Skip to main content

what's wrong with romney?

there are a lot of things that i don't understand. physics, for instance, at least beyond the really basic stuff. and what everyone finds so wonderful about watermelons, which to me smell and taste like what i think would happen if you poured sugar on a compost heap. but most of the time, i think i have a pretty solid grasp on politics, even when i don't agree with what's being said. but i have to admit, what's going on with mitt romney and the republican party has me kind of perplexed.

i'll start off by saying that, from a distance, the 2012 election seems to be shaping up into a race that both sides are trying their damnedest to lose. with his post-electoral swing from populist progressive to moderate republicanism, barack obama is working hard to ensure that those people who were moved to vote for the first time in 2008 never consider leaving their houses on election day again. without that cushion of young and newly-inspired voters, the president increasingly looks like a bit of a soft target.

or so you'd think.

do you love me yet? how about now?
the election is, of course, more than a year off and political parties often look to be in some disarray when they're searching for a leader, so it's entirely possible that all wounds will be healed once things really get under way, but at the moment, there seems to be a forceful and very public movement among republicans to finding an alternative- any alternative- to voting for the guy they're apparently going to choose anyway. i don't know who's holding all these poor voters at gunpoint, or who has kidnapped their children, but there are nutball dictators who seem to have greater support from their constituents.

mitt romney hasn't done anything to impress me personally [big surprise there]; i find his policies ill-defined, or at least poorly articulated and he always strikes me as being a sort of dull cardboard cut-out, lacking in charisma and conviction. but i do have to admit, i am starting to have a basic sense of human empathy for the guy [i'll have to have that looked at] when i imagine the shit-kicking his ego is taking on his road to victory. after all, he's really only the front-runner because mike huckabee and the chick who thinks africa is a country aren't in the race.




so romney- rich, successful, aristocratic, apparently handsome [i'm not a square jaw girl myself]- has to deal with the fact that his big prom date has only agreed to go with him as a second or third choice. which would be hard enough for a man to take, except that she's also spending the weeks before the prom flashing her tits and humping the leg of pretty much any other guy she thinks might be willing to go with her- rednecks, fat kids, those skeevey religious weirdos who aren't allowed to see the school nurse, even the fucking pizza delivery guy. because, despite the fact that romney appears to have everything a girl could want, this girl really doesn't seem to want him.

the question that this inevitably raises is what's wrong with mitt romney? most of us don't know, because he hasn't been at the centre of the national and international stage. and republicans aren't saying, because they're scared of prejudicing the rest of us against their date, thus ruining their chances of being prom king and queen. but when it's so obvious that the people who are supposed to be his base are at best equivocal about him, one has to wonder why everyone else should be so impressed.

the fact is, of course, that the "reason for romney" is that he polls well against obama- just slightly worse than "random unnamed republican", who still seems to be their best bet- which means that he has a better shot at winning than any of the guys [or gals] they actually like. [it occurs to me that my metaphor may have just morphed into the republican party being some sort of slutty bisexual prom queen. i can live with that.]

which is all well and good, except that choosing candidates because you think they look good on paper [or in photos] has a way of unraveling in a hurry. as far as i can tell, romney's biggest campaign advantage is that he's not barack obama. remember how well that sort of strategy worked for john kerry in 2004? neither does anybody else.

my advice to republican voters, which i doubt any of them would want, but which is meant sincerely, is that they should really aim to put forward the candidate who best embodies their beliefs, regardless of whether or not they think s/he's electable now. and if you really think that no one who holds your beliefs could possibly get elected, you might want to reflect on what that means.

my advice for mitt romney, who will probably never know i exist, is simple: you can keep looking the other way while that horny skank hits on everything with a pulse and a gun fetish, but you're only going to end up looking like a loser and you still won't get any on prom night.

Comments

Aaron Fenwick said…
Yeah Mitt has a lot of issues... If he can get around the whole Mormon thing with the Repub's base he still has the fact he is about as genuine as an email from a Nigerian prince. There is some great clips of Ted Kennedy destroying him in debates during his run for Kennedy's Senate seat over his flip flopping on so many issues. (Esp Abortion and Gun Control)
flora_mundi said…
It's funny, because that seems to be what killed him in the 2008 campaign, but now, it's like his own party just doesn't like him. If he gets the nomination, I really can't see a lot of more right-wing fundamentalist Republicans getting behind him.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…