks just a bit more”.
I am not sure we should follow him on this reasoning.
Whilst the comparison between the candidates at hand is a fully legitimate one and I would not criticise the one who decided to vote, obtorto collo, for Romney, I think that there is another legitimate comparison: the one between the candidates these mentality produces, and the ones who would be produced if the “lesser evil” voting behaviour were to be abandoned.
A vote for Romney makes it absolutely impossible to have decent Republican candidates. Not now, not ever. If the principle is accepted that between two candidates one votes for the one who is less bad – Romney is undoubtedly less bad – this means the choice will always be between the liberal candidate and a candidate who is just a bit less bad, namely: merely enough to make him distinguishable. This candidate will then only have to near the liberal candidate as much as he can without being burned to be sure of the votes of all those who choose the “lesser evil”. If it works in 2012, there’s no reason why it should not be tried in 2020 (assuming Romney doesn’t die of excessive consumption of coffee ice cream in the meantime) and beyond.
The choice to skip the vote in 2012 – in the sense of not voting for any of the two – is, on the other hand, a signal sent to the Republicans – both the establishment, and the pavid crowds voting in primaries and caucuses – that if they go on this way they will never ever have a Republican president, because RINOs will not get the Republican vote. Not now, not ever.
A Romney victory would ensure us another eight year of absolute pain, as in 2016 the choice will be between an established flip-flopper like Romney and another liberal madman like, probably, Hillary. If Romney is told to take a hike, perhaps the Republican masses will start to understand that the McCains and Romneys of the world just do not win elections, and in order to win they need a real Republican or can avoid wasting the time.
Mind, it doesn’t have to be a Santorum; Bush was certainly not considered a hardliner in the US (though he always was in Europe; funny people, the Europeans…) , but he won two gubernatorial elections in Texas followed by two Presidential elections, and I dare to say Kerry and Gore were less extreme in many things than Obama is, and therefore the winning of mainstream votes more difficult. In a word, it worked. Compare with 2012, where Perry got out of the race for forgetting a couple of names and having some small blunder in front of the press. If this is the way the Americans select their candidates, it’s no surprise they must now choose between a liberal madman and a flip-flopping Mormon.
In conclusion, I fully understand those who decide to vote Romney after all. But as Romney is perfectly fine with sodomy, was clearly pro-choice until the day before yesterday and would clearly try to keep as much of Obamacare as he can do without openly quarrelling with his Congressmen and Senators, I wonder whether those who vote for him do not in the end simply vote a pale version of Obama, with some improvement thrown in when it was truly necessary (say: his pro-life stance), and probably reneged as soon as he is elected and starts to think about the 2016 campaign (there is videos around of his former pro-“choice” days; scary stuff, and no mistake).
Basically, trying to save the candidate in 2012 automatically locks one in with the worst possible candidate for 2016 and 2020; a candidate who, when President, would systematically try to please the Democrats at every turn, knowing that the obedient Republican sheep vote for him in any way and the only thing he has to do is to attract 10%-15% of the Democratic vote, and Robert is your father’s brother…
No easy decision at all, anyway.
The latest statement of the so-called Republican candidate Mitt Romney about Obamacare leaves no doubt the strategy of the (so-called) Republican camp is to make Romney as similar as they can to Obama, counting on the fact the traditional Republican electorate will vote for him anyway (for economic reasons at least) and he will be able to mobilise enough of the undecided and middle-of-the-road types (if there can be any middle of the road when Obama is one side of the road) to secure the election.
I see the following problems with this strategy:
1) It is morally despicable;
2) it does not work often; and
3) it is poisonous in the long-term.
1) The strategy is morally despicable because Romney (which might not have any) and his followers (which might have had any) sacrifice what is at least supposed to be their ideological stance to prostitute themselves to the whims of a supposed mainstream, or of groups of voters (the pensioners, say; or the sodomites) for the sake of political calculations. That a person could become the candidate of the Republicans by being tepid on abortion, despicable on perversion and now even openly cowardly on Obamacare can only be explained with the obsession of being just a bit less bad than one’s opponent in order to catch the vote of the bad people who vote for him. I knew the father of “Romneycare” wasn’t the sworn enemy of Obamacare, but Romney has truly sold out and has shown he knows no shame.
