He’s supposed to be one of the vaguely, kinda OK ones on some issues, I hear


That’s what I keep hearing about Mitt Romney, anyway. He’s one of those rare Republicans who hasn’t gone full MAGA, Trump-worshipping ditto-head. If he’s one of the better ones, though, what does his recent remark say about the Republican party?

OK, Republicans are just bad, every one. There’s no excuse for voting for that party, ever.

Comments

  1. Rich Woods says

    The sanctity of human life is a foundational American principle.

    Which is why the death penalty has been banned since 1783 and all states allowing slavery strictly enforced punishments for the killing of a slave. The US is also famous for its universal safety net designed to prevent anyone dying from poverty or preventable disease.

  2. strangerinastrangeland says

    I saw some republican politician on the news yesterday who said in relation to those horrid news that he was “pro life” and I thought “That’s fantastic. He is therefore in favour of gun control, a well funded free health system, vaccination and social security, especially for poor and otherwise vulnerable people!” That was what he meant, right?

  3. raven says

    The sanctity of human life is a foundational American principle.

    That is why the Native Americans, who were living here before us, had their population decline by 90% due to disease and European conquest and genocide.

    That is also why slavery of captured and imported Africans was wildly practiced until the US Civil War.
    And why it was abolished by peaceful means involving guns, cannons, and hundreds of thousands dead in various battles.

    One million or so Vietnamese died during the Vietnam war, which we ended up losing anyway, for no apparent reason.

    The Mormons also have a history of violence.
    The Mountain Meadows massacre killed 120 men, women, and children.

    Mitt Romney is just wrong, no surprise.

  4. dbinmn says

    If it is a “foundational American principle,” why would it be left to the people and their representatives?

  5. says

    He did score some points with me when he voted to convict Trump and when he voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson.
    But he’s still Mitt Romney, he of the 47% remark, the guy who put the dog in the cartop carrier and told college graduates to borrow money from their parents. And he’s still a Mormon, possibly the most blatantly made-up religion this side of Scientology. Being in touch with the reality of America was never his strong suit.
    That’s how low the bar is for Republicans now. Trump almost sorta kinda made me miss Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.
    Almost. Sorta. Kinda.
    I haven’t voted for a Republican since the 80s (Mark Hatfield). We used to have fairly progressive Republicans in Oregon, like Tom McCall, who as governor pushed through the country’s first bottle bill and also worked to make all the beaches public. We have a wilderness area named after John Dellenbach, this district’s last Republican congressman (voted out in 1974). Such Republicans are long extinct.

  6. microraptor says

    Romney proves once again that a “good” Republican is still a Republican.

    It’s weird though, given that even among Republican voters, a majority do not support total abortion bans yet not a single Republican politician is willing to speak out against such bans.

  7. mamba says

    If the sanctity of life is so important, especially babies, I assume he supports extra funding for programs that support newborn mothers including assistance in medical costs, paid leave off work to raise said precious child, and the addition of funding to multiple services that support single mothers and any parent in need of assistance?

    (listens to the crickets)

    Yeeeeah, that’s what I thought…he only cares BEFORE they are born, and when they turn old enough to pay taxes.

  8. ardipithecus says

    Punished? For what? According to a lawyer friend, leaking the document wasn’t illegal. Nothing SCOTUS does is classified.

  9. robro says

    ardipithecus @ #8 — Do clerks and so forth at SCOTUS have to sign some kind of “No Disclosure Agreement”? I suspect by “punish” they mean fire the person, even if they can’t prosecute them, or sue them if there is an NDA.

    And of course, Mitt doesn’t care about the “sanctity of life.” He’s a self-serving scumbag. He cares about getting votes and campaign donations. By saying something like this, he expects to reap more of both, and sadly probably will.

  10. ardipithecus says

    robor @9 – I don’t know about an NDA, but I would expect some sort of confidentiality agreement. Ironically, NDA’s don’t usually hold up in court.

    But, to make my observation more iffy – I’m Canadian, and so is my lawyer friend. I hoped that if I (he) was wrong, someone would correct it. I learned over 30 years ago that you get a much more informative response by posting the wrong thing than by asking the question.

  11. says

    I’m still waiting for the major media outlets to call the abortion “debate” what it really is: an attempt to push a particular religious dogma on the rest of the nation. All the talk about the so-called “sanctity of life” and so forth is just window dressing. The simple fact of the matter is that a very vocal minority believes that a fertilized egg is a person, that an embryo is a baby. This is not a majority opinion in this country or on this planet. Indeed, there are a great many examples of cultures and religions who do not hold that opinion. It is an opinion based purely on a particular bit of religious dogma. Yet, we never hear it discussed in those terms.

    In any other sphere, the idea that one bit of religious dogma could control what the rest of the country can or cannot do would be rightly and vigorously scorned. What’s that? Your religion tells you that you can’t eat pork? or beef? or milk and fish together? or wear clothes made of certain materials? Fine. Don’t. But you don’t get tell other people that they can’t have bacon, or a cheeseburger, or wear a cotton-poly blend shirt.

