Thursday, February 7, 2008

Romney's Closing Remarks

Mitt Romney ended his presidential campaign today. In the closing marks of his campaign, he said the following:

“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 Sen. Clinton or
Obama would win,” he said. "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my
campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

So this is how it ends. Mitt Romney is accusing Senators Clinton, Senator Obama and everyone that supports them of wanting to "surrender to terror".

This is precisely the kind of rhetorical sewage that we need to eliminate from our political discourse.

I am very thankful that this man will not become the President of the United States. We deserve better. I find Romney's campaign tactics particularly sad because he should have been capable of so much more. Between his world class education, his impressive private sector success and his executive political experience, he could have added a lot to our national debate.

Instead, he has reduced it as far as possible entirely for his own political advantage.

Am I overreacting? It is a fact that both Democrats do want to remove our combat troops from Iraq. This is one of the most important debates of our time. It should be vigorous and at the center of this race.

Challenging a Democrat's desire to draw down our forces in Iraq is a fair and necessary position for a Republican to take. Our country is well served by examining the implications of withdrawal - and of further occupation. Despite the certainty with which each side speaks, we are faced with a series of terrible options in Iraq. In my opinion, it is not definitively clear which route is a better strategic move or moral decision.

But we should be clear on this: Romney and any other person that uses this language is NOT engaging in this important debate. They are squashing it.

Accusing one side of having the belief that Al-Qaeda is not a threat, that our enemies are not real and dangerous, or that we should just not fight back is insulting and entirely unjustified. More importantly - it prevents the real debate - the one that will actually save American lives and treasure - from even occuring.


Unknown said...

I'm glad that McCain will be the Republican nominee. He's the least despicable GOP candidate by far. I lost most of my regard for him in the last few years when he decided to abandon the guise of "principled maverick" in favor of the role of "George Bush's simpering lap dog," but he stands way above the crowd: Romney is a tremendous tool, Huckabee is a fundamentalist moron, Giuliani is a goblin, and Ron Paul is certifiable.

Megan said...

I don't think that you're overreacting at all. Romney's completely misguided in saying that Iraq is centrally about the war on terror, and his remarks are very inflammatory (and ring very hollow--trying to save face for having to admit defeat and bowing out of the campaign that he personally funded in large part). I'm tired of the whole idea that being against this war is unpatriotic and pro-terror. I think Huckabee's "we broke it, now we gotta fix it" approach is the only palatable one among all the republicans. I support withdrawal because I didn't like the war to start with. Perhaps the surge IS responsible for fewer deaths and less violence, but the standard is set so low because things have been bad for so long that almost anything would seem like an improvement. No matter how many fewer troops are perishing, the fact is that they ARE still dying every day and will continue to do so until we bring them home. Besides, the surge was supposed to be unifying and stabilizing to the Iraqi government, and it has not met that objective by a long shot. If anything, Iraq is even more sectarian and unstable than before the surge. But I digress.

Romney is a sad characature of a politician who is too hungry for power to worry about things like taking stances on the issues and sticking with them. I'm not opposed to a candidate changing his or her mind, occasionally, but it must be acknowledged and explained. It certainly shouldn't be lied about like it never happened. You'd think he'd know better than that when Google is just a click away these days. I strongly suspect he's a democrat in republican's clothing (yet his hundreds of millions in personal wealth are better protected if those Bush tax cuts are made permanent--not a very democratic position to take). Nothing about this man seems genuine. And don't even get me started on the whole, "I saw my father march with MLK Jr" thing. Finally, I do not think that heading up the olympics makes one ready to be the head of our country, though I do recognize that governing a state is a start.

There, I said it. Though I could have probably just saved time and seconded the above commenter by saying Romney is indeed "a tremendous tool." Truer words were never spoken.