![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wherein I wax Olbermann-esque
Okay, by now, anyone who cares to pay attention knows that Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States. Yes, he's says he's suspended his campaign instead of dropping out, which is a bit of political dodgery that lets him keep the delegates he has earned and any others he will gain in the remaining primaries. What this lets him do is maintain some political capital in the race for the nomination without actually having to continue campaigning.
That's not why I'm doing this rant.
It's in what he said when he announced his suspension of his campaign. I quote, in part from his speech:
FUCK YOU!
Yes, Jon Stewart said "Fuck you!" to Mitt Romney. It is perhaps the best and most concise response available. It is certainly the most emotional. And I find no fault with Jon Stewart for saying so, because I find it the most appropriate response as well.
But I can't leave it at that. So, let me get my Keith Olbermann on.
Mr. Romney,
How dare you, sir? It is one thing entirely for political parties to oppose each other, to highlight the differences between parties, indeed even between candidates of the same party. But to declare in no uncertain terms that a vote for either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton would be aiding a surrender to terror?
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War in 2002. She has been steadfast in her refusal to admit that vote was a mistake or to apologize for it. Barack Obama wasn't even in the Senate in 2002, and he introduced a measure in January of 2007 that would have called for the phased withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.
Not exactly the same position on the Iraq war, is it, Mr. Romney? And yet, it's easy for you to label both of these candidates with the same brush... as aiding a surrender to terror. It's easy, because it's obvious you put as little thought into the truth of your statement as you put into the rest of your speech that night. The speech where you decried the lack of morality you perceive in Europe, the narrow-mindedness towards other religions... the speech that showed that if you had received the nomination, you would have been little better then the President we have now. A President only concerned with his own narrow-minded view of the truth, the truth as he sees it being the only truth that matters.
I am happy that you have suspended your campaign, Mr. Romney. Because now it means that perhaps no more people will be deluded into voting for you, thinking you an improvement over President Bush or even just a good candidate. You are, at best, keeping to the status quo of politicians who want to be President but have no idea how to truly be Presidential.
That's not why I'm doing this rant.
It's in what he said when he announced his suspension of his campaign. I quote, in part from his speech:
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."Now... he said this on Thursday. That night, on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart had the most appropriate response:
FUCK YOU!
Yes, Jon Stewart said "Fuck you!" to Mitt Romney. It is perhaps the best and most concise response available. It is certainly the most emotional. And I find no fault with Jon Stewart for saying so, because I find it the most appropriate response as well.
But I can't leave it at that. So, let me get my Keith Olbermann on.
Mr. Romney,
How dare you, sir? It is one thing entirely for political parties to oppose each other, to highlight the differences between parties, indeed even between candidates of the same party. But to declare in no uncertain terms that a vote for either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton would be aiding a surrender to terror?
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War in 2002. She has been steadfast in her refusal to admit that vote was a mistake or to apologize for it. Barack Obama wasn't even in the Senate in 2002, and he introduced a measure in January of 2007 that would have called for the phased withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.
Not exactly the same position on the Iraq war, is it, Mr. Romney? And yet, it's easy for you to label both of these candidates with the same brush... as aiding a surrender to terror. It's easy, because it's obvious you put as little thought into the truth of your statement as you put into the rest of your speech that night. The speech where you decried the lack of morality you perceive in Europe, the narrow-mindedness towards other religions... the speech that showed that if you had received the nomination, you would have been little better then the President we have now. A President only concerned with his own narrow-minded view of the truth, the truth as he sees it being the only truth that matters.
I am happy that you have suspended your campaign, Mr. Romney. Because now it means that perhaps no more people will be deluded into voting for you, thinking you an improvement over President Bush or even just a good candidate. You are, at best, keeping to the status quo of politicians who want to be President but have no idea how to truly be Presidential.
no subject
Edit: And I'm going to link it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
She's serious, but I'm terribly amused...
no subject
no subject
I'm sort of curious.
no subject
no subject
That said, he's not wrong in the way that you claim. He doesn't say that they're the same position. He says that both candidates have positions that amount to surrender. You're quite correct that they have different approaches, but both have been keen campaigners against the surge, with Clinton being particularly aggressive in her attacks on Petraeus. More importantly to his statement, both say that they would withdraw swiftly, outlining plans that include little flexibility to respond to circumstances on the ground.
You're completely right to say that there are important differences between the candidates on the Iraq war, and on the other aspects of foreign and domestic policy that comprise America's struggle against terrorists. You're wrong to suggest that pointing this out is in some manner responsive to Mitt's statement. Kucinich and Clinton have different health care plans, but it wouldn't make any more sense to condemn claims that they both wanted to nationalise health care.