Some say that Mitt Romney’s speech of yesterday was an absolute necessity, if he is going to be successful in throwing off the ‘stigma’ of his Mormonism.
Astounding, if you ask me.
I am astounded that the mainstream media continue to make an issue of Romney’s Mormon faith, with the underlying assumption that many voters might find distasteful some aspects of his belief in God and Christian doctrine.
At the same time, a history of abominable personal behaviors of the sort that would make a cannibal wince have been committed by the front-runner for the Democrat party nomination. And yet the mainstream media choose to pretend that there are no such chinks in the armor of the ‘smartest woman in the world’.
Ms. Clinton’s treasonous, felonious acts performed in complicity with her husband during his two-terms spent leading our republic to ruin would be suitable as the topic for an in-depth essay of its own – which I intend to write, once she gains the Democrat party’s nomination.
Yet, setting those monstrous political/legal crimes aside, Ms. Clinton has so many ghosts of a personal nature in her closet that there is hardly enough time in the day to even reflect on their heinousness. Just a small representative sampling: she was complicit in the cover-up of a rape, the strong-arm (and worse) silencing of her husband’s potential political enemies, and the character assassinations of women who had been victims of her husband’s sexually predatory nature.
If one were to pick any American woman off the street, I believe her moral qualifications to be leader of the free world would generally trump those of Ms. Clinton. But I digress ...
Which would be more distasteful to the average American voter? Reminders of the nature of Ms. Clinton’s grotesque character flaws, or the fact that Mitt Romney’s Christianity might not entirely align with that of most Americans? One represents raw evil; the other, a different perspective on the nature of worshipping God.
The media will continue to choose to ignore the former, and magnify the latter.
I am not a Mitt Romney supporter. I see Romney as a left-leaning Republican now trying to paint himself as something more palatable to the conservative base. And I believe that his pre-election 'transformation' has more to do with political ambition than a genuine change in viewpoint.
My deepest suspicions about Romney’s ‘conservatism’ fall into two main categories:
(1) He has a record of pro-gay policies:
- He believes that homosexuals should have the right to adopt.
- He is in favor of domestic partnerships and civil unions.
- He opposes the Boy Scouts’ policy of prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters.
- He ignored well-qualified Republican attorneys when filling more than thirty judicial vacancies in Massachusetts, and instead appointed Democrats, among whom were two homosexual lawyers who are avowed gay-rights activists.
- He has supported the dissemination of gay and lesbian materials in Massachusetts public schools.
- Last year he signed into law a bill that creates a state universal healthcare system that mandates that every resident obtain healthcare or face a government fine.
Yet, should he gain the Republican nomination, I would be forced to vote for him, despite the fact that the only Republican contender I could wholeheartedly support is Duncan Hunter. Yet I’m afraid I will be forced to cast my ballot for whomever the Republican candidate should be, simply because I do not believe our republic could survive four years of Hillary.
It becomes very discouraging when voting for the lesser of two evils is presented as the only viable option in every election. I have held my nose and voted for mediocrity for the last twenty years, while simultaneously realizing that the degradation of our republic simply occurs at a slower pace as a result of those consistent ‘lesser-of-two-evils’ choices. We need another Reagan before it’s too late.