    I assume I’ll be waiting a long time before I hear comments like those on major media.

  12. mikey says

    He is, and has always been, a cartoon villain. His ‘day job’ was ruining companies for profit.

  13. robro says

    jimf @ #11 — “…an attempt to push a particular religious dogma on the rest of the nation.”

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State has said that for years. And that “particular” religious dogma is associated with evangelicals of both the Protestant, Catholic and probably Orthodox type. I just read about how Reagan in 1985 pulled evangelicals into the GOP fold to beef the GOP minority by exploiting their hot button issues like abortion, prayer and teaching religious dogma in public schools, etc.

    As written, Alito’s position could unravel lots of things. He’s essentially questioning the basis of the Federalist agenda for the past hundred years…that the US government has a role in protecting the rights of all citizens. Ironically, he and these other knuckleheads on the court and many in the House and Senate are members of the Federalist Society, which is clearly anti-Federalist.

    What do you bet the evolution v. creationism “teach the controversy” debate rears its stupid head again.

  14. PaulBC says

    It all depends on the comparison you’re making. He’s still the guy who said 47% of Americans are moochers and that corporations are people with equivalent free speech rights. I can’t find a link to an account I read in 2012 and almost all the articles I can find about Romney’s role as Mormon Bishop tend to be positive, but here is a more mixed report. He’s also still the guy who drove with his dog on top of the car.

    So… yeah, a GOP asshole. Still, much much better than Trump or his enablers in the Senate.

  15. birgerjohansson says

    If you compare him with Hitler, I suppose he looks OK.
    Except Hitler was a better dog owner, I think. Please tell free to correct me, I would prefer Hitler to be worse on all accounts.

  16. PaulBC says

    birgerjohansson@15 It’s been said he shed an übermenschlich tear when he watched Blondi put down with a cyanide capsule.

  17. robro says

    PaulBC @ #14 —”Romney’s role as a Mormon Bishop tend to be positive.” I wouldn’t trust the source, and besides, Mormon’s have a history of putting on a well polished face to cover being awful. “Still, much much better than Trump or his enablers in the Senate.” That’s a very low bar. The “47% of Americans are moochers” is from the secretly recorded talk he gave at a posh fund raiser in 2012. Wikipedia has links to several stories about it.

  18. PaulBC says

    robro@17

    That’s a very low bar.

    Yes it is, and it does not make me a fan of Mitt Romney. In the interest of full disclosure, I have once or twice had a nice word to say about him on Facebook, mostly connected to his impeachment votes.

  19. unclefrogy says

    well he is a republican and is pretty firm in his beliefs morman and conservative and all. It does seem that he is someone who also believes in the rule of law maybe a stickler for the letter of the law and not always the spirit of the law. You can not say that about the maga dumpsters nor many of the fundies and other want to be authoritarians for whom law is just a hindrance and a bothersome inconvenience
    he has little to offer that is in any way helpful forward besides that a better man then McConnell or Ted

  20. specialffrog says

    I seem to recall that after the 2016 election Trump invited Romney to come grovel before him with the hope of getting a cabinet post. Romney did so but then was not given a job — Trump just wanted to show he was boss. So I’m not sure how much I can attribute Romney’s occasional moments of not being terrible to any kind of principle.

  21. Howard Brazee says

    Agreed. But there is a big difference between what the conservatives want to do to our country and what the fascists want to do to our country.

  22. René says

    I’d wish there were a way that somebody here with a (thin) direct line to Romney could make him read this thread and make him comment on each entry. Do I think he would change his ways? Hardly, but one can (pipe)dream, can’t one?

  23. StevoR says

    @ ^ René : One can.

    One supposes Mittens Rmoney has his own contact details and various social media pages and even snail mail address he can be reached via.

  24. PaulBC says

    Howard Brazee@21

    Agreed. But there is a big difference between what the conservatives want to do to our country and what the fascists want to do to our country.

    What they “want” to do is bad enough, namely get back to good old fashion Reaganism: “Greed is good” but what they actually do is provide cover for fascists. They’re basically playing Hindenburg to Hitler (but so are most Democrats).

    Note: I vote for Democrats. I’m not foolish enough to confuse my politics with my voting strategy.

  25. says

    I’m sorry but that is in fact one of the most reasonable statements I have seen from any Republican on this topic. Romney forthrightly accepts and celebrates the decision. He doesn’t try to distract from the substance of the issue with the secondary question of the leak-which is something to discuss because it has never happened before and does raise questions of the Court.

    In contrast most GOP senators are only bleating about the leak and lying about their support of their decision.

    When people say Romney and people like Liz Cheney are good Republicans they don’t mean they have good positions, they mean the person is operating in good faith.

    I think Romney’s position is horrific on this topic but he’s not bullshitting us about his position. I can’t say the same thing about Cruz, McConnell etc. Etc.

Leave a Reply