Partisan Politics and Irrationality from the Left

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Steve Benen

I have rarely seen such a pandering load of excrement as Benen's analysis of Romney's statement regarding when one should decide to serve in public office. Benen's commentary is the epitome of unethical and divisive class warfare.

Following is Benen's irrational analysis of Romney s remarks.

Washington Monthly - About 10 hours after last night’s debate, the six Republican presidential candidates met again this morning for another debate, this time sponsored by NBC and Facebook.

This one was far livelier than its predecessor — maybe the GOP field is made up for morning people? — and one line in particular jumped out early on: Mitt Romney made the case that electoral politics is for wealthy people.

“I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old,” Romney said. “He had good advice to me. He said never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage. If you find yourself in a position when you can serve, you ought to have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference, and don’t get involved in politics when your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.”

It’s an odd line for a candidate regularly accused of out-of-touch elitism. Only those who already have considerable wealth should “get involved in politics”? Really?

Well Mr. Steve (Knucklehead) Benen, seems as though your class warfare genes are in overdrive. Lets break down candidate Romney's statement shall we?

1) - “I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old,” Romney said. “He had good advice to me. He said never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage."

Good advice. Mr Romney's father was essentially telling his son that if his {and his eventual families) livelihood would be dependent on winning an election it would be in his son's (and his eventual family's) best interest to wait until this would not be an issue. Nowhere in this statement can one find any advice that the Jr. Romney should not be involves in support of candidates or causes he might someday believe in. In fact it is quite commonplace that political activists have real wage earning private sector jobs as they advocate for political positions.

2) "If you find yourself in a position when you can serve, you ought to have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference, and don’t get involved in politics when your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.”

Continued good advice. Mr. Romney's father is in essence saying that the interest of ones children should, indeed must, come first, even ahead of the nation's politics and a persons desire to serve in public office. The elder Romney also is saying that when the time is right, when the family is secure and the children no longer need the degree of undivided attention that youthful offspring require it is in fact ones obligation to serve if they feel they have something to offer and can make a difference.

And now, Mr. Steve (Knucklehead) Benen's hypothetical "follow-up question."

Here’s the follow-up question: if there’s some blue-collar worker in Ohio, who cares about public service and is thinking about asking his neighbors for their vote, should he or she stand aside and allow some rich person to “get involved in politics” instead?

Please forgive me for the bluntness that is to follow. It is not my usual style. However, given the complete idiocy of Mr.Knucklehead's premise, and his follow-up I simply cannot help myself.

[Addressing] Mr. Steve (Knucklehead) Benen... Certainly if a blue color worker in Ohio who cares about public service and is contemplating asking his neighbors to support him with their vote should do so. If he is single and without the responsibly of family and or a mortgage by all means he should.

On the other hand,  if said individual has a family with younger children, a mortgage, as well as other financial obligations that are part of passage through this life it is reasonable to conclude that then is not the time to run for office when {potentially} losing an election will result in an interruption of income. This is especially true in this day and age of {Obama} uncertainty in the job market. Given these circumstances, while running for office would certainly be  ill advised it does make ultimate sense to get active in supporting a cause or a candidate on a voluntary basis. One that allows for continuation of income until such time as a loss of income would not adversely affect family welfare, thus allowing the individual to seek public office with the knowledge that if they lost the family would still be okay.

Certainly there are many views with respect to this subject. This is well and good. However to paint former Gov. Romney in the way Steve (Knucklehead) Benen did is reprehensible and is partisan politics at its worst.

Ans I'm not even a Romney supporter.

Via: Memorandum

Oh, by the way, here's the rest of the article