"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.
“I should not object if it should gradually terminate…” Huh? Why not: “If elected, I will emancipate all slaves.”? Note that the above quote was about a year before the election of 1860. If you compare Lincoln’s rhetoric on either side of the campaign with his statements right before the election, there is a marked difference in tone. Abe Lincoln, our greatest President, adopted a more moderate tone during his campaign. Apparently, Lincoln had an Etch-A-Sketch.
With that in mind, here are some things Mitt Romney won’t say during this campaign. All I know is, I find these things to be axiomatic, and I can say them even if Mitt won’t:
· Barack Obama did not inherit this mess. In fact, he is largely responsible for the Financial Crisis of 2008! No, he didn’t do it singlehandedly; he had lots of help. But, I defy you to find a single human being who was present at more stages of this economic cluster-fuck than Barack Obama. From his college days, to his Community Organizer days, to his ACORN days, to his Non-Profit days, to his State Senate days, to his U.S. Senate days, all the way to his Presidency, he has been an effective proponent of the very policies and philosophies which crashed the financial system in 2008 and have kept us from escaping the malaise. To wit: Marxist student? Check. ACORN activist against bank lending standards? Check. Community Reinvestment Act? Check. Supported Subprime Mortgages for anyone? Check. Fannie and Freddie’s biggest money recipient by rate? Check. TARP? Check. Continued support for the re-distribution of credit? Check. Continued war on bank lending standards? Check. Continued support for Fannie and Freddie? Check. Supported Fed Chairman Bernanke all along? Check. I could go on for pages.
· Barack Obama had nothing to do with getting Osama bin Laden. In fact, the bin Laden raid happened IN SPITE OF Barack Obama! As a candidate for Senate, a U.S. Senator, and then President, Barack Obama opposed every single policy which led to the eventual location and termination of Osama bin Laden. To wit: Opposed interrogating terrorists? Check. Opposed imprisoning terrorists? Check. Opposed treating terrorists as military combatants? Check. Opposed wiretapping terrorists? Check. Opposed Guantanamo? Check. Opposed gathering any intelligence from terrorists? Check. Opposed waterboarding KSM? Check. My Labradoodle, who opposed none of those policies, did more to get Osama bin Laden than Barack Obama.
· Barack Obama is not a “nice guy”. In fact, Barack Obama is an amoral person! Morality is the difference between Economic Liberals and Economic Conservatives. To wit: Marx = Redistribution of Wealth is good for The Lower Classes. Keynes = Redistribution of Wealth is good for Stimulating the Economy. Progressives of both Parties = Redistribution of Wealth is good Politics. All the above definitions focus on the benefit to the receiving class and none address the moral implications. Redistribution of Wealth is immoral by definition because it amounts to THEFT. Barack Obama, who may embody one or all the above ideologies, is an exemplary example of this amorality. He cannot impose an immoral economic system and be “nice” at the same time.
My real complaint is, not only will Mitt Romney not say this shit, he says the exact opposite. In all three cases, Mitt Romney could avoid these topics, but instead he is on record saying: “Obama did not cause the financial mess.”, “Obama deserves praise for getting bin Laden.”, and “Obama is a nice guy.” It would be like Linclon saying: “Personally, I think slave owners are nice people. Really, they inherited a bad system, and they deserve praise for failing to completely stop the abolitionist movement.”
Preposterous. Still to come - Part II.