Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 405: Romney, Hogg, and all of DC’s liars, sleazebags and opportunists

Romney Common Sense
Liars, sleazebags and opportunists.

Not referring here to President Donald Trump’s remarkable post-impeachment press event last Thursday where the exonerated chief executive released three years’ worth of pent-up frustration within the span of an hour or so. It wasn’t all vindictive, however, as Trump spent a good portion of the teleprompter-free speech time thanking his defense team and various members of Congress who’d stood up to the deep state bullies and Democrat congressmen to present his side of the story -- and the truth -- which eventually led to Trump’s being able to command this national audience and call people like former FBI Director James Comey a sleazebag and not have many people consider it out of bounds.

Trump was entirely justified in his remarks. A “victory lap”? So what?

Today’s New Hampshire primary involves its own iteration of liars, sleazebags and opportunists, but there’s plenty of time to reanalyze the Democrat presidential race once the voting results are released… that is, unless there’s another establishment-generated “glitch” that prevents Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s victory from making a fool out of Joe Biden -- again -- which would only serve to intensify the frantic calls of “Abandon Ship!!!” among the party elites.

Here’s a prediction: Bernie Sanders wins the Granite State primary. Pete Buttigieg takes over the establishment vote and finishes second, though the margin won’t be close. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren earns her second consecutive third-place finish. And sleepy, lonely and hapless Joe Biden limps back to headquarters in fourth place, just like Jeb Bush in 2016. Is it all over, Joe?

The similarities between Biden’s 2020 candidacy and Jeb’s 2016 run are becoming hauntingly evident. It’s always strange to witness the beginning of the end of something, and Biden’s so badly wounded now he’ll never recover. It’ll only get worse, unless something dramatic happens.

At any rate, there are other liars, sleazebags and opportunists to highlight, or as the media prefers to call the practice, “raise awareness” of their presence. First among them is Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee and de facto chief turncoat in the GOP senate caucus now, filling the void created upon the passing of Senator John McCain in 2018. An emotional (hormonal?) Romney delivered his impeachment guilty verdict in a floor speech last Wednesday, complete with pontificating, lecturing and self-righteous grandstanding.

The media (Washington Post, The Atlantic and CNN, among others) loved Romney’s sell-out, labeling his lone wolf move a “profile in courage.” But did Mitt’s action signal he’s “new” or just showing “old” Mitt was still capable of exposing its ugly flip-flopping head? Byron York wrote at The Washington Examiner, “Romney meticulously prepared the media rollout of his new profile in courage. Before he announced his intention to vote against Trump, he arranged for interviews with the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, and Fox News -- all embargoed until he made his decision public on the Senate floor…

“On the plus side, the vote would win Romney widespread praise across much of the media. How often can one become a profile in courage? That would certainly feel good, especially for a man who was excoriated by some of those same media voices when he ran against Barack Obama eight years ago.

“Now, Romney will take plenty of hits from the Trump side, and from the president himself. But there are clearly benefits as well. So, just as it was in the old days, the question is: Who is Romney trying to please?”

In his piece the highly respected York presented the views of several observers who suggested Romney was trying to atone for decades of issue somersaults by appearing “principled” this time and voting to remove Trump from office while slavishly adhering to the dictates of his own conscience. It should be noted, in characteristic Romney fashion, that he also voted “acquit” on the other of the House’s two articles of impeachment. If Mitt truly believed Trump had done something wrong and that he is “unfit” for the office, why the duplicity? Isn’t “obstructing Congress” just as egregious in Mitt’s eyes as “abuse of power”?

And, of course, all along Mitt understood that his vote wouldn’t make a turd’s worth of difference in the trial’s outcome since the Democrats would’ve needed twenty Romney-like zombies (votes) to actually remove the president. In essence, Mitt’s was the consummate show vote, a purely political meaningless overture that would only engender mentions in history books but fail to earn the senator any hero worship from posterity.

Republicans only had one defector in either chamber of Congress. That’s right, even eternally wobbly Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and politically conflicted Maine Sen. Susan Collins voted “acquit” on both counts, as did retiring mushy moderate Sen. Lamar Alexander. Collins is up for reelection this year so she possibly would’ve received a pass if she’d stood with Romney in the turncoat category, but instead, Collins sided with the rest of her fellow party members to do the right thing. So did Murkowski… who can say why? Aren’t these two examples of a real “profile in courage,” media people?

That left Romney to hog the traitor category all by his lonesome. The most glaring question is, what for?

During his nervously delivered justification, Romney explained that Trump’s mentioning the Bidens in his infamous phone call with the Ukrainian president was entirely politically motivated, and that if it weren’t the Bidens at issue at the time nothing would’ve ever been said. So, Mitt basically argued Trump would’ve ignored blatant corruption (an American citizen receiving $83000 a month for doing nothing?) if it didn’t implicate a prominent Democrat presidential candidate.

