John Martin loves the GOP and wants to remain a Republican. But the party he grew up supporting has changed, he said, and Mitt Romney is doing nothing to keep his loyalty.Read the rest here.
The Republican presidential nominee lacks the will or desire to stand up to “extremists” who have gained a sturdy foothold in the party, Mr. Martin said, and President Obama is far from the socialist demon portrayed by GOP leaders.
For that, the politically active New Jersey resident said, he will vote for Mr. Obama.
“I’m just very unhappy with the state of today’s party,” said Mr. Martin, who heads a group and website called Republicans for Obama. “Although Gov. Romney would have been a great candidate, the Mitt Romney we see today is too beholden to the party’s [conservative] base and to the hard right.”
Mr. Martin isn’t alone. While the vast majority of Republican voters are likely to support the former Massachusetts governor for president, some say they will back Mr. Obama because of the GOP push to the political right.
I'm not happy with the lunatic fringe that seems to have taken hold in parts of the GOP. But I'm not going to vote for Obama. I will either write in Ron Paul or just skip that line on the ballot.
Mr. Martin likely regards Ron Paul as a dangerous, racist kook.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican party is 'conservative' only in the sense that its members think they are conserving a protestant suburban way of life that is increasingly untenable. They also embrace a bizarre conflation of Zionism and Wilsonian foreign policy. What is being chased out of the party is the Buchananite wing, a/k/a the Old Right with its notions of 'isolationism' and enumerated powers.
QED, Ron Paul is a pariah in the GOP, much less what the Democrats think of him.
What he said. The Ron Paul forces are the John Birchers, conspiracy types, anti Semites, racists, gun nuts, militia types etc. That has been his core constituency forever.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: "conspiracy types, anti Semites, racists, gun nuts, militia types."
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I choose to comment on this, is that the above is a good example of what the late Polish psychologist Dr. Andrew Lobaczewski calls "conversive speech" or "Austrian talk."
In his book, Political Ponerology, Lobaczewski says the following:
"While visiting Upper Austria in 1978, I decided to drop in on the local parson, who was in his seventies by then. When I told him about myself, I suddenly realized he thought I was lying and inventing pretty stories. He subjected my statements to psychological analysis, based on this unassailable assumption and attempted to convince me that his morals were lofty. When I complained to a friend of mine about this, he was amused: “As a psychologist, you were extremely lucky to catch the survival of authentic 'Austrian talk' (die oesterreichische Rede). We young ones have been incapable of demonstrating it to you even if we wanted to simulate it.”
"In the European languages, 'Austrian talk' has become the common descriptive term for paralogistic* discourse. Many people using this term nowadays are unaware of its origin. Within the context of maximum hysterical intensity in Europe at the time [i.e., the period between the World Wars], the authentic article represented a typical product of conversive** thinking: subconscious selection and substitution of data lead to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter. In the same manner, the reflex assumption that every speaker is lying is an indication of the hysterical anti-culture of mendacity, within which telling the truth becomes 'immoral'.
"[*Note: paralogism: n. illogical or fallacious deduction. paralogical, paralogistic, a. paralogize, v.i. be illogical; draw unwarranted conclusions. paralogist, n.
"**conversive thinking: using terms but giving them opposing or twisted meanings. Examples: peacefulness - appeasement; freedom - license; initiative - arbitrariness; traditional - backward; rally - mob; efficiency - small-mindedness. Example: the words 'peacefulness' and 'appeasement' denote the same thing--a striving to establish peace, but have entirely different connotations which indicate the speaker's attitude toward this striving toward peace.]"
Such "Austrian talk" is a sure "tell" of a troll. Anyone who shamelessly engages in "Austrian talk" should not be engaged. Rather, the should be avoided (in person) or ignored or banned (online).
What a fraud. You can be sure when you start reading a story about how somebody is a "loyal Republican" but who "supports Obama" because Republicans are "extremists," you can profitably save five minutes of your life by moving on to something else.
ReplyDeleteNo person with even a cursory knowledge of the candidates is going to buy such a story today, inasmuch as Mitt Romney is a straight-up moderate who, not so long ago, would have warmed these peoples' hearts with his support for abortion, tax increases, and intense regulation of any market sector deemed by the Best and Brightest People to be a "problem" (e.g., health care).
But these "lifelong" "loyal" "Republicans" aren't going to take yes for an answer; no, if it would be absurd to claim Romney is an extremist himself, then the problem will have to be that he won't stand up to the extremists. And I guess if somebody does stand up to the extremists, then the problem will be there's some secret Republican cabal somewhere - trust them - that circumvents the candidate and forces through the extreme agenda, anyway.
Most people think the country is moving in the wrong direction, and that they're personally worse off than they were four years ago. Also, recent polls find that 50% (versus 30-some% opposed) consider themselves pro-life. So, by "extremist," Mr. Martin must mean, "supports the view of most Americans." Leaving him aligned with...well, never mind.
(By the way, opensecrets.org reports that a John Martin of New Jersey has donated to a congressional candidate - a Democrat, natch. What else would you expect such a rock-ribbed, loyal Republican to do?)
Mmmm. Let me get this straight. Someone will not vote for the Republican Party which is seen as being manipulated by extremists (Pro Life; Tea Party) yet, does not a similar extremist manipulation, abortion; union; and GLBT, within the Democrat Party. Yeah, right!
ReplyDeleteIs it extremist to attempt to save human beings from abortion and euthanasia as they are encompassed in Obamacare? What issues make the extremists "extreme" in these folks' minds? The things that pro-lifers stand for?
ReplyDeleteJim Cole
Huh?? The GOP is dominated by the lunatic fringe and I suppose the Democrat Party is the land of genteel moderation?? ROTFLMDAO.
ReplyDeleteSorry, not buyin' it.
Nikolaus
Scratch an "anti-extremist" Republican,,and most likely find a pro-abortionist.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you think of Romney, just hold your nose and vote Obama out of office! A win for the Democrats will spell doom for religious freedom and moral sanity.
ReplyDeleteStaying home or voting for Ron Paul will only increase the chances of Democratic victory. Obama will thank you if you choose either of those options.