Who owns the label?

Palin-Romney in 2012? Or maybe that was Romney-Palin? Yes, I guess it was the latter. Anyway, I'm not that keen on Romney, but I'm wondering whether it would work. So, apparently, is Sarah Palin -- if the headline "Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin in 2012? You betcha!" is to be believed:

Conservative superstar Sarah Palin opened the door yesterday to joining forces with Mitt Romney for a 2012 White House run - a hot ticket that has some Republicans licking their chops at the prospect of unseating President Obama.

"Sounds pretty good," Palin declared at yesterday's Tea Party Express rally on the Common when asked about pairing up with the former Bay State governor - giving the idea a big thumbs-up as she left the stage after her headline speech.

Last night, as Palin stopped for cannoli at Mike's Pastry in the North End, she said she was "serious" about the idea.

"I have a lot of respect for Mitt," she told the Herald.

Asked who would be on top of the ticket, Palin roared, "Ha! I haven't even thought that far ahead yet."

Indeed, Palin said she hasn't decided whether she'll run in 2012 - with or without Romney.

This may be what's called "testing the waters."

My biggest problem with Romney is that he is too enamored of big government solutions. As M. Simon said in an earlier email,

Romney has a little problem. Romney care.
I realize this will sound irrational, but what I like the most about Romney is the fact that he is a Mormon. No, I am not a Mormon, and I'm not especially fond of the LDS church. But what I do like is religious diversity -- especially the idea that Christianity can embrace a variety of alternatives. I don't like the way an unholy coalition of atheists and fundamentalists have hijacked the word "Christianity" to their own ends so that to many young people, it means only fundamentalist Christianity of the Liberty University variety -- or even Christian theocracy of the Rushdoony, Gary DeMar variety. But OTOH, if Christianity includes Mormons, Episcopalians, Rainbow Baptists, and even Unitarianism of the sort Thomas Jefferson espoused (all of which would be deemed heretics or even apostates by the hard core fundamentalists), I think we would all be a lot better off. By saying this, I am not making a utilitarian argument in favor of religion or Christianity (much less my hopelessly fuzzy paganistic version of it), only one in favor of the sort of diversity that once characterized Christianity.

But religion is only a minor side issue, right? These things should not matter in politics, any more than tastes in food or sex.

posted by Eric on 04.15.10 at 10:44 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9585






Comments

Man do I miss Mike's pastry.

They make the best napoleons in the world.

Veeshir   ·  April 15, 2010 11:14 AM

2012 GOP motto: My socialized healthcare is better than your socialized healthcare.

Doug   ·  April 15, 2010 09:01 PM

Thanks!

M. Simon   ·  April 16, 2010 02:04 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


April 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits