Romney….

really is a sort of archetypal Republican, isn’t he? The fascinating thing will be to watch people laboring to induce Stockholm Syndrome in themselves in the effort to persuade themselves that he’s actually a good candidate and not merely (hopefully) less dreadful than Obama.

What thirty years of prolife “playing ball” with the cynical GOP leadership hath wrought.

  • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

    I don’t know about Romney, but the link is an archetypal “I sure do hate Republicans” Daniel Nichols’s post.

  • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com Ben of Two Men

    I am an independent, but I do but I like “The Rominee” for these reasons:
    - Never worked in D.C.
    - Not a career politician
    - Worked in the private sector for many years
    - Well vetted since 2007. No skeletons in the closest
    - Good debater
    - Presidential. Whether we like it or not, the president is the spokesperson for the nation. He has the look and is well spoken.
    - His wife is a powerful asset
    - Generally positive, upbeat attitude (although he can campaign negatively)
    - He knows how to win. The left is wise to fear him.
    - More pro-life then the alternative

    • Ted Seeber

      I’m not convinced of that last, but that might mean because my pro-life leanings include actually caring about people after birth as well as before.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

    Very quietly, I’m noticing a lot of conservatives put their focus on Senate and House races. They didn’t get their act together for the Presidency and so they’re stuck with Romney but the road to making Romney good is not in beating him over the head in op-ed pages and providing ammunition for Obama. The practical means of making the best is making him the left end of the governing continuum with a significantly more conservative Senate and House. His instinct to cut deals will lead him to grow in office, the theory goes, and become more conservative.

    Watch the Senate especially and you’ll see the Tea Party’s fingerprints all over the primary defeat of long-serving Republicans such as Dick Lugar. You’re also likely to see them in a number of Democrat defeats in November.

  • ivan_the_mad

    JUDGES! JUDGES! JUDGES!!! THIS ELECTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF EXISTENCE!!! ALSO ISRAEL!!! AND BOMB IRAN!!! IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN ROMNEY, YOU’RE REALLY VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!

    I’ve taken the liberty of condensing all the pro-Romney rebuttals here, saving others the effort :P

  • Jon S.

    Just a couple corrections to the blog Mark links to. Romney was not born wealthy. His father’s wealth came later. Second, Romney would not be the richest president. In today’s dollars, Washington, Jefferson, and Kennedy all had more wealth than Romney. John Kerry, who didn’t win of course, has a wealth that is about 2.5x Romney’s. If I wanted to be argumentative, I might point out that venture capitalists don’t create useful things, they just give money to people who do. Not exactly unproductive. But, that’d be argumentative, so I won’t say it.

    • Ted Seeber

      That would count for me if I had ever had a project not canceled after attracting venture capital. Near as I can tell, the worst thing you can do to a small business is attract venture capital.

  • http://equesatrum.blogspot.com Mulder

    I feel there is more hostility towards Romney than McCain, though the latter was clearly in favor of embryonic stem cell research and the former is not. Why is this?

    “What thirty years of prolife “playing ball” with the cynical GOP leadership hath wrought.” – Well said.

    • Ted Seeber

      Might have *something* to do with the fact that 92% of the abortions in this country are for economic, rather than life of the mother, rape, or incest; and Romney is seen as being particularly bad for the economy from a certain angle.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Particularly bad for the economy as opposed to Obama? That’s one odd angle you’re using.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Both are just as bad for Muslim civilians.

  • Mark R

    Not so much archetypical as designed to appeal to the two establishment-ish extremes in the party: the money side and the morality* side. I miss the Episcopalians who reeked of scotch and water, but they were complicit in a lot of wrongs. At least I could party with them.
    With Romney, when you are desined to appeal to “everybody” you appeal to nobody.

    *Morality because Mormonism isn’t Christianity, and because Christianity isn’t the issue with most politically venomous evangelicals (as opposed to those who really walk the talk).

  • Tim Jones

    One good thing about Ron Paul is that he is almost certain to draw as many disaffected would-be Democrat voters as conservatives. Maybe more. So the “A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama” trope doesn’t wash.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Here’s an even easier way to show the absurdity of the claim “A vote for is a vote for Obama”. Let’s make an example that strips away the emotionally-charged issues of name or party affiliation:

      I walk into the voting booth. There are several candidates, Bill, Ted, Batman, and Frodo. I check Bill’s name. I submit my ballot.

      Question: Who did I vote for? The correct answer: Bill.

      • http://equesatrum.blogspot.com Mulder

        If you’re not voting for Batman, you’re doing it wrong!

        • ivan_the_mad

          I neglected to mention that in my example, I’m clearly a poorly informed voter :D

      • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

        You’d better go straight to confession afterwards.

      • Ted Seeber

        Frodo for the win! He’s the only one willing to go to Mt. Doom for us!

    • Ted Seeber

      Virgil Goode of the Constitution party said pretty much the same thing in his acceptance speech- that he predicts that far more Democrats are upset at Obama than Republicans at Romney, and thus he’d draw more votes away from Obama from Democrats who can’t bring themselves to vote for Romney.

  • Observer

    Someone might say voting for Frodo is voting for Sauramon. Since the story turned out to the contrary, I would have to differ. Frodo may end up going to Mordor because of the ring. At least, though, he is going to Mordor to get rid of it. Whereas, Golem what used to be a Hobbit, gets the ring off of Frodo and perishes with it in the very volcanic magma as Frodo intended to get rid of the ring.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    I suppose it’s up to the moral conscience of the voter. Those who choose to vote for some other party – or even not at all – should feel fine if that’s where their informed decision has led. But the Bishops have made it pretty clear that those who might vote for either party’s candidate may actually be able to do so based on their moral reasoning just the same. It is fun being Catholic, I’ll say that.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X