More on Mitt

Not to be piling on or anything, but this quote from Mitt Romney in a recent interview with Tim Russert has just got me grinding my teeth. The gist of the answer is that Romney supports the 1994 (so called) Assault Weapons Ban and would sign one if he were President. Then he goes on to say:

"And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…"

This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard any politician say. "Extraordinarily lethal"? So that would make you "extraordinarily dead" instead of just dead if one of these weapons were used on you? Does it also kill your wife and firstborn child when it kills you, even if they are in a different part of town? Are you any less dead from taking a 30mm cannon round (think A-10 Warthog) through your head as you are from taking a .22 cal round (think Ruger 10/22) through the head? I know cleanup would be more of the pressure-washer variety than just stuffing you into the body bag, but you're still dead!

Maybe they could take you to Miracle Max if you weren't "extraordinarily dead" and get you back on your feet that afternoon! You're only mostly dead!

No politician spouting this kind of twaddle should be on the ballot for Dog-Catcher, let alone President of the United States!

Mitt Romney's speech

I'm sure I'm going to get myself in trouble with the thought police and the Federal Bureau of Intolerance with this one: I can't vote for Mitt.

According to some, this makes me a hater of Mormons. Honestly, the fact that he's a Mormon isn't at the top of my list of reasons not to vote for him. At the top of my list is that he has no moral compass when it comes to the issues that matter to conservatives. As I understand it, orthodox Mormon doctrine would be considered pro-life, pro-family, and against special homosexual "rights". Historically Romney has been none of these, but now that he's running for President he expects us to believe he is a faithful Mormon and has changed his mind on all this.

While that may have happened, it is likely it happened because he realizes that in order to become President he needs to hold those positions. Of course, once he's elected how do you know what you can count on him to do? His track record indicates he has not been what he now says he is.

Frankly, I'm tired of finger-in-the-wind politicians in both parties who have no convictions except for their need to stay in office or advance to the next office. And by all appearances that's what Mitt is.

The second thing that bothers me is his statement in his recent speech about his faith that "no authorities of my church" would influence him as President. That seems to say a lot, but to me it creates more questions than it answers.

Objectively, a man's faith has got to be the thing that drives him and influences everything he does, whether it is Mormonism, Buddhism, or atheism. Certainly then the leaders of that man's religious group would exert a certain influence on him, as they do on all their "followers" (for lack of a better term). I know my Pastor would exert a lot of influence on me if I were President, because he would be the one who was encouraging, exhorting, and teaching me. I would bring all this to the decision-making processes of the Presidency.

I would have respected his position a lot more if he would have said something like "My faith drives my life and influences every decision I make. I would seek the counsel of many in the decisions I would have to make as President, but ultimately those decisions are mine alone to make."

I know you're from Michigan, Mitt, but that alone isn't enough for me to vote for you.