ABAR: Anybody But A RINO

Sorry, I've Had Enough

It has become increasingly clear that the Republican establishment is going to get in line behind Romney.  They’ve managed to freeze out Palin by moving up the primaries even if she had been inclined to run, and she was probably the one outsider who could offer a serious challenge, but with her decision not to run after lengthy contemplation and family considerations, it has left a vacuum in the party that Herman Cain is rushing to try to fill.  The problem is that Mr. Cain has no war-chest, and if he doesn’t pull in some substantial donors soon, he’s got no chance, but more importantly, it’s becoming clear based on his statements that he doesn’t actually intend to win.  Given that in 2008, Cain endorsed Romney, and considering that Romney is now running around suggesting that folks who don’t wish to vote for him should instead choose Cain, one might begin to wonder if the fix isn’t in.  Again.

We conservatives are looking down a dark tunnel, and what we’re now beginning to understand is just how the cloak of the establishment is smothering our party.  The establishment offers us another un-conservative loser, and even if we manage to get him elected, we’ve got a bigger problem: Once again, we will have a liberal republican in office who claims to be a conservative, and this will once again cause an undeserved defamation of conservatism.  We’re being told he’s the de facto winner, with a maximum currently of 30% of the GOP primary electorate.

It’s no different in function from the manner in which Capitalism has been besmirched.  We see a system that is called capitalism, but it is so overwhelmed by statism that it can in no way even approximate actual Capitalism.  The bail-outs, the exhausting controls, the increasing taxes, the ever-devaluing currency, the interventions in the market, and the endless mandates of an overgrown government guarantee that Capitalism is not now and has not been in existence in the United States for most of a century, if not longer.  Instead, what we have had throughout that period is known as a “Mixed economy” that is what its name implies:  A mixing between the appearance of capitalism and fact of a command economy.  Notice that in this argument, when something goes awry, it is always Capitalism that takes the black eye, and only seldom does the command-and-control edifice of statism ever receive criticism, particularly among the intelligentsia.

In much the same way, other things are also attacked for the sins of their substitute.  Consider the war on the Tea Party, whereby the Tea Party is labeled “terroristic” and “threatening” and “violent” and “racist,” while in fact, the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd has virtually all of those characteristics, including an undercurrent of anti-semitism bundled together with and disguised behind their hatred of the rich.  The media blamed Tea Party patriots for the downgrade just a month or so ago, but in truth, it was the statists who caused the downgrade by their intransigent inaction on deficit spending.  Notice that at no point did the major media or the responsible parties(Obama and Congress) go on record to blame anybody except the Tea Party.  As you consider this, you might recognize the trend.

In exactly this way, when George W. Bush was elected President on the basis of his “compassionate conservatism,” I knew from my experience with his administration in Texas that this merely meant he would be anything but conservative.  Some conservatives like to excuse him, saying he was “good on 9/11 and defending the country,” but let’s be honest enough to admit that even a complete buffoon like Al Gore would have defended the country, albeit probably less vigorously. Still, had Al Gore been president in 2001, I doubt whether we would have seen the GOP Congress legislating the TSA into existence.  I doubt whether subsequent social spending would have gone through, including the Bush-Kennedy education regime, or the program now known as Medicare part D.  The simple fact is that conservatives would have recognized all of these as the advance of statism, and would have mobilized against them.  Only rarely, such as in the case of Harriet Miers, did conservatives seek to challenge George Bush when he was governing in a decidedly un-conserverative fashion.

This is the reason I am most concerned about the upcoming presidential election season.  It’s true that Obama is a walking horror-show of predations against our constitution, but the truth is that Bush laid the groundwork for Obama’s misdeeds, aided six of his eight years by a Republican Congress that was sticking with their guy.  Let’s not kid ourselves about the disastrous results of another RINO in the White House.  You can pretend all you wish that in electing Romney, you are protecting the nation from Obama, but the simple truth is that you are merely helping to discredit conservatism.  In 2008, we were told that conservatism was to blame, and even now, they blame Bush for the bail-outs (while they hypocritically clamor for more,) and all along the way, what has become clear is that if conservatism is going to get the blame, then for a change, we should at least elect a conservative President.  With Palin now doing the establishment a favor by stepping aside for her personal reasons, and Christie endorsing Romney, and Cain being less than a strong candidate, it’s easy to see it coming again.

