I’ve had a couple of conversations with these people who’ve thrown their support behind Romney. Apparently, the way they’re getting themselves around Romney’s horrible record on women’s health & women’s pay equity is to ignore everything he’s said in the last year. The argument goes something like “Governor Romney would never…” And I’m all like but he said he would. Now former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has gotten in on the act.
“I would like to say to people that I am not always in agreement with everything that’s written in the Republican platform about social issues,” she said. “But I know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to respect the views of those who may disagree on these issues. They are going to take that into account.”
I don’t get these people at all. I get that you run for Presidency and not Dictatorship. This isn’t the nation of Wadiya. I understand that a President doesn’t get to do whatever the hell he wants. There’s an entire legislature to deal with. But essentially their argument seems to be that you can’t believe what Romney tells you. Sure, he says a bunch of stuff regarding de-funding Planned Parenthood, appointing Supreme Court Justices for the specific purpose of over turning Roe vs. Wade, and still has no answer to the pay equity question other than binders full of women. But he’d NEVER do any of that stuff? Right….?
If the goal is to put people at ease about a candidate that they’re not sure about to begin with, “Don’t believe what he’s saying” does not inspire confidence. Also, HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT A WINNING ARGUMENT?!!
The Secretary continues, disagreeing with the entire concept of the war on women.
“I am quite comfortable that those who talk about a ‘war on women’ are not just engaging in hyperbole, I think it’s far worse than that,” she said. “It is condemning people who are going to be reasonable and who are going to take into account the views of whom they don’t agree.”
Seriously Condi? So now the war on women is worse than hyperbole. I’m sorry, were you in a coma when the Republicans threatened a government shutdown over funding to Planned Parenthood? Maybe you were out of the country when Todd Akin and Paul Ryan sponsored personhood bills. Perhaps you were vacationing when Virginia and other states passed laws forcing women to get trans-vaginal probes rammed up their cookies if they wanted to end a pregnancy for any reason.
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics that people can perform in order to vote for this guy. Let’s spell this out:
- Hypothesis: Mitt Romney is a reasonable and tolerant man
- Evidence: Mitt Romney has been advocating totally unreasonable and intolerant policy positions
- Conclusion: Mitt Romney will govern in a reasonable and tolerant way if elected to the Presidency
Here’s an argument: It’s impossible to know what Romney would do because he’s been on both sides of every issue big and small since he’s been running for public office. That is a reasonable argument backed up by facts. But neither this argument nor Condi’s should make you want to trust him with your vote.
Categories: Politics Fix