Saturday, July 28, 2007

If I Were Voting for a GOPer Presidential Candidate.....

Mitt Romney: 1/2 Billionaire, Cult Member ....Free Traitor -

Old Mitt took his plastic-looking self down to South Florida to woo voters of Latino descent. To the Americans of Cuban ancestry, he vowed on a Banana Republic never to meet that demon Fidel Castro, and neither will he meet with his brother Raul if the American people totally lapse into full blown insanity and elect him come November 2008(well, they already did so by electing BushII at least once). Mitt cheerfully chatted up the Venezuelan Americans and proclaimed that Free Trade is the solution to all of South American ills, and blamed protectionist Democrats for stalling on further trade sell-offs. Mitt's speechwriters forgot to inform him that nobody in Latin America except the plutocratic Hildagos wants Yanqui lassiez-faire, especially after what they seen NAFTA do to Mexico. What we are getting in Romney is a handsomer,more polished version of the Shrub. Mitt, by his affiliation with the now acceptable cult, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, will have two Bibles to beat instead of Bush's one - The Book of Mormon ( I'm certain that Governor Romney assures Southern Baptists that both of his Bibles are in the King James Version). Because he's a Latter-Day Saint, Romney is a teetotaler like Bush is, and he doesn't even drink coffee.Romney's wife is already a 'babe', so we do not have fret him scoring a knob -job in the Oval Office from an overweight intern. What a real moral guy to take the country down into the North American Union and annul the Constitution! Joseph Smith is looking down from a UFO somewhere and is mighty proud...

No, the prospect of electing a Mormon President does not compare to the 1960 controversy of electing a Roman Catholic one(everyone knows now, and knew somewhat then, that the Kennedys weren't particularly pious RC's anyway and could care less what the Man in the Funny Hat in the Vatican said; the true Kennedy Religion is Birds&Booze).Not even close. But, I would not like Romney even if he had a Jeffersonian view of religion(one of the few things that I dig about Marse Tom):he's a flip-flopper beyond what John Kerry flipped on, he's an avowed Economic Predator(Mitt promises to do to Washington what he did to the corporations that he previously served as CEO of: downsizing the labor force, bust any hint of 'union', and maximize profits for himself and his rich!) and of course, he's a Free Trader globalist BarfBag. Yet, throwing Mormon into his make-up, he kind of scares me.

I hope that Romney stays in the race a long time, since he is such good fodder to poke fun of. It would be great if he loses his fortune in his quest to wrest the GOP nomination and comes up empty,also. More seriously now, I do think that his religion should be an issue: would Americans feel safe and secure having a Scientologist, Jehovah's Witness or a Moonie on the nuclear button? How about a Hari Krishna? To me, Mormons aren't all that much out of step with the panache of these other named cults. In synopsis, they're annoying and friggin' nuts! The prospect of being trapped in a crowded elevator with Islamic fundamentalists isn't so bad if my only other choice were a group of Mormon missionaries; at least the Islamic ones would probably put me out of my misery by someone ultimately blowing themselves up in the elevator(joke). Listening to a Mormon missionary is like having the hands tied with Rap playing on headphones non-stop....if I were in combat and captured by the Enemy, they wouldn't have to resort to physical torture to get me spilling the beans: within 10 minutes of listening to a Mormon with his conversion con - I'd be telling the interrogators things that the CIA, Edgar Casey and Nostradamus never dreamed of.

Kansas's very own, Senator Sam Brownback, doesn't seem like too much of a bad deal when Romney is in focus. And that's BAD. Real bad. However, unlike Kennedy, Brownback is a convert RC and has all the zeal of Opus Dei; don't be surprised if Brownback announces that Mel Gibson would be his running mate if he gets the Religious Right on his bandwagon in the GOP primaries. The only good thing about President Brownback would be that we could get him out of Kansas, but I wouldn't wish that on my fellow Americans in the other 49 states. If Brownback is more Catholic than the Ave Maria prayer itself, at least he could adopt the Distributist economics in his platform that many traditionalist RCs have instead of the standard gaga on laissez-faire capitalism that he spews - I might vote for him as DogCatcher if he did...

Rudy Giuliani - he says that Democrats are 'stupid', and previously thought that he could pick an issues fight with Dr. Ron Paul(who's 'stupid' now?). I keep waiting for Rudy to get a new comb-over and start mealy-mouthin' about the GOP's favorite theme of Family Values - when he has been married and divorced more times than Zsa Zsa Gabor and Frank Sinatra combined. Watch Rudy make a play for the Religious Right by picking Ted Haggard as his Vice-President...

Tom Tancredo - "I'm against illegal immigration!!!"(we know, Tom...we know...anything else??)

Duncan Hunter - I rather like Duncan because he is against NAFTA and tries to make protectionism a theme with the GOP contenders, but to no avail. He needs to tone-down his John Wayne act and stop mentioning 'Reagan' in every sentence, however.....