2) I wonder, too, whether it will work. Was not this mentality the one who gave the Republicans McCain as their candidate? What makes Romney so different from McCain, particularly considering he fights against the same person, who is now in charge? Why should sincere Republicans feel so motivated to vote for a person showing his wish to become as similar to his opponent as it is safe for him to do? Did this RINO attitude work for McCain? Is it really so sensible to choose a candidate trying to look as little Republican as possible? If you ask me, the middle of the road is where all the trucks are.
I hate to say it, but in days like these Romney makes me wish he would lose, and lose badly. Painful as it would be for the country – how painful, would depend on how things go in the Senate and the Congress – to see Obama win again, the victory of an Obama-ised Romney would give the country Republican candidates who are almost indistinguishable from the Democratic ones for a long time. If the Republican party apparatus (and, alas, the American Republicans voting at the Primaries) continue to set their hopes on a fake Republican after what the same opponent Obama did to McCain, why should they change their tune if Romney wins? Romney would, then, feel even more motivated to behave as much as he can like Obama. Cameron has done the same in England, Boris is in the process of following him, and in Germany Helmut Kohl acted (at least in economic/social spending matters) in exactly the same way.
Fake conservatives are pure poison. They do not bring in power conservative ideas, but merely a slightly watered-down version of socialist and liberal ones; and those who vote for them because they are just a little less bad than their Democratoc (or Labour; or SPD) opponents actually encourage them to become almost as bad as their opponent, and make it unavoidable that all their candidates will be made from the same mold.
Unpleasant as it would be to see Obama at the White House for other four years, I wonder how different (from a social/moral perspective at least; I do not doubt some beneficial effects on the deficit and the economy) Romney would be. He’d be a paler version of Obama in all senses of the words, but nothing more than that; and for that, one would lose the opportunity of having a real Republican (and possibly a Christian) in 2016, as the party hopefully abandons the illusions of “middle of the road” candidates after the repeated disappointments.
It’s less than two months to the elections now and I am afraid this is not the last time Romney will make us cringe. Again, one knew he wasn’t born the Knight of the Apocalypse, but he is showing a political opportunism of the worst kind, in a manner which is probably not even so electorally wise anymore.
Put it very bluntly: when the choice is between shit and piss, one does not have to vote for the second in order to get rid of the first.
Probably the results of the votes concerning Congress and Senate will have a bigger influence on the next four years than the choice between Obama and his (at least in social matters) pale imitation. A solidly conservative House and Senate would tame a bad President whoever he may be, and if this does not happen I begin to struggle to see – at least in social matters – what great difference Romney would make.
I think it can be legitimately wished that the Republicans would lose as many Presidential elections as it is necessary to either die or understand that in order to win they have to candidate a seriously conservative candidate. Whilst it is difficult to deny piss is probably less bad than shit, I can’t blame those who do not want to help piss to win.
Alas, the American Republicans pay the price of their puritanism: they didn’t like Gingrich, now they’ll have to live with Romney.
Extremely beautiful video from the, as usual, spot on Michael Voris.
I doubt the lamented tendency to “compromise” is very much an American speciality – the Church in Western Europe behaves not one bit differently, and the political parties are generally speaking even worse than the US Republicans – but he certainly puts his finger on two evils, the intrinsic cowardice of Republican positions in matters of life and sexual mores, and the same phenomenon happening within the Church.
In fact, I think this longish video contains material for two separate issues of the “Vortex” and is most certainly worth the time.
God Bless Michael Voris. If we only had a couple of dozen of Cardinals and Bishops like him – ready not only to say unpleasant things, but to look at the unavoidable battle than ensues with relish – the Church would start to change for the better very rapidly.
Alas, we must prepare ourselves for four years with either a secular Muslim or a strange non-Christian at the White House. Unless, of course, Mitt Romney wins and does us the favour of moving for greener pastures before the time, and his appointed Vice President is chosen with some discernment.
Romney has now had the brilliant idea of hiring Richard Grenell, an openly homosexual spokesman (is spokesman appropriate here?), and the hypocrisy of the RINOs is, as widely expected, breathtaking.
The problem with the appointment is not only the fact the man is homosexual, but the fact that he is openly so.
In itself, a homosexual spokesman would be bad enough, once we leave the political correctness aside,because the job of spokesman is politically delicate, and should be not so easily exposed to attack. Of course homosexuals must work too, as must pedophiles, and former convicts. But this does not mean that many people would approve of a pedophile, or a former convict, being hired as a man very near to the possible future President.
