From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
A comment at a previous post prompted me to assess (again) my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.
But before I share my reasons -- I often wonder about his reasons for seeking the most powerful office in the world.
I wonder why any man who has amassed millions of dollars in economic and business ventures would even want to expose himself and his family to a labyrinth of caustic critics, quibbling detractors, moral dissectors and political piranha -- especially as a conservative!
And then I realized that there is something unique about Mitt Romney. Something more unique than his magnetic demeanor. Something unique about his composure, his deportment, his confidence, his optimism, his delivery.
He is genuine. He doesn't hedge his message with hyperbole. He is substantive, informed, aware of issues that face our nation, domestically and globally. No one denies his intelligence or expertise. He's smart. And he communicates that "smartness" with ease -- and just as importantly -- without condescension.
Have you ever listened to a politician and felt that he was speaking by rote? By canned sound-bytes? Reading from a script prepared by a slogan committee?
Mitt Romney offers a refreshingly candid and contrasting image. His countenance is that of an organizer, a designer, an administrator, an executive, a leader.
If you believe the election of 2006 told us that America wanted and needed change, then Mitt Romney is that change.
Mitt Romney doesn't invoke the visage of a politician. His successes -- political, domestic and international -- have been achieved by a unique focus, a different perspective, a new vista for change.
America needs the character, commitment and leadership of Mitt Romney. Don't be dissuaded by polls, political analysts, op eds and talking heads.
Romney recently commented about opinions and polls concerning his Mormon faith:
"If you did a poll and said: 'Could a divorced actor be elected as president? Would you vote for a divorced actor as president?' my guess is 70 percent would say no. But then they saw Ronald Reagan. They heard him. They heard his vision. They heard his experience. They said: 'I like Ronald Reagan. I'm voting for him.'
The campaign is early .... Not all America knows Mitt Romney or his vision. But once America meets Mitt Romney, I contend that he will be elected the next President of the United States. And he won't be elected as a vote against his probable opponent.
Patience with those who push the envelope and walk that thin gray line between fact and fiction, truth and half-truth, context and conjecture, apples and oranges.
Captain Ed said it succinctly in a post yesterday (the topic was Romney's religion and how those who oppose/fear him continually plant seeds of dissension):
... Free speech includes the right to criticize religious beliefs, even when the criticism goes from rational debate to mindless hatred. It also includes the right for others to criticize that speech and the politicians that appear to support it, as many on the Left manage to do whenever they get up on their high horse about Pat Robertson, a nutcase who retains a dwindling following among conservatives.
For the time being (at least), I'm trying to be even more tolerant of those who post dissenting comments here and at other forums in which I participate. If I didn't WANT anyone to react/respond to my posts, I'd remove the comment option!
Thus far, I've been fortunate. Except for a few idiots, most responses are either by kindred spirits or respectful dissenters. My bias is that I thoroughly enjoy the later two and have utmost disdain for the former.
Unlike more than a few others -- I'm so dang much older, my opinions don't normally (and I said normally) fly off the cuff of my sleeve to splatter across comment boards. Normally, I said.
Guess I'm more into that gray area -- chronologically AND mentally.
Maybe it's due to my training, background. Maybe it's that my Adrenalin is directed toward more relevant uses. But I'd rather spend five minutes collecting my thoughts than sputtering a verbal knee-jerk at some open-mouthed Neanderthal. Normally, that is. I call it responding proactively -- not reactively.
At least my intentions are good -- with full cognizance that the road to hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions.
What I sometimes note as a primary "difference" across commenters is the equivalence of an age-print.
Ever noticed?
Ever noticed how easy it is to distinguish among the hot heads, the thinkers, the manipulators and the trolls (instigators)? How about youth and maturity? I'm not suggesting that there aren't mature youths OR immature elder-folks. There are. It's just that if you listen to them long enough -- you can often tell that difference as well.
So where I'm going with this is in three distinct directions:
1) I enjoy discourse with those who focus on the message -- not the messenger. 2) I have little patience with those who can't distinguish between the two and I'm trying my best to cram stupidity, arrogance, the mis-informed, trolls, idiots and smart-asses under the umbrella of free speech. 3) And when I can't -- I promise myself to be as proactive as humanly possible.
After all, Romney IS Mormon. He has never denied it or pretended to be anything else.
And there are probably as many bigoted, red-neck far right conservatives as there are hypocritical RINO ca-ca spewing moderates AND loonie leftist moonbat dems who want nothing more than to see an old woman get her panties in a wad as they flagrantly and irresponsibly exercise their right to say anything they damn-well want to say.
