Home / Culture and Society / Mitt Romney for President

Mitt Romney for President

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Till now, and with each of my favored candidates having given up any plausible chance of getting the nomination, I’ve been an ABO 2012 supporter – Anyone But Obama. However, Tuesday night, while watching the returns come in for the close primary in Ohio, and with no favorite in the race, I found myself rooting for a come-from-behind Romney win against Santorum. As such, I thought it only proper to write an article today, giving Mr. Romney my full endorsement and backing. This wasn’t an easy decision to come to, and Romney certainly wasn’t my first choice in this primary season, nor my favorite choice. However, at this stage of the race, he’s the only candidate with a real chance to beat Barack Obama, and that’s all that really matters in the most important election in this nation’s history.

When the candidates first came out, I liked Bachmann as the minority/female candidate to satisfy the PC gods. But I knew she had no real chance and as the race went on, she excluded herself with a number of comments that were either bombastic or provably false. Plus, I think some of her mannerisms grated on people.

As someone within close geographical proximity to Chris Christie, I was in a minority of conservatives who didn’t want him to run, and I’m thankful that he didn’t enter the race. Chris Christie is actually not very conservative, and he has a terrible habit of alienating voters. I was a big fan of Cain until the news came out about his philandering – and true or not (and does anyone really question the veracity of the charges at this stage?) he handled the accusations badly.

As someone who believes strongly in the Second Amendment, Perry’s entry into the race was one I was highly anticipating. But his debate performances were a total flop, not just because he reminded voters of George W. Bush (and I quite like our former president), but also because he clearly did not have a strong grasp of national and foreign policy issues. Then came Newt.

Newt had been in the race for quite some time when Perry flamed out, and he was seriously growing on me. I remembered him from the Clinton days, and while he was blamed in the liberal media for the Government shutdown of the ’90s, I felt that this cut both ways –you can’t credit Clinton for a budget surplus without acknowledging Gingrich’s role in driving Clinton towards austerity. Likewise, you couldn’t give praise to Clinton’s boom time of the ’90s without recognizing Gingrich’s role in helping shape domestic policy as Speaker of the House.

And then there were his debates. Whip smart, with a laser-like focus on the real issues, Gingrich would take a question, peel away the left-wing assumptions like the dry layers of an onion, and often put the questioner on the spot for even daring to proffer such nonsense at no less than a presidential debate. Like many, I started to ask, why not Newt?

We soon found out. Following some below-the-belt campaign tactics from Romney, Newt went negative – this after promising not to, and even lecturing others to remember the Reagan rule. Angry Newt wasn’t popular and his climb in the polls was halted.

On top of this, the leftist media, having polished their investigative skills on Palin’s trash, set their sights on Newt, and dug up his ex-wife who made him sound like a free-love hippie from the ’60s. This wasn’t new or arguably newsworthy info, but the damage was done. Newt cannot win – no female who’s been cheated on (and that pretty much includes every woman in this country) will vote for a man who told his wife that she needs to share him. And no Latino would vote for him given his past comments about Spanish being a “gutter language.”

Yes, his ex-wife may be lying, but he did make the comment about Spanish. While neither of these issues personally bothers me – it’s not my place to judge his marriages, and he did apologize for the Spanish remark – it doesn’t take a genius to see that with these clouds circling Newt, he can’t win, without women and Latinos. And his primary record bears this out – in Tuesday night’s 10-state race, he took one, and only because it was his home state. If he can’t win against Romney or Santorum in the primaries, he’s not going to win, period.

I’ve tried to like Santorum. He’s the classic, hardworking, unassuming, American family man. He’s got none of the baggage of Newt or Romney, but he does have a strong sense of ethics and faith. However, Santorum is the wrong candidate for our time. When the very future of our nation is in question, when lawlessness within the White House has reached new heights, and individual freedom for the first time in my memory is under threat by our own government, with all of the real problems we face, the very last thing any GOP candidate should have done was get into socially conservative issues.

