A Response To Drinking Liberally - President Romney? Say it ain’s so
http://drinkingliberally….dent_romne.html
While doing a search on technorati about beloved Mr. Romney, I found this article on the blog Drinking Liberally. Which in itself the sites name I found amusing. But, getting to the crux of why I care to mention them.
In the blog entry it states:
The Wall Street Journal today ran an editorial about our guy Mitt probably running for Chief Brush Clearer in 2008. I hate him now more than ever.
Two of his quotes really bothered me:
He praises George W. Bush on the war: “The president is right to point to an international jihadist movement aimed at the collapse of the United States,” he says. “He has gone after that threat in the right way and with great energy and vigor, and I applaud the fact that he has taken it on very seriously and has not considered it just a criminal action but instead a war action, which requires a military . . . response.”
Romney is a little punk a**. Stop kissing ass! No one can say we’ve dealt with this terror thing “in the right way,” and the fact that he repeats the right wing talking points which paint liberals with this “terrorism is MERELY criminal” approach makes me sick. Someone please slap him.
The other part that got to me:
Mr. Romney is a scathing critic of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 decision imposing same-sex marriage: “We’ve got a liberal activist court . . . and I have now seen firsthand the perils of a court that decides to substitute its values for that of the founders.”
What a well-trained dog he is. “liberal activist court.” Wow, Mitt. Did you think of that all on your own?? And big word here: perils! Listen up everybody. The “founders” had a lot of jacked up “values” and I’ll be the first to say it really loud. I welcome an activist court that would substitute its values in place of a bunch of child-labor using, women-disenfranchising, native people-murdering, slave holders.
What I find incredibly interesting about these points is that the insults are directed at him in the way that he’s a “lapdog” for the administration. It’s not really challenging the points on their merits, it’s in a word “Bush bashing”. You really have to credit these liberal minded individuals for their small mindedness. Is that all you got? Even the admittance that the founders would be against gay marriage, and it’s legality. In a roundabout sort of way this blog is actually in praise of Mr. Romney in terms of that point. As for the founders being child-labor using, women-disenfranchising, native-people murdering, slave holders. I don’t agree with this assessment. But, if the author of this blog entry feels so strongly about these feelings, the founders put in place a way to change laws. That’s through constitutional amendment. This blog entry reminds me of a child having a temper tantrum when realizing they’re wrong, but yet they have to get their last fit out of the way.
This last point was classic of the above mentioned point.
I hope Mitt runs and catches a big time GOP hate-filled smackdown. Wait till they accuse you of having an illegitimate black baby, Mitt. Then come crying back to Massachusetts.
I’m sure they hope that Mitt goes down during the primaries. You can just smell the fear. If he gets the nomination then they know they’re doomed. He’s the strongest candidate, and has the strongest chance of taking down any Democratic nominee that gets put up for the job.
As for crying back to Massachusetts…hmmm…I think we can see who the crybaby is here.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:30 am
You make a good point that the specific liberal you quote is using mere ad hominem attacks. Many on both sides do so when their emotions take precedence over their reason. However, be careful not to fall into the same trap (over-generalizing and attacking personalities rather than arguments) yourself. (”You really have to credit these liberal minded individuals for their small mindedness.”)
The Founding Fathers did have some amount of differing values from modern folks, but I agree that there is a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. For example, right here in Massachusetts, the Blue Laws as a method of enforcing Puritanical (religious) views. Even though we’ve repealed many of them (tatoos are now legal, as is selling alcohol on a Sunday), some of them continue to fall through the cracks (couldn’t sell alcohol on Monday December 26, 2005, because Christmas fell on a Sunday). Since we do not have the Founding Fathers here in the flesh today, we must go with the letter of the law, and this is how things such as the Blue Laws remain, and why gay marriage is not judicial activism. Perhaps you will be vindicated in the end when the next version of a state constitutional amendment is proposed to outlaw gay marriage, but I personally hope not.
Meanwhile, I think Romney would be a weak candidate for president. He is (as enochville mentioned above) closely tied to Bush’s policies, and Bush is waning in popularity. Romney is from Massachusetts, and the country has a distorted vision of MA as being full of rich people who know nothing about the real world. And on top of that, he is Mormon - hasn’t there only been one non-mainstream Protestant president? JFK I believe, and he was Catholic, which is not as far from the American norm as Mormonism. (Unless you include Bush’s evangelical leanings as being non-mainstream.)
I am from Massachusetts myself, and I am a teacher. The best I can say about Romney’s potential bid for president is good riddance. I doubt he’ll win, unless Hillary Clinton runs.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:33 am
You make a good point on falling into the same trap as the web site that I mentioned in my post.
But, I disagree strongly with your point about Romney being a weak candidate and only being able to win against Hillary. Romney is a strong Governor with ideals that a majority of the country holds.
I welcome Mr. Romney governoring the entire country and not just your state. I’m glad that your loss is the nations gain!
February 25th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Mitt Romney doesn’t share all of W’s beliefs. I’m glad with this. Ok lets let the arabs controll 20 ports? what a frigging moron. Only bill He’ll veto is this one? wow and I voted for him twice. Ok well really look at what Romney has done for the state. Surplus again ( should make all the libs happy now that government has the money ) unemployment in the state is 4%. home sales are up. He wants to get the state tax down to 5% like we voted for twice in 2000 and 2002. Romney is not a Bush republican. He is a reagan republican. Plus he’s no oil man. Romney/allen in 08