Excuse me. I need to take my blood pressure medicine.
I want to clarify a thing or two about faith-based politics. And my clarification has little to do with religion.
First -- I admit that I probably read too many blogs and op eds and definitely watch too much cable news. I confess. Unless I'm running errands or going out to dinner or walking the dog or watching a favorite TV program or taking in a movie or playing poker or conducting a workshop or attending a meeting -- I'm a political junkie. It's my escape.
And I study it -- not what pundits and talking heads or politicians necessarily say -- but how they say what they say. And how often they reiterate a perspective or theme, literally and subtly. Once I've read an article or post, I go back to the headline and re-read the first 2-3 paragraphs. Just to see if my initial reaction was accurate .....
Maybe it's because I'm a moderate who lists right .... Who knows.
I'm fairly up-front about my own perspectives on a variety of topics. Like ... I'm much more spiritual than religious. I'm called irreverent, yet lots of people have faith in me. I tend to "play" politics because it's a reality of my job; therefore, I also have faith in my ability to, when necessary, be political. It comes naturally. I grew up in politics. I've worked in politics. I married into politics.
But I digress.
I've studied Mitt Romney for months. I google his name every day --- I collect and log the articles. I have a Bloglines account that includes most of the news/blog sites that post about Romney. And when I visit a favorite forum and see articles that [either innocently or intentionally] couch questions about Romney in terms of his faith, I get a tad agitated.
And I've thought about this quite a bit. And I've decided that unless the man Mitt Romney is a total facade, I believe in the man -- what he says and how he says it. Call it faith. Call it a gut-feeling. Call it a sense of security in his demeanor. Call it trust. Call it confidence. Let's just call it faith.
Faith, to me, is neither a burden nor a label. It just is. It even exists in difference colors and styles. You either have it or you don't; if you have it, you can either wear it on your sleeve (hopefully without flaunting or being obnoxious -- God forbid) or tuck it away in your heart or the back of your mind and just let it be. But to deny another person the right to either have it or to show it -- or to denigrate or ridicule a person because of it -- is, in my perspective, unacceptable.
Where am I going with this?
Oh, ye of little faith .... <chortle>
An article titled, "Latter-Day Lifer" was posted on one of my favorite forums today. The purpose of the post (I assume) was to promote discussion on either stem-cell research or Romney's pro-life stance.
Fine.
Great topics!
But before a discussion can ensue, I asked myself, wouldn't it have been more relevant to post an article in which Romney himself actually stated those positions?
But, nooooo --- ut uh. We get a loaded, slanted headline "Latter-Day Lifer" which implies, innocently or intentionally -- what?
Say it. Go ahead. Say it.
Yep. Bias. It implies a tone -- regardless of the content of the article -- preparing readers for a WASP on Mitt Romney's religion.
This article is NOT about "Italian-American Catholic Lifer" positions or "Whiskey-drinking Pseudo-Christian Woman-Chasing Lifer" positions. This article predisposes the positions of a "Latter-Day Lifer" -- i.e., the potentially negative influence of Mitt Romney's Mormonism on his political positions.
So (ever respectful of being respectful), I posted this comment:
I don't even open my door when Mormons knock -- but I'm offended when pundits shroud Romney's "positions" in the context of his faith, i.e., the title of this article: "Latter-Day Lifer."
I firmly believe that Mitt Romney's positions will be adequately demonstrated in "stumping" over the next year and in the debates.
Spinmeisters and naysayers will try to profile him differently, but if you review all candidates (position-by-position AND how they came to those positions), Romney is probably the consummate Republican candidate for 2008.
IMO, Rudy is a good guy -- a bit "iffy," and the odds of his winning NY are slim .... McCain has wayyyyy too many problems and too much ground to make up to unite the party .... Mitt Romney IS and WILL BE the consummate Republican candidate.
I apologize if I've overstated my frustration and enthusiasm ... but I'll humbly eat my words if proven wrong.
I'm not declaring that Mitt Romney will get the Republican nomination. If he does and wins (which I think he can), it will great for America. And if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, I suggest it will be because too many conservatives and moderates will have allowed themselves to be manipulated to defend their faith as opposed to having faith .....
And probably just as frustrating for me right now is the realization that my faith, my irreverence and my politics will be challenged many, many, many more times over the next two years ....
Give me faith, oh Lord, I pray --
I may revisit this later. But right now, I'm taking an "81" and toddling off to bed ....
Uhhh .... she was acting, right? Well, wasn't she? Helloooooooo? Anyone there? 'Scuse me, did I miss something here? Helloooooooo?
