Three days after Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney decided to call it quits, making the announcement to a disappointed audience at the CPAC convention. Romney, who has spent about 35 million dollars of his money on the campaign, apparently decided that the handwriting was on the wall. What is sad to me is that he gave a great speech today-one he should have been giving all along.
Romney's speech was absolutely magnificent, full of passion and fire. He covered issues like the War on Terror, the decline of our culture, welfare, liberal judges, corrupt unions and other topics that drew thunderous applause from the audience that was clearly hit hard when he announced that he was stepping aside.
My question to Romney is this: Where have you been the last several months? True, he ran a strong campaign, but his appearances gave many the impression that he was just a little too pre-packaged and smooth. In contrast, if he had been giving speeches like this for the past 6 months, it would be him, not John McCain sitting in the catbird seat.
Romney's speech has convinced me once and for all that he was the best guy in the race. I had been leaning toward him for months, but now I am convinced. I can only hope that he and McCain can bury their past differences. I would be very happy to see Romney as the VP candidate, though the smart money is against that possibility. More likely, we will see Huckabee get the nod-especially after that shell-game caucus in West Virginia, where McCain supporters walked over and voted for Huckabee-thus, denying the victory to Romney.
So now, barring some unforeseen development, it is clear that McCain is the one. A lot of conservatives have stated that they will sit at home on election day rather than vote for McCain. When we consider the implications of that action, I hope they will think very seriously about their position. But that will be the subject of a separate posting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That sound you heard was my sigh of relief. Whew!
I'll try to be brief, but this guy is everything that I can't stand in a politician, and everything that I find to be pandering and downright cynical.
First of all, his statement about how "freedom requires religion" is such an absurd assertion that it literally makes my head hurt. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Religion flourishes in a free society, but religion traditionally has been at odds with freedom. Ugh...must stop thinking about it, as it only makes me dizzy.
Also, I will absolutely NEVER vote for anybody who supports a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. What a horrid, evil thought it is to change our Constitution to specifically ensure that a particular group of people can't share the rights that others have. (And please, spare me the Orwellian comments about "protecting marriage." I teach too thorough a unit on propaganda to fall for that horse crap.)
Even if I agreed with the concept, I still find any politician who speaks of this to be cynically playing upon the prejudices of the population, as I know, and I'm sure that you know, that such an amendment has no hope of ever passing. However, Joe Q. Sixpack doesn't investigate these sorts of things as thoroughly (shoot, I bet most people think that the President has the power to amend the Constitution) and will vote for somebody because they speak on that. Shoot, it's even more cynical as he believes that gays deserve the same benefits as straight couples. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too. At least guys like Al Sharpton, for as woo-woo and out there as he can be, has the nerve to pick a consistent position.
Other than that, he's too "conservative" for me, as I don't want to vote for a guy who thinks that Gitmo's not enough and wants to double it, as I think that what we're doing there is only harming our reputation in the world. Also, that he opposes the idea of a President defining what constitutes as torture and what isn't is downright frightening. I think that if I were waterboarded, I'd call it torture.
I think I mentioned the misgivings I had about Romney in my article. As for the issue of Gay marriage, I wrote an article last May or June entitled: Gay Marriage?-Opposed. Rather than repeat all that, I would refer you to that article for your comment.
I think I understand what Romney was referring to in the remark you quoted. I also understand your point. Of course, we have seen in history how religion could destroy liberty. I am referring to the Inquisition. We see it in the present with radical Islam. The remedy for that is simply having freedom of religion. In the US we have gotten that pretty right, unless you want to go back to the Salem witch trials.
I think what Romney means is that if we in America throw away our Christian heritage, our society will decline to the point where we will lose our freedoms eventually and that Christianity has been a force for good in America. I agree. I have heard Jewish commentators, like Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger state that it is precisely because America is a Christian country that American Jews have been able to flourish. I know there are exceptions to religious tolerance in America today, but all in all, I think we have exemplified freedom of religion.
I think that you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole as to what he meant. It was pure pandering to his religious supporters. There's no way to make that comment make sense without changing what he was actually saying.
I also find comments about Jews being able to flourish because of this being a "Christian" nation is nothing more than an assertion. It might make Christians feel good to say that, but it doesn't mean that it's true. I'd say that it's because of our separation of religion and government that Jews have been able to do well here. I think that the evidence (when one looks at the history of supposed "Christian" nations and their treatment of religious minorities) falls further on to my side. Of course, there's no way to no for sure what this country would be like if it wasn't predominantly Christian, but that doesn't mean that what they say is true. More pandering, if you ask me.
I'll find your gay marriage blog though and comment.
The comment I quoted you about Jews flourishing in a Christian nation (US) was not an assertion made just to make a Christian feel good. I was quoting two conservative radio commentators, Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger, who also happen to be practicing Jews. I happen to agree with it because we are a country that practices freedom of religion. Though we are predominently Christian, we allow the practice of all other religions as well as Atheism.
I understood who said it. What I'm saying is that it's simply an assertion and an assertion with a pretty big hole in logic at that. But as you just said, it's our freedom of religion that allows Jews to flourish here - that has absolutely nothing to do with us being predominantly Christian. I mean, if you want to look outside our own country, the Jews had it better under the Muslims in Spain than they did under the Christians! Those guys are just playing to their conservative supporters, and it's much more accurate to say that Jews have flourished here IN SPITE of this being a Christian country.
And Gary, Atheism is not a religion, it's the lack of one. If an example of religion is atheism, then an example of a hobby is not collecting stamps. When somebody asks me what religion I am, I say "none of the above." Atheism has absolutely none of the basic requirements of a religion. I mean, you wouldn't say that somebody who doesn't have tuberculosis has a form of tuberculosis, would you?
I agree with your last statement. Sorry - bit of a knee-jerk reaction on my part.
Post a Comment