Excuse, if you will, a few disconnected thoughts about the Republican National Convention: about Palin, Huckabee, and (sadly disturbingly) Mitt Romney.
Sarah Palin, the surprise pick for VP, did not surprise anyone with her speech. Well delivered and strong, full of falsehoods and half-truths: everything we have come to expect from a VP. If she survives the ethics investigation in her home state (they are, after all, REPUBLICANS who are investigating her and most likely will fall into line before recommending censure or impeachment for her clear ethics violations), she will get the base foaming at the mouth.
Huckabee made one revealing statement in what was otherwise a boring speech. He praised McCain for never renouncing his country while a POW in Vietnam. If he had just renounced his country, said Huckabee, he could have gone home early. This is not the way I understand the story. McCain did break under torture and did sign a statement saying he was a war criminal and an air pirate (or whatever they shoved under his nose). His heroism came from his refusal to leave the camp before POWs who had arrived before him were released. I find such a story tremendously moving, as it does recommend McCain's character. Sadly (for Huckabee or whoever wrote his speech) it doesn't comport well enough with the "country first" theme of the Convention.
Mitt Romney is fast emerging as the Republican villain. His speech was replete with meaningless platitudes. He tried to whip up a frenzy over radical Islam, suggesting that George Bush did the right thing by labeling certain countries part of an axis of evil and starting a war in one of them. (This got surprisingly few cheers, by the way.) He took a backhanded swipe at Michelle Obama. And he castigated as liberal the establishment at Washington--an establishment that has been resoundingly republican for the last fourteen years. And there is simply something frightening about a man who says that the Democrats are the party of "Big Brother" yet scolds the Supreme Court (apparently a liberal bulwark, in Romney's pea-brained world) for upholding habeas corpus against the doctrine of unlimited executive power.
For the constitutional scholar, Mitt Romney is the villain. He is the partisan without thought-out principles. He promotes power rather than limits on power. His understanding of foreign affairs is mean spirited and, sadly, seems to animate a small portion of our population. His principles are on the edge of unacceptability--he ought to be tossed out by any legitimate political party, not given a prime spot at a speaking convention.
My only consolation was that no one seems to care about him much. They didn't in the elections and they didn't last night at the convention. So much the better for America and the Constitution.
If Mitt Romney represents anything like the future of the Republican Party, we are in trouble. I anxiously await McCain's speech...
5 comments:
I'd sure like to see the quotes you are referring to from each speaker which lead to your opinions. By my reading, it appears you didn't even watch the speeches but rather read the talking points from Media Matters and simply regurgitated in an overly verbose manner. Perhaps you can prove me wrong, but based on my attempt to engage you (collectively) in your last post, you'll just blow some more elitist disdain my way and hope I don't come back.
You don't read well if you couldn't follow my post. From the AP and Mitt Romney's speech:
"Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitution rights? It’s liberal!"
This is a right-wing, not conservative, way of imagining the purpose of a Constitution. If you like, read my full argument on this at common-place: http://common-place.org/vol-08/no-04/talk/
Romney: "It’s time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!"
Funny from anyone who supports doing away with the Fourth Amendment. But I'll let that one slide as rhetoric.
Romney: "Did you hear any Democrats talk last week about the threat from radical, violent Jihad? Republicans believe that there is good and evil in the world. Ronald Reagan called-out the Evil Empire. George Bush labeled the terror-sponsor states the Axis of Evil."
This is a sophomoric understanding of the global situation. And its effect is intended entirely to frighten and anger rather than to consider rationally.
Romney: "Just like you, there has never been a day when I was not proud to be an American. We inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth."
Thomas Jefferson said that he trembled for his country when he reflected that God is just. There were days when even he, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was not proud to be an American. What would Romney say to him? Given that Romney has denounced rationality and secularism, I doubt he would have much to talk about with Jefferson. Certainly Jefferson would be disgusted.
Huh... Deleting my posts now, are you? Impressive display of your support of the First Amendment. I'm sorry I came back.
this is a scholarly blog. we deal in ideas, not in ad hominem. And as such, I delete comments that are either offensive or pointless. You are welcome to post anytime you have an idea, and I will certainly leave such comments up for the public.
This is a general rule, Tad. It has little to do with the First Amendment, which I might remind you does not restrain independently-run blogs, but rather government suppression of political speech. As you may have noticed, this is a constitutional studies blog.
Post a Comment