You may have noticed that talking about politics can be very hard to do. Give you an example: You’re talking to a conservative, and he doesn’t like Mitt Romney. Doesn’t trust him. Thinks he’s a phony conservative. Not a conservative at all. Thinks his campaign is just a masquerade, a cover for beliefs that are moderate at best.
What can you say to such a person? Nothing, I find. You just have to shrug and say, “Okay.”
Advertisement
Obviously, Romney has done a lot of tacking in his political career: first on the Massachusetts stage, now on the national stage. “Tacking” and “tacky” are words that sound an awful lot alike.
I believe that Romney is a conservative, and that he would make a very good nominee and a very good president. Furthermore, I believe he is the only Republican candidate who can win.
But how can you prove such things? You can’t, is the answer. Any of these propositions would have to be tested. Think Newt can’t win, or Santorum? The only way to prove it is to nominate him and see. Think Romney would go all Elliot Richardson on us if he were in the Oval Office? Only one way to find out. Think he’d be more like Reagan? Only one way to find out.
Etc. A very great deal of political discussion is speculation — informed speculation, maybe, speculation of varying intelligence and credibility, but speculation all the same.
When people speak in absolute tones, as though their political opinions were chiseled on tablets from Sinai, watch out. The more people know about politics, I find, the less absolutely and obnoxiously they speak.
I was talking to someone the other day who told me, with exquisite condescension, that “political elites” disagreed with me. And here I thought I was one! Who does the certification?
This same fellow said he could not go along with something I said because — get this — “I’m a writer and I care about words.” And here I thought I cared a little about words, and did a little writing! Maybe I should return to the pro shop, selling sleeves of Titleists . . .
One thing’s sure about the Republican nominee, I think: He’ll be called a Klansman, in one way or another. In ways subtle or blunt. Rare is the Republican who escapes this treatment.
The Left has started early on Mitt Romney: A blog said that Romney was mouthing an old Klan slogan. This charge was quickly picked up by the Washington Post and MSNBC.
The Klan slogan, apparently, was “Keep America American.” At some campaign stops, Romney has urged people to “keep America America.” What he means is, let’s continue to be entrepreneurial, opportunity-minded, dynamic, and so on. He is not advocating the lynching of blacks and Catholics.
To their credit, both the Post and MSNBC apologized for, essentially, pulling a white sheet over Romney. But he will have to get used to it, if he’s the nominee.
I recall something from long ago: the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton. Liberals kept stressing that the House managers were white. Their race was somehow a big deal. On television, Eleanor Clift said, “All they were missing was white sheets.” She said the congressmen were like “night riders.”
Clift, of course, is one of the whitest women alive. America is a very, very weird country. Often a nasty one.
Mind a little plugola? In 1999, I wrote about the disgusting role of skin color in the Lewinsky-and-impeachment drama: “The Race Ace: Clinton at his most shameful.” You will find it in my 2007 collection, here.
I believe that Clinton greatly benefited from the Republican electoral landslide in 1994. For one thing, it prevented him from acting on his most left-wing instincts: no more “ClintonCare,” or “HillaryCare,” etc. Similarly, I think Obama benefits from the 2010 Republican landslide. A Republican House means he can do less harm. And there is that healthy Republican minority in the Senate.
Going from memory, I quote Mitch McConnell, after the midterm elections: “He can do no more legislative harm — only administrative.”
I think what excites most conservatives is not the merit of any particular candidate but the prospect of defeating Barack Obama. Perhaps I speak only for myself, but I think Republicans are reserving our zeal (perhaps subconsciously) for the summer and fall when we know around whom we must coalesce -- when voting for Republican Candidate X equates to a vote against Obama (the vote we've been longing to cast).
Re: your comment about thrift and generosity. I believe it was the French theologian, Blaise Pascal, who said that we should always balance one virtue with its opposite, which is is precisely what you discovered: thrift should be balanced by generosity!
Tom, but I think the point is that thrift and generosity are not opposites. Thriftiness simply means not spending more than you ned to for things, saving, and not wasting money on things you don't need. It's not the same as "miserliness," which I think might be defined as keeping all your money to yourself, only spending when absolutely necessary (to the point of deprivation) and never, ever sharing. Jay's point is that the thriftier you are the more generous you are able to be -- because you have more money available for sharing.
"I believe that Romney is a conservative, and that he would make a very good nominee and a very good president. Furthermore, I believe he is the only Republican candidate who can win."
Jay, you are wrong on all four points. There's nothing more I can say.
