Skip to main content

Romney

I watched his speech, announcing his impeachment vote. I loved it. I thought and felt everything he said. Romney is right. And it's this steadfast decency that is so out of place today. Many people have reconciled themselves to Trump, and defend him to the point of celebration. That's not the GOP I believe in. I'm not kidding when I say I'd rather lose than fight dirty. And I should rather die than compromise myself. Which of the two men is closer to the martyrs? C'mon, you know the answer.

It's also true that various left-leaning media and commentators now bestow upon Romney Strange New Respect, as we call it. That's what we call it when a Republican does something that hurts another Republican, or helps the Democrats in the short term. We know their praise is short-lived, and so does Sen. Romney. The key point here is, however, that Romney does not control the reactions and motivations of others. He stated his motives clearly, and I definitely believe him. And for those of you who think it was an act, and that he has something to gain, I would reply that I remember how stiff and awkward he was in speeches. He's not a good actor. Truthfully, he's a kind-hearted, out-of-touch-in-the-best-way dork, for lack of a better term. And what is there to gain? He may even lose his Senate seat in 2024, since there are so many people now professing to be ashamed that they voted for him. The braying masses, who are playing such an intense game of Follow the Leader that they can't remember how they called Obama's following a "personality cult." It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

In fairness, Romney's doing penance, for praising Trump in the run-up to 2012. He's trying to make up for the "47 percent" comment, and for taking a hard line on immigration, in order to shore up his base in that election. He's a hard-liner in nothing, except decency.

Romney hearkens back to Eisenhower, to the Bushes, and to some aspects of Reagan. Broadly acceptable Republicans, who struck fear into the Democrats without debasing us and themselves. Now people just call him a "loser." If only I could be a loser like that!

It's true that you'll never get anywhere chasing the approval of Democrats and the media. It's true that opposing abortion will get you pilloried by these same people. It's true that they never apologize, never surrender, and will do almost anything to win. It's also true that Christian voters should understand and accept persecution for the sake of righteousness. Now, they seemingly fight with no righteousness at all.

Romney isn't the best vessel to teach us this, but it seems almost perverse to say it that way. Christians have convinced themselves that the head of a new kakistocracy is King Cyrus. Frankly, I'm dizzy from the astonishing lack of perspective.

In any case, thank you, Senator Romney. I'd be honored to vote for you again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...