I found myself the target of some SwampCon cattiness this morning when I pointed out that this was a straw-man argument used to avoid engaging conservatives' actual reasons for condemning Romney. What are those reasons? Let's do a quick rundown.
1) Because Romney’s impeachment vote was wrong on the merits. Even if he sincerely thought impeachment was warranted, the vote shows he lacks the judgment to be a valuable & effective GOP senator.
nationalreview.com/2019/12/the-ar…
nationalreview.com/2019/12/the-ar…
2) Given Romney’s infamous anti-Trump animus, establishment sensibilities, history of flip-flopping & opportunism, & selective approach to witnesses, we don't believe he was acting in good faith:
thefederalist.com/2020/01/27/aft…
thefederalist.com/2020/01/27/aft…
3) Romney appears to have been motivated at least in part by the media adulation his vote would obviously net him (& which he not only anticipated but prepped for). That sort of thing has been grounds for conservatives to rationally distrust Republicans:
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/column…
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/column…
4) Romney's vote singlehandedly helped Senate Democrats and hurt Senate Republicans in multiple ways going into the November elections:
dailywire.com/news/hammer-mi…
dailywire.com/news/hammer-mi…
Of course, Points 3 and 4 could be excused if Romney was correct or at least acting in good faith about impeachment -- but simply asserting he was right doesn't make it so, and it sure as hell doesn't justify putting words in his critics' mouths.
Sadly, empty suits like Goldberg, Caruso, and their colleagues gave up any sense of obligation to honest debate a long time ago. Grappling w/ the actual arguments on the table takes effort, & gets in the way of stoking the unearned sense of superiority to which they're addicted.