You can go to the polls and support one of these candidates if you like, but there isn’t one of them with a substantial chance to win who is also conservative, and I’m in no mood to vote for a fake.  If the Republican part establishment thinks they can get my vote with the torture of four more years of Obama as the only alternative, they’re mistaken, and I will likely sit out this presidential election.   Sure, I’ll vote the down-ballot, but I’ll leave the presidential slot unmarked.  I don’t buy the notion of “anybody but Obama.”  I’d rather an openly Marxist dolt like Obama be re-elected than to compromise my principles and help the statists propaganda against conservatism by putting forward a candidate who will be called a conservative, but will govern as a progressive.  Until the people of this country realize how thoroughly the GOP establishment has been jerking them around by continuing to put forward progressive Republicans, never mind the Marxist Democrats, there is absolutely no chance that we will recover, restore, or reform what now ails us.

I’ve grown fatigued with the notion that conservatives should shut up and get in line. I’m not interested, and for once, the moderates can get in line with me.   Those of you conservatives and Tea Party patriots who tire of this too should finally understand that you’re only undercutting yourselves when you support the establishment in the end, out of a sense of desperation.  You can tout “ABO” all you like, but I’m going to shout “ABAR” to any who will hear me: “Anybody But A RINO.”  I mean it, but until conservatives finally sit out a presidential ballot en masse, the establishment will continue to offer you pathetic choices.  They no longer take your threats seriously because so many of you haven’t held to it.  If you want real change, it truly must begin with you.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

26 Responses to ABAR: Anybody But A RINO

  1. Kate says:

    Wow- this is intense thinking. Lord have mercy on us.We need a miracle…a Hail Mary. Lord, provide for America.

  2. C.A. Bamford says:

    Here is an interesting bit from Tammy Bruce that follows a similar thought.

    http://www.newsmax.com/TammyBruce/sarah-palin-201

    I like her line about not taking us for granted…that trying to get conservatives to accept the GOP line would be like trying to herd cats.

  3. LFRD says:

    I agree!! ABAR sounds great to me as well. Just listened to debates via Washington Post. ALOT of the same ole crap-n-sling. I am as well very fatigued. Maybe I will digest something and feel better tomarrow.

  4. PalinSupporter2012 says:

    Where does Newt and Santorum stand?

  5. DC says:

    If we can't put a true conservative in the WH in 2012, when could we ever?

  6. fred johnson says:

    I agree. I think this was well thought out a long time ago. It's time for dear old Karl Rove to go

    • Dave Pavano says:

      Karl Rove… Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it one of his staff that made the blunder that caused us to believe Hussaine was developing WMD's?

  7. Dave Pavano says:

    You said it better than I've been saying ever since ABO first appeared. And when it did I almost went into a state of panic and shock. Is this what the Republican voters are doing? Compromising? Has anyone watched the debates? Didn't anyone learn anything through Rick Perry and Mitt Romney's banter that both oif them proved the other to be fake Republican RINOS? Romney even gave in to McCain in the 2008 primaries… Doesn't that tell anyone anything???
    Mark, why the heck are we bothering wasting our time? Does anybody really care except for a handfull of us? Maybe the gop should just walk off and let the dems have their way with this country and see how fast a second revolutionary war starts, lead by the democrat voters themselves when they start starving and have to wait days in lines for a loaf of bread and months to see a half way decent doctor if that. Why doesn't anyone realize that the democrats are the party of the old south infiltrated by communist marxists and every other sect that wants the American way of life destroyed?

