Friday 29th of March 2024

remember him?...

mittmitt

 

 

Mitt Romney’s the name,

Removing Trump from my face

’S my game with no shame.
I’ve sided with the Democrats

Our arch GOP enemy

To impeachTrump-the-dummy 
 And declare him insane.   We want him to take the blame  For the invasion of the grand stairs Of the Capitol sacred-heaven where Lawmakers work for lobbyists, Now under attack from anarchists.   I am a traitor with no shame I’ve sided with the Democrats
Our arch GOP enemy

To impeach Trump 
 And declared him inane.  
I want to be the Republican

President in 2024, but should we

Let Trump-the-larcenist roam free

Say goodbye to this possibility.
   I am a traitor with no regrets
Removing Trump from my face
 Is my campaign, no sweats. I’ve sided with the Democrats
Our arch GOP enemy

To impeach Trump 
 And declare him sunsets.   Gone Burko California (Ca)...   Note: A verse that rhymed "rats" with "democrats" and used a few unsavoury words has been removed for moral clarity.

the beast is different. the treatment still insane...

beast

 

There has been 15,568,359 cartoons made about the beasts of civilisation in the last 12 years... This one from 2009, by Spooner... Sing the lines above to the tune of "Spnkd Spngle Bnner" or something like it...

an old spring chicken...

Mitt Romney is a spring chicken. At a sprightly 73, the GOP’s 2012 nominee is: one year younger than the outgoing president and 2024 frontrunner, five years younger than both the incumbent president and the Senate minority leader, and seven years younger than the Speaker of the House. In the uppermost echelons of American government, only the Senate majority leader—boy wonder Chuck Schumer—is any younger, and only by three years.

This fact has been gnawing at me as the septuagenarian Utah senator/Massachusetts governor from Michigan snatches headlines left and right. Maybe I’m wrong; I hope I am. But in the age (no pun intended) of President Joe Biden, it’s hard not to think that Romney might still have an eye toward the Oval Office.


Mitt didn’t move to Utah for nothing. At the time, it seemed like he might have been gearing up for a 2020 primary contest, wriggling back into national news with a 2018 Senate campaign. By the beginning of campaign season, that route was obviously impossible. (Bill Weld, his predecessor as Massachusetts governor, tried—and got a single delegate from Iowa.) Now, as the first murmurs of 2024 prospects begin to surface, every other story in the New York Times contains Mitt Romney’s name. It may seem odd that Mitt Romney—of “binders full of women” and “47 percent” infamy—has become a media darling, but the only Republican to vote for conviction in Trump’s first impeachment has done a fine job courting corporate outlets.

The senator’s best recent clip came in the midst of the Capitol riot, when he shouted at Ted Cruz and company, “This is what you’ve gotten,” as the mob entered the building. It was a dramatic moment—even I think the anecdote is kind of cool—and received reverent coverage in every mainstream outlet. No doubt the establishment would be more than happy to see him take the GOP’s reins back over any more Trumpian successor. But there’s a general rule to follow here: The candidate they want is, without exception, absolutely not the candidate that we want.

Of course, even before the media had decided to warm up to him, Mitt was much closer to their politics than those of the average Republican voter. It’s worth noting that Romney staked his 2002 campaign for governor—his first successful election—on a promise to banish Democrat William Bulger (the only actual conservative leader of import to hold office in Massachusetts for roughly half a century) from public life. The governor succeeded, and it worked out swimmingly. In fact, Romney left the state in such great shape that Democratic challenger Deval Patrick—who would go on to earn a total of 9 votes (yes, you read that right) in the 2020 Iowa caucus—routed Romney’s chosen successor by a 20-point margin. Patrick, a progressive alumnus of the Clinton administration, in turn botched two terms so terribly that voters chose Charlie Baker to take charge when he left. There are multiple forces at work here, of course, but the governor’s role is undeniable: In Massachusetts, the Romney legacy is the complete eradication of any conservatism in either political party. Now that’s a winning record.

Romney’s habit of playing both sides—with the invariable effect of losing both—cost him just as dearly when he tried to move to the national arena. The devout Mormon had spent years waffling on the important social issues, and never—even in the widest swings of the pendulum—come down on the conservative side. Moderately supportive of both abortion and civil unions, Romney didn’t exactly inspire conservative voters to head to the polls. And that was nearly a decade ago, when the culture war was barely in its adolescence. Is Romney capable of leading the nation as it heads into its peak? Is Mitt “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country” Romney really the leader social conservatives want for the realignment coalition? Forget about “leader”—do we even want him there at all?

