The absurdity of supporting Mitt Romney.

It was responding to that post which seems to have gotten me banned by Roger Simon.

Mr. Simon first makes an appeal to the supposed authority of the psychological arts to give an undeserved gleam of intellectual rigor to his post.

Mr. Simon claims that repetition by Romney that he will repeal Obamacare means he really means it, what's more he seems to be implying that Mitt means by that what most of Obamacare's opponents mean by that--that's is all just gone. However, he wants us to believe that Romney's equally repeated praises of Romneycare mean nothing. That there is no significance to Romney's having personally created and first made law some of Obamacare's worst aspects, which are all things Mitt Romney still says is a wonderful package of laws which do just what he says they do.

He takes a Michael Walsh to task for his taking issue with Romney's characterization of Obama as being in over his head, and Roger manages to pull even with reality in saying it can be both true that Obama is in over his head and that he is a radical bent on transforming society--I do stipulate, both can simultaneously be true. It is not evidence of derangement, however, to emphasize one over the other.

It is also not evidence of derangement to observe the reality that the existence of Romneycare--authored, claimed, and owned by the nominally Republican Romney--gave great political cover and even exact ideas on how to do it (the nationalization of medicine) to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. It is no example of derangement to note that.

He asks why we pick on Romney?

Because of the four people most responsible for Obamacare, Mitt Romney is among them? Seems like a good reason to me.

He then employs misdirection, and fairly naked misdirection at that. He claims Romney's success at Bain Capital means he cannot be a Marxist. No one (not I and I think no one) is saying his actions at Bain Capital makes him a Marxist.

His worst actions in the Massachusetts government do.

Roger Simon then goes on to appeal again to the mystic inerrant arts of psychology, and he speaks of projection.

"No, something else is going on. Feelings are being projected onto Romney, angry feelings. And these feelings are heightened by the fact that the ideological differences between the three leading candidates are relatively minor. The importance of personality has been increased out of all proportion."

I don't know that any of the the three candidates still in the race approved of Obamacare before the fact except for Romney, and Obamacare is drastically bad. Romney likes the idea, it is a wonderment why he would promise to repeal and in fact mean it, when plainly he approves of it in principle. If all it was was forcing freeloaders to pay for or towards their medical care, it might even be a "conservative" plan. That's not what Obamacare or Romneycare have been doing.

Neither Romney or Newt nor Paul, I think, would bother to find it necessary to distract the country from it's real problems by fighting internet porn, as Santorum has said he will do. He really thinks its a big deal--this does not reflect minor differences in worldview between say, he and Paul.

And then he goes on to say all the candidates are among the elites except for Cain. In a narrow fashion, that may be true--although I expect Bachmann is not well thought of at Yale or Harvard either one. I think he means to say criticism of Romney based on his being one of the "elites", is misplaced in it's concentration on Mitt.

This would be the case if all the remaining candidates were equally supported by righty talking heads and other personages in the GOP upper ranks. Instead, one is, and quite preferentially so. It's Mitt.

He's been adopted. No smoke filled room required, he chose to run, they chose him.

That's a big reason he needs to go down. It'll piss off all the right people.

People who need to be disappointed.

He also makes a paen to the legitimacy of a governing elite as a concept. He lumps together

"generals, governors, senators, an occasional congressman"

as an elite, and that we should respect their experience.

If such are the elite, why then they must be judged by the results of their efforts. TARP. Bailouts. I still don't have a tax return that fits on a postcard, and we don't have a flat tax. Social Security is what it is. Still.

If it is Mitt's fate to be judged as wanting because the like of Coulter have praised him, well he hasn't run from them either, has he?

I don't hate Mitt, I just very desperately don't want him to be President.

Because like Obama, he doesn't know what government should not try to do.