Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Mitt Romney YouTube clip

The following is a proposed YouTube clip on what Mitt Romney’s swearing-in ceremony might involve. I wrote this fanciful piece to encourage America’s citizens to reflect on what a Romney presidency might come to mean.

Scene:
A room opening on to a balcony from which Mitt Romney will soon be sworn in as President of the United States. The muffled sounds of a large crowd gathered outside can be heard behind the balcony’s closed doors. Romney is pacing back and forth talking to his Chief of Staff, who is off camera but speaks with a Darth Vader voice. There is a portable radio in the room carrying a live broadcast, which we can hear as the scene opens.

From the radio, we hear this dialogue:
First Reporter: “Who would have ever thought we’d see a Mormon in the White House?”
Second Reporter: “Who would have ever foreseen Barack Obama’s untimely death?”
First Reporter: “That certainly threw the Democrats for a loop, didn’t it?”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At that point, we hear a sharp click as Romney turns off the radio, saying, “You know, I would have rather beaten Obama than…”
Chief of Staff: “I know, but the Lord does work in mysterious ways, doesn’t He?”
Romney (slowly): “Yes – He – does.”
Chief: “Do you want to practice one more time? Your public is waiting.”
Romney: “Are you sure we should be doing it this way? I mean, you know, people might take this rather badly.”
Chief: “People might as well get used to the New World Order. And me swearing you in – especially this way – is a pretty good place to start.”
Romney: “I’m still not sure.”
Chief: “It doesn’t matter if you’re sure. Orders are orders.”
Romney: “End of story, right?”
Chief: “Actually, this is only the beginning. Have a little faith.”
Romney: “Very well. Let’s run through this one more time.”
[Romney picks up a book and hands it to his Chief, still unseen off-camera except for a black gloved hand which takes the book.]
Chief: “Place your left hand here, raise your right hand, and repeat after me: I”
Romney: “I, Willard Mitt Romney”
Chief: “do solemnly swear”
Romney: “do solemnly swear”
Chief: “that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”
Romney: “that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”
Chief: “and will to the best of my ability”
Romney: “and will to the best of my ability”
Chief: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”
Romney: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [pause] I do so solemnly swear upon this, The Book of Mormon, the most correct book of scripture known to man.”
As soon as Romney starts saying “this, The Book of Mormon,” he takes that book from his Chief’s hand and holds it high over his head so his imaginary audience can see its title. The camera zooms in on the Book, as we hear radio voices saying:
“What just happened?”
“The balls of this guy!”
“Impeach the sonofabitch!”
“This is an outrage.”
“The Southern Baptist Convention is going to have a shit fit.”
“Who’s the Svengali who just swore in our President?”
“By what right does Mitt Romney add his own propaganda to the oath of office?”

Reflections on this clip
As for that last question: That tradition started with George Washington who added “So help me God” to the oath, even though that wasn’t in Constitution. And every President thereafter also added, “So help me God.” So why shouldn’t Mr. Romney feel free to add his bit?
I have been criticized for dragging Mitt Romney’s (and Jon Huntsman’s) religion into consideration. The Constitution says, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” By dwelling on their Mormon faith, I seem to be submitting these candidates to a “religious test,” which bothers some people. “A candidate’s religion is personal and should not be questioned,” or so they’d claim. To which I would ask, “Would you feel the same way if that religion called for human sacrifice? Wouldn’t you expect a bit of clarification?”
As for the constitutional prohibition against a “religious test,” that simply means no authority can insist on such a test. That is, for example, no Secretary of State could deny ballot access for this reason. However, We-the-People have a right to know as much as possible about what makes our president tick. So We can insist on such a test. It’s true that candidates can ignore religious questions, but they do so at their own peril. In fact, they seem to welcome the opportunity to share their faith and how it might shape their decision-making processes.

But what about bad taste?
It might be considered bad taste to suggest that Obama might not live through his first term. I defend that as merely a shocking, attention-grabbing device. The deck is so badly stacked against independent candidates like myself, we need all the help we can get to make an impact.
As for that Svengali/Darth Vader character and hints of a New World Order, we truly don’t know from whom a Mormon president would take his marching orders. Anyone who doubts this should remember how surprised we were when Barack Obama “chose” Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, and “chose” only Wall Street types to be his economic advisors. I very much want people to be aware of Svengalis lurking in the background.
As for me? You can easily judge from my platform that I don’t have any marching orders. I also don’t have any problem explaining exactly what kind of a Buddhist I am. Nor would I have any problem with those who might lampoon my faith. Actually, I would welcome that as a challenge.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I am forced to push the envelope, for the mail must go through.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

No comments:

Post a Comment