It’s not just social issues, either. He’s no Cheney, sure, but Romney does embody some of the worst foreign-policy instincts of the old-guard establishment. On virtually every global issue of importance that has come across his desk or warranted his comment, Romney has been woefully and dangerously wrong. Barack Obama nailed it in a 2012 debate: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

For all these reasons and more, we ought to be very wary of Romney’s proposal for a universal child allowance. That’s not to say the policy itself is bad; in fact, the content is fantastic. But there’s a little voice inside my head telling me, “That’s exactly what Mitt Romney wants you to think.” Taken in the full context of his actions over the past few years, a high-profile attempt to court realignment conservatives seems an awful lot like the worst-case scenario. And the risk should not be underestimated: anyone who could harness both the adoration of the liberal establishment and the energy of the conservative realignment would have a hard time losing an election.

It’s very important, then, not to let Romney harness that realignment energy. He has spent the last two decades constantly telling conservatives—as loudly as he can—that he isn’t one of us. Now, many of our best and brightest are eager to sing his praises because of one (admittedly positive) reform-minded proposal. But we should not be so easily fooled. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there’s still a chance that it’s a neocon in disguise.

In 2008, when neocon par excellence John McCain headed up the Republican ticket, some very intelligent conservatives—including many at this magazine—publicly backed his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama. Some of these rogues, who earned the label of “ObamaCons,” even stuck with him when a certain former Massachusetts governor tried to unseat the incumbent in 2012. I never understood the ObamaCons before. But if Mitt Romney weasels his way into the ’24 nomination, get ready for the KamalaCons—and count me in.

 

 

Read more:

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/beware-mitt-romney-bearing-gifts/

 

 

Read from top...

all loonies...

 

By trying to impeach Trump once more, the Democrats have only enhanced his image. Predictable. Whether Trump was guilty or not of "incitement", the result of the process was as stupid as the process itself. The moral-better-than-Thou Democrats have shown their idiotic hypocrisy... Until Assange is out of prison, this hypocrisy can only grow... Ignoring trump would have served their Democratic causes better. The Pelosi woman and her acolytes acted like rightful nag-bags of vengeful bones with no better brains than Trump-the-loonie himself. 

 

 

So, the "liberal" media is going to point out that the seven "moral" and "brave" Republicans who vote to impeach Trump are going to be hung by their party... So what? The underlying story is not that they were moral, but traitors to the GOP, possibly hungry for crumbs by seeing Trump out of the frame, and feathering their own ambitions. No morality to see here, despite what the "liberal" media are going to froth up:

 

 

The blowback against the seven Republican senators who supported former President Donald J. Trump’s conviction in his impeachment trial gained intensity on Sunday.

In Louisiana, the state Republican Party’s executive committee voted unanimously on Saturday to censure Senator Bill Cassidy, who was just re-elected in November and was among those who voted to find Mr. Trump guilty. 

The state’s Republican attorney general, Jeff Landry, said Mr. Cassidy had “fallen into the trap laid by Democrats to have Republicans attack Republicans” — a candid summation of the challenges facing a party splintering into camps divided by loyalty to the former president.

Two of the Republicans who voted for conviction, Senators Richard M. Burr of North Carolina and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, are not seeking re-election next year, giving them more political freedom than many of their colleagues. But they still faced rebukes at home.

Lawrence Tabas, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, called the trial “an unconstitutional theft of time and energy that did absolutely nothing to unify or help the American people,” adding, “I share the disappointment of many of our grass-roots leaders and volunteers over Senator Toomey’s vote today.”

In North Carolina, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Michael Whatley, said Mr. Burr’s vote was “shocking and disappointing.” Representative Dan Bishop, Republican of North Carolina, expressed support for censuring him.

The only thing that kept Nebraska Republicans from passing their resolution censuring Senator Ben Sasse for his vote was the weather: Subzero temperatures and punishing winds forced the state committee to postpone a meeting planned this weekend until later this month, according to party officials.

Of the seven Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump, only one of them, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, will be on the ballot in 2022. But she is a uniquely formidable candidate in her state, having once won re-election as a write-in candidate after losing a primary.

So far, reaction among Republicans in her state has been relatively muted. The state’s junior senator, Dan Sullivan, gave her some political cover by saying he was infuriated by Mr. Trump’s actions— after voting to acquit.

The Republican senators who broke with their party during the former president’s trial joined 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach him, triggering an earlier backlash within the G.O.P.

 

Read more:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/14/us/trump-impeachment

 

 

 

Read from top.