Romney Derangement Syndrome

Roger L. Simon thinks the phenomena is real. I do have to say, the idea that Romney is a marxist is rather farfetched, but I’ve also heard people claim it:

So why pick on Romney over this? In truth, we are in the era of Romney Derangement Syndrome. It has gone so far that in the PJ Media comments today, someone wrote there was no hope for the country because Obama and Romney were both Marxists.

Really? The co-founder of Bain Capital is a Marxist? Well, I suppose if Bain were wildly unsuccessful you could hypothesize some kind of Cloward-Piven covert sabotage of our economic system was being attempted. But it wasn’t — and isn’t.

My big problem with Mitt is that he’s uninspiring and blows with the wind (or just plain blows, as you will). But hey, if my alternative is Mr. War On Porn, I can get over it.

35 thoughts on “Romney Derangement Syndrome”

  1. Think of the conundrum Santorum would face regarding porn made without birth control! Lord…

    “Comrade Romney,” lol. When a Wall Street tycoon is called a commie, you know somebody has been standing too long in the sun, probably at a fringe political rally carrying a sign about Nostradamus. I can’t tell if we’re getting collectively stoopiter as a country or just seeing the people who used to rave on street corners now getting bigger bull horns via the Internet and cable TV.

  2. We conservatives have all been so unsupportive of Mitt that we’re screwing ourselves. Though most of us will vote for Mitt in the end, when we only refer to him as marginally preferable to Obama or no one to get excited over (the result of the oft touted “weak” GOP field), what are the chances that the independents, who really don’t pay attention to issues — but may be unhappy with Obama — will decide to vote for our guy? Better the devil you know and that Tom Hanks likes than the one that Rachel Maddow says is REALLY the devil.

    Unless we get behind Romney at some point we’re going to end up with another 4 years of Obama … and while some may say “yeah — but then maybe we’ll get a real conservative in 2016” I say … that’s idiocy.

    In 4 years Obama’s give aways and entitlements will be so entrenched and baked into the economy they’ll hardly be changeable, much less removable. And as a nation we’re too smart to let the US collapse completely even if we do create a European type socialist/stagnant economy. Not many of us want that, but we’d generally prefer high unemployment/good unemployment benefits and brown outs caused by closed coal power plants for unreliable wind turbines than a total collapse and absolute anarchy (though I will admit the latter might be preferable in the long run, depending on how it turns out).

    1. Romney is so milquetoast that many disappointed Obama voters from 2008 are going to vote for him…and I’m pretty sure that is quite intentional on Romney’s part.

    2. “Unless we get behind Romney at some point…”

      If Romney wins the nomination we will have little choice to support him in November. But it ain’t November yet and we can still hope for and vote for real conservatives in the primaries. The primaries are my favorite elections because it is the only time we can vote for a candidate rather than simply voting against one as always seems to be the case in the fall.

      1. “The primaries are my favorite elections because it is the only time we can vote for a candidate…”

        I wish that were true. When Senator Bennett lost in the State Convention, I had a hard time deciding which replacements were the best…and settled on Mike Lee. I have a brother-in-law who settled on Bridgewater. We had reasons to dislike both, and reasons to dislike the other candidates as well.

        So far, Lee has been pretty good, so I’m glad we replaced Bennett with him; with regards to Senator Hatch this year, I’m afraid something similar may happen again.

        The same thing is happening this time around. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich…which is best? To me, they’re equally bad, so I’m just sitting back, and waiting to see which one comes out on top. (And since I’m more against Gingrich than these other two, I’m glad he’s not doing as well as either.) Personally, I’m rooting for a brokered convention.

  3. I think I’d rather vote for Obama than Romney. At least I know what I am getting, and he really isn’t worse, just bad in a different way. Even if Romney gets to pick a Supreme Court Justice, I can’t imagine he’d be any worse than an Obama pick (think Bush-Souter).

    I love to watch the right spin that voting for Romney is any better than Obama, when Obamacare came from Romneycare, when Romney signed the AWB in Mass., and when he was a conservative before he was a liberal, until he was a liberal again, and sideways was a conservative.

    Its too bad they can’t see the perfect candidate because they are so blind on the war (which is really a leftist position anyway).

    1. Whenever I start thinking that there isn’t much difference (between Barry and Mittens), I just say “Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder”, and my anxiety about Mittens goes away……

      1. Until you realize that there is no guarantee that Romney wouldn’t be as likely to choose someone just as bad as Holder- such as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, ala Souter (as I said in my original comment).

    2. Patrick, you are blind if you focus only on Souter. I remembered that Bush Sr. also appointed a second Supreme Court justice, but I had to look it up. Do you know who it was?

      Thomas. Clarence freaken’ Thomas.

      One of the best Supreme Court justices on the bench today!

      Yes, Mittens might pick another Souter…but do we expect Obama to even consider another Thomas? Somehow, I doubt it.

      Oh, and I would add that Souter literally was a wolf in sheep’s clothing–and that for Bush Sr. to appoint him, the wool had to be pulled over his eyes. Will Mittens be susceptible to having the wool pulled over his eyes, too? Probably…but at least that step will have to be taken.

      With Obama, he’s looking for the most liberal candidate he can get!

      1. And you are blind if all you focus on is the one potential justice. Again, he could easily choose a bad one, on top of all the other bad stuff he can do. Hey- that’s sounds like Obama!

        Or we could choose a candidate that actually would be totally different, would definitely choose a good Justice, and wouldn’t’ destroy the country or the Constitution. Oh but he’s “crazy.” Whatever.

        1. If I were to choose a candidate, I might choose Ron Paul…but I might not, because while I sort-of agree with him on the end-goal of foreign policy issues, I do not agree with how he’s willing to pull out all troops from the world, effective immediately, leaving our allies high and dry against potential aggressors around the world.

          The political reality is, however, that Ron Paul isn’t likely to get the nomination, and the remaining three leave much to be desired. While I hope that the convention is brokered, I do not have much hope that even then, a solid libertarian conservative is going to rise up and get the nomination.

          The fact is, it’s likely to be a Romney vs. Obama race; and unless a solid third-party candidate can rise up and get a good portion of the votes, I’d rather roll the dice with Romney, and see what I get, rather than subject the country to another four years of Obama.

          Of course, I currently have very little hope for the country right now. Do you seriously believe that a President who is going to be willing to take on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is going to be electable? Yet, if we cannot let go of these so-called “safety” nets, our country is doomed.

          Which leaves me to this question: what will it take to convince enough people of the evils of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, so that such a President (and accompanying Representatives and Senators) would be electable?

  4. “When a Wall Street tycoon is called a commie. . .”

    Maybe that’s because in some circles “fascist” is a word that can’t be spoken, even in the purest economic sense. (I.e., the means of production are privately owned, but production is controlled by a partnership of business and government.) So the next worst boogeyman is substituted for rhetorical purposes.

    Who would IG Farben have supported?

    1. It’s good to see SOMEBODY still knows that fascist & communist aren’t synonyms!

    1. I would imagine he had the same reaction that I did: how sick has our society become that women think they need to have a procedure like this to be sexually attractive to men?

      By the way: when Santorum talks about enforcing the existing laws against hardcore porn, he probably intends to do what Bush did: prosecuting people who were advertising and selling bestiality porn, and rape porn. There is a lot of stuff for sale out there that makes group sex seem pretty tame., if your stomach can handle reading about it.

      1. No. Mr. “War on Porn” would persecute people receiving video of ANY sex act other than would be approved by the taliban. Full burka, man on top (ALWAYS) and no sounds allowed.

        I’m still hoping for a 3 way split and maybe we can get a real conservative (NO MORE BUSHIES) at the convention.

  5. OK, he is not a Marxist but he offers a 5 degree course correction when 180 is needed. And he will drag the Republican party along with him. We don’t need a better manager for the nanny state.

    1. I’m a Santorum backer (although not enthusiastically), but even I don’t think Romney is just a 5 degree correction. At a minimum, just having someone in the White House who understands that capitalism is a good thing is a giant step forward. Obama may talk in favor of government sponsored stuff (like Solyndra), but it is clear that his heart isn’t in it.