This is a horrible -- and wrong -- rationale. Since when does Trump ever bypass corruption because of expedience? Hasn’t he managed to tweak every foreign leader by speaking directly and asking questions and broaching subjects where other presidents just wouldn’t go? What came first, the chicken or the egg, Mitt? Was it the Bidens' corruption and flagrant misuse of position that caused Trump to mention them to the Ukrainian president, or was it President' Trump's fault for asking a foreign leader for a “favor” to investigate naked wrongdoing in his own country?

Romney also said he wanted to hear from John Bolton and other witnesses because they possibly could’ve shed additional light on what happened with the eastern European country. What would it prove? As was argued ad nauseum by the House managers themselves, the evidence was incontrovertible and the case was so overwhelming already (meaning, they proved it in the committee process, according to them). In Mitt’s and the Democrats’ world there’s no such thing as executive privilege and presidents should be impeached for doing their jobs (such as rooting out corruption in foreign aid recipients).

Perhaps most sickeningly, Romney cited his religious faith and the fact he needed to be able to look his children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them he did what he felt was right. The senator even choked up when he brought up his deep beliefs and how he couldn’t live with himself if he didn’t vote to convict.

If this were true, then, why did he seek out so many pre-announcement press interviews? Why ask for any media coverage at all and simply leave it to his narrowly defined words on the senate floor to provide his reasons? If Mitt didn’t want to draw attention to himself for following his soul’s direction, why would he try to explain the move to Chris Wallace (of Fox News) and other establishment media figures in advance?

By all appearances, Romney’s vote was just the latest in a long line of glory-seeking defamatory tricks to keep his name in the news at the expense of principle and his own reputation. If anyone had any confidence that Mitt believed in anything -- such as conservativism and the Trump agenda -- then he wouldn’t always be at the top of Democrats’ lists to target with their full-court-press lobbying campaigns to shore-up their own political inadequacies.

Romney wasn’t in the senate when Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination was at issue, so here’s guessing he would’ve been “deeply troubled” by the “serious allegations” and his “conscience” wouldn’t have permitted him to assent to Kavanaugh’s confirmation. When you care more about Chucky Schumer and the Democrats’ approval than what your friends and ideological fellows think, it leaves plenty of room for wobbling.

No doubt Mitt figured there won’t be many more chances for him to draw such cheap and unearned attention to himself. He recognized an opportunity to grab it last week and he took it. That makes him a liar, sleazebag and an opportunist! If Romney’d merely voted to acquit along with every other Republican senator, would anyone be talking about him now? If you doubt it, just ask Lamar Alexander if any journalist labeled his vote a “profile in courage.”

Attention-seeking and glory hogging doesn’t earn respect. Then there’s the example of teen gun grabber David Hogg, who’s apparently having a heck of a time drawing media shout-outs from his new perch at Harvard, so he’s resorted to ridiculous “wokeness” lectures about Abraham Lincoln to try and be liked again by the PC crowd. Tom Rogan wrote at The Washington Examiner, “What is the first thing that David Hogg does on rising each morning?

“I ask the question because while Hogg was formerly an impressive agitator for his cause of gun violence reduction, he's now just an especially annoying social justice warrior. Indeed, one imagines that Hogg's rising tendency is to immediately scour his social media feeds, desperately searching for that next great tweet which will launch him to new levels of wokeness. This is Hogg's equivalent of 50 pushups….

“Hogg has no time for such a trifle matter as historic fact. The Harvard freshman finds far greater purpose in social media self-flagellation. Rather than doing more research on Lincoln when challenged about the president's record, Hogg preferred to tweet out a link to a silly article. This, Hogg somehow believes, is enough to convince the rest of us that his self-correction is one we should emulate.”

You’d need to read the balance of Rogan’s piece for full context, but the gist is Hogg backtracked on his previously stated acclaim for Abraham Lincoln because leftist Native Americans disagreed with the teen’s assertion that America’s 16th chief executive was a “really good president.” Of course Hogg didn’t bother researching the real facts before retroactively judging and turning against a man who was assassinated nearly a hundred and fifty-five years ago (in April of 1865).

That makes David full of Hogg-wash, or more aptly, a liar, sleazebag and opportunist. Maybe Hogg should tweet out newfound admiration for Mitt Romney since they seem to share many of the same qualities, most notably an unquenchable thirst for media adoration and a demonstrated willingness to defy historical common sense to inflate their own egos and political profiles.

Who knows? Maybe Mitt will find a reason not to like Lincoln too. He already disavowed Reagan while running for office in Massachusetts. What a loser.

It's no secret that Washington is chock full of liars, sleazebags and opportunists, but what Mitt Romney did last week ranks up there with the most underhanded, publicity seeking stunts of all time. President Trump will succeed despite the presence of people like Romney. Who will history remember?

Share this