Mitt Romney backs away from all the right-wing positions he espoused earlier in the campaign, especially during the Republican primaries, unveiling the kinder, gentler, Obama Lite version at the first presidential debate.
Enough of the People
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
6 Comments. Leave new
Cyborg to the rescue!
You wish.
Actually if you go by Record, and I know this is crazy, but uh, Romney is more liberal than Obama. I’m not talking about the lame talks they both give, I am talking about in practice, if you look at laws passed by each, Romney is hands down more liberal.
patron002: Examples? In what domestic policies was Romney more progressive than Obama? This is not a sarcastic question, I know nothing about how Romney really ran Massachusetts, since what’s been reported has been more smoke than facts.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney had no control over foreign policy. Obama has continued to kill goatherds, but mostly with drones, which kill fewer goatherds than carpet bombing of urban neighbourhoods, and squander fewer American lives than ground troops. Evil, but not as evil as what one of the many Romneys promised to do. Of course, other Romneys have promised to keep America safe without killing anyone, so less evil than Obama. But which Romney will take office if elected?
Options for Progressives:
Option A: We have an idea how evil Obama will be. He says he’ll change in his second term, since he won’t be running for re-election, so we can’t be sure how evil the second term Obama will be. Compared with the Evil Romney, he’s far better. Since a revolution is impossible, and since a vote for Romney is a validation of the Tea Party and will move the US to the right, vote for Obama.
Option B: The real Romney is a caring Mormon who stopped all profit-making when one of his employees was in trouble and didn’t resume until the employee’s problem was solved. If elected, he’ll be more compassionate and run far to the left of Obama. So vote for Romney.
Option C: It’s wrong to vote for either candidate, since both are evil, so don’t vote, try to start a revolution.
Years of observation have shown that the US is mostly divided between Obamabots, card carrying Tea Party members, and Tea party leaners who aren’t quite card carriers, with only a splinter of Rallists left, so that revolution ain’t gonna happen. So I’d say, try to find some other option.
Only I haven’t been able to find an acceptable alternative to revolution, since both Obama and the Romney I expect will sit in the White House if elected will be evil and impose almost identical hardships on both innocent goatherds and about half of Americans.
(Add to which, I know most Americans are sure that every goatherd killed by our brave troops on the orders of our President with more information than he can release was a vicious terrorist who was guilty of executing 9/11 and other terrorist atrocities. ‘Proof’ and ‘evidence’ are just so 20th century.)
Option D: Vote, but don’t spend any time or energy thinking about it, and try to start a revolution.
Obama-original (to the degree that Mr Obama has ever been original) or Obama-lite, what people in the United States are going to get – and what the US government will attempt to force upon the rest of us – is aptly described in an essay by Chrystia Freeland, published, interesting enough, in today’s New York Times : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/the-self-destruction-of-the-1-percent.html?pagewanted=all….
Henri