Santorum’s willingness in the debates to engage on the issue of his past comments regarding states’ rights and contraception created an opening. It’s no coincidence that Obama, an excellent politician if nothing else, has since successfully co-opted so-called “Women’s Health Issues” to absolutely demolish the Republican opposition. At a time when so much is at stake, we should have been smarter.

Santorum, in trying to be the values candidate, only succeeded in taking the spotlight off of Obama and his terrible mismanagement of our economy, our energy, and our foreign policy, and a rapid growth of government combined with a reduction in individual rights and responsibilities. And in exchange, we’ve been distracted over what truly is a non-issue. As much as conservatives may like Santorum, he’s ensured that he cannot win the general election, and his actions have cast a pall over the entire GOP brand.

The result is that Obama and the left have been handed an opportunity to paint this election as a simple question that boils down to, “Are contraceptives good or not?” And let me tell you, to most of the idiot voters out there who have no real idea about anything that’s going on other than what the six o’clock news and their local paper or the New York Times tell them (most polls refer to these good folk as “moderates”), that’s exactly what they think. We need off the Santorum train now.

Now let’s talk a little bit about Romney: He’s an extremely successful businessman at a time when our economy is in the gutter. He’s an experienced politician and leader who has gotten elected as a Republican in one of the bluest states in the nation, and he’s governed successfully by working with both sides. He’s pretty good at debates, he’s good-looking, and there is nothing particularly wrong with him. Those who try to use his wealth against him will find themselves having to explain why, amidst 8.3% unemployment and a stuttering economy, it’s a bad thing to hire for president a man who earned his pay by creating over 100,000 jobs and many of the services we enjoy today. While he’s changed his positions on abortion and helped to pass Romneycare, he is now pro-life and has quite clearly stated that he wants to repeal Obamacare. Here’s an excerpt from his speech last night in Boston, which he gave after winning Massachusetts, Virginia, and Vermont:

“We won’t settle for this president’s new normal. I’m offering a real choice and a new beginning. I have a plan that’ll deliver more jobs, less debt, and smaller government. President Obama raised the national debt. I will cut, cap and balance the budget, finally. He passed Obamacare; I will repeal Obamacare. He lost our AAA credit rating; I will restore our AAA credit rating. Amazingly, he rejected the Keystone pipeline. I will approve it. You know, he has – he has stalled domestic energy production. I’m going to open up our lands for development so we can finally get the energy we need at a price we can afford. When it comes to this economy, my highest priority will be worrying about your job, not worrying about saving my job. I’ve –and, by the way, I’ve got a pro-growth tax plan, jobs plan that’s going to jump-start the economy. President Obama wants to raise your taxes; I’m going to cut them. That starts with an across- the-board 20 percent rate cut for every American. And, by the way, I’m also going to repeal the alternative minimum tax, and I will finally abolish the death tax. The – the president has proposed raising taxes for job-creators; I will cut taxes for job-creators. The president wants to raise taxes on savings and investment. I will help middle-class families save and invest tax-free.”

Is there anything in the above that you’d disagree with? Anything here that’s not conservative enough? What’s not to like exactly? It’s time for all of us to cut the crap – Romney is our best chance to win the general election.  And despite the media narrative of a lackluster campaign, especially after last night, Romney is a clear frontrunner.  With 730 delegates counted, 404 are for Romney, more than Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul combined.  Of the 22 states already voting, Romney’s taken 14.  Given the big tent that is the GOP, this is about as close to consensus as we can reasonably expect.

What this ultimately says is that the other candidates don’t have the delegates for a reason – Romney has the most appeal.  The other candidates’ only strategy is to drag this race out till the end as spoilers.  Yet, a “brokered convention” would be a victory for short-sighted fools and Barack Obama only.  

While we’ve been arguing amongst ourselves, Obama’s been out there lying to the American people.  We have no standardbearer to respond to these untruths, which are further sinking both our country and our chances at taking the White House.  The sooner Romney wins the nomination, the sooner he can focus on the race that matters, and start calling Obama out on his bad policies and the disastrous direction in which he’s taken this country.  Conversely, the longer we wait, the less time our nominee has to fight the real battle, the less our chances to actually win the general election.

Let’s not wake up on November 7 2012, with four more years hanging on our backs.  It’s time to put away childish things, and get excited about Romney, the next president of the United States.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • Obnox! I’d been wondering where you’d got to. Welcome back.

    Since your article is written from a Republican perspective and addresses Republicans about who is the best choice to take on Obama, I’m not going to take issue with you regarding your attacks on the President, since they’re peripheral to your article.

    I do, however, question your contention that the entire election has boiled down to whether contraception is groovy or not. The current kerfuffle is just one of the many talking points that will come and go over the course of the campaign(s). There are eight months still to go, and I think we can safely assume that other issues will take their turn in the spotlight.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kudos to you, OA –

    I mean that sincerely, because (except for a PaulBot or two whose choice doesn’t really count), you are the only Republican who had the intestinal fortitude to say who you’d vote for. Note that I’m not giving my opinion of your choice – but unlike the others, at least you had the guts to make a choice and put it in print.

    Good on you, OA – you’ve earned a measure of respect. I wish the other BC conservatives would take note.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I can appreciate your chain of logic – which is not “who has the best vision for America” but “who’s most capable of beating Obama”. But so far, Romney’s making Dubya look, well, sensible:

    Campaigning in Pascagoula, Miss., Romney said he is turning into an “unofficial Southerner.”
    “I’m learning to say ‘y’all’ and I like grits. Strange things are happening to me,” he said jokingly.

    That would be like me walking into a GOP convention wearing a camo top, jeans, Dingo boots, and an ACLU lapel pin trying to pass myself off as a red-stater. It just. doesn’t. work.

  • Glenn,

    I’ll take Romney gettin his south on, over Obama playing the role of southern preacher any day:

    “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. “

  • Obama’s shtick at least had some substance, Obnox, unlike Romney’s vacuous remark.

  • Doc, you missed the “end sarcasm” tag at the end of your post. :>

  • Don’t get me wrong, Obnox: I like Romney and feel that America would be in safe hands if he became president. He’s a good manager and has proven track records in both politics and business.

    If, on the other hand, that maniac Santorum were to end up in the big chair (of which, fortunately, there is about as much likelihood as Queen Elizabeth II strolling into a dive bar in Cleveland, burping loudly and telling the bartender to pour a round of tequila shots for everybody while she went to the crapper) I would seriously have to reconsider my future in this country.

    But Mitt just doesn’t seem to have the populist touch, as Reagan, Clinton and to some extent Dubya did. (For the record, I don’t think Obama’s that great at it either, rhetorically gifted as he is.) Some of the things Romney says, like the remark in Mississippi, are truly cringeworthy.

    Of course, he’s by no means the only politician who’s been guilty of that!

  • Igor

    “…Romney gettin his south on…” is blatantly manipulative. I wonder that anyone, even a southerner, would be susceptible to that kind of open cajolery.

    I suppose Romney is trying to soften his image as a northern aristocrat disdainful of the kind of roots redneck that southerners often imagine themselves to be.

  • Baronius

    A candidate has to talk about how much he likes the region he’s visiting. It’s no different than David Lee Roth shouting “Alright Pittsburgh! Is everyone in Pittsburgh ready to party?”

  • Doc,

    As noted in the article, I found myself rooting for Romney in the tight Ohio race with Santorum for exactly that reason. Personally, I don’t think Santorum is a maniac, in fact, I think he’s a solid American who loves this country, and his record, experience and ideology are all better than Obama’s – no question he’d be a better president than the current white house occupant. And obviously, so is Romney.

    That said, I know how you, and virtually everyone else without an R next to their name, feels about him. And to be fair, the conventional wisdom regarding Santorum is his own fault. He’s the one who made the choice to be typecast as morals and values candidate. And look how that’s worked out for him and for the GOP as his poll numbers have ascended. As I’ve suggested in the article, I believe that he’s largely responsible for the whole contraception debate – a view that has been echoed by Dick Morris and Bill O’Reilly (I wrote this article Wednesday morning, so I actually wrote this before they went on the air). He’s the wrong man for our time and needs to leave the race ASAP.

