The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December. The departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, the appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president’s thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down.
[...]
After he became the nominee, I hoped [Donald Trump's] campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not. When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.
[...]
He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.
Mitt Romney in The Washington Post
Thanks for the reminder that you're still a GOP shitmeister.
Did Mitt run for the Senate just to grease his way into running for president again in 2020. You know, so much shit happens every single day that I'd already forgotten Mitt was going back to the Senate.
With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.
[...]
The world is also watching. [...] Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world. In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent.
[...]
I will act as I would with any president, in or out of my party: I will support policies that I believe are in the best interest of the country and my state, and oppose those that are not. I do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault. But I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.
Not even a derogatory nickname. That puts Mitt in a category with Nancy Pelosi. Why is he afraid of those two?
UPDATE:
I can't take this seriously. I've watched Mitt Romney for his entire political career and the man simply has no permanent core of political principles. Not the sliver of one. He can change my mind by voting for the bill that's coming out of the House to reopen the government. He can make me doubt my well-learned conclusions by fighting William Barr's bag-job of a confirmation to be attorney general. Until he does something like that—until he does something—I set the over-under on his turtling on something serious at sometime in March.
More distressing than the op-ed itself was the reaction to it. Much of official Washington Knievel-ed to a conclusion that the Romney 4-or-5.0 is all shined up and ready to bring the Republic back onto the right track. It's a wonder that every building in Washington doesn't have cheap aluminum siding.
Charles P Pierce
No comments:
Post a Comment