    Mitt Romney? Why so us constitutionalist conservatives can get the blame for the fall of this country? You're right! I would rather see Obama win than to have another RINO as a President again…
    I also have to say, if it came neck to neck between Sarah Palin and Romney it would be a landslide victory for Sarah! And while I'm at it this would be one general election she couldn't possibly lose if she became the GOP front runner. I just can not believe the states closed the door on her.
    I'm totally disgusted and discouraged!!! Is this why I quite the democrat party? JFK democrat that is… He was more conservative than anyone left running in the primaries today with the possible exception of Ron Paul, but then he's an anti semitethat would put an end to any support to Israel…
    Nuff said… with a Big (SIGH)

  8. Dave Pavano says:

    Also hope you don't mind if I use the "no more RINOS" logo on my FB page… TIA

  9. Mark, the picture you paint here is very depressing. GOP nominating Romney. GOP moving up primaries to push out Palin to insure Romney. Palin opting out, throwing the towel. Conservatives are supposed to fall in line and support the only viable option we are presented to beat Obama.

    Now ABAR I will wholeheartedly stand with you.

    But I have another question to toss out there concerning Palin. Would not Palin even at the point of opting out, would she not see where this is going? Yes she could just work for TEA Party candidates House/Senate as she said will.

    In the campaign time Palin is going to be out there hammering on Obama and the democRATS becoming more and more visible to more and more concerned Americans. She is going to decry the crony capitalism that infects Washington. Her message will get stronger and stronger. She is going to become very clearly contrasted with the GOP's chosen vessel Romney.

    People are going to start asking questions. "Why isn't Palin running?"

    I may be touched in the head, but I cannot believe Palin wants to leave her children to live in a socialist nation. And unless she knows of a "person" out there we don't know about who can at least come close to filling her place, we are left with only one person…Gov. Sarah Louise Palin.

    I cannot believe with all the fighting spirit this woman has and how much she loves this country that this "alley cat smart" woman would simply resign herself to a "kingmaker" role.

    God is my witness, please hear my cry in behalf of the nation You have raised up and so richly blessed.

    Michael

    • MarkAmerica says:

      You make very good points Michael. This all begs the question. If ever there had been an opportunity for her to run, this is it. I understand the considerations about family. It must be painful to see your family attacked constantly.

  10. Your thought that "It must be painful to see your family attacked constantly" I would like to address with your permission.

    Can these attacks be painful, yes if we let them. But…

    We both know why these scurrilous attacks are made. To exert control over the target. Palin has dealt with these attacks for the last three years now. Am I supposed to believe that she is now letting them control her and her actions i.e. wearing her out? I do not think so. Palin's kids know why these attacks are made and what the end result is of letting anyone control you. These kids are not stupid. I believe they are well taught.

    NO ONE OWNS PALIN!!! And they certainly do not control her!!!

    Forgive me if my words seem harsh, such is not the intent.

    Michael

    • DC says:

      Why isn't her decision not to run ultimately over her concern for the safety of her family, despite how well her kids are raised? She surely had a open path to the WH but opted out. What other explanation is there? Was it ultimately a choice between " the physical safety of [her] family and saving our country?" http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/a_wea

  11. gggtexasgal says:

    I am absolutely, completely and emphatically with Mark on this one!!!! A great quote by Samuel Adams came to mind: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Mark is right – if the Conservatives and the Tea Party Patriots do not make their voices heard this time, with the terrible shape our country is in, four more years of BHO or a RINO (Obama-lite) and the last recognizable vestiges of the America we have loved will be a distant memory. The way I see it – – we can sit on our keesters or get busy and DO SOMETHING prolific to make them understand. Looking at the candidates and the choices we have, the only answer I see is for the Tea Party to ban together and approach Sarah. Think there's a chance she would reconsider if the entire Tea Party approached her? I hadn't heard that any group approached her after her announcement to try to encourage her to reconsider. Are there too many (Tea Party or Conservatives) who would not back her? I do not believe Samuel Adams was trying to write pretty sayings – his is a prophetic warning!! If we just feel helpless and go along with the Establishment AGAIN, from that day forward, America will be LOST!! Note again, Adams said, "our country will stand IN NEED OF ITS PATRIOTS TO PREVENT ITS RUIN" – I hear it calling all of us to act!! However, there is also the other question – is there a chance in hell the Establishment would ever allow that to happen?

  12. sedeuce says:

    Michael, in line with your thoughts, with the unprecedented verbal and legal assault that Sarah and her family have been on the receiving end of for the past 3+ years, there is simply no way that is the reason for her decision. If she acted out of fear for her family, it was fear of physical assault. All of the visible conservatives are threatened: Beck, Hannity, Lambaugh, Levine. I don't believe that this was the primary reason.

    I'm at least hearing all of the candidates, even Romney, state clearly that they will do everything they can to repeal the big 2 – Obamacare and Frank-Dodd. That isn't going to happen without either a filibuster proof Senate or one so close that enough Progressive and Progressive-Lite Senators can be bludgeoned into either voting for it or knowing that they are ending their political careers. Look at the influence that the Tea Party has had already in the House. What happens with another 30-40 Tea Party representatives in the House and 10-15 Senators, along the lines of Rubio and Rand Paul, including those who have primaried Progressive-Lite RINOS? Unless Sarah is looking at a draft movement within the Republican party or a third party, she has decided that her political capital is most effectively focused at the Congressional and State Governorship level. I believe that is the sign of a true servant's heart who is willing to do whatever she thinks is best for her country as long as it is not in conflict with her 2 most important priorities.

  13. Pat Cashman says:

    I've always know that the fix was in and the Christie endorsement was no surprise. But just this morning I was accepting Romney over Obama, that is until I read this article. This is going to be a long battle of restoration and your point to sit it out and let the Marxist remain rather than the to accept the GOP puppet makes absolute sense. While Obama is in charge they will never win back the House. The Tea Party will make sure of that. A safety net if you will. But if Romney gets in, complacency will be sure to follow. The brain dead and those still not awake (REALLY?), will lean toward the continuing compromising agenda that the
    progressives love all too well. But I do keep in mind that none of this will matter anyway if the world economy collapses beforehand. That is why I will continue to donate to SarahPac regardless of the Governor's plans.

  14. SeanStLouis says:

    As usual, Mark, great analysis. I haven't talked much on your site so far, but I read your stuff and I'm definitely with you on the 'no more RINOS' boat.

    I know that most people here on Mark's site abhor Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy. But have any of you ever considered that his foreign policy is simply an extension of his conservative economic policy? By that I mean his stance on refocusing military spending on national defense rather than interventionism and policing the worlds (besides the peace, trade, Jeffersonian stuff). Think about that.

    My view is that Ron Paul is the only option for real conservatives. Therefore, he will get my vote.

    Dave, you're best argument against Ron Paul is that he's "anti-semite" because he would work towards ending military aid to Israel?

    In my humble opinion, you're using the term 'anti-semite' incorrectly and irresponsibly. You're implying that Rep. Paul hates Jews. To correctly convey your opinion of Ron Paul you should use "anti-Israel". But anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul understands that he is not "anti-Israel".

    The fact is that he doesn't single out Israel. He, and many libertarians and constitutional conservatives, would like to end foreign aid (especially military aid) to most everybody.

    Answer me this: If I have the opinion that we should substantially cut foreign aid on ALL fronts does that make me 'anti-Israel' and/or 'anti-semite'? For someone to accuse me of 'anti-semitism' because of my opposition to our current policies in the realm of economic and military foreign aid is intellectually dishonest.

    Thanks for listening.

  15. kara515 says:

    I agree with every word in this article! No more RINOs. No more "compassionate" republicans. No more "moderate" republicans. In other words, no more statists who have R's by their names. Romney and Perry would be GWB part three. The jury is still out on Cain, but I do not like his coziness with Romney or his plan for a VAT-like sales tax.
    Palin was my only hope for a true conservative candidate. With Palin out of the picture, I believe we'll end up with yet another big government republican nominee. Great analysis Mark!

  16. RebinTexas says:

    Mark,

    yep – DITTO – no more rinos……ABAR…..well, looks like we've got lots to try to do……….call me…have a few ideas…..suggestions…..my number is listed on my info in FB.

    Reb