I've said before a number of times that I thought that Mitt was a moral man, even though we disagreed on many things. I no longer can say that. To turn back on a sick man because you think that it's in your political interest to do so is grotesque. It reminds me of Bill Clinton in 1992. He allowed a mentally ill man to be executed because he thought it would win him votes from the "tough on crime" crowd. Christopher Hitchens never let that subject drop:
After falling behind in the New Hampshire primary in 1992, and after being caught lying about the affair with Gennifer Flowers to which he later confessed under oath, Clinton left the campaign trail and flew home to Arkansas to give the maximum publicity to his decision to sign a death warrant for Ricky Ray Rector. Rector was a black inmate on death row who had shot himself in the head after committing a double murder and, instead of dying as a result, had achieved the same effect as a lobotomy would have done. He never understood the charge against him or the sentence. After being served his last meal, he left the pecan pie on the side of the tray, as he told the guards who came to take him to the execution chamber, "for later."This is worse, actually. The man in this video is no criminal. He never shot a cop. He just wants his suffering to be relieved. He's not even asking the Fed.Gov to pay for that, just to not jail the doctors who would help him assuage his pain.
And Mitt turns his back and walks away.
Mitt Romney is a miserable, politically calculating, lying bastard. I don't know about you, but for me, I will never vote for that scumbag.
Via #1 Son, who is (surprisingly to me) paying attention to the election this time around.
20 comments:
Concur.
I understand your feelings, but this election is about getting Obama and Gang out of government. That's the overriding issue.
I think Romney's too technocrat and too wishy-washy as a conservative. But with (I hope) conservative majorities in both Senate and House, we can keep Romney's nose to the grindstone, feet to the fire, pick your metaphor.
And this election by itself is not going to reverse all the bad things that have been done. The Left has been working on this project for the past century. I hope it doesn't take that long to reverse the effects, but conservatives need to do their own "Long March" through the institutions to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
For a clearheaded argument on this, see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287921/obama-incompetent-or-evil-kevin-d-williamson
For a cranky post saying essentially the same thing, see: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/conservatives_remain_the.php
Anon, I'm not at all convinced that a Republican Congress will hold Romney's feet to the fire. Not convinced at all.
I'm evenb skeptical to the point of wondering if Romney's SCOTUS picks would be worse then Obama's - the picks that make it through confirmation. I don't see the Congress pushing back on Romney at all here, while fighting Obama tooth and nail.
I have some pretty serious issues with Doctors writing prescriptions for a raw plant.
I'm also curious about the validity of his tolerance of refined prescription medication.
That being said I think the shit should be as legal as Alcohol, and if you want to have a scotch to "medicate" your anxiety disorder or some other medical issue, or if you want to smoke a joint to treat your whatever disorder, that's fine.
But the stuff that is sold as "Medical Marijuana" has NOTHING in common with any other prescription drug in both the dosage, the impurities, the concentration, the dosage method, or the clinical research.
I'll be certainly voting for Paul in the Republican Primary, and from how things look from here, I'll be voting for Johnson in the general.
@Borepatch — I think we're going to have to disagree regarding what Romney will or won't do. But if you want a second term for BHO, the best way to achieve it is to sit out the election because the man opposing Obama isn't as conservative as you'd like.
Please do read those links I posted.
Anon,
No, it's not. It, like every election, is about making a moral choice about who we are willing to select as our representatives in gov't.
If the Republicans put Mitt Romney up as their candidate, they deserve to lose and they will. If that is the most conservative, most moral, Republican, then it would be better to lose and at least the outcome at the hands of the Democrats will be clear to see.
I think Romney is a Democrat, about middle of the road, but whatever he is, it's not someone that conservative libertarians are going to vote for.
Will not, ever, under any circumstances, vote for Romney.
Anonymous, this isn't just pique. My belief that Romney would be a disaster for the Republic (worse even than Obama) is based on a careful reasoning of the likely outcomes of the election.
Now, I may be wrong about this, but it's not anger or spite. Some of that is certainly there, but it's unimportant.
Also, I'm not a conservative, so that doesn't have anything to do with it, either.
No way will I vote for that unprincipled windsock.
Not in the face of Armageddon.
BP, thanks for the link back to your "I'm not a conservative" post. I hadn't seen that before. (I've only been hanging out here for a less than a year.) I used to think I was a conservative, but I never understood why professional Conservatives annoyed me. You seemed to sum up most of my thoughts pretty well.
@Borepatch — Well, if you want to go Galt in this election out of a sense of — what? moral purity? — go ahead. But just keep in mind that the political and social forces you most detest will never go Galt.
They are lifers. Like water under pressure, they never quit, never stop taking any advantage they find, they are always there, pushing, pushing, pushing for greater control over society. They are relentless. And that's how the ratchet always slips their way.
The Left is actually in a minority in this country. And it can be beaten. But that can't be done in a single, satisfyingly annihilating election in which a candidate of shining purity smites the evil candidate once and for all. Because the lesson the Left learned ages ago is while glorious cavalry attacks may win a battle, wars are won by countless small actions.
Life seldom offers pure choices, and politics, never.
Under those circumstances, I find it impossible to sit on the sidelines. Do as you wish.
Anon, this isn't about going Galt. Please read the link I left in my last comment, which explains in detail the reasoning behind my opposition to Romney.
@Borepatch — I read both of your posts (anti-Mitt and why-I-am-not) and don't disagree with any of your bullet points in not-conservative list. And in 2008, I didn't vote for the old guy, instead I voted for her. (Didn't help, I guess.)
But because I live in this society, I don't want to see it degraded further towards the kind of entitlement society they have over there in Yurp. It would be the ruination of all this country has ever achieved and stood for.
In thumbnail, we are the anti-Europe.
Romney has dangerous tendencies toward technocratic rule. You're right, he doesn't question that "experts" should manage things.
At this point, as many many others have pointed out, the Republican race has been a series of oh-please-not-Mitt exercises. And at the end of the day, Mitt's still standing there, for the reasons Kevin Williamson outlined in the link I gave.
So what to do if the choice comes down to Romney vs. Obama?
I think we're arguing over which variety of train crash, on balance, after all the bodies are counted and the scenery tidyied up, is perhaps slightly better.
I'd vote for Romney to stop Obama. You'd sit the election out, figuring that Obama (or his controllers) will overreach so far that we'll have a series of constitutional crises that will reset the clock back to some....date? And all will become better, somehow.
Wish I had your sense of confidence.
@borepatch: "I don't see the Congress pushing back on Romney at all [on SCOTUS nominees], while fighting Obama tooth and nail."
That's all well and good, but do you think Romney will get his "Justice" Department to claim Congress's pro forma sessions aren't real, so he can make recess appointments without a recess? Do you think Romney would say "we can't wait for Congress to act?"
Also, how do you square "vote them out--all of them" with "I will not vote for [Obama's most likely opponent]?"
Firstly, a lot of medical MJ clinics are very thinly disguised scams. For patients with real suffering the system actually works fairly well. While I am not adamant on the issue of MJ legalization I shun scamsters of all stripe.
Regards my voting in Presidental elections, I remember being very enthused, very sure on multiple occasions. And I remember later realizing that I had been wrong. So I am not being dogmatic just now.
I suspect our fiscal house has serious dry rot and termites, its much worse than generally realized. Who will find the moral courage to deal with it in a way that does not toss grandma out into the cold, but does not put my hypothetical grand children in lifetime debt?
tbd
Tacitus
Rick C, you lay out the cost of a second Obama term well. You don't lay out the cost of a Romney term.
But you made me chuckle with the "vote 'em out" challenge. ;-)
In answer, the key to that post was this quote from here:
I don't think that the problem is the Democrats, and I don't think the solution is the Republicans. The problem is that there's a permanent political class that has increasing contempt for the voters, and who is aided and abetted by their lackeys in the traditional media. If the Republicans are not as bad as the Democrats in this, it's not for lack of trying.
And this is precisely the problem. A Republican Congress won't try to hold back a President Romney. They'll go along to get along.
Tacitus:
Who will find the moral courage to deal with it in a way that does not toss grandma out into the cold, but does not put my hypothetical grand children in lifetime debt?
Nobody I see. Maybe Ron Paul. Maybe. The GOP establishment will fight him tooth and nail - which is another reason to think that a GOP Congress won't restrain a President Romney.
Regrettably, neither your ballot nor mine will have a line that says, "none of these". The choice you'll get is (1) vote for BHO, (2) vote for Romney (let's assume), or (3) stay home. (Write-ins do nothing.)
"Vote them all out!" is a stirring slogan — and I agree with it! — but where's the voting button we press to achieve it?
Speaking for myself —
(1) is unacceptable.
(3) amounts to going Galt.
(2) is risky, but it's what's left after I refuse to do (1) or (3).
I agree with you regarding the "permanent governing class," but what's to be done?
Wow, he's a politician and he lies!
GEEEZZZZZ, guys. The very FIRST thing my father taught me about politicians was that if their lips were moving, they were lying.
NONE of them speaks truth, and if you believe any do, you are sadly mistaken.
That said, you will have the opportunity to vote for a socialist who admits and confirms he is with every action, or for a politician who at least has some redeeming qualities, not the least of which is that he is not anti 2nd Amendment. He may not be a super pro 2nd Amendment supporter, but he certainly is not anti!
So choose a Socialist, which is what happens if you vote for Obama or for anyone BUT the Republican nominee, whoever he is. But don't say that the reason you aren't voting for them is because they lie, because they ALL lie!
"not the least of which is that he is not anti 2nd Amendment."
Apparently you have a different definition of "anti Second Amendment" than the rest of us.
And yes, BP, that video was disgusting. I really can't add anything to what you said, because you pretty much nailed it.
Post a Comment