    If Gingrich leaves the race first – fine – my prediction is that Romney gets a larger share of Gingrich voters than Santorum.

  • Doc,

    BTW, to your first point, no question that the left has boiled the entire thing down to a question around whether or not contraceptives are good.

    That liberals commonly cite the stat that 98% of catholic women use contraception, as an argument against the GOP position as if this is only about whether using contraceptives is the question, rather than one about religious freedom, or the right of the federal government to compel individuals and businesses on specifically what they have to offer.

    Not to mention that with Sandra Fluke, this has become an “access to Women’s health care” debate, when in reality, there is no such issue with access – birth control is cheap, abundantly available, and already covered by various programs for those who can’t afford it. (Though as an aside, if someone really can’t afford to fork over 40 cents for a condom, then perhaps they shouldn’t be having sex). (A further aside, who would have sex with someone who couldn’t afford a condom?)

    This was conceived by Obama and his campaign staff, poll tested, refined, and unleashed towards Santorum, and he and his supporters took the bait. And they are still taking the bait. The question is, will the GOP wise up and stop this, or will they let it ride all the way to an Obama victory in November?

  • Igor

    IMO Romney will be the Rep candidate against Obama and he will lose, perhaps hugely.

    Romney just hasn’t demonstrated any solid points he can use in his favor, and Obama will have the advantage of a pretty good track record. So Obama has the better ‘narrative’ as we say these days.

  • Baronius @ #9: It would probably have been better if Romney had used those exact words!

  • Igor,

    “and Obama will have the advantage of a pretty good track record”

    That must be some good stuff you’re smoking. 8.3% unemployment. Smallest workforce in decades. Decline of energy production on federal lands. Reams of new regulations. Government expansion, intrusion into our rights, the likes of which we’ve not seen. Racial politics, and divisive class warfare at an all time high.

    Obama may win, but it will be because of an apathetic, ignorant populace that didn’t get an “American Idol” type candidate from the right – and this will be to the detriment of this once great nation.

  • Obnox: Again, my point is that for now, yes, the cause célèbre is contraception. You’re right that this is largely because Santorum has positioned himself as “the values candidate” and is a Catholic (although ironically, Catholics overwhelmingly support Romney over him).

    But Santorum has to know that he can’t win. Yes, he’s currently second – but a very distant second. Romney has more delegates than the other three put together. Paul will probably withdraw from the race soon, and I can’t see many of his delegates lining up behind a control freak like Santorum. Gingrich will probably call it a day before long too, although his ego may cause him to stick around for another round or two of primaries; and, as you surmise, the majority of his supporters will probably settle for Mitt.

    Once Santorum has been got rid of, Romney will, if he’s smart – and he is smart – try to steer the debate away from morals and onto the economy, which is really what every single election is ultimately decided on.

  • Racial politics, and divisive class warfare at an all time high.

    You can’t be serious. The Civil Rights Era and the Great Depression don’t enter into your assessment?

  • Doc,

    Agree totally with #15. In fact, this is why I blame Santorum for the contraception debacle (and that’s what it is for the GOP – a debacle), back in one of the debates, Romney was asked about whether states had a right to outlaw contraception:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: … asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?

    ROMNEY: George, I — I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no — no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.


    STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on…

    ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court — has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I…

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.

    ROMNEY: The — I believe in the — that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court — and occasionally I do — then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it’s — it’s known as the amendment process.

    So to your point, Romney has always steered the question away from values. It’s worth noting that Romney was asked the question because of Santorum’s comments. And of course, just a few months later, we’re in a full blown debate over nonsense, i mean contraception.

    Regarding #16, I should have added – in my lifetime. Clearly Obama hasn’t been a uniter by any sense. We had better racial harmony under GWB.

  • Baronius

    Dread – Michael Kinsley wrote an article called, I believe, “A Gaffe Is When A Candidate Tells The Truth”. It was about a candidate who had made a joke about his wife “winning” by getting to campaign in California while he was campaigning in New Jersey. The candidate had broken the rule of always pretending that you’re happy to be wherever you’re campaigning.

