Replies

"Progressive" is an ideologically meaningless term, which can be conveniently twisted to suit any purpose. A line I used to have fun with, when I was tilting with someone or other, who would so describe themselves in a Television encounter, was, "a rat riding a piece of cardboard down the gutter to the storm sewer makes 'progress' so long as the rain comes down. If it stops, he will have to get off and determine his own direction, on his own power."

Suggesting that Romney, who has not only been highly successful in business, but apparently by understanding how Capitalism works best, has "Communist leanings," is rather far fetched. Certainly there have been many wealthy Socialists--often the neurotic, guilt fed heirs to what men like Mitt Romney have earned;--but there is no inkling that Mitt Romney is such. His move to the right rhetorically over the last few years would make little sense, then. His behavior certainly does not suggest that he is some sort of "Manchurian Candidate."

Why do some folk insist, day after day, in attacking Romney, when Obama continuously ramps up the class-warfare? Class-warfare is what Communism starts as; only a small number of leaders actually even pretend to understand the looney verbal constructs of Karl Marx. It is the appeal to envy & resentment, the Blame & Envy Cocktail that fires up the mob.

I have suggested that Romney can be moved further to the Right by a polite, patient, persistent effort to play to his better nature; Romney & American Conservatism. But whether the effort proposed convinces Romney or not, it makes sense for the public in general--it will not hurt if we focus on the things suggested.

Frankly, the demagogue in office leaves us no choice but to rally all we can to vote for his removal. As for Romney in Massachusetts? Did he lead the people there to the ideas that we Conservatives do not like, or were they already there--in effect leading him to those positions? Think about who led whom!

William Flax