Okay, let’s just take a moment to truly appreciate the catchy title. Okay, now moving forward, this article is about the rash of Republicans turning on presidential loser Mitt Romney en masse since the election less than two weeks ago. Plenty of prominent Republican personalities are rallying against him, especially in light of the comments he made in a teleconference where he said that President Barack Obama was able to secure the victory because of “gifts” he promised minorities and, I don’t know, anybody out there that might have wanted to vote for President Obama. Now, since Romney was beaten with relative ease, at least compared to the apocalyptic media predictions of an excruciatingly tight race that might end up in the courts like the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, his Republican friends, so quick to come to his aid in the months leading up to the election are cutting and running with the best of them.
The funny thing about this is why they are doing it. It’s the “gift” comment. Republicans that still have a political career of any sort (Romney’s is clearly done, but that shouldn’t hurt him too much being that he is worth hundreds of millions) want no part of this concept. It’s all part of the “kinder, gentler” (that sound familiar from somewhere?) Republican party that leaders are trying to forge ahead of 2016 in the hopes that may one day be able to wrestle the White House back into Republican hands. Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie. They have all been out on the media trail throwing stones at Romney’s comments and making it clear that they, of course, think no such thing, but if you look back a little ways, you might find that a lot of these same characters were defending Romney when the jaw-dropping video was released where Romney made his equally infamous “47% comments.” Romney was heralded as someone that “misspoke” or didn’t put it “elegantly” but yet was speaking the truth. Now, he makes comments that amount to the same thing when it all comes down, and he is lambasted by his friends.
So, are we saying that they should stand by their man (sorry Tammy). Not at all. Politics is a bullshit game of changing your position whichever way the wind blows best, and to not change and make your political stock the highest you can would be showing integrity or actually believing in something, and we won’t have that in America. Yes, we said it. It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or right, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a politician in America believe in something really, just once in modern times, and not have every move that he made depend on polls or the whims of the media, American people, foreign leaders, CIA scandals, who Taylor Swift is dating…well you get the picture. But that’s not how you play the game, and we understand that. So, these slimeball politicians are simply doing what slimeball politicians do. Don’t hate the player…hate the game.
But as for the “gifts” comment. It’s true. Obama probably garnered millions of votes based on the concept that the voters would be in a better position for themselves with Obama in office. This could range from those on welfare to the uninsured to someone who likes to be able to have an abortion when they want to. It could be someone on food stamps or someone who can’t afford contraceptives but wants to be a bunny rabbit anyway. But the “gifts” is not a concept limited to one side of the political aisle in America or the other. These same “gifts” that Romney points out helped Obama he was offering himself. Just different kinds. Obama’s “gifts” were primarily targeted on the middle class and poor. Romney’s gifts were targeted at the rich and those that are anti-abortion and gay marriage. For the rich, the “gift” was knowing that for four years, Romney had your back and there would be no “crippling” tax hikes coming your way, forcing you to pay more so everyone else could pay less. For others, Romney’s “gift” was not a monetary one, but a philosophical one. Vote for him and have someone fighting “choice.” Vote for him and know that there will be no federal referendum on gay marriage for at least four more years. These were the gifts that Romney offered, even as Obama did the same. It seems that more people turned out to claim Obama’s gifts for themselves than did Romney.
That is our nation. We don’t vote for what is best, necessarily, but what is best for us. Does that mean that the outcome was wrong? That’s not what we’re saying at all. Common Sense Conspiracy as you all know advocates that neither side is likely to deviate from the course that has been set for us. But this idea that either candidate didn’t win votes by appealing to people’s senses of what is best for them on a personal level is like trying to tell me that all politicians are honest, golden individuals that live for their constituents.