    Every candidate has to eat chili in twenty different states and say that this one, right here, is the best of them all. If Romney was poking fun at the process, more power to him.

  • I should have added – in my lifetime.

    I guess happy third birthday greetings are in order, then, Obnox…

    I can’t see that the tone of public figures’ comments regarding race is so different from what it was when we didn’t have a black president. And while we’ve had African-Americans and Hispanics in senior cabinet posts before, they’ve (IIRC) always been Republicans. Within my living memory, race and racism has always been a Democratic cause.

    So the only difference now is that the people leading the debate are in high-ranking executive and cabinet posts. The actual message hasn’t changed much.

    The curious result is that the right is trying to turn this around, and frame blacks as the ones who are being racist.

    We had better racial harmony under GWB.

    I’ll preempt Glenn here, who would remark that this is because under GWB there wasn’t an uppity neegrah in the White House. As I said, I think the reasons are a bit more subtle than that.

  • The candidate had broken the rule of always pretending that you’re happy to be wherever you’re campaigning.

    If it were me, I would be happy to be wherever it was. I’d be grateful that the people of the state, county, city or whatever had invited me and were enthusiastic about my candidacy.

    I don’t know about you, but when I travel, I express my appreciation of the places I’m visiting to the locals; I don’t try to pretend I’m one of them.

    To be fair, I suspect that a presidential candidate soon becomes sick to death of shuttling here, there and everywhere and finds genuine enthusiasm about yet another whistle-stop visit hard to come by; and therefore has to simulate it.

    Problem with that is that insincerity is usually pretty obvious.

    I suppose in a setting like a campaign stop, there’s an unspoken mutual understanding between a candidate and his or her local supporters: I’m talking bullshit, you know I’m talking bullshit, I know that you know, but the overriding concern here is to beat the other guy, so let’s just pretend innocence and get on with that. Kind of thing.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    [reaches for another sip of decaf, nods, and moves on]

  • Costello

    Why do so many conservative men reveal they don’t know much about women’s contrception by constantly suggesting women use condoms for birth control?

  • Doc,

    Racial harmony means that people don’t think about race. I.E. black people don’t consider themselves black, but rather just people. Whites feel the same way about themselves, and about blacks. Equality, in that it just doesn’t matter – kind of like shoe size – some wear size ten’s some wear 14’s, but no one cares what size you wear when you apply for a job (unless it’s for foot model).

    We were getting there when Obama was elected. He was in fact an example, a manifestation of the fact that race was ceasing to matter. And when he was elected, at least this conservative felt he could perhaps usher in a new era of racial harmony. That is after all what was advertised on the tin.

    What he’s done is instead increase racial tension. Starting from the Gates affair, to his appointments which invariably seem designed to appeal to one victim group or another, to the very existence of Holder as his AG to this day, despite the numerous and serious racial issues he brings to the fore. Personally speaking, never in my life have I been called a racist more often, mainly for not sharing the same ideology.

    Your comments on GWB are a bit over the top. The goal of healing the racial wounds in this country shouldn’t be revenge, but equality.

  • Costello, that comment was extremely lame. But to take your point to it’s logical conclusion, in effect you’re arguing that a woman should have the right for me to pay for not only her ability to use contraception, any contraception she chooses no matter the cost? Sorry, beggars can’t be choosers as well. Is it so much to ask that someone pays the $35 co-pay if they want to get the pill? Why in liberal land, do I, a tax payer or insurance payer, have to shoulder the burden?

  • They weren’t exactly my comments about GWB, Obnox. I was just poking fun at Glenn a little bit.

    With regard to your response to Costello, it’s not the copay so much as the threat to remove insurance coverage altogether.

  • No conservative I’m aware of suggested any such thing. This wasn’t a GOP issue, wasn’t on the table, has nothing to do with the GOP platform. There is a status quo that is in place with regards to insurance coverage, and we’d seek to keep that status quo, especially the pre-Obama care status quo, in place. It would save us a bunch of money and help improve the economy in one motion.

