AMonger
Veteran Expediter
If Mitt Romney Is So 'Electable,' Then Why Didn’t Republicans Nominate Him in 2008?
by Mark R. Crovelli
Republicans sure have short memories. It was just four years ago that they went to the polls in the primaries and elected the most "moderate" and "electable" candidate they could find in the hope that they had a man who was palatable to the general population. Their reward for their unprincipled pragmatism was an ***-kicking in the general election that few Americans will ever forget. John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly won’t forget it.
Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly "electable" candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more "electable" than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.
In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular "moderate" is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the "moderate" who got his *** handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries four years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less "electable" than the guy who lost so badly.
In other words, if the more "electable" moderate got his *** kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?
Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient. Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a "moderate" who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.
How about nominating someone who has a record of standing up for individual liberty for once? How about nominating someone who believes in the Constitution for once? How about nominating someone who opposes liberal nation-building and warmongering for once? How about voting for a real capitalist for once?
In other words, how about voting based upon your own **** principles for once, instead of voting like pragmatic Trotskyites taking strategic orders from the political-media establishment? Forget this ridiculous, immoral and futile idea of "electability" and vote for Ron Paul and the principles of your own party.
January 17, 2012
Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.
Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
by Mark R. Crovelli
Republicans sure have short memories. It was just four years ago that they went to the polls in the primaries and elected the most "moderate" and "electable" candidate they could find in the hope that they had a man who was palatable to the general population. Their reward for their unprincipled pragmatism was an ***-kicking in the general election that few Americans will ever forget. John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly won’t forget it.
Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly "electable" candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more "electable" than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.
In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular "moderate" is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the "moderate" who got his *** handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries four years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less "electable" than the guy who lost so badly.
In other words, if the more "electable" moderate got his *** kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?
Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient. Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a "moderate" who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.
How about nominating someone who has a record of standing up for individual liberty for once? How about nominating someone who believes in the Constitution for once? How about nominating someone who opposes liberal nation-building and warmongering for once? How about voting for a real capitalist for once?
In other words, how about voting based upon your own **** principles for once, instead of voting like pragmatic Trotskyites taking strategic orders from the political-media establishment? Forget this ridiculous, immoral and futile idea of "electability" and vote for Ron Paul and the principles of your own party.
January 17, 2012
Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.
Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