Mike Huckabee - I can't take a man seriously with a surname like that.

Thompson - he' a poorer actor than Reagan was. Get out of here!

Ron Paul - confess that I warm a bit more to his campaign daily. It is refreshing to hear an avowed Libertarian warn the country about the "corporate fascism" of globalism. Paul seems to be a constitutionalist first and a Libertarian second ; maybe he is dropping a cue that he can be 'turned' to the economic -nationalist cause?? He is definitely the most intelligent out of the GOP contenders, and seems to be a man of integrity and honesty with minimum spin - rare in a public servant these days. Paul puts America over the Free Market theology it seems, and this is what the Republic direly needs. However, I don't like his starry-eyed cadre that trolls around message boards with their 'VOTE RON PAUL!' tags. Ron needs to dress them down on this personality cult that they've created....

John McCain - *The Mummy*. The Mummy had his best shot in 2000 but he made the mistake of telling the Bible Beating theocrats that they were 'intolerant'. The truth did not put the Mummy into the White House, let alone set him free. The Mummy needs to retire to his tomb and sleep another 2000 years or so, and maybe the GOP will like him then....

The Verdict: Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter. Hunter or Paul...Paul Hunter..Hunting Paul....... and I am not at all enthusiastic on any of these two guys, but they are the best that the GOP has at the moment. One may ask why pick Ron Paul when he is a disciple of predator-economics? Well, except for maybe Hunter, all the other GOPers are as well, and Paul has demonstrated himself to be flexible and thoughtful - he has his own mind. Again, Paul is a man of dignity & can work with the other side of the aisle, and he cares more for the Republic than he does ideology. Though he himself is religious and is against abortion, Dr. Paul believes in the 'wall of seperation between church/state. That's the constitiutional American Way.

The fact is that I am not at all crazy about the Democrat's front runners, Hillary and Obama;though the Democrats have moved closer to protectionism than the GOP has, their contenders for the Top Job leaves a lot to be desired as well. One thing that we do not need is another Clinton in the White House of any gender, and Obama is all show, no substance, thus far. I think that he's an airhead who thinks that he can get by just because he is handsome and has charisma. Hillary has adopted a centrist line and occasionally drops remarks about the plight of the Blue Collar Joe as well as the Middle Class, Obama has yet to be heard,and I trust neither one of those two. Hillary shouldn't be dragging her hubby around since Bill is the biggest Free Traitor President of the 20th Century.
John Edward's imitation of Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 campaign is getting beyond annoying; him trying to garner the sympathy vote because his Better Half has breast cancer is bottom-feeder politics as is befitting the Ambulance Chaser that he is. I like the Midget - Kucinich - but he is not on the radar even with the Far Left of the DLC.... I wish that the Dems adopt his economic and trade platform however.

What I'm afraid of is that I will be forced to throw a 'protest ballot' in November of '08 as I did in the previous two Presidential elections(Nader, both times). Before I expire my mortal coif, I would like to witness a Presidential election that both the GOPer and the Democrat are competent and both reflect my core issues more. Some say that we haven't had an election like that, with two outstanding candidates from both the Big Two, since '68 or even as far back as ' maybe that is a pipedream of mine.


Howard J. Harrison said...

Wow. Well, one knows where you stand now. Your reasons are good ones, I think.

Your analysis of Mitt Romney is pretty much spot-on, I am afraid. I find Mitt an awesome candidate, but the items you name are indeed what bothers me about him, too. I am less anti-Mormon than you, but this does not mean that I do not share your reasons. It is a matter of degree of emphasis.

Your analysis of Ron Paul is pretty much spot-on, too, for good and for bad. The one thing I would add is that an effective political leader must wed practicality to principle. Most politicians bring too much practicality; I am afraid that Ron Paul brings too little.

If you asked me (you didn't), I would suggest giving Tom Tancredo another chance. However, it is not especially important that you do so because Tancredo will not be the GOP nominee in any case (though I personally would probably vote for him if the primary in my state were held today).

* * *

I wish that I had the same ability to analyze the Democratic field as you have to analyze the Republican. One thing I have learned about myself over the years is that I simply do not understand what motivates much of the Democratic base. I understand what motivates union labor, and in broad strokes I understand part of what motivates civil-rights blacks, but most of the rest of the Democratic base remains a mystery to me. This fact makes me hesitate before presuming to analyze a Democratic campaign during primary season.

Nonetheless, let me try to relate a few impressions on the Democratic field.

I admit that I find Hillary Clinton surprisingly unobjectionable. Couldn't tell you why. My instinct tells me that the Republic could do worse, and that she is rather different from her husband.

Barack Obama is a wildcard to me. Too ambitious, too inexperienced, too new, too young. I don't trust him. Also, any black candidate who plays for the civil-rights vote will pay the price (such as it is) of losing any realistic chance at the votes of people like me. At least Jesse Jackson played for the civil-rights vote straightforwardly; Obama speaks timidly out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. No go.

I used to sort of like John Edwards, but his plastic campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination has badly turned me off. The man needs to go back to ambulance-chasing. If he got the nomination and started acting all moderate again for the general election campaign, I'd no longer be fooled.

Bill Richardson is pretty straightforward. I like that. However, his policy preferences seem to contradict mine in just about every conceivable area.

Joe Biden, I have always liked. He seems a rather more serious statesman than most leading Democrats. The man talks too much, but he seems aware of the fact and seems even to have a healthy sense of humor regarding it. Of course he is a liberal; that part, I do not care for. His policy is deep and mature, however; his many years in the Senate have left their mark.

Dennis Kucinich (sp?) completely fails to make an impression on me, for good or bad. I cannot even remember how to spell his name. When I hear the man speak, it is as though he were addressing Martians or something. Somehow I do not belong to his intended audience.

Chris Dodd is perhaps the only Democratic candidate I actually dislike, besides maybe John Edwards. Smarmy, greasy, shifty, eager, prideful, ambitious, self-centered, generally unpleasant.

Al Gore is not a candidate. That's too bad. His movie, which I was prepared to dislike, was actually very good. His wife Tipper seems so thoroughly normal that the fact that she married the man and raised four children with him speaks well of his character. I admired the way that Gore handled the Bill Clinton impeachment. I did not admire the way he handled the statistically tied vote in Florida in 2000, but one grants appropriate allowance for the severity of the temptation.

If the nominee were Clinton (likely), Gore (conceivable) or Biden (unlikely), this particular Republican would not necessarily refuse to consider voting Democratic---though let us be honest: the odds that I actually would vote Democratic in 2008 remain slim (in eight presidential elections, I never have done, yet). Be that as it may, 2008 is shaping up to be a very difficult year for Republicans; the Democratic nominee will probably become 44th president, with or without my vote. If Clinton, Gore or Biden, the Republic should survive in reasonably good shape through 2012.

Howard J. Harrison said...

Here is one newspaper article on Romney's Florida Hispanic visit. There's not much there, but what is there will not endear him to any economic nationalist. Don't spend a lot of time on it (it's not worth it), but if you happened already to have at hand a link to a fuller, more trustworthy account, I should be interested to follow and read it.

Redoubt10 said...

I know what you mean about the Midget('Kucinich'..I'm not sure of the spelling either). He makes Jerry Brown appear rather bland. The only reason that I like him is because he is one of the few Dems who is openly for the resurrection of the New Deal Spirit and he is a trade protectionist who dares utter the 'T' word regarding Chinese cheap imports.The Midget's social views and his other things...well, he waxes like a dopey daffodil from some other galaxy. And I shudder at the prospect of Mr. K being the CIC.

The other Dems: dont care for Biden(reminds me of the snideness of Adlai Stevenson) and unlike you, I personally hate Al Gore and am somewhat glad that he had 2000 ripped-off from him, though we got the Shrub in return. Your assessment of Dodd I couldn't have said it better myself: he's a typical New England patrician sleazeball, for a grand sum.

Hillary has been running for President since 1999 and everything she has done is for that end, and I don't believe a word that she says though she has come to the Center at least publically. She may be different from Bill, but I don't think it looks good to have a session of Bush, Clinton, BushII, ClintonII in the White House - reminds me of old Florence with their competing dynastical families in the Renaissance - that's not 'America'. The Republic needs fresh blood. Though political dynasties are nothing new in the USA, and some were arguably 'good' ones (depending on who you talk to), having them this concentrated at the aenith of power is not a sign of health in a democratic-Republic that is suppossed to based on meritocracy - not what your family name is.

Ron Paul could afford to be more practical, but he's an intellectual so it would be difficult for him to be as such and be convincing to himself and to the public, so he elects to be himself. That's why I like the man though we differ on many issues.

Howard, you are a traditionalist minded Christian, and I'm rather surprised that you aren't as "anti-Mormon" as I am. I mean, just about everything that the LDS spouts is a direct heresy to the 3 Big Creeds of the traditional Christian Church. If I were still an orthodox Christian, I'd think that I would be even more dead-set against a President Romney. Just curious here.

Howard J. Harrison said...

Howard, you are a traditionalist minded Christian, and I'm rather surprised that you aren't as "anti-Mormon" as I am. I mean, just about everything that the LDS spouts is a direct heresy to the 3 Big Creeds of the traditional Christian Church. If I were still an orthodox Christian, I'd think that I would be even more dead-set against a President Romney. Just curious here.

Good question. I would answer in a few words if I could, but the question is deep. Let me try to be as brief as possible under the circumstance.

