The Portly Politico Explains the Hereditary Nature of Mitt Romney’s Treachery

Any of you readers under the age of 50 wouldn’t be expected to remember that Mitt Romney’s father ran for president against Richard Nixon back in 1968.Β  Tyler over at the Portly Politico has a very enlightening essay about the elder Romney and the nature of the Romney spinelessness.

Their behavior brings to mind that classic Firefly meme, “Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!”

4 thoughts on “The Portly Politico Explains the Hereditary Nature of Mitt Romney’s Treachery

  • January 6, 2019 at 6:35 pm
    Permalink

    Of course he will betray. He’s a professional politician. He’ll betray his party, his citizens, his family, his friends, and himself. It’s what professional politicians do. They bend to the political winds, forgetting that Reagan showed that a politician doesn’t have to bend to the trends, he should SET the trends. Reagan was Reagan, just as John Wayne was John-effing Wayne. “Here is what I am and what I stand for. Vote for me or against me I will not change.” With Reagan you knew what you were getting and exactly what he would do. He meant what he said – he didn’t waffle. He was a leader. He did not change with the polls, he changed the polls. It’s what a great American does. Washington and Lincoln didn’t change to suit the moods of the day. Neither did Reagan. No pandering, no wimping out. Iran understood that if they did not release the hostages, Reagan would come and get them, and not with a single commando raid. He’d send the entire US Marine Corps backed by the Navy. That is why they released the hostages on Reagan’s inaugural. They kept them as long as they could, but knew that to keep them any longer was doom. Reagan, with the backing of a pissed-off American public, was going to come and get the hostages, bulldoze anyone who got in the way and hold to account anyone who harmed them.

    That is the sort of message an American leader needs to send. Romney’s mealymouthedness is more Democratic than Republican. I do not doubt he would switch parties if he thought it would help him, no matter that he was elected by the voters in his state as a Republican. Betraying the voter, after all, is another hallmark of a professional politician.

    Reply
    • January 6, 2019 at 6:57 pm
      Permalink

      It is remarkable that the only time we have a real leader is when a non-politician, either a general or an actor realizes that he has to save us from the dishonesty, greed and rank stupidity of our professional politicians. We need a purge.

      Reply
  • January 7, 2019 at 2:07 am
    Permalink

    I agree. The problem is, how do we have a purge that would not leave us worse off than we are now? The French revolted and they got Robespierre and the Reign of Terror. The Russians got Trotsky and then Stalin. The Chinese got Mao. The Iranians got the Ayatollah Khomeini and harsh clerical rule. The US Civil War brought more casualties than any other war we’ve ever fought and reconstruction was long, hard and brutal. About the only revolution which did not leave things worse, at least for a while, was the American Revolution. It would be nice but probably too lucky for us to pull it off twice. We’d want to maintain and even strengthen certain civil rights, but not allow the foe to use those rights to cripple us as they do now. That is a very hard line to toe.

    For political change, I’d begin by firm term limits of two terms for all political offices. I’d go back to having the state legislatures choose US senators, to make them more responsive to their own state’s needs. No retirement benefits for political offices. Politics should not be a career. No special health plans. They can use Medicare, the VA system or military hospitals, or buy their own insurance. No politician or unelected bureaucrat can accept so much as a Happy Meal from a lobbyist. Lobbyists can only provide information, not gifts, trips, junkets or host parties. I want a separate wing of the Justice Department to do nothing but investigate politicians and bureaucrats for wrongdoing and bribe taking. How can Barny Frank and Charlie Rangel arrive in Congress with used Chevys and shiny pants and in less than ten years become multimillionaires on a $100k/yr salary? Legally, I mean.

    I’d limit political contributions to a individual amount of $500 per candidate. I’d really like to have congress chosen at random from registered voters but I don’t think I could get that one passed. No corporate or union or group donations. No PACs. Only individual donations to fund campaigns. If someone wants to put up signs for their candidate, that’s okay, but it comes out of their $500 max. They can talk all they want, proselytize all they want and write all they want to the editorial page, but if they spend money on politics it counts against their $500 limit. Also, there would be no quid-pro-quo “jobs” and directorships after office. Those are bribes in disguise set for the future if a congressperson votes “correctly”.

    I know I’ll never see this passed, but it’s nice to think about it. Politics corrupts. Many politicians are also lawyers and that is a conflict of interest right there. Besides, lawyers are even lower than politicians on the corruption scale. πŸ˜‰

    Reply
    • January 7, 2019 at 6:58 am
      Permalink

      Good, you’ve thought this through. Yes, we need to take the money out of it. And the term limits is key too. And they shouldn’t be able to keep the war chest. Once his term is up that money goes to the Treasury.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.