Oh. Nothing.
I was just going to say that she looked much brighter when she was over-weight. You remember the movie .... she got an Oscar for playing that man-killer.
eh. eh. eh. More on the Clinton Derangement Syndrome:
Hillary stole the thunder this weekend at the Democrat National Committee retreat.
She pledged that if the current Congress did not find a way to end the war in Iraq, "as president, I will."
Of course, she also said that if she had been president in 2002, she wouldn't have started the war in the first place -- a statement that invites Obama and others to ask, "Well, then, why did you vote for it as senator?"
So will Hillary (ala John Edwards) ALSO blame hubby-Bill for conveying mis-information about Saddam's WMD's?
I mean -- is it possible, legal, moral or even safe that a former First Wife would criticize her louse spouse, the former President?
This really IS going to be fun to watch! eh. eh. eh.
... the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. ...
John Edwards has found an alternative to blaming Bush.
Aside from his ongoing digs at Hillary -- Edwards blames the Clinton Administration (in a Sunday talk show) as his source of mis-information on Saddam's weapons of mass distruction.
Bush Derangement Syndrome (sniff sniff) .... they're gonna miss'ya.
But "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" just doesn't have the same ring, yanno?
While other Republican candidates have lost rankings, Mitt Romney'sIowa support-base rose +14 points over the last 30 days.
Romney's favorability rating rose from 6% to 20% -- tying Rudy who fell from 28%. McCain still leads at 26% (down from 27%), but Romney is indeed the candidate to watch ...
Of course -- we've been watching Romney for months!
"Mr. President, our nation has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. More than four years ago, this chamber voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who slaughtered his own people, attacked his neighbors, and threatened our security. Thanks to the courageous service of the men and women of our military, that evil regime was overthrown. And in its place came hopes of democracy in the heart of the Middle East and a victory in the war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.
As of today, those hopes have not been realized. Because of the ruthless conduct of our enemies, as well as our own failures, we instead today find ourselves on a knife’s edge in Iraq.
Now, a new course has been chosen. A new commander is in place in Iraq, confirmed by this Senate. A new Secretary of Defense is in place at the Pentagon, confirmed by this Senate. And a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground in Iraq by our troops.
It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.
But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America’s security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.
The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.
Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.
What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.
This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.
For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.
If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.
The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.
Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.
I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.
Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.
This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.
But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?
We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution—by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake—confirms our enemies’ belief in American weakness.
This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end—and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?
And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops—but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.
We heard recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee from General Jack Keane, who said of this resolution. “It’s just not helpful… What the enemy sees is an erosion of the political and moral will of the American people… Our soldiers are Americans first. They clearly understand there’s a political process in this country that they clearly support… But at the end of the day, they are going to go out and do a tough mission, and I certainly would like to see them supported in that mission as opposed to declaring non-support....”
Everyone here knows that the American people are frustrated about the lack of progress in Iraq. Everyone here shares that frustration. And as elected representatives of the people, everyone here feels pressure to give expression to that frustration.
This is not a new challenge. It is one that every democracy in every long, difficult war has had to confront.
Nearly a century and a half ago, at a site not far from here, an American president wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war—a civil war—in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it.
“We here highly resolve…”—that was Lincoln’s message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution, of conviction against adversity, of hope against despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom, which is America’s cause.
Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. That is the debate we should have—but it is not the debate that this resolution would bring.
The sixty vote requirement to close debate was put in place by our predecessors as a way to stop the passions of the moment from sweeping across our country and through Congress in a way that will jeopardize our future. Because I believe this resolution, if passed, would have such an effect, I will respectfully oppose the motion for cloture.
I thank the President and yield the floor."
Why can't mouth-breathing Neanderthals not understand what this man is saying?
Stuart Elliott of the New York Times (which should explain some of his hallucinatory fantasies) needs to push back from the keyboard and turn off the wire services.
In the spirit of a compassionate (moderate) conservative, I will humor Stuart with my "take" on a few subliminal Super Bowl messages:
How stupid of me to forget that football is a violent sport -- so combative, so war-like.
I was probably too gung-ho as the Colts (once in Baltimore -- as was Pelosi) dismantled those Bears ( from Chicago -- the land of Obama -- oh no!). As did Stuart -- I also lost my breath (actually I choked on a dorito while laughing) at the animal abuse in the Blockbuster ad. GROSS! And I was somewhat saddened by the subliminal references to Stuart's preferred Super Bowl teams (Browns = Bud dog with symbolic Iraqi mud spots vs. those talking Lions from Detroit = home to many American Muslims) ------- not to mention the shock and awe (oh my GOD! a Prince wearing a scarf!!!) in the half-time show.
