Romney: neither forgive me nor forget my many flip-flops, gaffs, blunders, and reversals
Romney himself: “I think [the Craig scandal] reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we’ll just forgive and forget,” as quoted by the tiresome Charles Mitchell of the canting and priggish Evangelicals for Mitt in a post titled On Standards and Setting an Example.
Oh, we could not agree more.
Romney “continues to disappoint” us, again and again.
So: We will certainly—and in all cases—hold Romney to the same evaluative standard despite that he sometimes “speak[s] a good game”—at least when he is not fatly contradicting himself.
It is a frankly non-Evangelical who provides in our view the most intelligent and most compassionate rejoinder to Romney’s hatred and abuse of a friend. No, no, no, no, no, writes Lambert of Corrente in a post titled Shocker: Willard Mitt Romney screws the pooch on Craig response.
Romney is just so wrong on so many levels.
1. People do “disappoint.” That’s human nature, even if you’re not religious. (See, e.g., Romans 3:23).
2. People do “forgive and forget.” Not only do most world religions enjoin such behavior (I haven’t studied Mormonism), it’s empirically true. It’s reality based. People forgave Clinton on Monica. People forgave FDR on his adultery. People forgave Reagan’s divorce. And on and on and on.
If Clinton’s blow job and Bush’s destruction of the Constitution were weighed in a cosmic, karmic balance, which would sink the scales more heavily? Suppose an all-powerful God presented the choice of restoring Constitutional government at the prices of “forgiving and forgetting” Clinton’s blow job. What would you do? I know what I’d do, and if Romney would refuse to forgive and forget, he’s not fit to be president.
Or take Social Security. Suppose the same God gave the choice between preserving Social Security at the price of “forgiving and forgetting” FDR’s adultery. What would you do? I know what I’d do, and if Romney did differently, again, he’s not fit to be President.
These great issues of public policy, which affect, quite literally, the lives and the happiness of millions, trump the personal sexual peccadilloes of politicians.***** If Romney doesn’t understand that, he’s not fit to be President.
3. Romney’s notion of “disgusting” is bizarre (and seems more than a little defensive). What could be more disgusting than torture? What could be more disgusting than destroying the Fourth Amendment, and every other fucking amendment? What could be more disgusting than abolishing habeas corpus? What could be more disgusting than setting up as a dictator? What could be more disgusting than looting the country of billions? What would be more disgusting than timing a war to win a mid-term election? And on and on and on and on. If Romney equates those grossly disgusting public acts with the pathetic, private acts of a single individual, he’s unfit to the President.
4. Finally, Romney’s purity test plays into a subtle, vicious, and destructive meme that’s gradually propagating all over our discourse: The “leader” meme. This is the essentially European philosophy that, if only we had a Leader who was pure in heart—perhaps one who rode a white horse—that all our troubles would be over and there would be ponies for everyone. (This is why the Christian Embassy loons targeted “leaders” (read: bureaucrats) in the Pentagon.) Not so. Heed the words of Federalist 51 … [emphasis ours; more]