Take them at their word?

by Dean L


(Or, why I would hold my nose and support Romney)

Politicians: Their guys (and gals) are all liars. Our guys always tell the truth. So we tend to believe our guys. As a result, we detest the opposition and our own standard-bearers are typically a shade less evil or else completely virtuous.

Take Mitt Romney. Having spent the primaries in the Not Romney camp, every previous turn he took claiming he didn't want to be Reagan rang true for me. He's supposed to be in my camp so I took him at his words. He was a progressive. Those words were not good, so I didn't like him.

My point is this - we hold those on our own side to a different standard than those of our opposition. We do so at our own peril. Obama says something bad and we expect it and it reinforces our perception of him. Obama says something good and we dismiss it (assuming that some day he does say something good). That's to be expected. But when Romney says something good we are predisposed to disbelieve him because he used to believe in global warming and not Reagan.

But what if Romney was lying back when he was running for governor of a very liberal state and he's telling the truth now? What if he has grown in his conservatism? There is a chance he is telling the truth when he espouses real conservatism. Perhaps the etch-a-sketch comments doesn't mean he really is squeamish on conservative values. Maybe it really is just a political tactic to win the White House and it slipped out.

Without Romney's history we may be more inclined to believe he was foolishly telegraphing his election plan than exposing his true colors as a liberal or a moderate or a life-long opportunist and not a temporary one. But there's that darn history of liberalesque comments.

What is a conservative voter to do? There really are only two options. Vote for Romney, or don't.

Voting for Romney plays on the possibility that he is a conservative masquerading as a liberal (both past and near future) to win elections. If that is the case he may govern as a conservative. If that masquerade is in fact real - he's a RINO - then we are straddled with a less liberal liberal than the uber-liberal liberal in the White House now. In other words, the dose of poison will at least stop flowing so quickly. Perhaps with pressure properly applied it can even be slowed to a trickle. That's clearly not ideal and it is probably a much more likely scenario than the masquerade fantasy noted above. But it is still a better outcome than the "don't vote for him and stay home election day" option.

The last option is the equivalent of allowing the 'cure' to kill the patient. Subjecting the country to 4 more years of Obama will bring terrible damage to the country - not only economically but also in terms of liberty. It's not a suite of great choices facing conservative voters, but selecting the least objectionable option is going to have to suffice.

24 comments:

  1. I linked to this post; it's good stuff. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for a dose of much needed reality for many! Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So consider this. Romney is by all accounts a decent human being who ran a real business that made money. Obama is a community organizer who never run anything and has left all the heavy lifting of his term in office to the likes of Pelosi and Reid. Further, Romney is espousing a point of view regarding freedom that we subscribe to, and doing so after he wrapped up the nomination. Even if he is not completely sincere, his stated positions are so much more conservative than Obama's that there is really no alternative. Further, four more years of Obama's usurping Presidential power will take decades to reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Funny, my wife and I had this very conversation on the long drive back from the Grand Canyon. During the conversation, I realized there is a scenario that could unfold in which I could not vote for Romney. In that event, I would vote libertarian, being in Commufornia.

    ReplyDelete
  5. .

    "It's not a suite of great choices facing conservative voters, but selecting the least objectionable option is going to have to suffice."

    So your point is, true conservatives, in the end, must "Vote for Mr Romney because he is not Mr Obama."

    Is there any change of stated position that Mr Romney could make that would break the Conservative's command to vote for Mr Romney?

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In other words, the dose of poison will at least stop flowing so quickly. Perhaps with pressure properly applied it can even be slowed to a trickle. That's clearly not ideal and it is probably a much more likely scenario than the masquerade fantasy noted above. But it is still a better outcome than the "don't vote for him and stay home election day" option."

    So if I hold my nose and 'do the right thing' and vote for Romney so America will be miraculously saved and not die so fast, according to the doomsayers and fear-mongering 'conservatives', then I will be esteemed for this?

    *facepalm*

    We the People. Not we the government puppets who hope and pray that government will be nice to us and love us and make our lives better and give us peace because we is so afraid the Nation be gonna collapse if dat ol' Obama man gets back in da White House and we all be maked into cowering and sniv'ling citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  7. to paraphrase WC fields: i never really voted FOR anyone.

    just make it well known that if he doesn't perform, you will do everything you can to primary him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For your perusal and evaluation:

    "Why Moderates Have Always Been Unelectable" by But Now You Know. Not a spin, just some factual numbers.
    http://butnowyouknow.net/2012/02/04/why-moderates-have-always-been-unelectable/

    ReplyDelete
  9. This whole argument is so silly as it misses the entire point of our national situation. It is predicated on the assumption that Mitt Romney is his own man and can actually choose his cabinet members. He cannot. Everything about the Executive branch is very tightly controlled by a coterie of handlers. Everyone knows this except partisans who believe that "their man" can make a difference. It's like telling a child that Santa isn't real when you inform them of this whole central banking command economy thing that is operating far and above left/right issues. They just stare at you with a blank expression and go right on with the child-like faith in what the media tells them is going on.

    Newsflash: This nation was 'jacked some 100 years ago by a bunch of Fabians. I now only vote for the "anyone but Cartel" candidate. Might be Paul, might be Gary, but I sure as hell ain't votin' for the "Man" anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RM,

      So you'll be voting for Romney's masters, and not necessarily Romney himself? I take it you would opine that his handlers will do a better job in slowly killing our Nation than President Obama's masters.

      I must ask, and I mean absolutely no offense, but why then do you even bother going through the motions of believing your vote matters, since you have said it is all pretty much above all of our heads? Now you're starting to sound like me.

