air_america's Journal (original) (raw)

The nation's first presidential primary occurs in New Hampshire in only SIXTEEN days! I still have no idea which Democrat I will be voting for in Florida's primary (and/or if the vote of Florida Democrats will matter at all - for more info see this article: http://politics.nytimes.com/packages/html/election-guide/2008/primaries/states/FL.html) which is about a month away, but this post has nothing to do with the Democrats. It concerns the other party.

I will admit that I've had a not-so-soft spot in my heart for Mitt Romney ever since he fought so hard to prevent marriage equality in Massachusetts. I was particularly disgusted that he dredged up a rarely-used, mean-spirited early 20th century law that prevented out-of-staters from getting married in the Bay State if their marriage would not have been recognized in the state of the couple's legal residence. This was a law that was created way-back-when to prevent people of different races from getting hitched in relatively liberal Massachusetts & then going back home to where it was still illegal & spreading the "disease" of tolerance to others. Good ol' Mitt couldn't stop gay Bay Staters from getting legal sanction from the state government, but he could stop latter-day reverse-carpetbaggers from sullying the "sanctity of marriage" in their own states by dusting off a law that hadn't been used for decades.

Anyway, back to the main point of this post: it seems that the good EX-Gov has had a little cold water thrown on his presidential aspirations from an influential newspaper in the neighbor state of New Hampshire. I'm sure there are at least a couple of people who feel the same way the Concord Monitor does about Romney's flippity-floppity issue positions, but no one I've seen yet has worded it better than the Monitor's editorial entitled, "Romney should not be the next president" (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301).

I particularly dig this part: "People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition." As the Brits say, "Spot on!" Beyond this man's obvious distaste for more stable relationships in Massachusetts, that's what has bugged me about Mitt Romney. I would wager that most voters have long believed that most politicians will say or do just about anything to get a vote. Mitt Romney is the most egregious example of that for me in this election cycle. If I were a republican, I'd be wary of voting for a man who is concerned more with "his own ambition" than with doing what is right for his country...but, of course, I am not a republican, and I am not in the business of advising these people how to vote.

Should I feel guilty because, in this most joyous season, I am TOTALLY enjoying this pre-Xmas gift of a well-worded figurative political evisceration from the Concord Monitor of a politician for whom I have no respect? Should I be ashamed of myself for giggling like a schoolgirl and indulging in such raw schadenfreude when I read the words in this editorial?!?!

Maybe I should, but, the truth is, I'm too busy trying to fit in last-minute Christmas shopping into my already-overloaded homosexual agenda! So, in the words of Scarlet O'Hara, "I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow," (if there's not another pre-Christmas sale on).