I believe that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and I believe that Jesus paid the price on the cross for my sins. These beliefs are tremendously important to me. However, generally by temperament, I am not an absolutist.

The Mormon Mitt Romney proposes to run the federal government for a term of four years. If I wanted to know how Mormons run things, I would look to Utah, where they have been running things from the start. Utah seems a decent place. It's a little different, maybe, but culturally it seems vaguely mom-and-apple-pie American. Surely it seems a clean place. The Mormon religion is different and I do not share their creed, but one finds it hard to judge Mormon politicians much differently than, say, Jewish politicians.

Most national Jewish politicians, I have not supported, but is this not strictly because of their politics? If Dr. Laura Schlesinger ran for Congress where I lived, for instance, I would not be unlikely to vote for her; and there was a Republican Jew out in California years ago named Herschensohn who nearly beat Barbara Boxer for Senate; I'd surely have voted for him. Mormons merit similar consideration in my view.

On the religious question, it is often asserted that Mormons are not Christians. My theology is not deep enough to judge the question. The Mormons themselves clearly think themselves Christians, and I am not about to provoke an argument with them on the point! Nevertheless, if you pressed me, I would probably admit to a belief that Mormons are almost Christians but not quite---while also to a firmer belief that I am unqualified to judge the matter. Certainly Mormonism falls well within the broader Judeo-Christian tradition, which serves as the traditional boundary of conventional American religious practice. This boundary has long served us well and I do not think that we should move it now.

Would it really serve the long-term interest of the United States for voters to discriminate heavily against any culturally conventional Judeo-Christian running for political office, inasmuch as the candidate in question stood true to his own creed? I doubt that it would. The U.S. is a pluralistic nation (the problem with post-1965 immigration is that it is making the U.S. more pluralistic, when what we need is the opposite, a gradual cultural convergence; but I digress). We need to work within that reality. Mormonism is a deeply rooted, authentic element of genuine Americana, and deserves in my view to be respected as such.

I am aware of the argument that a Mormon president could be manipulated by the leading Mormon clergy. For that, I must look to history. There is not a single example I know of since Utah became a state in which such manipulation has occurred or has been effective. One can never say never, but I was rather more worried that Bill Clinton would be manipulated by paramours than I am that Mitt Romney would be manipulated by his religious leaders. All presidents are fallible humans. The matter needs to be seen in the proper perspective.

Many people find Mormon missionaries annoying. Those young men wearing ties, they don't bother me. Mitt Romney does not bother me, either. As to how the Lord will judge the Mormon on that final day, that is not for me to say, but I am inclined to believe as C.S. Lewis believed: that non-Christians are harmed spiritually by their defective religions but will in the end be judged generously if by their own lights they have done their best. I do not expect to meet Joseph Smith in heaven, but I would not be surprised if you and I met many of his earnest followers there: Mitt Romney included.

One should not infer from the foregoing that I am indifferent to religion in a political candidate. I am not. For instance, nothing I know could induce me to vote a Muslim for county commission, much less for the presidency. Absolutism has its right place and against Islam in America, I am an absolutist. Buddhism or atheism also would encumber a candidate in my view, though to a lesser degree. The Judeo-Christian tradition: that is the right boundary for Americans.

If that does not answer the question and if the question seems of further interest, feel free further to probe specific points. But, anyway, no, Mitt Romney's religion is not a major disqualification to the presidency in my personal view.

Redoubt10 said...

Thanks for the explanation of not being so anti-LDS as yours truly is. I admit that Mormons seem to be upright people who at least 'act like Christians';yet recall in Scripture how the minions of the darkside are often wolves in sheep's clothing??
The theological aspect & differences really means nothing to me personally anymore; I was just curious for your take on it, as said. Nevertheless, they still give me the creeps and a Mormon as President would have to convincingly hit all of my core issues buttons for me to vote for him or her for Top Post. That excludes Romney because I wouldn't be able to trust him even if he flipped again and took the protectionist line.
I wouldn't have a problem with a Buddhist Prez namely because Western Buddhists at least are more of the philosophical stripe and some remain practicing Christians with it or have no proclaimed religion at all. As for morals, Buddhists often abide by the Sermon of the Mount more than most Christians that I have met. Atheist? As long as he or she wasn't one of the ACLU type that sought to antagonize religion purposely(I don't gel with fundamentalist- atheists, either) and keep throwing red-meat to the evangelical fundies and it keeps them dandered up. Religious fundies and radical secularists have this strange co-dependency on each other..... Though I don't believe in what the three Middle Eastern religions spout at all, it makes no difference to me if the G-word is in the Pledge or not, or on Federal Reserve Notes;I don't like taking Christmas away from kids, and I see nothing wrong with voluntary prayer in public schools if that is what the local property taxpayers/School Boards want.