      1. OK, Romney is a proven gunbanner, he is a warmist, he not only supported but invented Obamacare, he is for the bailouts, he got bailouts for the Olympics, he hugged Ted Kennedy (does he hug his wife). Against all of this is only Bain. That is why I give him a 5% course correction score instead of 0. I think he would be a better administrator than Obama. I am not sure this is good given his policy positions. This should not be construed as an endorsement of Santorum. But for god sakes can’t the Republicans do better.

  6. I’d vote for the guy who runs my local Pizza Hut franchise over Obama: at least that person can form a budget.

    I will vote for anyone against Obama. The folks who state some insipid crap about “I’d rather vote Obama, at least I know what I’m getting” are borderline insane.

    You have one guy you know for a FACT will destroy this nation in the next four years, and a field of other candidates that quite possibly won’t suck as badly as we fear… and you want to reelect the one you KNOW will screw us over?

    Where the heck is the logic in that?!?!?!

    1. I think the “at least I know what I am getting” sorts are trying to make people vote for Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum. Anyone that uses that argument for voting for Obama is either kidding themselves, or is planning to vote for Obama anyway.

    2. “The folks who state some insipid crap about “I’d rather vote Obama, at least I know what I’m getting” are borderline insane.”

      BORDERLINE? They crossed the border to crazyville so long ago they can’t even see it from where they are.
      My personal opinion is that anyone voting for Obummer should be arrested, put in a straightjacket, and shipped directly to the nearest nuthouse!

    3. No, the people who are borderline insane are those who think that anybody but Obama are better. Those who think the minute difference between Obama and Romney or Santorum will make a difference are crazy.

      I know for a FACT that Obama, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich will ALL destroy this country just as bad as the other, and they all suck equally. Of course, each may do it in a different manner, but in the end its the same.

      The point is Obama vs whoever (except Paul), not an open field. I’m not voting for Obama. I’m not voting for anybody but Paul, and I may just not vote again for President like in 2008 because the choices all suck.

      1. FACT? How do you know? Are you part of the “conspiracy”, then? You have personal knowledge, or documents, perhaps? If so, please post them.

        Otherwise, buy a dictionary and clarify your terms.

        1. You’re the one that sad you know for a fact that Obama will destroy the country, I was just using your words. So maybe you need to clarify your terms.

          But its not far from the truth. What Obama stands for so does the other 3 GOP candidates. Its only the method, not the result that changes. Remember, Obamacare came from Romneycare. Santorum was all for the bailouts, like Obama.

  7. Banning stuff is pretty silly but if I had to choose, I would rather have someone that wants to ban porn as opposed to someone with a history of banning guns.

    1. Let me emphasize that the President doesn’t make this decision. Congress has passed laws to prohibit obscene materials, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of obscenity statutes.

      1. The executive branch has seized enough power to go after anyone it wants: the specific laws it uses and abuses to do so aren’t an issue any more. The reason presidential elections have become so contentious is that we’re no longer electing a president with limited powers: we’re choosing an emperor.

        I also find it hilarious that the Federal Government tries to use national law to enforce the “contemporary community standards” of the Miller Obscenity Test. Isn’t it the entire point of our federal system that states and local communities can create laws that fit their own definitions of obscenity, rather than rely on national law enforcement to do so?

          1. True. But how much more is it costing me to buy something here in Pa,with a printed warning on the label that says: warning:the state of Cal. has found that this……
            I really dont care what that state says about a product i buy here,just as an example.


  8. “I would rather have someone that wants to ban porn as opposed to someone with a history of banning guns.”

    First they came for the pornographers, and I said nothing because I was not a fan of pornography. . .

    An authoritarian is an authoritarian. They will always get to you, eventually.

    1. It’s also important to note that other authoritarians have been trying to use both the obscenity and “Ferber” exceptions to ban “violent” and “hate” speech.
      US v. Stevens, US v. Kilbride, Brown v. EMA, Ashcroft v. FSC… most have been victories, so far: “the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige.” -Roberts
      But they’ll keep trying, and every precedent that makes obscenity prosecutions easier will help them when they decide to ban videos about hunting (as they attempted in Stevens).

  9. The reason I know for a fact that Obama is actively and purposefully destroying the country is because he’s doing it live in real time right in front of us.

    If my choices are death or a 5% chance of survival, I’ll take the longshot thank you very much….

Comments are closed.