It's not a hatchet job on Romney.
"He comes across as a decent, accomplished man who wants to do the right thing, but he is perfectly comfortable with big government, and seems to have no philosophical underpinnings: certainly not conservative ones..."Rather, it is a thoughtful examination -- almost an indictment -- of the American voter.
The period of the Obama tenure, and now the 2012 election, are forcing Americans to reconsider, in a way I’m not sure we have for a good 200 years, what the vote means, and what politics means to our lives.It is a lengthy piece, but I urge you to set aside 10 minutes or so to read it, and then think about it.
I see two ways for conservatives to view the vote in November. One involves a pragmatic view of government as something to be handled, as much as possible, through prudent tactics. This view emphasizes method and calculation over philosophy. The other involves a view of government that makes the choice of president a form of positive affirmation of what we believe in. With this view, philosophy is paramount; if philosophical sympathy is absent in the leading candidate(s), no mere method of politics is a way of correcting the deficiency.
Neither perspective stands alone. In most election years, campaigning entails a combination of these perspectives, and a candidate is chosen who seems to marry them as effectively as possible for electoral politics. In 2012, however, conservatives simply can’t make of Romney a “what we believe in” choice. He is instead a “prudent tactics” choice: a placeholder who will basically not be Obama for the next four years.
The only strategically significant point of having a placeholder is so that the people themselves can regroup. Romney cannot be a savior, and in policy terms, he is not the answer to our problems. In the foreseeable future, we have to do the heavy lifting.
Our Founders were profoundly – and properly – skeptical of government. They stated repeatedly that their reliance was ultimately on the good sense and character of the people. In 2012, it’s all about the people: who we are and the clarity with which we see our predicament and our options.Think about it...
7 comments:
Yep, worth the read, and it IS about options... in this case, the better of the two bad options...
I'm not so sure that Mitt is a bad option. He's just not a good one. I liked the way the author put it. Mitt is a tactical option - a placeholder until we can implement a strategic option. IMO the key is packing the house and senate with conservatives. I don't think Mitt will lead to the right, but I do think he'll follow that way if that's what the majority wants.
But first, of course, we have to get the really bad option out of office...
Romney at the helm commanding The USS THRIFTY CONGRESS would turn the tide and could go for 8. Romney at the stern of The USS Leaky Bucket will be a 4 year nothing. The proof is in the puddin', as they say, if independents and Goppers don't take control of congress away from the commies, we're toast. Romney & Congress! All for one and one for all! (He's part of the answer not all of the solution. Maybe the better part?;-) Think BIG America, pay off your credit cards!
"He's part of the answer not all of the solution."
That's another good way of putting it.
Good read but I don't agree with some of the assertions.
1- Government is out of control under Obama
2- Romney undertands #1.
3- We as a people are now so diverse that coming together as Americans has been mangled into something I am unfamiliar with. (See: Occupy Movement)
4- Romney will make radical changes to government run amok. He see's it as a job to do for America. Doing something for the greater good is a trademark of his. (See: Winter Olympics - Salt Lake)
He is looking for a legacy that escaped his father. He may not be charasmatic and a great orator, but we allready have one of those in the White House, and that has not turned out so well. He want's legitimate and tangible change in the direction that America is heading. He is endorsed and backed by West, Ryan, Walker, Rubio, and many other conservative republicans, not because of his flashy talking points, but because of his business accumnen, something the current administration has NEVER been a part of.
But what do I know, I voted for Ross Perot because I hoped for the same. Didn't know he was a crazy little man.
Jeff - I don't disagree with your position that Romney sincerely wants to do what is best for this country. I am not sure, however, that what he considers as radical changes are what I consider as radical changes. For example, he may try to reform and improve federal agencies such as the EPA, the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, etc. My first impulse would be to eliminate them.
In any event, he's clearly preferable to the alternative.
Where's a Tea Party mob, or 50,000 of same with 50,000 in each, when you really need them?
If the Goppers don't have the WH, and control of Congress for at least the next 2 years, Romney is just another misguded fool at the head of a congressional parade of fools.
If the sane people want to stop the insanity, they have to take control of the Goppers and tell them when, where, how fast, how much, and who to march on, over, around, and through. Without a strong leach, politicians are like dogs running around on their own; they're going to make a stinking mess of everything.
WE THE PEOPLE are going to have to drink a hell of a lot of damn tea in the next two and a half years if we elect Romney AND take the Senate AND keep the House. (Oh yes, one more incentive, The Supremes are waiting backstage, wonder what they're going to look and sound like in two and a half years if we don't take the Senate and WH? Scarey? That's enough to stop your heart;-)
Post a Comment