Romney’s vote of guilty: Religious conviction or self-serving politician?
SAN DIEGO. It has now been over a week since Mitt Romney’s so-called “difficult” decision to break ranks from fellow Republicans and vote President Trump guilty on the charge “abuse of power.” Mitt claims to have done this for reasons of faith and conscience. However, to any thinking observer, he was neither motivated by conscience nor concerned about the difficulty of his decision.
Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Romney says,
“My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced… I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced…. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the constitution demands of me, for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.”
Pondering these stirring words, one just has to wonder, if this vote was that difficult for him to cast, why was it so easy for people ahead of time to imagine him casting it?
As a general rule, we should appreciate putting faith above the party.
In the interest of full disclosure, I myself am a very dedicated Christian and while I often vote Republican I am actually registered as an independent. Not only do I put faith above party, but I have also often put faith above popular Christian beliefs that cannot truly be found in the Bible.
I have fallen into disfavor with many a Christian for not walking in lock-step.
However, while I accept a person’s right and need to dissent when such action is called for, I’m not buying what Mitt is trying to sell.
Sorry Mitt. Just as you have decided not to believe Trump, I have decided that I don’t believe YOU. I guess in life we all make decisions about who comes off as believable.
Mitt’s track record does not paint him as a man of integrity.
While certainly not the first politician to change positions, Mitt has written the book on it. Over the years, he’s flipped and flopped and twisted and turned more than a Gumby doll in the hands of a pancake cook.
But let’s focus on merely one set of flip-flops – his on again off again friendship with Donald Trump.
He happily sought Trump’s endorsement in 2012. It was the same Trump, the same bull in a china cabinet, the same gruff speaker who talked without a filter. Trump has not changed. Romney is the one who changes.
After losing in 2012, he lambasted Trump during the election of 2016 claiming the man did not show the kind of character a president needs to exhibit:
“I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president.”
Then, after Trump won the election, Romney promptly sought to become a member of the Trump cabinet. Apparently, there was nothing wrong with a Trump presidency now.
When that didn’t work, he ran for senate and happily accepted Trump’s endorsement once again. This time it did work. Romney became a senator, wasting no time biting the hand that fed him by writing an anti-Trump op-ed for the Washington Post:
“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.”
Since then, time after time, Mitt has spoken out against this president, a president who has actually accomplished a good deal of what Mitt promised to do in 2012. It comes across as sour grapes; it comes across as bitterness.
Romney wanted Schiff – Nadler witnesses
Romney says one of his concerns is that the Senate did not bring forth the witnesses Schiff and Nadler requested. Indeed, he voted that more witnesses be presented earlier in the proceedings.
Did he express similar concern when the House refused to hear even ONE Trump witness? No, because the witnesses were not to provide defense, but incriminate the President.
And if the lack of witnesses means we do not have enough evidence, then why not just vote that way? Not enough witnesses mean the case was not made.
Whatever the reason, if there is not enough evidence, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Romney also expressed concern about Trump’s words even in the delivered transcript of the call to Ukrainian President Zelensky. Putting aside the fact that right or wrong, none of that rose to the level of impeachment, that there was no threat to hold up financial aid, either in the call or the perception of President Zelensky, did Romney express any parallel concern when Joe Biden bragged on TV about doing the very thing Trump was accused of?
But Mitt is sticking to his “matter of faith and conscience” declaration, claiming to be fully aware that he is subjecting himself to disfavor from Republicans. This too, smacks of disingenuous wordplay inasmuch as ol’ Mitt was equally aware that the decision will make him popular with Democrats and the darling of the mainstream media.
And that is just exactly what happened. Mitt Romney has become their hero! Back in 2012, this same media accused him (as they frequently do with Republican presidential candidates) of everything from racism to misogyny. But not anymore! After all, anyone who votes against Donald Trump can’t be all bad!
Last week, The Atlantic wrote an article about Romney called, “A Profile in Courage.”
Similar enthusiasm was found in the New Yorker’s headline, “Mitt Romney’s Act of Political Courage” and the Huffington Post’s “thoughtful piece” titled, “Will Mitt Romney Face Punishment For Having A Conscience?”
Obviously, Romney’s ego will continue to receive plenty of stokes. He’s too smart not to have expected as much.
Sorry, Mitt. Your record suggests that this is personal for you.
It seems related to the fame and attention you seek. It also seems related to jealousy over a man who became the president you wanted to be. None of this comes across as genuine conviction, religious or otherwise.
Could I be mistaken? It’s possible. It’s also possible that leprechauns exist inside a pot of gold hidden somewhere in Ireland, but I’m not expecting to ever discover this to be true.