I doubt Mr. Romney is a racist. He certainly cannot afford to be one. So the Hefty Lefty attacks calling him one is misplaced propaganda. However, Mr. Romney is a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormons"). His family has deep pioneer roots in that church and enough research way back when will tell you that branches of his family practiced Plural Marriage (better know as Polygamy). However, that was outlawed by the mainline Mormons back in 1890, and we know that Mitt has been married to the same lady for over 40 years. And we also know that he belongs to a church that did not permit blacks to be members of the Mormon Priesthood (there are two orders) until 1978 when the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Spencer Kimball had a "vision" from God which lifted the ban. So hey folks, this is a Presidential Candidate from a progressive religion. He's safe, so feel free to vote for him.
Jay, we have a nine-year-old boy in our house, who also has a habit of saying delightful things. He has a bit of a reflux issue (or something) and belches, often quite loudly, far more than seems usual or necessary. I'm sure some of it is intentional, as he seems to really enjoy letting one rip now and then. We have fun with him about, balancing making light of this "habit" along with reminding him to please try to belch as silently as possible. A while back my wife let out a pretty good one, and my son turned to her quickly and said sharply, "Mom, you're stealing my identity!"
Romney may well be the Republican presidential candidate, and if so I will vote for him - but not with any great enthusiasm. I know it's a visceral rather than rational reaction, but every time I see Romney I get a vision of John Kerry, and a well-dressed Herb Tarlick (sales manager from the old "WKRP" tv show) . There is something about him that just doesn't ring true.
Why does everybody think that Romney is "pretending" to be a conservative? Isn't it far more likely that he was pretending to be a moderate to fit in Massachusetts? Every politician has to fit their electorate. Obama pretends to be moderate sometimes but he won't have to after this election. We can't blow it by O'Donelling a national election.
I feel compelled to chime in on Cuba a bit. I had the opportunity several years ago to visit for a week with a group under an educational/humanitarian Treasury Department license. As a result of this project, my group got to go into parts of Cuba (mostly surrounding Havana) that many tourists don't see (nor would probably want to). We still stayed in the tourist hotels, however.
I have little doubt that many folks who believe Cuba is a worker's paradise would be shocked by the scenes in these neighborhoods and the condition many Cubans endure. And PETA's head would positively burst in to flames.
But I will tell you this: I didn't meet a single regular Cuban (vice government agent Cuban) who didn't express huge amounts of love and admiration for America. Many regular Cubans speak little to no English and oftentimes assume you're from Europe if you're white. Boy, when they find out you're really from America, it's as if they found a long lost family member. Some of them even manage to have clothing with the American flag on it that they'll proudly don the next time they see you. In one town, they actually managed to scrounge up an audio cassette of the The Star Spangled Banner and played it as a welcome for us. Not a dry eye in the house, Cuban or American. I don't know what sort of consequences activity like this has, if any of them risk arrest doing this, but they don't seem to care.
While I doubt the Michigan trip participants will get to enjoy such displays, but a trip to Cuba is still worth it in my book, if only to see the potential of a truly warm and affectionate populace.
Administrative harm is bad enough, and often worse than legislative harm. Congress has more or less shifted its responsibilities to the regulatory agencies of the executive branch anyway. Here in the West, where great swaths of land are still owned by the Federal Government, we are essentially ruled by executive decree. You need to check the Federal Register every day to make sure you don't illegally drive your vehicle into wilderness.
"America is a very, very weird country. Often a nasty one." The US is indeed a "weird" country, weird being defined as odd, unusual or distinctive. Basically, there aren't very many of U.S. out there (sorry, coundn't resist the pun). Unfortunately, "weird" is usually used as a pejorative.
The U.S. is never a nasty country. The U.S. is the most beautiful country in existence. She has given a home to many of the world's "rejects" and allowed them to flower, making herself even greater. We do have some nasty people that live here. Usually you can discern their political affiliation by observing their nastiness.
As far as "where would the Israelis go if Israel goes down", they would come here. Hopefully, they would be welcomed (unlike the shameful episodes in the late 30's, early 40's). They would certainly be welcomed by the population. Unfortunately, any Administration that would allow Israel to "go down" wouldn't be an Administration that would welcome the Jewish people. Maybe the Israelis should start speaking spanish so that they Would be welcomed?
"In my mind, this brings up the terrible question, 'Where will Israeli Jews go, if Israel goes down? If the world lets Israel be overwhelmed by its enemies?'"
They'll go the same place the Nazis sent them in their "relocation" programs. The Islamists have made that very clear.
It's not a forced exodus the Israelis should be worried about. It's a bloodbath.
I was talking to someone the other day who told me, with exquisite condescension, that “political elites” disagreed with me. And here I thought I was one! Who does the certification?
