Jon Stewart on Mitt Romney dropping from the race.
Fuckin' right Jon. It's been an interesting conflict in my mind lately. I wanted so much for Romney to succeed in the republican primaries. I happen to think that he's incredibly beatable in the general election. Yet at the same time I could hardly contain my contempt for that greasy, power-hungry son of a bitch. It amazes me the extent that he was able to fool conservative voters into believing in him. That flip-floppy cunt has spent his entire political career saying anything and everything to get ahead, and his supporters had the fucking gall to criticize Hillary Clinton for the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's also true about Hillary to a much, much lesser extent. But when I decide who I want to be president I decide who I think would be best for the country. There is no other criterion. In that respect I would give all worldly possessions I own or ever will own if it would ensure that Hillary Clinton would win a race against Mike Huckabee. While she is a calculating politician and he seems more unafraid to not compromise his principles, his principles are FUCKING INSANE and Hillary's "calculations" have landed on something that I often find myself in agreement with.
This doesn't mean that I want Hillary to be president. There is still something to be said about a candidate that both shares your values and had the backbone and principles to stand up for them, and for my money there hasn't been a candidate that better fits that mold since Al Gore. Until of course Obama came along. Sure Al Gore lost, but Obama also has the ability to not appear robot-like in person, so he's got that going for him.
Ok, I'm off point. I'll regroup. I fucking hate Romney. I could get into a giant protracted rant about what an asshole hypocrite he is, but with him dropping out of the race it isn't relevant any longer. I'll just say that the guy claimed he was the true conservative in this year's primaries, yet when he ran for governor of Massachusetts he claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. What I want to address is the ridiculous statement that he made.* The part where he said that he doesn't want his campaign to be part of a surrender to terror. While he just said that so that he could further ingratiate himself with the conservative base that he figures he'll depend on for his next power-grab, I'm still sick of this particular attack on liberals. Fuck you Mitt Romney. Fuck you for exploiting people and turning them against their fellow Americans to advance your political career. Fuck you for implying that you, or conservatives you claim to think like, care about the future of this country any more than I do. Fuck you for claiming that I want anything good to ever happen to any of the damnable mother-fuckers that attack our troops, that terrorize innocent Iraqis, that take the lives of innocent civilians world-wide. Fuck you for basically equating MY ambitions to theirs. Fuck you for thinking that you deserve the respect that you have never done the hard work to earn. Fuck you even for taking advantage of conservatives, who you don't value any more than their potential to gain you more power. Fuck you for making us so angry at one another.
I don't want for the democrats to have to go up against John McCain in the general election. He can get the independent vote. People who disagree with him still respect him. Despite the fact that he kissed the ring of Jerry Falwell and the Evangelicals that threw him under the bus in 2000, who he called a bunch of lunatics.(1) Despite the fact that people working on his campaign are the same that accused him in 2000 of fathering an illegitimate black child.(2) Despite the fact that he too is an unapologetic power-hungry manipulator, who in 2001 courted the democratic party about switching parties before Jim Jeffords became an independent, making his potential switch irrelevant.(3) Then there's the fact that Republicans that oppose the war overwhelmingly favored John McCain, despite the fact that of the remaining candidates, he is the one that has most been in favor of the war, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (4) I'll lay off a bit for now cuz I get the impression I'll be blogging against this guy for many of the summer months. But the point is that despite Mitt Romney's leaving the race meaning that the democrats will almost certainly go up against the stronger McCain, I am comforted that Mitt Romney will not be rewarded for selling every trace of his soul. Fuck you Mitt Romney, you got what you deserved.
* - Quote from Romney's speech made upon his announcement: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney said. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. - link
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Looking at the mathematics for the remiaining states that have yet to produce their delegates, doesn't it look at this point that a brokered convention is not just a possibility anymore, but a damn sure probability? With the delegates partitioned off as they are without a winner-take-all system, Hillary or Obama will have to win HUGE in the remaining big states (like 90/10 or 80/20) to compile enough delegates to get to the magic number. With Obama's momentum, and with Hillary's campaign in the headlines as being unsteady, I believe most states are going to be split 65/35 or closer. And with that forecast, I cannot see it as anything else than an inevitabliity that we still will not know the Democratic presidential nominee until 8 weeks before the election. Am I wrong?