  • Costello

    Not sure anyone who professes to seriously considering Bachmann for President is in any position to call someone else lame. But be that as it may, not only do you not understand female contraception, but you don’t understand the presemt issue or how insurance works. Not sure there’s a point in discussing it any further with you.

    I am off to get my insurance company to stop covering erection pills and treatment for smoking-induced illnesses.

  • Nice comeback Costello. Two posts where you say nothing of consequence and manage to only hurl unsubstantiated insults my way. You’re right – there IS no point in discussing further with me.

  • Obnox, you know as well as I do that the issue under debate is whether, on religious grounds, an employer should be free to refuse to cover contraception as part of its health insurance package.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yes, that’s true – the debate is not on, say, how the Utah Senate just passed a bill outlawing teaching of contraception in sex-ed classes.

  • Doc, Glenn,

    Absolutely agree – but only us nerds that pay attention to these things really know that. Right or left, people who follow politics as closely as we do represent less than 5% of the nation. The rest are easily swayed by a left wing media that’s casting this issue in far simpler terms.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    Crap. You’re right about us being the 5%. That’s twice in one day one of us agreed with the other. I’m going offline before I get further infected.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    Wait! I see it now! You’re trying to change my political outlook by agreeing with me! And you even said it with courtesy! How low down and sneaky can you get!

    Where’s Roger when I need him?

  • Clavos

    I am off to get my insurance company to stop covering erection pills…

    They don’t. Never did.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Oh? Then explain this from ABC news.

    Within weeks of hitting the U.S. market in 1998, more than half of Viagra prescriptions received health insurance coverage.

  • Haha. I saw that at the top of the Google search as well, Glenn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    But will there be a mea culpa? I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.

  • Igor

    OA is wrong again when he says “The rest are easily swayed by a left wing media that’s casting this issue in far simpler terms.”, because the MSM is demonstrably rightist. For example, I’ve not seen anywhere in MSM where it’s been stated that Fluke clearly is not a Public Person, by the legal standards of such.

    Also, our rightist press is only too happy to ignore the real point of Flukes testimony, which is that a panel of 6 old men convened to decide what contraceptives, if any, to allow to women.

    But that’s what one would expect from the MSM since it is 99% owned by capitalists.

  • Clavos

    Well, thank you Glenn, I was under the impression that if I ever had a need for such pills, I would have to purchase them myself. It’s interesting to find out that the private insurance companies will pay, yet Medicare doesn’t. Although Medicare (erroneously) did pay some $3.1 million for ED meds during 2007 and 2008. Must have been a Democrat CMS employee authorizing the disbursements.

  • Igor

    OA often makes unsubstantiated claims and then won’t ‘fess up when he’s caught.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Is that another way of saying, “They do. Always did.”?

  • Clavos

    I dunno, Glenn. How do you say it in liberalese?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    This is just too good to pass up! In honor of Jeff Foxworthy’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, thinkprogress.org has just released You might NOT be a redneck if….

  • lpetrillo

    I am very concerned about our country. It seems that honesty,integrity,and self -respect is no longer respected. We say it is but clearly our actions prove otherwise. I am hoping that Mr. Romey, campaigns well. Please , stay above the frey but you must respond back to the important negative ads.
    I am afarid of Obama health care. I can’t imagine the gov. being in charge of my medical. I don’t care what Mitt Romey did in Mass. just as long as he repeals it now. However, where is his argument. I no longer trust the gov. I’m afraid of them.
    I have always taken America for granted ; I no longer do. I hope and pray that Mitt Romey works on his defense.

  • Igor

    @44-lpetrillo: demonstrates the confusion and misdirection that the rightists have promulgated through the rightist MSM.

    I am afarid of Obama health care.

    No reason to be afraid because ACA allows you to keep whatever insurance and providers you have without change. If you like what you have, nothing changes. Except for improvements on your behalf, like no pre-existing disqualification, etc.

    I can’t imagine the gov. being in charge of my medical.

    ACA does not change your relationship to doctors, hospitals, etc. The government itself doesn’t provide medical care (except for vets, etc., as before).

    lpetrillos remarks show the success that the right has had in prejudicing peoples opinions with deceit.