Pavlov would love the Internet.

Cranky Cuss

Cranky Cuss
Ossining, New York, United States
February 28
I am the author of "Send In the Clown Car: The Road to the White House 2012," currently available on Amazon and CreateSpace. I'm currently semi-retired after 23 years in a corporate environment. My motto: The conventional wisdom has too much convention, not enough wisdom. Corollary: Even Einstein was wrong sometimes, and you're not Einstein.


Editor’s Pick
OCTOBER 26, 2012 11:22AM

Editorial Endorsement: George Romney for President

Rate: 21 Flag
                                 The Cranky Cuss Gazette


Very rarely are the stakes as high as they are in the 2012 Presidential election. The survival and direction of the American economy, issues of social justice, and concerns about our military involvement in the battle with international terror demand that we, as a nation, do not take our votes in November lightly.

Our editorial board at The Cranky Cuss Gazette, after much discussion, has decided to urge voters to cast a write-in vote for George Romney for President. While this endorsement may raise eyebrows – after all, he is the late father of the Republican candidate - we believe that George Romney’s record as a businessman, politician and public servant is exemplary, and that his fitness for national office is beyond question.

The direction of the economy and the creation of jobs is still the dominant issue. While the Republican candidate’s claim to business acumen is undercut by his record of sending jobs overseas and instigating layoffs of American workers, it is important to note George Romney’s ability to turn around the fortune of an automotive company, the American Motors Company, created thousands of good jobs in America and not a single one overseas while maintaining a co-operative relationship with union workers. He shunned greed, incredibly cutting his own salary while CEO and giving money back to the company whenever he felt his compensation had grown excessive.

Even better, George Romney’s record as a three-term Governor of Michigan (1963-1969) and as Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development demonstrates not just a fiscal prudence but also a commitment to fairness. Inheriting a budget deficit as Governor, George Romney understood that he couldn’t balance the budget without increasing tax revenues, in contrast to the Republican Presidential nominee, so he installed the state’s first personal and corporate income taxes. From his first Inaugural address, George Romney stood up for the less fortunate by declaring racial discrimination the state’s biggest problem, and as a member of Nixon’s cabinet, he fought for an open housing plan that would desegregate many neighborhoods in the country.

Furthermore, the stories of George Romney’s personal integrity provide the most persuasive evidence justifying our endorsement. As a recently unearthed interview with his wife Lenore revealed, George Romney spent some of his early years on welfare and claimed to have spent a year eating nothing but potatoes. At a time when the American safety net, and the citizens assisted by it, is under attack and the Republican candidate wishes to overturn national health care, it is important to have a President with personal knowledge of what it’s like to be among the nation’s less fortunate. Having spent his early years in Mexico, George Romney would be likely to have a compassionate view of immigration (again in contrast to the Republican candidate). In addition, while many candidates today kowtow to the extremists of their party, it’s notable that when George Romney ran for re-election in 1964, he refused to appear onstage with his party’s nominee, Barry Goldwater, or any of his representatives.

One of the most impressive stories about George Romney’s integrity took place in 1994 when he endorsed a candidate for the Senate seat in Michigan and then refused to rescind his endorsement even when a family member jumped into the race. George Romney’s insistence on keeping his word and sticking by his principles provides a stark contrast with candidates who change their positions whenever it becomes expedient.

Rancorous would describe the argument about our endorsement in the Gazette editorial board room. There are obvious drawbacks to our endorsement. First, George Romney has never declared that he is a candidate for the office. Second, he is the father of the Republican nominee, a fact which could cause embarrassment and hard feelings on Election Night. Third, and foremost, George Romney passed away in 1995. However, we feel that the strength of his credentials outweigh these mere quibbles.

Other board members argued vehemently that it was not pragmatic to support a man who has been dead for 17 years. However, the more idealistic members of the board prevailed, arguing that George Romney’s repose insured that he could never sell his soul to corporate lobbyists and that, unlike his 44 predecessors, he could never compromise in order to get imperfect legislation enacted by Congress.

Board members insisted that supporting a third party candidate was pure folly and akin to taking money from a savings account, spending it on Power Ball tickets and claiming it was sound economic policy. They argued that Barack Obama deserved a second term, citing health care reform, the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, the bailout of the U.S. auto industry, the steady if slow economic recovery, the removal of American soldiers from Iraq, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, his support of same-sex marriage and his continued support for reproductive rights, which could make the selection of the next Supreme Court Justices critical. However, other board members argued that Obama failed to keep many of his promises and that while the main reason for those failures was the obstinacy of the Republican-led House, we were following the American tradition of blaming the President for everything that happened on his watch, whether his fingerprints were present or not.

A majority of the board argued further that there is no significant difference between the two main parties. The 2000 election proved this, when George W. Bush, elected by the slimmest of margins, started two wars in the Middle East, authorized the torture of detainees, enacted large tax cuts that turned a budget surplus into a massive budget deficit, appointed Supreme Court Justices that created a majority in ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, responded slowly to the flooding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, refused to implement the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and severely limited stem cell research; in other words, exactly what an Al Gore Presidency would have done.

Making the decision to endorse George Romney also allows us to keep our conscience clear. When President Mitt Romney repeals universal health care, proposes a budget that slashes deeper holes in the safety net, appoints Supreme Court Justices that finally overturn Roe v Wade, privatizes Social Security, replaces Medicare with a voucher system, and gives greater tax breaks to the wealthy, we can say, “It is the same thing Barack Obama would have done, and at least we didn’t vote for him, so our hands are clean.”

America is at a crossroads, and though a freight train is barreling down the tracks, we cannot wait for the red caution light to turn off. We must act urgently and recklessly. We urge you to write in the name George Romney on November 6.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
"We must act urgently and recklessly"

Isn't that what they always do? This is just so well done ...

There is no difference with anyone is there? nope not even on this site when it takes me 10 minutes to comment and rate. We need a third party candidate or something!!


Cranky, this is a wonderfully crafted blend of satire and effective argument I have seen in a long time. I was so engrossed in the content of your piece, I failed to notice that the capital letters (which I did notice) spelled out Vote for Obama. I fear there will be a handful of people who will miss the satirical element, but the informational element is right on point. Bravo, and see you on the cover.

I once wrote in Barbara Jordan's name for President, eleven months after she passed away.
But, but but....wasn't he born in Mexico?
"Vote For Obama". Great piece Richard - Rates won't stick. Looks like nothing has changed in the month I've been gone.
Even dead he'd be more effective than his son, tho his part ditched him soon as he told the truth abt Vietnam.

Even dead he'd be more effective than his son, tho his part ditched him soon as he told the truth abt Vietnam.

I want to post this to the light poles in town so everyone can read it, but I don't think they'd understand you're talking about the Dad. I think they'd spend too much time arguing about what the candidate's name really is.
not bad, but pointless- he can't run due to prior committments.

what have you got against democracy, that you insist on submitting to politicians?
Cranky,this is a very smart diplomatic stroke.
It produces proof of your souvereignity,speak...fighting for a fair and justified outcome of this election.
Sons of such fathers struggle for a long time to live up to their fathers' goals and values.
Brilliant. I was leaning right, but for some reason my subconscious is telling me "Vote for Obama." Weird.
Great post, and I didn't notice the letters until Lezlie said something.
Well I had been leaning to Wallace, Henry that is, but now I'm going to reconsider. I had a feeling we'd see a Cranky Backs Romney post before this campaign was over.
Well argued, sir. I share your respect for George (not Mitt) Romney. However, as an Eisenhower Democrat I must in good conscience vote for President Barack Obama, and I urge his grandson, David Eisenhower (and Ron Reagan as well) to step forward and endorse the President publicly if he hasn't done so already. The future lies in the balance, and the endorsements of an Eisenhower and a Reagan could make a small but crucial difference at this tipping point in history.
+This reminds me of piece I wrote some weeks back on the same subject. Yours is better. In truth, however, I have stopped up my ears. I am no longer reading about the campaign or listening to the opinions of the prognosticators. I have already cast my vote, and I no longer believe that I can influence anyone else to change theirs.
All that was missing from the brilliant piece was the closer:

"But those who are reluctant to vote for a dead man, for obvious reasons, are advised to vote instead for Barack Obama, since he is the only viable alternative."
Even dead man would be better than lying, kicking, screaming, incompetent, unknowledgeable, hateful current president and lying, treacherous commander-in-chief thanks to whom the Benghazi tragedy happened; thanks to whom four of our bravest were murdered while he was seeing his victorious dreams. For two weeks he was lying to American people knowing all the details of what happened; for two weeks his servants were sent on tours to media to lie on his behave. Are you, people, crazy?
Only complaint I've ever had about George Romney was his (mis)handling of the Detroit riots in 1967.

Otherwise, I wish I could vote for him to be prime minister....
Cranky -- I'm voting you for president. Seriously...we need you.
Very clever Cranky. I love the tag.

And I second Ingrid. We need someone like you!
Very clever Cranky. I love the tag.

And I second Ingrid. We need someone like you!
Outstanding creative piece. As a side note, My good friend's relative knew G. Romney and his opinion of him was not flattering. I suspect Willard is a chip off the old block.
Excellent thinking and writing. Rated.

Men/women of unswerving principles must lead the nation.
The USA , so-called democracy, is not serving the best interests of the people.

Fundamental change is needed in order in restore good governance by the people, not over the people. Deleting political parties would be a good start.
Well done, CC. But hey, if you're going to endorse dead people, why not go for the best , like FDR? Or that great, but much unheralded statesman, Millard Fillmore.