And Mitt Romney. Yeesh. The guy has always seemed to have a ridiculously massive ego, and a pretty abrasive personality, and that comment equating Hillary/Obama's stances as surrendering to terror threw me over the edge. True, I dislike the guy for many of the same flip-flopping reasons I disliked Kerry in 2004. But when he first enetered the race, I actually liked Mitt for many of the same reasons I liked Obama, as difficult as that may be to believe. The attractiveness of both candidates to me stemmed from their interesting private-sector backgrounds as new blood into the body politic. I detest the career politician, preferring experience in the real world in my candidates 9 times out of 10. The citizen that finds the calling of coming to Washington for a finite period of time and serving the people was the way the fathers of our government intended (before politics themselves became an industry). And I thought both of these men would bring great outsider ideas to the table, as opposed to the same-old-recycled insider shit of McCain and Clinton. But since then, I have warmed to Obama and have been consistently put off by Romney. He indeed did get what he deserved. I think the guy is a gifted orator, and it has been a long ass time since the GOP had any serious contender halfway as publicly articulate as him, but his damning, inconsistent rhetoric dug his grave for him, capped off by that final concession speech.
From a utilitarian perspective, though, perhaps the inconstancy of his belief system is not an issue so long as he can be trusted to deliver upon his current set of tenets and promises-- during his liberal period as governor, he enacted state-wide healthcare and uphold the rights of same-sex marriage; what's to say he wouldn't just as effectively deliver the conservative goods now that he's lurched violently back towards the right? Not that I'm in favor of his candidacy in any way, but if I were a Republican voter chiefly concerned with pragmatism, utterly disinterested in the substance of a person in favor of only what he could accomplish within a given span of time, this might be a consideration.
Oh, and one more thing: Blogger's tutorial on how to post working hyperlinks.
Excellent point David, and something that I actually considered including when writing the initial post. It's true that would be very similar to the argument I would make in convincing someone to vote for Hillary Clinton. The truth is I do believe that Romney would not be that unlikely to deliver on his campaign promises. The thing is I couldn't bring myself to give him even neutral praise, as mad as I am over his idiotic comments. Still the point is that he is a man that goes where the wind blows. I believe that he would end up abandoning his more conservative promises not when the public reacted to his policies during his presidency, but as early as the general election when he would need to woo the moderate vote to stand a chance against a democrat. So while that point is definitely valid, he's shown himself clearly ready to abandon every "principle" he claims to have, and that doesn't bode well for any of his campaign claims.
also thanks for the hyperlinks help :)
But to follow up on your logic-- first, let's give that Romney is very effective at implementing plans. This is something that his campaign heavily emphasized, his ability to turn ideas into results. You accuse him of having little internal principle, rely mostly on following the prevailing sentiment of his audience. As president, what better executive could we ask for, then? A man who completely follows the will of the majority, and is able to act decisively and effectively doesn't sound all that bad on paper.
Ok, I don't think the compromise should be to agree on the fact that he is "very good at implementing his plans". His campaign ran on it but that's not necessarily true. As a politician in Massachusetts he ran his campaign wish a sense of "I believe in the status quo" which at the time happened to be liberal so that's where he went. Nowhere during his tenure did he demonstrate a great aptitude for accomplishing any of his goals. In fact the reason that he claimed to be more liberal than Ted Kennedy was because he was being attacked for being a conservative. He went out of his way to assure people that he WOULDN'T change anything. Now there's nothing wrong with that if it's what he believes in. But he can't then turn around and claim that he's been an effective leader. I'm not saying that he isn't though, if I believed he wouldn't change anything about the country I might be more inclined to see him as president than McCain.
As for having a president that will not stand on principle but will follow the will of the people: It's a hard point that I'm trying to make, because I believe that sometimes a president must follow the will of the people, but there are other times where he should not. Obviously the public can be just as stupid and misguided or possibly moreso, so they shouldn't be the ones to make every policy decision. If they did than we would live in a democracy as opposed to the representative democracy that we do. I don't want that, and it's not what I'm arguing for.
My point is I want a president that can stand on the principles he's proven he believes in. I don't believe Romney when he claims to believe in conservative principles. I also want a president that has shown the ability to make good decisions. I don't think that's Romney but since I don't agree with any of his proposed policies then I might not be the best judge of that.
Post a Comment