Anti-Romney

John C. writes:

I’m disappointed that you support Mitt Romney. I’ve sent you material from the group Mass Resistance (REAL grass-roots conservatives who have paid the price for their truth telling by having their homes vandalized by the commie/leftie vermin of this insane state) revealing the true Romney. Did you read it? I find it hard to believe you would still be supporting Romney if you did! Correspond with Brian Camenker of MR & he’ll definitely be able to persuade you that Mitt isn’t a conservative. They know first hand the pseudo-conservatism of Mitt Romney. I have told you that the Bush clan supports Romney. I’m pretty sure you have no use for Senor Bush so why do you support a Bush clone? Do you really think he is going to be any different than Busherino? He’ll be as different from Bush as the current clown/traitor occupying the White House was from his father. Globalists/Destroyers of American sovereignty ALL. I don’t put too much attention/hope into this whole presidential election charade since the commie/left has pretty much taken over. And when people like Mitt Romney et al are presented as conservatives, I rest my case. Only 2 candidates represent real change, Ron Paul & Duncan Hunter. Read what Alan Stang, Chuck Baldwin, Devvy Kidd, Vox Day, Ilana Mercer, Frosty Woolridge, News With Views, have to say in favor of Ron Paul (they can’t all be crackpots). I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything (especially on our foreign policy creating terrorists) but he’s much much better than these establishment jokers. Duncan Hunter is excellent but unfortunately he doesn’t have a chance. If in fact Mitt Romney is the best our side can do, then that is further proof that our side has been totally defeated. Joe Farah (who by the way has been critical of Ron Paul) sees it the same way:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59764

I still value you & your website. I’m just disappointed that someone of your intellect & sprititual discernment can’t see through the hollowness/phoniness of the Mittster. But as you can see from Joe’s column you have a lot of company.

By the way, I think I may have already mentioned this: The John Burch Society has given Ron Paul a 100% rating for his voting record & adherence to the Constitution. The JBS has been an awesome patriotic organization for many decades. The proof of this is how viciously they have been smeared by the Commie/Left/MSM. I’m sure you find the story/life of John Burch very fascinating as well as revelatory. So a group with such a pedigree is hardly going to promote a nutcase. I therefore implore you to visit his website & see what he stands for (they’re what you believe). And I don’t believe he’s an anti-semite as some people allege.

I trust you will take this (hopefully constructive) criticism in the spirit of friendly disagreement (however strong the disagreement may be).

LA replies:

I really don’t think it’s right or fair to express a difference of opinion over candidates in terms of personal disappointment with the other fellow. Americans are allowed to make up their own minds on which candidate they support in an election, you know?

That material from Mass Resistance seemed so overwrought and hysterical that it was hard to take seriously. Romney is not some devil, and people who have tried to portray him as one discredit themselves. I tried to convey this to someone from Mass Resistance but she obviously was not in a state to hear what I was saying.

Similarly, when you equate Romney with the “commie/left” you lose me.

Romney is not a clone of Bush’s. He speaks repeatedly of opposing radical Islam, which Bush never does, and actually seems to know something about it, which Bush does not. In his statement on his Islam policy, he doesn’t say anything, not a single word, about spreading “democracy” in the Muslim world, though he does support an international effort to help Muslim countries threatened by extremism to develop basic features of civil society. I think the idea is so unrealistic it will never get off the ground, but the main thing is, he has not drunk the Kool-Aid of Muslim Democracy. And while he says he supports an increase of immigration (he hasn’t said how much) he puts the issue in moderate and pragratic terms and is not a fanatic on the subject like Bush, McCain, and Giuliani.

On other issues, Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism in the race who has a chance to win the nomination.

Also, you really haven’t attended to my arguments explaining my position. We’re talking now about the Republican nomination. Paul and Hunter have zero chance of winning the nomination. Romney is the only prospect to stop the takeover of the Republican party by the anti-conservative crusader McCain or the incarnation of anti-family values, Giuliani, both of which events would lead to untold damage to the conservative cause.

Remember, there are two things to be considered here, the nomination and the general election. That’s why in the VFR presidential poll I had one question asking which candidate the respondent supports for the nomination, and another question asking which candidate the respondent would vote for in November.

John replies:

You definitely make some good points (Giuliani & especially McCain are worse not to mention the Dhimmicraps) & obviously everyone is free to decide on who they want to support. All I’m trying to say is that Romney isn’t that much different than these two jokers. He’s just a more articulate & more handsome version of Senor Bush. And as a faithful listener to the Mass Resistance, I can assure you these folks are the real deal. They have gone to the mat with the commie vermin in this state & have the bruises to attest to this battle. And they believe the Romney campaign was behind the successful effort to get them off the airwaves because they told the truth about Romney’s pseudo conservatism.

In my previous correspondence, I forgot to mention another Massachusettian who has not imbibed the Romney Kool Aid, Don Feder.

Here is his unadulterated view of the Mittster:

I just want to reiterate my point that if Romney is the best our side can do then that just proves my point that the commie left have completely taken over (which shouldn’t be too hard to see).

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote: “On other issues, Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism in the race who has a chance to win the nomination.”

I’m not sure what other issues you speak of here, but I have to say I find it very sad that the Republican party has become so non-conservative that we’re relegated to speaking of its presidential nominees in the terms you’ve spoken here: Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism. In other words, Romney’s not a very good representative of conservatism, but he appears to be more like one when compared against the other viable Republicans in the race. This is the only way we can speak of Romney’s relative conservatism.

It’s a pretty rocky marriage between conservatism and the GOP, isn’t it? How much longer can it last?

LA replies:

Not exactly a new situation. What genuinely conservative serious contenders have been in recent GOP races?

2000: Not GW Bush the “compassionate conservative,” not McCain.

‘96: Not Dole, not Alexander (Buchanan turned out not to be a serious contender)

‘88: Not Dole, not Bush, not Kemp (?). Robertson was not a serious contender.

In fact, it could be argued that Romney is trying to be or at least to appear as the most consistently conservative serious contender for the GOP nomination since 1984, as shown by his deliberate articulation of the “three legs of the stool” of Reaganite conservatism.

See my 1996 pro-Buchanan article, “A vision of a new conservatism,” in which I argued for Buchanan on the basis that he was representing a complete, multi-sided conservatism, not just a one-sided conservatism, as is the case with most “conservatives.” I’m not saying that Romney is exactly doing that, since the “national” leg of conservatism that he represents has to do with national defense, not culture and nationhood. But still, the fact that Romney is in his own way trying to see and represent conservatism as a whole is unusual and he deserves credit for it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 19, 2008 02:25 PM | Send