Thursday, February 7, 2008

MITT “THE WAR HERO”

My friend Bill Lannigan stopped by tonight to catch up on everything from family travails to Mitt Romney’s speech bowing out of the presidential race.

In talking about the latter, a speech he made to a conservative group, in which he claimed once again to be the true conservative, despite his record as otherwise, Bill pointed out that instead of copping to the reality that he’d have to win every delegate still up for grabs in order to beat McCain, an impossibility, he depicted his quitting as a heroic act “in time of war” as he put it, putting aside his political ambitions for “the good of the Republican Party and of the country.”

As Bill said, he cast himself as some kind of “war hero” rather than a super rich guy who spent tons of money on a campaign that failed because he had taken both sides of every issue important to voters and took offense if that reality was pointed out to him.

For guys like us, he comes across as a phony even before we found out the reality of his either having no constant beliefs outside his Mormon faith, or else he’s an outright liar on almost every political issue.

It would have been funny, his portraying his quitting the race as wartime heroics, if it weren’t for the cheap shots he took to do it, referring to the possibility of a Barak Obama or Hilary Clinton presidency as “a surrender to terrorism” and even outright stating that the terrorists will be at our doorsteps if either of them get elected.

And Karl Rove isn’t even one of his advisors, as far as I know. But you can expect more of that crap from Republicans and “swift boat” style attack groups on the right whether it’s Barak or Hilary as the Democratic candidate. Those kinds of tactics would be so obviously pathetic if they didn’t work so well on too many ill-informed people.

By that logic, we should definitely elect a Democrat president, because the terrorists obviously waited for a Republican to get in before waging a really big attack on the U.S. and/or being able to successfully pull it off.

Or, if ending a war is “a surrender” to whatever enemy we’ve been fighting, then the Republicans have the worst record on that score, Eisenhower having given up in Korea, Nixon in Viet Nam, Reagan in Lebanon, Bush the First in Iraq, etc.

The pundits think Romney was making a pitch for a future run for president, say if McCain wins and is too old or ill to run for another term, or if a Democrat wins and things don’t work out well. They say he’s trying to pull a Reagan, impressing the conservative base in order to be their standard bearer in the future. I hope so. By then he’ll have proven himself to be even more of a phony than he already has.

[PS added next day: In the old days, when Republicans objected to wars waged by Democratic administrations, no Democrats questioned the patriotism of Republican opponents, and when candidates dropped out of races they honorably stated their respect for their opponents in all parties. The greatest example of a noble and humble acceptance of the sometimes arcane rules of our democracy and the rule of law as it stands here, even when the actual "democracy"—i.e. popular vote count—and laws —i.e. electoral college system—might be flawed, is Gore's concession speech when Bush Junior's Republican cohorts in the Supreme Court went against every belief they had ever expressed and voted on concerning "states' rights" to overturn Florida's desire to continue counting votes and straightening out the problems there, and handed the election to Junior. Even if you didn't like Gore or were disappointed in his campaign or wanted him to fight it out and be more aggressive in his campaign or the fight over Florida's votes, you have to give him credit for really doing what Romeny pretended he was doing, i.e. giving up the fight for the "good of the country" and our system of democracy, which obviously needs an overhaul on the "electoral college" level and the arcane voting rules of various states in what amounts eventually to a national primary system, as well as in the general election.]

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is Islamofascisim at war with the US and the rest of western civilisation? If they are at war with us, should the us attempt to preempt them (kill them where they live before they get to us)? Obviouusly you and the two remaining Democrat candidates do not believe that the danger is real and worth fighting. There is no doubt where John McCain stands on that danger. I may disagree with him on some issues, but as to , which of the candidates take seriously the war on terror, there is no queston that it is McCain.

The beauty of this election, is that the divide between surrender, and vigorous fighting of war against the homicide bombers is so clear. I look forward to a thorough debate between the presidential finalists. I would think that the odds are with the Democrat party based on the huge primary turnouts. But it was only a year ago that most, accept Bush, McCain and Petraeus thought that the surge could not work. Even now in the face of considerable improvement,Democrat candidates seem to be not willing to credit the US military and the Iraqis with considerable success. Hillary/Obama may find it difficult to ignore the success of the surge in the campaign. Even more importantly, it is possible that the majority of the American people may find themselves more comfortable with McCain defending them than Democrats who want to declare defeat and leave.

Lally said...

I'm not going to say much about your comment Jim, because obviously you're not going to change your mindset. But all that radio talk show babble about Islamofacism, etc. is diverting, as is the "surrender" terminology. So Eisenhower surrendered Korea to the communists, as Nixon surrendered Viet Nam to them, and lordy lordy, just as the right wing proclaimed, Communists overran our country and now rules the world. Get a clue brother. The Islamic terrorists should have been treated like the international crime cartel they are. The Mexican drug lords have murdered more people than Osama Bin Laden, and are damaging more of our populace, especially young people, than the Islamic terrorists. Should we invade Mexico? Iraq had no "Islamofacists" brother until we invaded it. It was run by a secular dictator who was the sworn enemy of the Osama Bin Ladens of the world until we got involved. I've already said too much. You'll quote biased observers and "history" that is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I'm concerned the righwing Republicans surrendered to the terrorists years ago, when they decided that a "war" on them meant copying their brutal tactics, like torture and murder, and overestimating their power and influence and then acting in ways to increase their power and influence, and advising the rest of us to live in fear of them. No thanks. The Europeans seem to be doing a fine job of dealing with the terrorists they've capture and tried and kept from doing more damage than they already have and gone about their life with no "we're at war" rhetoric and fear tactics to get votes. What's the use Jim, you obviously have long ago decided that any political solution other than the one you support is "surrender" because that is the tactic the politicians and their rsadio show cohorts understand will have the most impact. All those brave men and women who never served anywhere. You're right McCain could win on the basis of his military credentials. And he could end up being right that we stay in Iraq for "a hundred years." That'll show'em.

Anonymous said...

100 years is peanuts in a 1400 year war of Islamofascism that started when Mohammad and his followers began their jihad against all who were not Muslim. The US has been in Japan, Germany and Korea for 50+ years and one could argue that the world is better for it. The international crime cartel are motivated by money and the will to live and prosper. The jihadists are motivated by destoying everything non Muslim and dying in battle against the infidel, preferably in a nuclear expolosion. The leaders are typically well educated and come from means, but even they are anxious to get to the 72 virgins. The Europeans have reduced their military expeditures to almost nothing, relying on the US taxpayer and military to keep the peace of the world. The US is the oldest democratic republic in the world. We as a nation, repeatedly learn that freedom is not free. Europe believes it is free from the costs of self defense, because they have the US to rely on. Europe is a dying society that does not have the will to protect itself or the population growth to replace itself. It has welcomed Islamic immigration that wishes to replace European law with Shariah law. Population trends indicate that the Muslims will succeed within 50 year just through population growth. The danger to western civilisation from Islamfascism is vastly more dangerous them crime gangs. Liberals in Europe and in the New World do not seem to have a clue.