Why not?
The staff at Capitol Hill Blue speculate that he wants Romney to pay his campaign debts.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/43652
That leaves Ron Paul as Romney's only official opponent, who can be ignored - although, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, it now appears Ron Paul has won both Iowa and Minnesota delegations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQ&feature=youtu.be
However, Paul previously offered to withdraw for a VP slot, so we can't view his candidacy as serious either. Notwithstanding the lack of opposition, it is still not perfectly certain Romney can win enough support to clinch the nomination before the convention.
Meanwhile, Romney having secured majorities (barely) in the northeast primaries, his gay token adviser Richard Grenell has obediently resigned. Gay former conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan claims to have the inside story, and appears shocked that Romney didn't give Grenell full support.
Romney himself responded that he wanted Grenell to stay and that he never considered Grenell's "sexual preference," itself a codeword used by the right which doesn't like "orientation" because that implies something inborn or unchangeable, whereas "preference" indicates choice. By using the terminology of the enemies of gays, instead of what gays call themselves, Romney is indicating that he does discriminate even when he is saying that he doesn't.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-wanted-gay-spokesman-stay-job-155322319.html
This "moderation" is a theme repeated elsewhere in the gay press, that Romney "folds" when confronted by the Christian right as if he were personally an ok guy except for being spineless. I think after twenty years of relentless attacks on gays individually and collectively by the Mormons, who assumed the leading position of organizing attacks on gay rights, spending millions in state after state to stop gay marriage, often under phoney evangelical front groups founded and funded by the Mormons, that lunkheads in the gay press would have realized by now that the Mormons and Romney ARE the Christian right, and much the most competent part of it.
Romney's PAC didn't give $10,000 to fund the group fighting for Proposition 8 because he is "caving to pressure." The still unexplained very large donations from politically uninvolved millionaires in the San Diego area may well have been additional hidden donations from Romney, who has a house in the area.
Romney did not try to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts by finding and implementing an unused 1913 law to prevent out of state gays from contracting marriages in Massachusetts because of Bryan Fischer and the American Family Association, who are bragging that they toppled Grenell. Romney and the Mormons are relentless opponents of gays and always have been, and the fact that so many people still don't understand that shows how effective their fake "centrist" propaganda has been.
Sullivan should know better. When Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, his record was not one of moderation. In the 2006 budget, for example, he inserted 250 line item vetoes.
What kinds of things did he veto?
The "job creator" vetoed money for additional training for unemployed workers.
http://www.issues2000.org/MA-Gov/Mitt_Romney_Part_iv__ECONOMIC_GROWTH.htm
He vetoed school breakfasts and indeed all support for the poor.
His adoption of health reform did not extend to mentally ill and disabled persons, wanting to keep the former on the streets and the latter institutionalized.
Romney even vetoed an expansion of the liquor licensing quota system, so that additional taverns and hotels could participate. He said he was "preventing the stigma and decay of the infamous 'wide open cities' of some states." Does he mean Las Vegas, where Mormons are a huge proportion of the population? Boston would love to get a piece of their tourism pie and their 2000s growth rate.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19650715&id=1v1OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7277,1049357
There is not one evangelical in the nation who would have been more puritanical than this. The legislature had a Democratic supermajority and overrode every Romney veto in 2006. That gave Romney a reputation for "moderation," since Massachusetts cannot be said to have taken a right turn while its legislature was 85% Democratic. That this was no fault of Romney's doesn't seem to have occurred to many people on the left, which is disturbing. Both in 2000 with George W. Bush and 2012 with Romney, there is an attempt to take candidates who are far outside the limits of acceptable human behavior, and normalize them, fit them into existing benign categories. They didn't believe it when we said George W. Bush should not be running the country and even though we were right about Bush, and we have not had the same reaction about anyone else until Mitt Romney, they refuse to believe us about Romney.
They continue to treat him at face value, believing him when he said he was an "independent," even though both his parents ran for national office as Republicans. They believe that he once favored gay rights, even though as Governor he did everything he could to block gay marriage. Romney is and will continue to be a conservative revolutionary, someone who plans basic structural change in a conservative direction by any means possible.
They continue to treat him at face value, believing him when he said he was an "independent," even though both his parents ran for national office as Republicans. They believe that he once favored gay rights, even though as Governor he did everything he could to block gay marriage. Romney is and will continue to be a conservative revolutionary, someone who plans basic structural change in a conservative direction by any means possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment