08 February 2008

The Dangers of Republican Nuttiness

"I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. ... I entered this race because I love America. And because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside, for our party and for our country."
This is the outrageous rationale that Mitt Romney offered yesterday when he ended his truly pathetic Presidential campaign. Romney couldn't buy enough votes, even among rabid conservatives, to derail John McCain. And this sort of comment suggests that as President he'd have been a disaster. Does he really think that Clinton or Obama will encourage terrorists? Both have more or less consistently supported the BushCo foreign policy - which itself has probably generated a whole new generation of terrorists. This sounds like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or some other media wingnut. It is easy enough to ignore them because other than running their mouths such wingnuts are in no danger of actually holding office. But for the Republicans to be presenting Romney or anyone else who thinks like this as a credible candidate suggests a complete departure from reality.

The notion that anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be a subversive, an enabler of terrorists, unpatriotic, or some such thing is dangerous. Next thing you know the Republicans will be adding platform planks recommending internment of those who disagree with them.



Post a Comment

<< Home