(working on my R-rating)
So today, while 'suspending' his campaign, Mitt Romney said -
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington."
This is one of three contenders for president of the United States on the Republican side.
Of course, McCain has said -
"For the first time in American political history, a candidate for president has called for surrender and raised the white flag," McCain told reporters. "I think that's terrible."
That amounts to pretty much the same thing to me, which puts two of three Republican candidates referring to the two Democratic contenders as traitors, a crime punishable by death.
Do they really mean this? Probably not. Is it the worst sort of craven pandering? Yes. Should they be flayed in the media for making these kinds of statements? Until the end of time. Will they? probably not.
As of today, if I see McCain or Romney on the street I will punch them in the face.
(later)
That wasn't even the worst of it from Romney -
And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.
Now, I may seek him out to punch him in the face.
4 comments:
While you cock that arm, also take heart: this is the Republican party in the process of a major public display of half-life decay.
This is the kind of desperate rhetoric that worked eight years ago. But that was pre-Iraq war. Pre-U.S. dollar tanking. Pre sub-prime middle-class killing spree. Certainly (though I'm likely naive) some families who bought the Bush line have suffered those consequences.
Perhaps, but perhaps I'm naive.
Perhaps people, a majority of people, still believe Iraq was purpuseful. Who knows.
I'm hoping that enough good people, intelligent people, or at the very least, thoughtful people, hear what these guys are saying. Really hear it. Maybe a little subtext will seep through.
Something.
I do have some optimism, though my optimism has been misplaced in the past. My optimism does seem stronger this time however, and seems born out by the facts you mention, namely that the R's are tearing themselves apart.
I still maintain my willingness to punch, however.
What we have to bank on is that even the non-good, non-intelligent, and non-thoughtful people will turn away from this rhetoric, as well. That's what has sunk us in the past.
It is almost humorous, when you realize that all the things these guys are campaigning on: staying in Iraq, Bush tax cuts, "non-socialized medicine" have been the Bush docrtine of the last 8 years. The policies of a man who has a 28% approval rating.
It'd be kind of hard to imagine how you can spin that.
I suppose, you just grab onto something like "we haven't had another terrorist attack on our soil" or some bullshit like that.
Good lord, I know for a fact that he would punch them in the face! If I was turned around while driving I would have been punched in the face. :)
Steady those fist Mr. Meth!
Post a Comment