Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney will not run for reelection in 2024. The former presidential candidate and Massachusetts governor announced his intentions in a video statement Wednesday, creating a wide-open contest in a state that heavily favors Republicans and is expected to attract a crowded fie
Seems like he’s in the wrong party. There’s no room for actual conservatives or upholding the law against their own in the modern pro-fascism, post-truth, anti-democracy, GOP.
He wouldn’t have made it through a primary. Given it’s Utah he’ll be replaced by someone much worse.
Why do you think that? He’s staunchly Mormon, and been a political figure head for their interests. I can’t see them turning their back on him.
Of which he’s been along for the ride the whole time.
Well, you know…money, amirite?
I’m not sure what you mean. What do you think it means to be a conservative?
In this context I’m referring to what the American right historically purports to be and not what it arguably is; small government, pro-business, law and order, supports traditional American values like democracy, pro-religion, in opposition robust social programs. This seems to be in line with Mitt Romney’s version of conservatism, as opposed to the GOP’s more recent openly fascist and antidemocratic behaviors. I could see potential for him as a Manchin-like Democrat who leans hard right, if he were so inclined and his voters approved.
Interesting. It wasn’t loaded to be honest. I just don’t understand what is a “true conservative” as every time I hear it come up, it’s usually just in the context of “current conservatives aren’t real conservatives.” So I was curious what your definition is.
Like let’s take “law and order.” Who is against that? It’s a meaningless phrase designed to paint opposition as for “no laws and disorder.” So the phrase is sort of meaningless to me.
Well, presently the Republicans Mitt Romney is at odds with. They consistently vote to shield Trump from consequences for his crimes.
Very true lol
People who are for “law and order” are generally just simping for cops. I do agree that it’s kind of a ridiculous phrase but there are strong connotations that come along with it.
I get what the connotations are but it’s like “pro-life.” The implication is opponents are “anti-life” or “pro-death” and so the entire conversation is immediately lopsided/in some ways poisoned and dishonest.
When you look at the conservative platform it’s all like this. “I am for families.” So that means opponents are against families. It’s very broad statements that make - when looked at closely - kind of ridiculous statements about their opponents. So if there is “real” conservative, which is usually a stand in for “reasonable,” I don’t actually know what their policies are. They used to hide behind “fiscal responsibility” but that was always dubious and their last 20 years of spending have eradicated any argument they make about spending lol