      Delete
    2. I guess its not our vote that matters (as much fraud and abuse as we've seen coupled with how the delegate process actually works) but talking about the voting that is more powerful.

      Obama and Romney have the same masters - JPMorganChaseBankofAmericaGoldmanSachs. It's just a question of following the money. When it came time for the bailouts, we had martial law threatened for the sake of keeping these banks afloat. Gen. Smedley Butler said way back in the '30s that our military is basically the security guards for these banksers' interests. You know when they say protect American interests, they really mean monied interests. As far as both political parties having the same masters, this is what Quigley, Clinton's mentor wrote out so eloquently in Tragedy and Hope. The only man to chronicle the minutes of the CFR said that in throwing one bum out of office, the voters would have the illusion of change, yet the agenda would proceed mostly uninterrupted. Are there disputes between these Elite players? I'm sure, but you have to admit, the march toward an authoritarian police state has moved pretty much uninterrupted since Woodrow Wilson, with those in government growing more wealthy with each successive generation.

      Delete
    3. RM,

      Yeah, um, sorry...I reckon I'm either too thick or ignorant to understand what the hell you just went on about.

      I simply was asking if you detest the political game so much, since it is all rigged anyways by people beyond the beyond, then why bother voting or even writing about politics? Your comments, while enjoyable to read, just didn't mean too much to me since I was looking for something salient.

      Delete
    4. I bother writing because I like chronicling what I see, and it helps me practice explaining it to others. Looks like I need to work on that some more. I've got so much information float around in my head - I mean that in a not crazy way - that sometimes it comes rushing out. As a history buff, I 'm excited to share what I've been learning.

      This is the quote that demonstrates the truth of Obamney (Obama and Romney are more similar than different):

      "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy."
      --Carroll Quigley in his once banned book, Tragedy and Hope - official chronicle-meister of the Elite Council on Foreign Relations and Georgetown mentor to William Jefferson Clinton (so you know he was a man of "quality")

      And then you've got the most excellent Gen. Butler confirming the libertarian position on foreign policy, for those who think that everyone in the Pentagon is all "blood and swash" for America and apple pie:

      "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

      In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows."

      I'm just throwing puzzle pieces on the table for the consideration of anyone out there who's looking for them. It's just my little hobby. Just hope I'm not turning into the crazy person with newspaper clippings thumbtacked all over the wall:)

      Delete
  10. Mittens is smart enough to know the Conservative Ascendancy will be strong enough to primary him in 2016 if necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ever feel as though we're on a merry go-round and the only real change is merely the selection we make as to the motive force pushing us round and round?

    Why should I hold my nose and vote for more known stink when I can vote for Gary Johnson and be able to breathe freely having voted my principles?

    Time to actually take a stand folks. Expecting real change from a Mittens Presidency is like expecting a leopard to change it's spots.

    Neither is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ever feel as though we're on a merry go-round and the only real change is merely the selection we make as to the motive force pushing us round and round?

    Why should I hold my nose and vote for more known stink when I can vote for Gary Johnson and be able to breathe freely having voted my principles?

    Time to actually take a stand folks. Expecting real change from a Mittens Presidency is like expecting a leopard to change it's spots.

    Neither is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ever feel as though we're on a merry go-round and the only real change is merely the selection we make as to the motive force pushing us round and round?

    Why should I hold my nose and vote for more known stink when I can vote for Gary Johnson and be able to breathe freely having voted my principles?

    Time to actually take a stand folks. Expecting real change from a Mittens Presidency is like expecting a leopard to change it's spots.

    Neither is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ever feel as though we're on a merry go-round and the only real change is merely the selection we make as to the motive force pushing us round and round?

    Why should I hold my nose and vote for more known stink when I can vote for Gary Johnson and be able to breathe freely having voted my principles?

    Time to actually take a stand folks. Expecting real change from a Mittens Presidency is like expecting a leopard to change it's spots.

    Neither is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'd say vote anti-Obama this cycle. Weeding the moderates and neocons from the GOP is a longer term goal.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I for one don’t think that Romney needs every vote he can get to defeat Obama. If, for instance, you live in Illinoistan where I live, it doesn’t matter a whit who you vote for, or even if you vote. (It's Obama by a wide margin.)

    The same is true in many places. Some states don't matter for the opposite reason, because they are simply always going to go for the GOP.

    Only a few places matter. If I lived where it mattered, I would be more inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils as some are suggesting. (The thought of that disgusts me however.)

    Therefore, unless the polls show that Romney has a chance in Illinois, (ain't gonna happen) I will be voting for Gary Johnson since the moronic GOP will not nominate anyone who has a clue what it will take to restore our liberties. (Alternately, they don't care about our liberties, except when campaigning.)

    Better to have a chance to send a message to the rest of the country that freedom is the only thing that matters. If Johnson got enough votes nationwide, the GOP will be forced to actually turn in a libertarian direction, instead of just paying occasional lip service to it.

    As to who’s fault it will be if Obama gets re-elected: the only people who could possibly be to blame are those who nominated a candidate who failed. It’s that simple.

    Romney is a horrible candidate, the only reason he has a chance is because Obama is an abject failure at everything he has touched.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams

    As I'll be voting for principle, I most definitely will not be voting for Romney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that was an amazing and wholly appropriate quote to share, Zak. Thank you for doing so, since I had not heard or seen that one before! Rock on.

      Delete
    2. From the son of one of our founding fathers. Excellent quote! Thanks for bringing it our way.

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.