Message to Stuart: There are meds for those borderline personality disorders, fella.
My younger cousin from Maryland used to refer to his dirty diaper as "m'ca-ca." And that was light years ago. Even today, my cronies and I say "ca-ca" to describe a situation that reeks or someone who's literally and figuratively "full of it."
IMO, Contemporary "m'cacas" are of the same ilk. They are a corp of political operatives, predominately Caucasian (if it matters), whose sole purpose is to either distort an opponent's image or to catch the opponent literally stepping in ca-ca.
NOTE: I'm in no way endorsing George Allen or his creative vocabulary. From my humble perspective, if a candidate (pardon the analogy) steps in ca-ca and continues to wipe it off his shoe at each subsequent whistle stop, I figure he ain't savvy enuff to be elected. Know what I mean?
Look at it this way. Some candidates don't need to be stalked by m'cacas. They are fully capable of mucking up their own campaign without help. Examples: John Kerry and Joe Biden.
But I digress.
I'm still wondering about something, though .....
This anti-Mormon refrain is a tad too Clinton-esque to blame on run-of-the-mill operatives. It's too "planned." Too accommodating.
It's not like we haven't been warned that the left intends to use the Internet as their own WMD (i.e., words of mass distortion) to win in 2008 .....
Prime Example:
Almost every discussion board/forum in which the topic is Mitt Romney -- someone turns the conversation to religion. And usually, the turn is anti-Mormon.
Face it. Either certain discussion forums are magnets for fundamental conservatism or the moonbats are in advanced infiltration mode.
I'm thinking it's a bit of both with a heavy dose of infiltration.
I want to believe that some trolling moonbats (or pro-Rudy-pro-McVain or pro-whoever-else -- including a few pseudo-intellectuals) are deliberately maligning the Mormon faith to detract from Romney's credentials.
Similar political tactics have been used before. Heck -- if Kerry hadn't been so gullible (and a bumbling liar), Swift-boaters would have had little effect on his image.
Let's be realistic -- most objective, clear-thinking politicos acknowledge that Mitt Romney is a formidable opponent -- regardless of his religion! Those who fear Romney, however, apparently find it necessary to either incite a few Bible-quoting fanatics or orchestrate an orgy of operative-trolls to obscure and shroud his views.
Ever watched a "yeah-but(t)" in action? There's one in every planning group. Some folks are naturally tunnel-visioned. Others are plants. P-O's. Planted operatives. Professional operatives. Political operatives.
Correct me if my memory fails -- but this anti-Mormonism is beginning to look too much like the old W.A.S.P. mentality: attack anyone who isn't of White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant heritage. In a political context, this "elitist" affront is being extended to anyone associated with the conservative movement. And it's beginning to stick to a few shoes.
Whether the offensive is real or orchestrated -- conservatism in general and Republicans in particular are getting a bad rap. And we're making it easy for the operatives (a.k.a., ca-cas) amongst us.
Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that the left has actually adapted an MSM journalistic strategy to the Internet. Let's refer to this strategy as a re-defined W.A.S.P. acronym:
Words to Advance Subliminal Persuasion
And they're gaining momentum (baiting even less worthy candidate supporters to join the assault) -- jamming discussion boards and op eds with words [oh -- by the way....] to advance[he's Mormon] subliminal[Mormons may not be Christians?] persuasions [hummmm .... well, are they Christians or not?] to slant opinions of a candidate [i.e., Mitt Romney].
Too simplistic, you say?
Then tell me if there has been either an American President or a state governor who has ever placed religion above Constitutional duties. Please. Name one. You certainly won't find Mitt Romney's name on that governor's list.
But to the contemporary W.A.S.P. operative --- That. Does. Not. Matter!
What to do?
First of all -- until someone either puts these trolls in their place (across the floor and out the door) or reveals their tactics (to obstruct, obscure and shroud the discussion), their game-plan will continue.
Mitt Romney and his team are too savvy to let that happen to them.
I'm not too confident about some of the rest of us, however .....
If we continue to allow operatives to assail the faith of one candidate, we're as hypocritical as those old W.A.S.P. elitists. Allowing operatives to manipulate us in continually "wiping our feet" only spreads their ca-ca. And if we allow them to continue -- don't be surprised if we find ourselves in really deep ca-ca come 2008.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo. The ca-ca's are amongst us. And we're in for the fight of our lives.
A comment at a previous post prompted me to assess (again) my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.
Color me frustrated.