The problem becomes, though, much worse because the man is, as they say, “openly gay”, which is modern parlance for an unrepentant sodomite. Therefore, the decision to hire him is a political statement Romney makes; and if you ask me, not a terribly smart one. Through his appointment, Romney chooses to give scandal. This can’t be Christian, and most certainly isn’t Conservative.
Granted, Romney is clearly afraid of not reaching to the mainstream voters, and is anxious of getting rid of his image of “weird” candidate. He has reasons to be worried, because I expect during the campaign we will become all experts of all the most ridiculous aspects of Mormonism, and I doubt he’ll have anywhere to hide when the embarrassing questions start to come. But by all fears, it seems to me indisputable if he loses the conservative electorate he is doomed. A man who should use the time given to him to polish his conservative credentials, pick a clearly conservative candidate to be Vice President and, in general, reassure Conservative America he can halfway deserve their vote is now clearly intent to hunt for support in those political regions he’ll never take away from Obama.
Even if this doesn’t cause great damage to him now – and it might – the obvious effect will be that conservatives of every shade will look at him with greater scepticism; and this is a commodity Romney most certainly doesn’t need.
Even considering the cynicism of a man accustomed to change opinions like you and I change shirts, this seems to me a very dangerous move.
Personally, I think it things go on this way the big game in November will be the elections in the Congress and Senate, as the White House seems destined to be kept by the wrong occupant until 2016.
On the day Perry makes way for him and Santorum is declared (more or less) the winner in Iowa, Gingrich’s ex-wife does (really not) surprise us with alleged “revelations” about what her former husband said to her around, let me think, twelve to thirteen years and a conversion ago. Interesting.
Nothing new of course as generally this kind of things finds its way to the media without waiting for a presidential race; but one remains with the impression that the private side of Gingrich is the one chosen by his opponent to put an end to the public one.
This is one of the rare days when I am glad I grew up in Europe, and particularly in a country where private mistakes are left to the confessional and, when they find their way to the media, are not considered the metre by which the work of a politician is judged. You may say that it has his risks (as seen recently), but I still think it reflects a more mature political culture.
I’m not sure in modern times Godfrey of Bouillon, or Richard the Lionheart, would be elected to run a crusade, as their private life probably gave rise to many questions. Rather, some inept chap with irreproachable private life would be chosen, and bye-bye Jerusalem. If you don’t like these two examples, pick whichever else you like, from the drinker Churchill to the gambler Cavour.
Alas, I doubt many will be of my opinion, which is why if the public reacts badly to this interview in the run up to the primary in South Carolina it is now not unlikely the American people will have to decide, come November, between a godless affirmative action idiot and a flip-flopping RINO Mormon.
The private life of a politician is a matter for the confessional. Don’t let a good candidate go to waste because he would have never make it as a Protestant pastor. Most people don’t, and I’m not sure Protestant pastors have such a good record, either.
One day I might write a post about the US Presidential election as seen from a European. It might be a bit off topic, though.
For the moment, I will be content with commenting about some rather strange remarks from Newt Gingrich: the man who, after a rather sleepy start – and one which let me and others think he was not really serious about the race – has now risen to become the most serious contender of Adolf Hussein Obama, The Nazi Menace.
Well, our (rather) newly converted candidate had surprised pretty much everyone by saying that he thinks life begins at… implantation. “Are we in front of a mini-Pelosi?” I was already thinking. In the end, Gingrich looks like he is peloso (=hairy) enough as it is…
Thankfully, the Catholic candidate has now issued a clarification and unambiguously made clear that life begins at conception. No ifs, no buts, no hairy things.
The statements of the candidate are a joy to read:
As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception
I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.
That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life.
This is very, very good news and I think it very wise from Gingrich not to be cowed by his advisers and strategist into a “mainstream” position and water down not only what he believes, but what clearly mobilises a growing number of – often, young – American voters.
Always from LifeSite news, I notice that Gingrich has signed the Pro-Life Pledge, and Mitt Romney hasn’t. Shall I, now, add a passing remark about Mormons and Christians? Or shall I leave it at that?
One of the many beauties of Catholicism is that, if properly intended, it doesn’t leave much room for self-made theology. A Protestant can immerse himself in the Bible until he finds something vaguely resembling what he wants to find, and chances are the “church” with the corresponding creed is not so very far away. A Catholic will know what is right, and will not have anywhere to hide. Unless of course he is, how should I put it….. hairy.
Kudos to Newt Gingrich for his clear positioning in matter of abortion, then.