Mitt Romney. He just declared his intentions to run for the presidency and, surprise, his speech is up on Drudge.
Romney makes it clear that if he's not a Reagan conservative, he's going to pretend to be one:
There are some who believe that America's strength comes from government – that challenges call for bigger government, for more regulation of our lives and livelihood, and for more protection and isolation from competition that comes from open markets.
That is the path that has been taken by much of Europe. It is called the welfare state. It has led to high unemployment and anemic job growth. It is not the path to prosperity and leadership.
I believe the American people are the source of our strength. They always have been. They always will be. The American people: hard working, educated, innovative, ready to sacrifice for family and country, patriotic, seeking opportunity above dependence, God-fearing, free American people. When we need to call on the strength of America, we should strengthen the American people, not the American government!
This, coupled with some strong words against the terrorists, should help him rise in the polls. I'll never vote for him, of course, but if the Republicans are going to stand half a chance, they need to nominate someone who's at least nominally conservative. Romney fits that bill. (Oh how our definition of conservative changes!)
I don't think he'll win the nomination, but he should placate the base into sticking around to vote for whoever becomes ordained to play the fall man for Hillary. We have two years to follow this nonsense, even though the result is all but set in stone; barring a scandal on the left, the right is going to need someone to talk about. Again, Romney fits that bill.
Personally, I'm holding out for massive scandal. Sorry, but I need something interesting to write about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Skepticism is beautiful, if balanced and then kept in it's place. Make sure to water and feed it from time to time as well. Just a thought or two.
However, I do have one point of contention about your article. As a believer that global cooling, no no, warming, no no, change, that's the ticket, is a hoax, I am different from the greens. I do not want to legislate what you drive (or eat, how you drive, where you drive, who you see, or what you do so long as you don't infringe on anothers freedom or real rights). I cannot say that for the opposition. And I think you make a grave mistake when you think the two sides both wish to legislate. We want freedom of responsable choice and from governance, they want servitude. It is my firm belief, as well, that they are winning.
My bad, posted in the wrong place, wrong article.
That's okay.
The Right doesn't want to legislate, but they do want to drill the snot of anywhere and everywhere. God's creation is here for us to use, but we are to be stewards of the earth. Something is missing...
I can point out that the idea the "right" wants to "drill the snot out of everywhere and anywhere" is flawed by explaining that in the last 15 years the "right" was in control of the house, sentat, and presidents office, nothing was added to the drilling options of which I am aware. So, I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your information?
As for me, there are a lot of places that could and perhaps should be explored. I probably wouldn't want all that oil tapped, I like to think of it as emergency use (and, it is actually), but I would like a better idea of what is there. Some places, I just am not worried about. When is the last time you visited the arctic refuge? I am not even sure if you can. As well, I know the environmental impact is nil, at best. So, what I hear the left saying is we need to preserve this arctic refuge for people who can't legally go see it and flora and fauna who won't be bothered in either case. It really is just childish reactionism. You want it, the country could use it, so, you can't have it.
I think you're conflating Republicans with the Right, which is a mistake. The two are only sometimes related.
While I do think we should drill in the Arctic refuge, I'm a bit leery of simply finding new oil every time someone produces a new tank for civilians to drive throughout suburbia.
You are quite right in my use of "right", however, rather than being a mistake of ideas it was a misquote. You hadn't written that, as I had remembered. My error.
And, about the right and conservatives, I am not sure, in modern terminology, if they are at all related. According to "pop" political science, Hitler was "right". With Stalin being "left" that doesn't leave much room for middle, or at least no good space in there, and both are extreme and dictatorial. So, I reject most use of the term "right" as a lesser form of "left" rather than a term for conservative. Ackh. In real terms, I do consider Republicans to be an aspect of the real right, as with some libertarians, constitutionalists, and many free thinkers. So, it gets sticky, at times.
So much writing for such a minor detail, if important, but I think it can be worth it. Even if I just clarify things in my own mind?
Post a Comment