Friday, August 03, 2007

Which side is he on?

Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama for saying that he might send American forces into Pakistan to get al Qaeda, if the Pakistanis failed to do so. "I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," the Mittster said.

Remember when Repubs couldn't talk tough enough on national security? When the game plan was to make the Democrats look weak on anything to do with national defense?

We've got used to the minority party (it sure does feel good to call them that) being in favor of high deficits and government corruption, but weakness on national defense, too?

Memo to Mitt: Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear.

3 comments:

Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper said...

Your question applies to most any position Romney espouses for his current convenience.

This weekend it was back to, and about, his new posture on right-to-life Vs abortion. My use of the word "posture" was not accidental.

What do you think is the chance that voters will pay attention to, and vote on, a candidate's conviction Vs. his or her postures?

Kerry was eviscerated by the GOP for flip-flopping. If Romney gets the nod at his convention I hope the Dems won't forget that.

Having said that, I have to admit to having just written something that I generally don't want to express. I just endorsed retaliation. And so I am in no position to disagree with the Hatfields and the McCoys, the Israelis and the Palestinians, or any other of such since the beginning of recorded history, and no doubt well back in time beyond that.

The history of the human race is speckled with, if not covered by, aggression and retaliation. I'm no polyanna, and I know that not defending oneself can be tantamout to surrendering to an adversary who knows no mercy. I hope my own instincts don't abandon me in such a threat to my own existence.

All species have the survival instinct.

I am a reader, though not a student nor a scholar, of the Old Testament; but I have read it through and know that, within its writings, there exist many stories of warfare, aggression and retaliation, many of which were condoned, if not demanded, by what the writers called "God".

To the extent that it was in the nature of retaliation, it would be difficult to disagree. To the extent that it was in the nature of aggression, it should be rejected out of hand, as unprovoked.

And the so-called God which was claimed to have ordered such, should be rejected out of hand as nothing more than an invented convenience to justify a posturing which charlatons can try to claim came to them by way of a message from God. Of course they will say that their God is The God, and if you don't get it you're not in touch with The God.

Humans, if nothing else, are creative in their ability to sell their reasons for getting what they want through aggression by marketing their plans as necessary and essential to the safety of their compliant constituents.

When will we come to see that such is the stuff of scam?

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper

The Old New Englander said...

Don't beat yourself up. Are you advocating retaliation, or acting for a reason? You perceive Romney to be a hypocrite. Perhaps it's because I'm from Massachusetts and saw him at close range for the 2 1/2 years he was governor--before he went AWOL--I quite agree with you.

And the GOPpers had a pint with Kerry. He was known for years for taking positions that were convenient rather than principled. And he failed to answer effectively when challenged.

It's legitimate to accuse Romney of doing what Kerry did, because he has--and more obviously and calculatedly than Kerry. And he would be a disaster as President.

Duayne (South Dakota) said...

Hey guys, I will trade you 1 Mitt, 1 Rudy, and a Tommy Thompson for a Joe Lieberman. Should be easy since you didn't want heim any way.

Duayne