Archive for the ‘Election 2012’ Category

Putting to Rest Some Dire Misconceptions About This Disastrous Election

Sunday, November 11th, 2012

So it is said in politics...

I received an email from a reader who was thoroughly angry with me.  I asked for permission to use the text in a blog post, but I’ve not received further communications, so I will paraphrase the writer’s complaints, since I think there may be more than a few who feel this way.  The complaint boiled down to this:  Contrary to what I asserted in my post on the Reasons Romney Lost, Romney didn’t lose because he didn’t talk about important social issues enough, because said this e-mailer, Romney did indeed talk about these issues important to Christians.  If he did, many of my evangelical Christian friends didn’t hear it.  These issues were largely avoided in the debates, as well as in the stumps speeches late in the race.  The perception among many Christians, at least here in the middle of the Bible Belt, was that Romney was uninterested or evasive on issues important to Christians.  You can argue that he did in fact  talk about all of these topics at some point during the cycle, but the perception among evangelicals in my vicinity was that he avoided talk of religion whenever possible.  Again, it matters not whether he actually discussed it, but instead whether he appeared willing to broach these subjects, and in what frequency.  The problems in the Republican party are much deeper than I once thought.  It’s not only the establishment that doesn’t understand the grass roots, but also that different segments of the base fundamentally misunderstand one another.

To conservatives concerned primarily with freedom issues, they really don’t “get” the evangelical voters.  To many evangelicals who comprise a broad portion of the conservative base, faith isn’t supposed to be something you talk about once a week.  It’s something they believe ought to inform the way a person lives, the decisions one makes, and the way one conducts himself toward others.  Evangelicals will be the first to tell you that they aren’t infallible, but the people who comprise this segment tend to try in earnest to live out their faith in daily life.  They put their faith ahead of family, ahead of friends and community, and certainly ahead of politics.  They’re not generally interested in “going along to get along” because that’s not what their faith dictates.  Therefore, when they see candidates who seem less than fully concerned about faith, at least in their perceptions, they tend to be less than concerned about supporting those candidates.  Period.  You can accuse them of being too rigid in their beliefs if you like, but you see, they take that as a compliment.  They intend to be rigidly faithful to their beliefs.  They are accustomed to the left and to moderates who mock them, most frequently comparing them to some sort of westernized Taliban, and it merely steels their resolve. Contrary to the propaganda against them, however, they’re not looking for a preacher in the presidency.  They simply want a person of deep and abiding faith and understanding who isn’t afraid to take a few jeers and lumps from the left on this basis.  They perceived widely that Romney didn’t fulfill that requirement.

Some will immediately say in response that “well, at least Romney is better than Obama, and worth getting him out of there.”  True enough, but please remember: Evangelical Christians will tend to view politics as a thing of this Earth, but they’re less concerned ultimately with Earth than with their salvation.  Some of them genuinely wonder at the consequences of selling out their souls on issues important to their faith for the sake of transitory political expedience.  Once viewed in this light, it is easy to understand how evangelicals would view elections as less important, and with no candidate appearing to fulfill their requirements for support, many were certain to simply walk away.  You may not like that, and you may not agree with that view, but if you want to understand what has happened, this is a part of the formula you ignore at your own peril.

I will also tell you quite plainly that if you believe Romney’s religion had nothing to do with it, you’re making the mistake of projection.  You’re projecting your sense of religious tolerance onto people who widely view Mormonism as a cult.  Of course, I realize this fully because as my wife points out, in her homeland(Germany,) there are widely thought to be two “legitimate”  religions, being Catholicism and the Lutherans, and the Catholics aren’t entirely convinced about the latter.  As children, they learn about their faith, and in much the same way as evangelicals here in the US view Mormons as part of a cult, German Catholics and Lutherans tend to view any church newer than theirs in much the same light. My point to you is this:  There was always going to be a percentage of evangelical Christians who would never support Mitt Romney, and that was one of the risks implicit in nominating him.  Even though Romney won Texas, it wasn’t by nearly so much as one might expect.  I think if candidates like Ted Cruz hadn’t been on the ballot, Romney might have been in some danger here.

Of course, the misunderstanding isn’t all one-way.  They don’t understand why others in the GOP don’t try to live out their faith as a priority in daily life.  They may admire the wisdom and common sense of free market ideals, economic liberty, and all sorts of issues that are mainstays of the conservative sphere, but they don’t really fully understand why anybody would support a candidate who isn’t strong in his or her faith, and willing to testify to that faith in public.  As I said, the misunderstandings run in all directions, between all factions, but in politics, perceptions become realities, whether or not we think that’s right. I’m not suggesting that conservatives ought to yield to false perceptions, but that instead they should challenge them instead of leaving them without refutation.

You see, it doesn’t matter whether Mitt Romney mentioned the issues of abortion and traditional marriage a few times along the campaign trail.  It matters that he didn’t exhibit his beliefs through his actions when he was pro-choice until a few years ago, or amenable to gay marriage while Governor of Massachusetts.  Those things stick.  You will not know this, but early in the primary season, I had to ban some posters for what I viewed as over-the-top assaults on Romney’s faith.  Some were quite lengthy, but I wasn’t about to permit that sort of bashing.  It was real, however, and in retrospect, I’m afraid that in so doing, I may have done a disservice because it stifled those who feel as they do on these matters.  You didn’t get to see some of these comments, and maybe if you had, you might have understood why getting the full body of the evangelical Christian segment of conservatism to the polls for Mitt Romney was going to be a chore in any case.  That’s the truth of it.  What you do with the information is up to you, but if you’re ever to see the sort of full support from evangelicals any national conservative victory will require, you’re going to need to find candidates who satisfy their minimum requirements.  In too many ways, Mitt Romney didn’t.

The Reasons Romney Lost

Friday, November 9th, 2012

I realize the fact that there are roughly fifty-seven million people trying to go through the results of this election, to determine how it went bust.  Demographics do play a factor, and free stuff plays a significant factor, but so does the lack of a massive turnout by evangelicals. All of these things have some validity, but I think we may be making an error if we don’t drill down on these to get to the bottom of it, rather than making rash assumptions.  Where a changing culture mattered, it was largely single mothers who clobbered conservatives.  Where free stuff mattered, it was largely Hispanics who walked away.   Insofar as Romney’s flip-floppery with respect to issues important to evangelicals, we had a serious problem.  Let me suggest to you that we’ll need to be very honest about all of this if we’re ever to reverse it, assuming the nation survives as a single political entity through 2016. Mitt Romney lost for a number of important reasons, and most of them are a result of how he campaigned, or didn’t, throughout the entirety of the cycle.  I have said he was trying to win by default, but that such an approach could not prevail.  It didn’t.

Republicans should not expect to win any national election in which there is not significant evidence that the candidate is strong on issues critical to evangelicals, including abortion, assisted suicide, and gay marriage.  Listen to me, Republican wannabes: YOU  CANNOT  WIN  WITHOUT  THE  FULL   SUPPORT   OF  CHRISTIANS.  I don’t care how many moderates or independents you think you might lose by being strong on those issues, because what you lose in evangelicals’ support will far outweigh what you will pick up with the few loose moderates or independents you believe you will gain.  Get accustomed to it.  It’s a part of your base, a part that does participate in getting out the vote when they believe the candidate warrants their efforts, and you cannot win without them.  You might gain a few independents and moderates by flexing in your principles, but they aren’t the committed sort who will go out and knock on doors for you.

You cannot win by trying to compete with Democrats in giving away free stuff, either in principle, or in fact.  Stop trying.  When alleged conservatives do this, it looks too much like trying to purchase votes, even though those same people are willing to be bought-off by Democrats’ much more generous offers won’t hesitate to take their deal.  You won’t be able to get Hispanics votes in any larger proportion than the one were seeing for Republicans now, plus or minus a couple points, because most Hispanics are responding to free stuff, and as mentioned, Republicans can’t compete with that(and shouldn’t try.) There is no manner of “free stuff” that Democrats won’t give away more thoroughly.  Republicans must focus on people who come to vote not because they are seeking stuff, but because of the larger ideas and principles.  Once a GOP candidate walks away from principles, what remains is a candidate who has little to offer, even to  his or her own base.

Single mothers are another demographic Republicans can’t win, because they are frequently dependent on social programs. Again, if you can’t win this segment, and if can’t even get close, you’re going to need to do a better job appealing to the segment of women you can reach: Married mothers and grandmothers.  That’s still a goodly portion of the female population, but again, you have nothing tangible in the sense of goods and services to offer them that the left won’t beat you to the punch in offering in larger measure.  They’re interested in the future of their children.  They’re interested in what kind of world their children will face.  They’re interested in what the economic future will bring, and what it will inflict on their relatively happy homes.  These are women who have made the rational decision to share their lives with men they expect they will depend on into old age.  Their thinking is less transitory, and less pop-culture oriented.  They’re all about the practical necessities of living their lives, sharing it with a husband, and rearing children who will likewise seek out productive, independent existences.

What we must recognize about this election is that Romney did nothing to inspire or reach out to those who ought to have been the natural constituency for conservatives.  First, he didn’t talk much about social issues, meaning conservatives Christians of the sort who would be inclined toward a Rick Santorum or a Michele Bachmann simply weren’t interested.  Let’s also stipulate that a good deal of animosity grew between supporters of the various candidates for the nomination because so often, it appeared to have been rigged. That turned a good many conservatives off, and it also made it harder to unite the party.  Mostly, there were too many ways in which Mitt Romney failed.  We were told early on that because of 2008, he had a solid ground-game.  We now know that this wasn’t the case.  McCain clearly had a more effective ground-game, although some larger measure of that is undoubtedly a result of his VP choice.  Still, in being circumspect about the results, we must admit that conservative turn-out was down, and evangelicals again stayed home.  The demographic issue is real and emerging, but it shouldn’t have been the fatal blow this time.  The problem with single mothers and single women may be insurmountable, because conservatism runs counter to what many women of that description have been indoctrinated to believe.

The most fatal flaw was the candidate.  Whether by ineptitude, or by sabotage, his campaign missed too many opportunities to attract voters and score big when Obama fumbled. They let the media put them off their game with ludicrous notions.  They permitted the Obama campaign to define Mitt, and he did not effectively counter.  Most of all, however, Mitt Romney failed to capitalize on the natural constituencies of the conservative movement, perhaps in part because he was at least as unpalatable to them as they were to him.  I said early on in the primary fight that Romney seemed to have been planning to ignore the Tea Party and evangelicals on the basis that they’d show up anyway.  In many important ways, they didn’t, and this is what spelled defeat for Romney.  That, and I don’t think he was supposed to win.  More on that later.

Hold The Presses: Ohio Isn’t Over Until It’s Over(Updated: IT’S OVER)

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

I’ve been keeping tabs on the Ohio count, and what I’ve noticed is that with roughly 20% of the vote still out, it’s still basically a dead heat.  Karl Rove(of all people) has made a good argument that the calling of Ohio by the FoxNews decision room was a bit premature.  This is a tremendously dangerous thing.  What if Mitt Romney winds up winning in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia? Then it’s President Romney, and there are going to be a lot of really angry people talking riots.  For once, I agree with Karl Rove that it is irresponsible(he didn’t use that word – he said “premature”) to call a state that is that close with that much of the vote remaining out.  This rush to call races could ultimately result in hot-headed people becoming violent if it switches up as the counting gets closer to the end.

I too find it curious that with so much of the vote remaining to be counted, the race in Ohio was called.  It may turn out that Obama wins all three states, but I think most Americans were prepared to wait this out.  Was this the pre-emptive strike the Obama camp talked about?  There are people still voting in Columbus at midnight eastern, meaning that we’re calling the race as people are voting.  Are you kidding me?

People are still voting! IN OHIO!

I smell a rat.

Update: Romney conceded. I should have known.

 

The Obama Media Bubble

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

Will They Burst?

I’ve been asked by a number of people how it’s possible that the media could end up shocked come Tuesday night. As some have pointed out, it’s as though the Obama and Romney camps have two completely different models for the election’s outcome.  It’s easy to get caught up in the campaign season at hand, and to ignore all of the precedents.  I don’t know any more than anybody else, but I’ve noticed that over the last few decades, when the mainstream media predictions miss in a big way, it’s invariably because they’ve again underestimated the resolve of the American people, and the level of disgust Americans feel toward government.  The one election that exemplifies this idea was 1994.  Remember the shock?  Remember the excuse-making?  The coverage of that cycle suggested that the Republicans would pick up a few seats, but nobody in media was predicting what actually happened. Sitting in their studios in New York and Washington DC, they were dumbfounded.  I don’t know if 2012 will be that kind of year, but if the media meme turns out to have been another bubble, I won’t be surprised.  As usual, I believe the media has projected its own sentiments onto the Americans, a people who may have other ideas.

There’s something fundamentally broken about the notions held by the biased lame-stream media.  They look out and see America differently than you and I.  They view the American people as suckers to be fooled, and they’re always stunned when the American people stage a revolt against the conventional wisdom.  It happens in other countries too, but there’s something special about America and Americans that causes the media to miss election outcomes in a big way.  What may make the difference is that Americans, particularly conservatives, have a uniquely rebellious side.  They don’t generally show up with protest signs, but on election day, they voice their displeasure with a kind of fervor that doesn’t require loud and boisterous outbursts.  The media likes to talk about “the adult in the room,” but most frequently, in American elections, it is the voting mentality of the conservatives that provide that characteristic.  These are people who live their lives by simply getting things done, and in the main, they do so in relative silence.  If they show up in legions at the polls on Tuesday, the media is going to look foolish on Wednesday morning.

The media underestimates the sentiment of Americans at large because they don’t know Americans at large.  They live in their tight-knit circles and insular cliques, but they seldom venture out into the vastness of “fly-over country.” More than this, however, they simply don’t connect with ordinary Americans outside their own philosophical leanings, and it is in this particular dismissal that they often find themselves “out of sync” with the American people.  They don’t know our pain, and they don’t know the suffering inflicted upon we and our neighbors by endless government meddling.  They simply assume that all of America is like the country they know.  Such a limited picture is sure to result in errors, and frequently, it’s not a small error measured in a point or two within a few districts, but a widespread misjudgment stretching from sea to shining sea.

I don’t know if 2012 will be a year like that, but what I do know is that such years generally have a few characteristics.  Democrats are in power.  Democrats’ policies are in force in our nation’s capital.  The country at large is much more dissatisfied with the state of the nation than the talking heads in the mainstream media.  Enthusiasm of voters is one-sided, and against them.  America is in mortal danger, in economic, financial, and/or national security matters.

When all these things are true, the media misses it big, and the reason is very simple: They never perceive the dangers as clearly as Americans who are suffering as a result.  They never experience the losses.  They sit in their studios, warm and cozy and without fear, so they assume that’s how it is in every household in the country.  Being insulated as they are from the worst of conditions, they never see the warning signs of an impending revolt. After four years of Barack Obama, Americans are quite clear on the risks of continuing on this path, but the media is as detached from that reality as is possible.  In fact, they’ve spent a great deal of their air time trying to convince Americans that conditions aren’t so bad, but people who are losing their homes and their businesses and their jobs are not likely to be swayed by propaganda.

At the end of it all, that may be the media blind-spot that causes the largest errors: They come to believe their own hype.  As the sun rises across the vast expanses of America, her people are rising to go out and cast their votes.  As the media continues to try to shoehorn the impending election results into the unreality they’ve portrayed, it may just turn out that the shoe cannot be made to fit.  If that turns out to be, as I suspect will be the case, the media will have egg on its face again, just like in 1994, or in 1980, when they scrambled for explanations as to how it had been possible. It’s been two decades since the American people have sent an sitting president home, and it’s been nearly that long since the media had its last reality-jarring shock.  If the American people rise to oust the 44th president, they will be horrified and stunned, but I will not.  Obama has been too divisive for too long, but even if the media seems unable or unwilling to recognize it, the American people are not. That is why the media may well be missing this election by a wider margin, and voters may blow them away.

 

Time to Stomp Some @ss

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Time to Stomp Some...

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve had an outpouring of responses via email to the post on my decision, albeit very late, to go ahead and vote for Mitt Romney.  What I’ve learned is that I have a great deal of company.  Many people weren’t happy with Romney as the alternative to Obama.  Nearly all of them had finally decided that they would “hold their noses” and do the deed for the sake of the country, and for a chance to recover.  Having done so because I am resolved that this is the only way to save the country, to begin to turn the ship of state, I’ve also decided we have nothing to lose by going all out.  It’s one thing to vote in grim satisfaction that one has taken the only ethical course, but it’s another to fully support that decision.  We could simply vote and stand down after that with no further input, but I’d ask my conservative brethren to look around: The media and the Obama campaign are still trying to steal this election, and to mute your voices. They’re trying to make your difficult decision irrelevant.

The media is reporting that this is tightening, and there’s only one reason: It’s not going well for Obama.  If you believe the polls, or at least what useful information you can glean from them having sifted through the internals, what you must know is that this is a turn-out election: Get yourself and your friends and neighbors of similar inclinations to the polling places, and it’s going to be ugly for Obama.  If we want this torture to end, it’s going to be up to us.  It’s time to put aside all the recriminations and get this thing done.

Based on the traffic I am seeing on Twitter and Facebook, it seems to me as though the American people are ready to put four years of excuses, failures, lies, and treachery behind us.  The polls tell a different story, and I think that’s likely to be bias based on shoddy poll analysis.  They’re oversampling Democrats by a wide margin.  Because this is the case, I simply think that people inclined to vote for Romney should simply ignore all of this.  There’s no getting around the fact that we already know that the Obama campaign intends to call the election early on Tuesday in order to attempt depressing the turnout by Republicans.  The idea is to make Romney voters believe that it’s pointless to vote, and on that basis, give up in dejection and stay home.

IGNORE THE POLLS!  You are going to hear dispiriting polls reported on radio and see them reported on television all day long on Tuesday.  That was certainly the idea on Monday, as the mainstream press tries to get you to stay home.  IGNORE IT!    Report fraud wherever you see it. Report it to election officials on sight.  It’s time to drive out the demons. It’s time to take our country back.  You should be making sure that every wavering person you know gets to the polls to do the right thing.  Get yourself to the polls.  I’ve been listening to people tell me that each election I’ve witnessed would be the most important of my lifetime, but this time, it really is.  Don’t fail your children.  Don’t fail your spouse.  Don’t fail your parents, your friends, or your family. Don’t walk away from your neighbors, your congregations, and your communities, but most of all, don’t fail to stand and be counted for your own sake.  Tomorrow night, after the polls close in your state, go home and report what you’ve seen at the polls. Don’t fret. Don’t worry. What will happen won’t be known until long after there’s nothing to be done about it either way. You should relax knowing that you’ve done all you could, and wait out the results with the rest of us.

I felt a bit badly about changing my mind late in the game, and setting aside my various complaints to vote for Romney.  Having had a few days to think about it, I’m glad I did, and I’m proud that I will take part in tomorrow’s big count, because the truth is that it’s our one damned chance to have a say in much of anything.  I am going to send Ted Cruz to the Senate, and those of you in states with hotly contested Senate elections had better think about that too.  We also have House races, and we dare not lose that firewall, as flimsy as it has been at times.  My point to you is that tomorrow, you had better vote like you love your country because there will be plenty of tricks up the sleeves of the Democrats.  We can overpower them.  We can overpower their media.  Tonight, if you haven’t voted, I want you to resolve this minute that come Hell or high water, intimidation or chicanery, you will drag yourself to the polls and vote.  It’s finally time.  There can be no more delays.  The country cannot take four more years of this.  Tomorrow, we must put an end-date on the nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to stomp some ass, American-style: Proud. Certain. Undeterred.

 

 

Living in a Past That Never Was: Obama’s Love Affair With Bill Clinton

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

A Past That Never Was

Every time you turn around, it seems Bill Clinton is hanging out on the campaign trail with Barack Obama.  Clinton is still very popular for some unfathomable reason, and Obama hopes to take advantage of that popularity to get his voters to the polls.  The problem is that Obama’s not only living in the past, but he’s living a lie.  It’s true that many people still like Clinton, but let’s be honest: If Barack Obama had a positive message to offer, he wouldn’t be desperately relying upon the presence of his Secretary of State’s husband to get out the vote.  The truth may simply be that Obama hopes to convince Democrats that he can “bring back the Clinton era,” but the facts don’t lend themselves to that meme.  More, if one were to characterize the 1990s, when Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office(or the small office off of it,) it would be true to say that while America prospered, it was in spite of Clinton and not because of him.  Obama may want to convince voters he’ll bring back those days, but the barest remembrance ought to make clear why that is not only impossible, but also undesirable. The only thing worse than living in the past, after all, is living in a past that never was.

In 1994, when the Republicans took over in both houses of Congress, it put the brakes on Bill Clinton in a way he hadn’t expected.  All of his Utopian plans were put on hold, as was Hillary-Care, and the fact is that he was forced famously to admit in a State of the Union address: “The era of big government is over.”  Naturally, this was anathema to the left, and they quickly began to figure out how they could use regulatory initiatives to unconstitutionally bypass the legislative process, an art-form now perfected under Barack Obama.  Still, Slick decided to let it ride, and his severest fight with the Republicans was the government shutdown fiasco of 1995, when ultimately, Bob Dole in the Senate sold out Newt Gingrich and left the House hanging because he was campaigning for president.

Still, in the arena of foreign affairs, Bill Clinton did very little, and he mostly ignored the mounting terrorist threats arrayed against us.  Al-Qaeda was on the march, and they destroyed two embassies and attacked the USS Cole while Clinton was playing hide the cigar with Monica Lewinsky and lying to grand juries.  People may remember the prosperity of the 1990s, but how much of it was based on a phony bubble born of Clinton’s empowerment of Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac?  The price of energy remained relatively low through much of his presidency precisely because his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, took the requisite actions to secure the oil-fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Bill Clinton was merely a beneficiary.

In much the same way as Barack Obama continuously blames George Bush for the “economy [he] inherited,” Bush could just as easily have blamed Bill Clinton for the absolute degradation of our military and intelligence infrastructure and forces during he inherited at the outset of his presidency.  Clinton was too busy blowing his saxophone to be commander-in-chief, and much like Obama, he only used the military as a backdrop to his endless photo-ops.  Given the recent events in Benghazi, it’s easy to see why Obama thinks he can be like Bill Clinton.  Being CinC is easy when you avoid the hard decisions.  The problem is that the abrogation of responsibility gets Americans killed.

The simple fact is that if he really wanted to return to the era of Clinton, he need only go out and support Republicans for Senate.  After all, if Harry Reid was diminished to minority leader, it would place Obama in precisely the same position as Clinton.  You see, Obama has had things his way much more than Clinton ever did, and rather than dealing with the tearful John Boehner, Clinton had to contend with Newt Gingrich.  That may have been the real difference.  What reasonable people may conclude from all of this is not that Obama is like Clinton, but that he has been much more like Jimmy Carter.  There’s a reason he doesn’t drag that former president down the campaign trail with him.

As Obama tries to scare up images of the 1990s, and the presidency of Bill Clinton, he runs the risk of reminding people how unsuccessful he’s really been, and how man promises he’s broken.  More, the guy upon whom he’s hanging his hopes isn’t a man noted for his honesty, irrespective of how popular he may be.   That nearly four years into his presidency, he hasn’t established his own credentials and credibility even within his own base of support ought to be a clue as to how desperate his side has become.  That’s why he’s hauled out the old snake-oil salesman from retirement: He can’t stand alone, just as he can’t stand on his own record, and as the miles on the campaign trail begin to run out, he’s in danger of the American people, even faithful Democrats, beginning to figure this out.

Shamed

One wonders if he really wants Americans to remember the real Bill Clinton, or whether it’s just the image of a presidency coinciding with relative prosperity he wants you to remember.  If I were to list the failures of Bill Clinton, the dishonesty, and the eight years of ceaseless lying and posturing, it might place a different spin on this effort.  If his promise is to return you to the days of Bill Clinton, he’s broken that promise, and he’s not likely to keep it, even if he were to spend twenty years in office.  Thankfully, that won’t happen, but we shouldn’t permit him to pretend he can take us back in time to those days.  He’s not Bill Clinton, but even if he had been, Americans are right to question if  that would that constitute a ringing endorsement. Maybe the “good old days” of Bill Clinton really weren’t so good.

When All Else Fails, Lie

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Dishonesty You Can Count On

Conservatives and Republicans along with Romney-supporting independents should steel themselves for the media barrage now in motion.   If you’re like me, you’ll have noticed that not only are they spiking the story on Benghazi, but they’re also running away from the fact that FEMA relief efforts in the Northeast aren’t going so well as the coward-in-chief had promised.  In the run-up to the election, the American people are beginning to notice that the facts don’t match the media meme, and the media is becoming increasingly desperate in their relating(not reporting) of positive spin for Obama. As election day approaches, the biased mainstream media is pulling out all the stops for their candidate. Americans mustn’t permit their campaign of lies to succeed.

Now, having had Obama make a remark on the campaign trail stating that “voting is the best revenge,” one mainstream media outlet has turned to outright lying in order to try to sabotage Romney.  Reuters actually ran the following headline on Saturday:

As Campaign Roars to Close, Romney and Obama Talk “Revenge”

This is pretty desperate, and it’s not merely a matter of biased headline writing.  It’s a lie.  The only context in which Romney was discussing “revenge” was to quote Obama’s remark and comment on it.  This fact is buried in the story, but the headline is constructed to leave you with the impression that Romney brought it up, and that both candidates are moral equals in the matter.  There’s really no other explanation for the name order in the headline.  “Obama” is alphabetically ahead of “Romney,” and chronologically, Obama brought it up.

Of course, it’s going to get much worse as the campaign draws to a close. The mission of the mainstream media is to cover up all negative news about Obama, pounce on Romney for anything they can paint as a misstep, and outright lie about the state of the campaigns.  All of this has one basic purpose: Swing the election for Obama.  There are two things they hope to do, and these are to depress Romney supporters in order to get them to stand down, and to bolster Obama supporters by getting them to show up.  Don’t fall for it.  No matter what the mainstream media says on the Sunday shows, and no matter how many fake polls they thrust in your face, the truth is that you control the outcome of this election.

All day tomorrow, and all day Monday, they will be searching for some salable meme with which to slap Mitt Romney or prop up Barack Obama.  It’s close, but it’s not as close as they need in order to have cover.  You see, for weeks, they’ve been telling you it’s neck-and-neck or Obama up by two or three.  None of it matters, because it’s all nonsense.  What matters is their blessed “reputation,” or “credibility,” either of which they have little to note.

Let’s put this another way: If you swell to the polls in support of Mitt Romney as I suspect will be the case, the mainstream media is going to be tarnished in a big way. They’re going to look like idiots.  They’re going to be revealed as liars and con-artists, and they will immediately turn to the task of resurrecting their supposed “credibility” by coming up with explanations for how they “missed it.”  Of course, if they can turn you off, and get you to stand down, they won’t need to do so even if Romney wins in a squeaker, because they will be calling this a dead heat from here to the end.  Naturally, if Romney wins by larger margins, “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.” They just as soon avoid that debacle, so at this point, they are willing to lie in order to trim that margin a little if they can.

Don’t fall for it.  On Tuesday, you go out and do as you were going to do, and take your friends and neighbors along.  Make an event of it.  These lying, miserable bastards need to be taken down a peg, and this is your chance to do it.

Even if Mitt Romney isn’t the candidate you would have picked, I suspect that like me, you want to see the mainstream media eat crow. That will be our best revenge. Well, that and watching Mooch cart her bags to the waiting limo. Don’t worry Michelle, it’s just like going on vacation… only better.

I’ll never have been prouder of my country. Lately.

 

I’ve Made Up My Mind

Friday, November 2nd, 2012

Where it all counts...

I don’t like Mitt Romney very much, as I don’t think he’s at all conservative in the full sense of the word.  I find myself fully agreeing with him only around one-third of the time.  Naturally, as I’ve explained all along, this is why we conservatives were prohibited from selecting an actual conservative candidate, or one with at least reasonably solid conservative views.  The pages of this blog are replete with my criticisms of Romney, both on specific issues and in particular contexts, as well as in a general philosophical sense.  If you have any confusion, feel free to do a category search on the menu at right and select the category “Mitt Romney.” With that in mind, I would like to talk to you a bit about another character whose category is at least as extensive, and who is infinitely worse:  Barack Hussein Obama.  There is no doubt that while I have some trepidation about Romney’s willingness to fight for constitutional principles, Obama will demolish, shred, and burn it.  I do not claim this as some exercise in epic hyperbole, and my long-time readers will know it is absolutely true:  If Obama wins on Tuesday, by any means, our nation is finished.  If you believe too easily that you’re willing to undergo all that such a calamity entails, read no further and exit this blog, because you’re either a terminal patient or somebody with no respect for the reality of such an event.

First, I want you to know that when I went into the polling place, I skipped the Presidential question.  I ticked right through the remainder of the ballot, knowing that I wanted Ted Cruz to prevail, and knowing the other offices on the ballot, who it is that I would support in those offices of local concern.  After completing the whole ballot, I went back to the Presidential position, being the only one remaining to consider.  I stood there for what seemed like an eternity.  I looked at the names on the ballot, and I thought about what would happen if I stood firmly in my intention to let Mitt Romney rise or fall without my help.  I knew that being in Texas, even without my vote, Mitt Romney was likely to win.  I knew that my vote would be of little consequence, thus affording me the escape clause if I decided to leave the Presidential section unmarked.  The problem is that I have readers in every place in this wondrous country, and while as a practical matter, it mattered little whether I would make a selection, my readers would want to know.

I leaned a bit against the writing surface of the voting booth.  I rubbed my brow as I realized the full measure of what is at stake in this election.  Sure, we’ve discussed it at length, but this was the first time I had really personalized it.  Romney?  Obama? Other? None?  On this basis, I immediately ignored Obama and the other “third party” entries.  Whatever my final choice, I knew that I would never vote for Obama, and that the non-Romney alternatives were merely a protest that equated to voting for none of them.  No, the question was really Romney, or none.   As I stood there pondering my choice, I began to turn our country’s recent past over in my mind, and I began to think about this from a highly personal point of view.

If I were not to make any selection, what would it mean?  No, it was more important to place the appropriate pressure on my decision, and since I came of age in Ohio, much of my family still residing there, it was proper to think of this as though I were in that context.  After all, for many of my readers, that is the choice, whether they’re in Ohio or other states where this contest will be decided, they haven’t the luxury of knowing that either their state is so thoroughly blue or red as to make their one abstention irrelevant.  I began to think about the matter as if the whole question rested on my shoulders, and when I did, something odd happened.  I realized that somebody would win.  Withholding my vote from Mitt Romney would not make some other imagined candidate appear on the ballot.  More, knowing the intentions of Barack Obama as I do, I began to think what would happen if he wins.

My farm would be a goner.  It will be difficult for our farm to survive as an entity for another year in this economy.  When we bought horses and began to breed and raise them, we had no idea that the bottom would drop out of that industry within two years’ time, and that other economic forces, namely the prices of petroleum, and feeds and hay would escalate to heights previously unknown.  We are bleeding money, and with no change, no chance exists that does not end with horses going to slaughter buyers at a government-coerced auction.  My daughter, now nearly twenty-three, along with her husband, have decided to forgo children indefinitely, being unwilling to bring children into the world with which we are now confronted.  They would rather be childless than to raise a kid into serfdom, and they refuse to be sucked into the welfare mentality that permits so many to procreate without pausing to consider those facts.  If Barack Obama is re-elected, the country will die, my farm among its many victims, and the possibility of grandchildren with it.

Every day brings more bad news on the economic front, though the media would have us believe otherwise in their pursuit of a second Obama term.  There will never be any chance of justice on the matter of Benghazi, and there will be no chance that we will know liberty again.  Ronald Reagan was right about many things, and one of them was this:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

At least I will be free from telling my child’s children, since there won’t be any, but as I stood there pondering my choice, it seemed at last like slim consolation.  I thought about a lifetime of hard, dedicated work, but not only mine.  My wife’s, my brothers, and all our forebears who had made the glorious expanse of my life possible.  I thought about the slow, skulking death of a nation, culminating in a rapid dissolution into anarchy and tyranny.  I wondered how long I would hold out.  I wondered how much stamina those like me would have, and whether it would be enough.  I wondered at the thought of my wife and I, no longer in the condition of our youth, trying to stave off all that such a scenario would imply.  I thought about the wisdom of my position to date, and my resolution not to vote for Mitt Romney.

After all, as veterans will know, one thing the military teaches you is that if all else fails, you must figure out how to survive, and how to live to fight another day.  Pointless but seemingly heroic acts of single-handedly charging a vastly superior enemy are really acts of suicide, so that unless there is something tangible to be gained for one’s cause, one should never consider it.  In turn, that begged the question behind my furrowed brow:  What is my cause?  Will it be served by the immolation of our country?  That was the proposition before me, and for a long time, I began to argue with myself:

“What’s the matter, Mark?  Chickening out?”

“No, of course not.  I’m doing the harder thing: I’m standing on principle.”

“Principle?  The principles that become meaningless the moment Barack Obama is unleashed and unrestrained in a second term?  Those principles?  Who will honor them?  The souls of the grandchildren your daughter will never bear forth into the wretched world the left is creating?”

“Somebody. Somehow.  Some day.”

Somehow? It’s a sad day that you resort to that plea.”

 ”America will rise again.”

Will it?”

As I pondered Ronald Reagan’s words again, it struck me that though I have read them, repeated them, and heard them spoken a thousand times, I had always grasped the first part, but never fully the severity of the second.  Standing there looking down at my ballot, the presidential section unmarked, I wondered about the truth of the matter: How do I restore a country by yielding it completely to those who wish it destroyed?  It is preposterous to suggest otherwise, because in that moment, I saw with clarity that a little chance is better than none.  A small opportunity, and a tiny window are greater than their absence.  I’ve already pledged to you that with your help, I will fight the GOP establishment, come what may, but that is only relevant if we’re not already fighting for our basic survival, and if Barack Obama prevails, that will be our situation.

You are free to call me a “chicken,” or to say that “Mark folded” when the going got tough, but after all, what the in Hell are we fighting for anyway?  A tactical retreat is preferable to a massacre.  With those words in mind, I looked again one long last time at the ballot, and slid it close to me on the writing surface, and marked “Romney.”  I turned away from the booth, depositing the ballot in the slot in the ballot box with a satisfied grimace.  That may not be the ending you had expected.  It wasn’t the ending I expected when I walked into the polling place, until I realized this really could be the end. I apologize to those readers who believe I have abandoned them, and I will not damn any for doing as I have done, but in the end, history may damn all those who don’t.  In the name of all in this world that you may still love, and in the name of all that remains of our potential, go vote, and do what your conscience demands.  I cannot damn my own life, never mind my daughter’s, to the world a second Obama term would usher in.  Damn me if you must.  If Obama is re-elected, Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s misappropriation of scripture is certain to come true.

 

 

Americans Died, Obama Lied

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Would I Lie to You? Next Question...

On Tuesday evening, Greta Van Susteren reported the astonishing but predictable news: The Obama administration knew within hours or even minutes who had perpetrated the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, ultimately killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  The cover story about an anti-Islamic video was merely a scapegoat of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on our consulate, but the sickening fact is that President Obama’s administration, including the State Department, and high level national security officials were well aware of the truth even as they continued to try to sell its cover story to the American people.  The reason is simple:  The Benghazi attack was the first successful strike on American soil by organized radical Islamic supremacists since September 11th, 2001, on its 11th anniversary.  Fourteen days after this attack, Barack Obama was still telling the American people it was about a video, desperately hoping to disconnect the events from the obvious failures in his leadership and foreign policy.  Barack Obama has deceived the American people.  For seven hours, in full possession of the facts, as the attack raged and Americans were slaughtered, this President and his administration did nothing except to concoct a cover story.

Perhaps the most galling meme put forward by the Obama administration in the wake of this dismal failure was the attempt to accuse Mitt Romney of politicizing the event.  The facts speak for themselves: The Obama administration commenced the politicization of this attack by lying to the American people on the basis of politically motivated calculations about the impact the truth would have on the upcoming election.  Barack Obama and his administration clearly have no shame, but while they have sought to hide the truth, on Tuesday evening, emails were disclosed that should put an end to the obfuscation.  From FoxNews:

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

That Candy Crowley would give Obama cover on the cover-up during the second Presidential debate is bad enough, but to now discover that the whole administration was quite well aware of the source of the attack means that we not only have a President willing to lie to the American people, but that he has surrounded himself with a cadre of bureaucratic henchmen who share his contempt for Americans.  The Obama administration may be amateurish with respect to its handling of foreign policy, but they are first-rate professionals when it comes to lying to the nation.  The mainstream media continues to cover and hide the lengths to which this administration has gone in its disinformation campaign against the American people.

Joe Wilson was right when he yelled at Obama during a State of the Union address: “You lie!” Worse, however, President Obama isn’t a man who once told a lie and got away with it: He is a reprobate.  He is a liar by trade, and nothing he says may be trusted.  Cataloging the lies of his debate appearance on Monday night would take many pages, but suffice it to say that even some in the mainstream media are having a difficult time covering his tracks.

What readers need to know about Barack Obama is this: There is no lie he won’t tell, and no American whose life and memory he will not sacrifice to his political desires.  This President yammers about the politicization of a tragedy as a pre-emptive strike against the shocking truth that political calculations were and remain the motive for the cover-up of the events in Libya.  Obama hopes the American people will be fooled again, and that when he says he has “kept us safe,” they will forget the deadly attack on our consulate, and the Fort Hood shooting, among other acts of terrorism he refuses to acknowledge as such.  That’s all this really is, and all it’s intended to do.  His entire administration is convicted of a lie, and he’s betting the American people will be too.

Terrorism?  What terrorism?

 

Obama and the Convention of Zero

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

Joining the Collective

In mathematics, it’s known as the empty set.  It’s a grouping with no constituent parts, and if the Democrat National Convention proved anything, it was that this is a party with no heart, no soul, and no intellect.  One of my concerns has long been that the Republicans seem determined to follow in the footsteps of the Democrats, and it is clear that the GOP establishment has its tendencies in the direction of the void, but this week, the whole world was treated to the meaning of what it is to be a Democrat in 2012, and it is horrifying.  One might feel badly having watched the grotesque spectacle of a clear majority of the delegates screaming their contempt for the State of Israel, never mind their dismissal of faith.  Among the sea of screeching voices, there were some who voted for the platform amendments at issue, and it is for them we might have a small measure of pity.  They succeeded strictly because it had been commanded from the top, but you could see it in their faces:  They knew they had lost to at least a simple majority of the delegates.  This is the fruit of three generations of Democrats who have sold their souls to an unerringly anti-American, anti-existence faction that is now an irreducible majority of their party.  Barack Obama stands now as the spokesman for a dead ideology that is both massive and empty at once.

In physics, a singularity is an object of infinite density, exerting a force of gravity from which there can be no escape. One may be pulled into a black hole, one’s very atoms being accreted onto its mass and subsumed into the whole, but one can never escape, and having arrived there, is reduced to approximately nothing.  Nothing escapes.  It is impossible to discern anything about a singularity, because we can’t see them. In this sense, they are nothing.  Not matter, in any form we know. No energy exists there, save for that generated by its gravitational attraction.  No light can escape its grasp, and nothing new is born there.  It is a place to which energy and matter disappear, never to be seen again.  This is the Democrat party, and those faces looking bewildered before the cameras as they realized that despite winning “in the opinion of the chair,” the majority of their party had condemned them to the blackness of their ideological singularity, thus pulling them in.  Those who still wanted Israel’s capital at Jerusalem to be recognized as such were confronted by a mass of people who did not.  Those who still wanted the simple but significant three-letter word “God” to appear in the platform realized they were a minority.  Like the stellar flotsam and jetsam whirling about the event horizon of a singularity, it was too late, and the look on their faces revealed the horror of their situation: The Democrat Party has become a party of death, destruction, and depravity, and drawn in too close, there can be no escape.

Bill Clinton was fetched-in to mount a defense of the indefensible.  As ever, Clinton did what he always does: Lie. Perhaps the more mortifying part of it in this instance is that he too had become part of the flotsam and jetsam, and while he offered one distortion after the next on behalf of a President who he doesn’t like, and who has ravaged the country by design, with malice aforethought, Bill Clinton waggled his finger at the American people just as he did when he said infamously: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”  As he lied then, so too did Bill Clinton prevaricate with vigor at the convention.  He attempted with the feigned sincerity of  the ages to tell the American people that they are better off today than they had been four years ago.  Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no forgiveness for this.  There can be no rationalizations.  When a former President of the United States tells a whopper of this scale, what can possibly redeem him?  Naturally, the media loved him, but that had been a predictable result based on an ideology they share.  Once subsumed within the singularity, there is no escape.

Michelle Obama told us she loves her husband.  Forgive me, but I think she lied.  I think Mrs. Obama loves the idea of her husband, but what love is expressed in such a manner?  The entire focus of this speech was to answer Ann Romney, but if she held that as her goal, she failed.  She concocted stories of the early poverty of the couple, but those tales of woe do not match the record.  To say Mrs. Obama had fibbed to the convention, and to the American people would be a gross injustice.  She lied, and under the harsh lights of the convention stage, she did so with practiced, perfected gusto.Again, the media extolled her virtues, couching much of their praise in terms of the quality of her delivery, but seldom noticing the first thing about the shoddy set of alleged facts she presented.  We knew this would happen too, because once inside, there is no return path.

Not to be outdone, President Obama spoke about the things in which Democrats believe.  He lauded Bill Clinton, but he did not mention that Clinton had been on a path to a disaster similar to his own until the Gingrich revolution of 1994. He did not explain how more of the same would save the nation.  He did not offer an excuse so much as he begged for more time.  He appeared like the man whose car is being repossessed, begging the repo crew for more time, for one more extension, and for one last chance to make it right.  He might plead with the lenders, but they are tired of his excuses and want no more of them.  They simply wish to be made whole, or to minimize their losses.  They are not in the mood to offer more time, believing it has expired, and they have begun to suspect that to extend more patience will be rewarded only with more broken promises and a longer list of unrealized deliverables.

The President made more promises, vows about continuing a change begun with his election, but nevertheless being a change that has been disastrous for the country. The truth of Barack Obama’s “change” is akin to the spaghettification one would undergo on the way into a black hole: It might be change, but it won’t be pleasant, and it’s not what had been imagined. The “hope” also abounds, but it is baseless: There can be no escape and no coming back from this singularity.  These last four years, we have been fortunate in one respect, and one respect only: We have defied physics because we have been able to catch a glimpse what lies beyond the event horizon, and the American people, driven by self-preservation, simply do not wish to go there, knowing now in full what it will mean.

Clint Eastwood’s empty chair is an apt symbol of the emptiness of the President Obama, but it is also an expression of the fundamental problem of the ideology of the left.  The only source of their power is the gravity of their aggregated mass, but they have no energy, they create nothing new, and they offer nothing but death as an answer to all problems.  Consider the litany of issues in which Democrats and their cohorts offer solutions, and it is always in the direction of the zero.  Unwanted pregnancies?  Abortions. (Kill them!)  Profits?  Taxes. (Kill them!)  Increased longevity?  Death Panels. (Kill them!)  Civilization? Environmental regulations. (Kill it!)  Population growth?  Contraception. (Prevent them from living!)  Everything about the root ideology of the left is leveraged in favor of death, destruction, and depravity.  This is the hallmark of their message, but whether they succeed or fail is entirely your choice.  You have now been dragged to the edge of their event horizon, but unlike so many of their past victims, you know what lies beyond it.  You know that it’s a gargantuan, relentless, and crushing emptiness.  This election may very well be your last chance at escape.

Six billion subsumed voices await you inside.  After all, misery loves company.

Becoming a Top-Down Party of Nothing

Monday, August 27th, 2012

Mitt's Party

Deciding to walk away from the Republican Party has relieved me of becoming an accomplice in convincing people that down is up, left is right, and that crap-loads are creme-puffs.  Mitt Romney’s insider attorney, Ben Ginsberg, a long-time servant of the Bush Clan has been rigging the process.  While grass-roots conservatives have been figuring out how they’re going to swallow the bitter pill of Mitt Romney, if we can at all, he’s been busy consolidating the party’s convention process to make sure that: A.) If elected, he will be able to ensure there is never a primary challenge no matter how far to the left he moves(as we know he will,) and B.) Even if he doesn’t get elected, that the Bush Clan will have clear sailing if they put up JEB in 2016.  What this set of rules changes represents is the Bush Clan Take-over Plan for the Republican Party, and for those of you who haven’t been keeping up, that’s not a good thing for conservatism.  This is the same cadre of moderate to liberal Republicans who have pursued unfailingly the same ends as the left, and if it isn’t stopped now, you might as just well begin plans to start your own party because you will have no voice among Republicans any longer.  It’s not often that I urge readers to action, but this is one of those times when you ought to be yelling at every delegate to the RNC whose ear you are able to bend.

Even now, the Texas delegation is joining the uprising in advance of critical rules committee votes, trying to turn the tide against these dastardly rule changes that are aimed squarely at depriving the grass-roots of the party a voice in future elections by substituting the will of party bosses in the smoke-filled rooms of political patronage and payback.  This is precisely the sort of thing about which every conservative should be appalled, but there’s no point in pretending there is a great deal of time remaining to turn this around.  It’s basically now, or never, and if you don’t seek to be heard tonight and early tomorrow, you never will be, and you will see that your party is reduced to a servant of the ruling machine.  This cannot be the direction any of us would like to see the Republican party go, and yet it will be dragged there as people like Bob Dole(R-KS) actually tell us that the party must make room for different philosophies.

“We have got to be open,” he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. “We cannot be a single-issue party or single-philosophy party”. He added: “There’s a big split in our party. There’s this undercurrent of rigid conservatism where you don’t dare not toe the line”.

Yes, there’s a big split, and it owes to people who talk from both sides of their mouths, Senator Dole. Take it from him, he knows how to lose like nobody’s business. Let us be blunt: If Republicans do not share even a single root philosophy, it isn’t a political party, but instead a block party.  What sort of befuddled rationalization permits Senator Dole to conclude that one can have a political party composed of people who not only vary on specific issues, but disagree in part or in whole on the principled basis on which one’s position on particular issues are formed?  What Dole is offering us is a vision of a Republican party in which anything goes.  No standards.  No qualifications.  No principles.  Nothing but loyalty to the party.   This multi-philosophy party he describes immediately seems a good deal like the Democrats.  No longer a philosophical or ideological consistency, but instead a coalition of vastly disparate groups that has as its driving motive a single idea: “Win at all costs.”  This is the establishment of a second party of nothing in progress.  Does Bob Dole think a party of nothing can win something?

Of course, the truth is that the GOP establishment has two major issues about which they are concerned, and would like to take off the table.  These issues are abortion, and amnesty.  Of course, they don’t really want to deal with the big entitlements, and they really don’t want to tackle the growth of the welfare state.  Come to think of it, they really don’t want to do much of anything about any pressing matter in any respect, except to keep it all going.  They aren’t capitalists, they aren’t conservatives, and they aren’t particularly concerned with law and order.  The more you think about it, the clearer it becomes that they haven’t a single issue in which they’re willing to fight, because at the end of the day, they don’t care about any issue so long as you vote for them, and as Ben Ginsberg has made clear, they will decide who shall be the approved candidates and you will damned-well like it.

Ladies and gentlemen, you can do what you will about this, for whatever good it may do.  You can do nothing, or you can rise up and make a stink.  I will simply tell you that I am burning up phone lines and the email servers of everybody I can think to contact.  This is a shocking denigration of all the efforts of all the Tea Party folk, all the people who have turned out to support Republicans in 2010, and all those who have participated in trying to recapture the country from the runaway villains in the Democrat Party.  You’re being shafted again.  It’s as simple as that, and any argument to the contrary is simply the bleating of sheep who simply haven’t the heart for the fight.

I had been a Republican because I wanted to stand firmly for the issues we conservatives hold dear, and to stand with my fellow Americans in defense of our constitution, but under current management, the party is being turned into a party of nothing, and as the well-worn line admonishes us, “if you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” The other practical matter is that a party of nothing must ultimately become the party of no one.  The Republican Party is taking a firm step in that direction, and I am running, not walking, in the opposite direction.  If you find no satisfaction upon registering your complaints with your respective states’ delegations, I hope you will join me.  This entire procedure is despicable, but not satisfied at having rigged the process in Romney’s favor over the last year of the current election cycle, the same old crowd is rigging it in perpetuity, but their motive is clear: They don’t wish to have any reason whatever to listen to you.

 See Update Here

Confessions of an Electorate: When VP Picks Matter

Saturday, August 11th, 2012

When VP Picks Matter

In 1980, Ronald Reagan selected George H.W. Bush as his running mate.  The electorate yawned.  In 1988, George H.W. Bush selected Dan Quayle as his running mate.  Again, the electorate was unmoved.  In 2000, when George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate, there was some discussion about the importance of Cheney, but most shrugged and went on.  In 1996, and again in 2008, but also now in 2012, everybody was really excited about the running mate selections.  In 1996, Bob Dole’s pick of Jack Kemp was going to rescue the Kansas Senator’s campaign.  In 2008, John McCain wisely chose a woman who had the ability to move the base, though his own staff seemed to sabotage him.  This bit of historical truth should be considered carefully as the Republican party faithful prepare to descend on Tampa for their Presidential nominating convention.  In 2012, Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan in an attempt to ignite the base, but I’d like you to consider the nature of the picks and their relative importance to their respective campaigns, and what they confess to the electorate about their candidates:  Only when the party’s nominee is a weak candidate does the Vice Presidential pick matter much at all.

The elder Bush could have won having picked Mickey Mouse when running against Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Ronald Reagan could have picked Caspar Milquetoast in 1980(and in fact, some say he did.)  The salient point to take away from the excitement about the Vice Presidential pick by Mitt Romney isn’t that he chose Paul Ryan, so much as it is the fact that it matters who he picked.  Think about it:  Vice Presidential picks only matter when the Presidential candidate is desperately weak.  It’s why Biden doesn’t matter.  What this entire episode should tell you is what most conservatives will have known already:  Just as in 2008, we have a weak presidential candidate, and the importance of the Vice Presidential pick has grown only by way of compensation.

Consider the pressure brought to bear on Sarah Palin in 2008.  She had the unenviable chore of trying to excite a base that was mostly disgusted with John McCain.  The truth of the matter is that without Gov. Palin on the ticket, McCain would have lost by larger margins.  His own campaign’s staff, primarily Steve Schmidt, concocted a notion to suspend the campaign to deal with the financial crisis.  This action sank McCain, but Palin, being the fighter and champion of all things America refused to yield and almost rescued McCain from his own staff.  Almost.  The problem is that Sarah Palin shouldn’t have mattered so much.  The only reason she did is because McCain himself was such a terrible candidate.  There will be those who become angered with me for stating it this bluntly, but if Sarah Palin mattered so much, it meant also that McCain himself mattered too little.

Observe the hysteria of Saturday morning after it went out via the Romney-app that Paul Ryan would be the pick.  Consider that there had been such an application for smart-phones at all.  What does this tell you about the relative importance of the Romney VP pick?  It was crucial.  It’s Romney’s last big push to bring resistant conservatives along, and this matters.  It doesn’t matter, however, because it’s a good choice or bad choice, but only because the fact that it matters at all reflects the weakness of the top of the ticket.  I would ask my conservative and Republican friends, preparing to head to Tampa, Florida in body or spirit for the RNC convention:  If the VP pick matters this much, isn’t there still time to pick a new ticket?  The truth is that there is time, but the problem is that few will think outside of the box Romney has constructed for them.  Most will accept this Vice Presidential pick with unthinking adulation, but we conservatives really must elevate our game if we are going to rescue the country.

The importance of the VP selection in some elections signifies a sort of confession, not only by the campaign, but also by the electorate, about their general assessment of the candidate in question.  Mitt Romney’s VP pick matters only because there are so many lingering, long-held doubts about Romney himself.  The same was true of McCain in 2008, and we shouldn’t expect a different result.  When you consider the Republican presidential nominees of the last thirty-two years, the only time a Vice Presidential pick mattered to any great degree had been instances when the party’s nominee was desperately weak vis-à-vis the competition.  In each of those cases, Republicans lost the election.  In 2000, when Cheney had mattered more than a little, and Lieberman had mattered also, it was predictable that we would see a campaign fought out between two inferior candidates, with the victor being the candidate whose VP pick mattered least.  Advantage Bush.

This should give conservatives and Republicans a moment of pause.  History’s formula is clear:  If the VP pick matters, it is only because the Presidential nominee is weak, and weak nominees generally beget defeat.  Jack Kemp was a great guy, and Sarah Palin really is a phenomenon, and Paul Ryan seems to be a decent politician, so this isn’t really about them, as the bottom of their respective tickets.  It’s about the top of the ticket, and the problem is the same in all three cases.  When there comes to be this much focus on who the Vice Presidential candidate will be, it is as good as a confession by the campaign and also by the electorate on the weakness of the top of the ticket.  Republicans may go to Tampa with their heads in the clouds if they like, buoyed by the selection of Paul Ryan, but if you’re serious about winning, you’ll take the time to confess at least to yourself what all of this chatter of the importance of the VP pick really means.  It isn’t good.

 

Poor Paul Ryan…

Saturday, August 11th, 2012

Mitt Keeps Tight Grip

Mitt Romney has announced his running mate, selecting seven-term Congressman Paul Ryan(R-WI) to fill the post. While I like Paul Ryan, I don’t think this choice will change the trajectory of this campaign, and like Sarah Palin in 2008, he may be the campaign’s biggest individual victim. Ryan has been inside Washington DC for nearly two decades now, a creature of the establishment who has worked for various well-known figures including Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Sam Brownback and others before kicking off his Congressional career.  Ryan is a technocrat in some respects, and while he is modestly conservative, his conservatism seems focused in the fiscal arena.  He’s been depicted by Democrats in television ads as the guy who pushed Grandma (in a wheelchair, no less) over a cliff.  What does he bring to the ticket?  Is Paul Ryan enough to save Romney from himself and a heretofore inept campaign?  Paul Ryan may be a nice guy, but is that enough in the face of a relentless attack the likes of which the Obama campaign is launching as I write?  I have my doubts, because running mates can’t overcome the inherent shortcomings of the top of the ticket, as the selection of Palin in 2008 proved, since even her talent wasn’t enough to overcome terrible advisers.  Can Ryan avoid the same fate?

Some might argue that what Ryan brings to the ticket is youth but also reliability.  After all, the seven-term Congressman has been toiling on budgetary matters for most of his career, and in the last number of years, he’s been focused on entitlements as the single largest factor in our continued deficits, and the consequent explosion in our national debt.  He was a fierce critic of Obama-care, laying out all of the ways in which it would explode our deficit, costing far more than promised by President Obama.  His willingness to tackle the entitlements issue when others ran for the tall grass earns him a gold star, and everybody should see this video of Ryan facing off with the President, explaining that hiding costs doesn’t reduce spending:

Romney is looking for a safe pick.  He wants a running mate who won’t embarrass him, but of course, Gov. Romney does enough of that on his own.  While in Norfolk,VA to officially launch his campaign, introducing Paul Ryan, Romney introduced Ryan as the “Next President of the United States…”  (We should be so lucky.)

Romney wanted a safe pick, and he got one.  Ryan is safe in every way an establishment Republican thinks is safe, but he isn’t a particularly charismatic or inspiring fellow.  He certainly seems like a nice enough fellow, but historical Republican losing tickets are littered with nice guys as running mates.  Dan Quayle is a nice guy.  Jack Kemp was a really nice guy.  What Romney’s ticket had needed was a bit more than a nice guy, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Paul Ryan except that he will not provide the boost Romney’s campaign needs.

Naturally, the Democrats were right out of the box with attacks on Ryan’s foreign policy experience, and true to form, Romney’s team countered with perhaps the most pathetic response ever:

“The ticket is no different than Obama and Biden.”

In the end, this may be why I agree with Mr. L on the 2012 election:

If the Romney campaign is going to defend Ryan’s lack of military and foreign policy experience on this basis, they’re going to lose. Who is running the Romney campaign?  To me, it looks like a re-run of 2008, with the weakest possible nominee, and a rising conservative lion in the role of sacrificial lamb.

I like Paul Ryan, and in fact, I like him too well to see him sacrificed on the altar of another losing campaign.  Just as Sarah Palin was sliced and diced by a dishonest press working on behalf of a desperate Obama campaign in 2008, I think we’re going to see the same thing in 2012 with Paul Ryan, although I doubt they could match their venom of 2008.  Why is it that for the second presidential campaign in succession, I have the distinct feeling that the Republican ticket should be flipped?

Of course, there’s one inescapable conclusion to be drawn from all of this, and it references those who Gov. Palin might consider part of the “permanent political class” of Washington DC, who move from campaign to campaign, party to party, back and forth and around again: It seems the same bunch is running the show in 2012 for the Republicans.  I noticed Elliot Abrams, who wrote a disgusting anti-Gingrich screed earlier this year was briefing Paul Ryan on foreign policy.  I noticed Andrea Saul, who worked for McCain in 2008, is doing Romney no favors in 2012.  It seems like the Romney campaign has hired many of the same faces who have remained behind the scenes, infecting Washington DC for a generation, and they all have something in common:  They know how to fight against conservatives, but they seem less than sincere in their fight against leftists.  One can only imagine why.

 Note to regular readers: Thank you for your prayers and get-well wishes as I’ve been recovering from an eye injury.  It’s still pretty sore, but on the mend. Thank you!

Is Mitt Romney Running For President, or Dog-Catcher?

Saturday, August 4th, 2012

Does He Understand?

I listen to the pundits. I ignore many of them, but the reason I do so is because so many are merely servants of an agenda, having abandoned the truth. I realize no commentator can be right every time, but it’s easier to be correct in one’s judgments if one cares even slightly about facts, rather than pushing an agenda. I’m a conservative, so of course, I tend to see things through the lens of conservatism, and what that means is that I sometimes err like anybody else in media who offers an opinion, because occasionally, I let my wishes come between me and the facts. I’ve been wrong about some things, and bluntly, I will be wrong about some more, but there are a few things about which I hope to be wrong, while being virtually certain that I am right. This is one of those cases: Even if conservatives manage to drag Mitt Romney across the finish line first, his presidency would be remarkable only in its mediocrity, but more importantly, I do not believe Romney can win since he is conducting the campaign of a man running for dog-catcher, rather than for the office of the President of the United States.

If you’ve ever lived in a small town, you know how the local elections there frequently go. They can sometimes become aggressive affairs, but more often, the candidates are only vaguely partisan, and mostly non-ideological because it’s generally more important to accommodate a larger proportion of the populace and thus ensure election than to take on difficult issues or matters that may have no direct bearing on the office. This is the campaign Mitt Romney is attempting to run, and he’s staying well away from issues and topics that could alienate this group or that, but that have no direct bearing on the immediate job of being President. The problem with this approach is not that it can’t work, but that it’s made for a different level of politics. The presidency is an office that ultimately deals with virtually every issue in one way or another, and since the President lives in a virtual fishbowl of news coverage, there’s almost nothing a president can say that isn’t examined, folded, spindled and mutilated as people look for deeper meanings, but because of this, a President must be aware of virtually every issue, particularly those that are “hot” in current coverage, because the press is apt to ask about them at some point.

The other significant difference is that when you’re running for dog-catcher in AnyTown, USA, you’re not expected to take a position on global warming, or to wax philosophic on the notion of manned space flight. They want to know if you’ll catch dogs, and why you’ll be better at it than the other guy, but there’s no real need to get into deep philosophical discussions about it. You’re expected to shut up and catch dogs. As President, a whole nation, and indeed, a whole world looks to you to stake out a position, and they expect you to do it in a timely fashion, when your position might hold some sway. When Barack Obama said nothing about the uprising in Iran until Iranian dissidents had begun to be slaughtered, part of the reason for Iran’s slightly delayed oppression was undoubtedly due to their waiting to see what the new American President might say. When it was clear he’d say nothing, and do nothing to bring down international heat on the regime, they felt secure to begin reprisals.

In much the same way, Mitt Romney has held his tongue on far too many issues, passing up opportunities to make greater philosophical points during the course of the campaign. He never failed to hammer away at his Republican opponents, but now that he’s facing Obama, it seems as though he’s gone weak in the knees. True, he has had his moments, but the problem is that’s all they’ve been: Fleeting, stillborn interjections of passion that only hinted at a deeper conviction on any subject. The American people expect more, and they fully expect that their President will stake out positions that are more substantially ideological than most pundits admit. It’s not “red meat” as so many condescending commentators contend, but instead that people want to hear the ideological consistency that takes one the full distance from A to Z. This is what Mitt Romney has lacked, and it’s going to hurt him come November, whatever the Republican pundits may say to the contrary. In short, the American people are waiting for Romney to make a solid, irrefutable case, and it must be about more than economics and statistics.

Most of the American people are not fools, and they know there is more broken with the country than what a litany of economic statistics will reveal. They know there is a moral crisis, but many of them are unsure about how to characterize that crisis, or to explain with any precision how it is to be addressed. They don’t know where or how to begin, and the problem has become so great that they have no confidence in politicians to fix it, and given the average of this crop of politicians with which we’ve been cursed, it’s easy to understand their misgivings. Mitt Romney, or indeed any candidate who would seek to oust Barack Obama must be willing to say what it is about Obama’s policies that is hurting the country, but also explain the philosophy that gave rise to those policies, comprising their central motive.

This is the problem with Mitt Romney’s line about Obama being “in over his head.” That is a vague expression that barely scratches the surface of the problem with Barack Obama. If only it were a matter of incompetence, it would be easier to retire him to Chicago next January, but he’s not Jimmy Carter. He’s infinitely worse, and he’s worse precisely because while Carter was a mix of nine parts of incompetence and one part malice, Barack Obama’s philosophy and the policies it spawns are 100% pure malevolence. When you are faced with a killer wielding a gun in random bursts of violence, you do not rally people to oppose him by claiming he had been merely incompetent to bear arms. You must tell the people the truth, and that truth is that “this guy is going to kill you, or as many of you as he is able, if you don’t take him down.” When faced with a killer, moral equivocation is not only a terrible strategy, but a lethal capitulation.

Barack Obama’s policies are killing America, and there is every evidence that it is being done with malice aforethought. That Mitt Romney continues to conduct his campaign solely on the basis that he’ll be better at catching dogs is an admission that he’s really not willing to fight for the country, and the reason for this can only be that he’s incapable or unwilling. Which of these do we expect will be acceptable to the great body of the American electorate? If Mitt Romney does not learn to make the case and make it unflinchingly, he is going to lose this election, and we will be faced with the ghastly proposition of four years of unparalleled malice directed at the American people. This is not the time for tepid leadership, and but for those rare moments, that’s all Governor Romney has offered. If he’s to defeat Barack Obama, he cannot do so by default. He must challenge the moral basis of Barack Obama’s philosophy, but since Romney will not even name it, I do not see how victory will be possible. After all, if he will not name it, how can the American people be expected to take him seriously, or to understand by hints what case Mitt Romney is trying to make?

Romney lives in fear of bad press and ridicule in establishment media, but if he’s to stand any chance of winning, he can no longer afford to mince words by way of “playing it safe.” Otherwise, he stands the chance of appearing afraid to make his case openly, and Americans will begin to wonder why. The old saying is “nothing ventured, nothing gained,” and if Mitt Romney doesn’t begin to venture outside his safe zone soon, this race will be over. You’d think a capitalist would know that.

;

;

;

Mitt Chickens Out

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

Hiding From Issues?

Perhaps we shouldn’t be astonished, and maybe we should have expected this from the Republican “presumptive nominee,” but I don’t understand it: Why is Mitt Romney unwilling to take a stand on something so obvious as the matter of Chick-fil-A?  Todd Starnes has reported that Mitt Romney has decided to avoid the issue, rather than confront it, and that while he was at it, he declined to comment on the case of Michele Bachmann’s interest in seeing certain people in the Obama administration investigated as to their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Honestly, I can’t imagine why Mitt Romney has decided to demur on these two issues, apart from the cowardice that has generally characterized his overall campaign.  Tweeting about the matter, Starnes said he thought Romney needs a new communications team, but to be blunt about it, I don’t think one can fix this problem by changing his communications team.  This is about the candidate himself, and his unwillingness to touch anything with the first hint of controversy attached to it.  Will this be the manner of a Romney administration, and if so, for what purpose are we electing him? To run and hide?  To “chicken-out?”

I realize that a candidate for President is trying to walk a tight-rope between public opinion and attention, but this seems to me to have been a no-brainer, particularly where the Chick-fil-A matter is concerned.  One might guess that Willard doesn’t want to risk alienating potential voters who find the personal opinions and convictions of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy objectionable, but one wonders if that’s the point.  After all, the matter of Chick-fil-A is more about free speech, freedom of conscience, and the attempt of the fascists of the left to bully a company into submission, and the Appreciation Day, a wild success on Wednesday, was all about standing up against this sort of philosophical dictatorship.  It was also a blow against those who attack business in any case, applying politics as a wedge against companies and those who run them.  That Mitt Romney was unwilling to go on the record on this issue is a matter of pure cowardice that demonstrates Romney’s unfitness for the office.  How can you lead the free world if you are unwilling to take a stand on free speech, freedom of religion, and harassment of businesses on the basis of their owners’ beliefs?

The issue of the conservative five, with Bachmann taking the brunt of the pro-Jihadi attacks, is another disgusting matter of surrender, but this one pervades the entirety of the GOP establishment, because it steps on too many toes.  None seem willing to take on tax-reform advocate and friend of Islam, Grover Norquist, and his influence within the Republican establishment causes many insiders to squirm about the issue of radical Islamists making inroads into our government, our culture, and our polity.  This writer grimly notes that while John McCain was attacking Michele Bachmann for daring to ask a question about Secretary of State Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, Mitt Romney neither defended Bachmann nor would even acknowledge the issue.  Why not?  This is a matter of national security, and that ought to be something about which a would-be President should be concerned.  Instead, from Romney, we get obfuscation.

I don’t expect a Presidential nominee of the Republican party to respond to every issue, but it would be nice that when serious issues arise, the “presumptive nominee” might find his…voice… and say something useful on the subject.  This has been the repetitive behavior of Mitt Romney since he announced his campaign, avoiding the issue of the debt ceiling increase until it was a fait accompli, and refusing also to discuss the criminality of Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious until such time as virtually every other living Republican had come out to denounce Holder and finally call for his resignation.  Romney is being careful, to the extent that he has begun to run what looks like an NFL “prevent defense,” intended to prevent any game-changing mistakes late in the game, but almost invariably leading to defeat by an accumulation of a series of lesser mistakes, any of which would be insignificant on their own, but that in the aggregate prove lethal.

I am desperately afraid for my country, because we now enter the last few months of this election cycle, and it is imperative that we remove Barack Obama from office, but my fear is multiplied by a candidate who seems unwilling to confront the wider base of political philosophy upon which his arguments ought to have been based.  Worse, as he is frittering away opportunities to speak on behalf of the American people in criticism of leftists and their collaborators, he seems also to be directing Congress to undertake anything at all that would be necessary to avoid a significant conflict.  This showed up not only in the matter of the appointments bypass bill, but also in the latest continuing resolution.

My suggestion to Mitt Romney is one he will ignore.  One of his best moments thus far had been when he took on the President’s nonsense about capitalism, and the idea that “you didn’t build that.”  What he should do is to man-up, and start confronting these issues.  If he wants to get the conservative base to the polls on his behalf in November, he’d better begin to attack on a wider range of issues.  He needs to ridicule President Obama, often and savagely, because only in Washington DC, in academia, and among leftist groups is Barack Obama anything but a truly broken figure.  He should begin taking on the broader philosophical base of the left, addressing the wide and varied issues that signify not only our economic morass, but also our cultural decline.  If he doesn’t begin to do this, and soon, he will begin to lose ground, as many conservatives continue to wait, more desperately each day, for a candidate whose voice echos their concerns.  Thus far, Mitt Romney is an incomplete candidate, and it his preternatural fear of losing that may prevent him from victory in November.  At this stage in the game, chickening-out simply won’t do.

 

 

 

 

Barack Obama’s Continuing Contempt for the Law

Saturday, July 14th, 2012

Betraying America By Pen-Stroke

In our constitutional system, the Congress writes the laws, and the Chief Executive carries them into execution.  The President is permitted to write rules that will lay out the method in which the law is enforced, but his power to write executive orders is not intended to permit him to bypass or ignore laws, never mind write his own.  This week, the Obama administration issued a new set of rules including the ability to issue waivers for work requirements to states overseeing the federal TANF program (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.)  This provision of the 1996 “Welfare Reform,” passed by a Gingrich-led Republican Congress, and signed into law by Bill Clinton, requires recipients to actively seek employment, and further their education in order to receive the funds.  Nowhere in the law is there a provision permitting the President to create waivers to these requirements, and yet, this is precisely what our fearless dictator has done.  Barack Obama’s lawlessness is speeding the final collapse of this nation, and he’s happily pursuing this end. It’s long past the time in which we should recognize that this had been his goal all along. The question politicians pretend not to have heard is “What shall we do about it?”

What may be understood from all of this are two basic things.  First, welfare reform is being destroyed by the stroke of a pen in the executive mansion. This is not the President’s rightful role in any case.  Obama has turned the office of the President into the office of Dear Leader, or Fuhrer, and there is no escaping the meaning of his grasping of more power.  Second, this President’s intentions must be clear to any who view it with clarity.  He does not intend anything good for our country, and his willingness to seize power in this fashion merely makes plain the fact that he is out of control, and ignoring all of the boundaries established by the US Constitution.  He is intentionally leading us into a disaster, in part to buy votes, but also in part because he wants the disaster.  Meanwhile, our Congress is writing letters to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to complain.

We have a branch of government that is in open insurrection against the Constitution, and our Congress is writing letters in response.  I know that many of you will argue that the Republican majority is only “one-half of one-third” of the government, but how many continuing resolutions to fund this monstrosity will they pass to fund all of this?  It’s the only thing they can do, apart from an impeachment vote, that will mean nothing when the Senate fails to act.  The only thing Congress can do is to deny funding.  There are some who argue the dictator will find a way around that, too, but if he does, that will be open insurrection against the Constitution, not on some small policy matter, but on the very foundations of our system of government. One would think people might notice.

This is the evidence of how bad it has become in the government.  We now have a President who rules outside the confines of the Constitution with complete impunity.  I can understand why so many conservatives would rush to support Mitt Romney, in desperation to put an end to this lawless administration.  I do understand it, and I tell you that I hold no ill will to those who choose this course.  The problem is that I don’t know if they will get their votes’ worth out of the Romney administration.  You may ask why, and it’s important to understand what’s really going on here, and what are the stakes.  After all, the better question may be simply: “What can we do about it?”

In acting out of all bounds of his constitutional limits, President Obama isn’t merely violating his oath by negligence or sloth, but is instead willfully committing treason against the United States.  His actions are the pinnacle of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  There exists no shortage of witnesses against him, and his entire administration, all who have sworn oaths, and all who carry out this plot against the constitution are likewise clearly acting in support of treason.  I do not use that word lightly, precisely as one must not use the word “racism” lightly.  Words of this sort lose all meaning when overused.   More, I mean “treason” in its precise legal meaning. Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Barack Obama’s lawless conduct well outside the constitutional limitations of his office are acts of war against the United States.  Here’s the problem, and I want you to consider it:  IF you succeed in flipping the Senate, and IF you succeed in putting Mush Romney in the White House, who is going to prosecute the case against Barack Obama?  Nobody.  Nobody is going to use the law to prosecute the criminal usurpations of this President, but that is precisely what ought to happen.  The entire cabal of leftists who have been ravaging this country for the past four years(at least) is going to walk away, and worse, agitate against undoing their treason.  What should happen (but won’t,) is that every officer of the Obama administration should be brought up on charges of Treason, abetting Treason, and levying and waging war against the United States Constitution.  They should be held at Guantanamo Bay pending trial.

None of that will happen. Why?  If the Republicans take over the executive branch, as well as the entire Congress, it is likely that business-as-usual will resume.  Those who voted for them will shrug, and say “well, at least that nightmare is over.”  What I’m warning you now is that even were this to happen, the nightmare will not end.  It will not end until we begin to punish politicians who act to subvert our constitution, not merely by sending them home, but by incarcerating, trying and sentencing them accordingly.  When these politicians take an oath to uphold our Constitution, what does that oath mean if when they violate it, they are permitted to walk away?

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a good reason you are not murderers, rapists, and thieves.  You expect that even if you were inclined to commit such trespasses against your neighbors, justice would pursue you and you would be held to pay the price for your crimes.  This is what has been missing from our nation for too many years.  We do not punish politicians who exceed their power.  Sure, we throw some in jail for crooked dealings, but what we  haven’t done is to jail them when they act out of malice toward our constitutional system.  If you want to re-write the ending of this drama, that must change.  We cannot permit our constitution to be attacked in this manner without answer.  Justice demands it.  There are those who will argue that we must not criminalize policy, but this isn’t about the specific policies so much as adherence to the supreme law of the land, or the conspiracy to subvert it.  It has been observed that our constitution is not a suicide pact, but we have too many politicians too thoroughly inclined to let every treason pass unanswered in the name of politics. One can only wonder at their motives.

Can Romney Win on Fears Over Higher Taxes?

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Do Enough Voters Care?

I’ve heard it said in a number of places, by countless commentators, so much so that I think it’s become part of the script.  It goes along with those who tell us that the Roberts treason has a silver lining, because it makes plain that Obama is imposing new taxes all over the place.  This, along with the economy, is said to be the reason Mitt Romney can win.  I have given this a bit of thought, because it’s been conventional wisdom for so long that most now accept it as something of a truism.  Mitt Romney, they say, now has the biggest tax increases in history against which to run, a veritable “taxmageddon,” they’re calling it, scheduled to being hammering tax-payers in 2013.  The so-called Bush tax-cuts will expire, and of course, all of the new Obama-care “taxes” will begin to phase in.  The problem most Republicans seem not to have noticed, and the reason Romney is in far worse shape than many understand:  Many don’t care that taxes are going up.  As Joe Biden might say, “BFD!” It may not matter if taxes were doubled.  It may not matter how much the Federal Government under the leadership of Obama raises taxes. Taxes may no longer matter as an election issue, and there are two compelling reasons to take this seriously.

The first glaring reason that many voters won’t take this seriously is that even among the few who pay attention, they’re accustomed to hearing outrageous claims by campaigns against their opponents.  Most of the claims boil down to some form of “If you vote for my opponent, a plague will descend upon you, and your children will be carried off by the bogeyman, and the country will melt into the fires of hell and there will be starving people in the street, and you’ll be homeless, naked, and penniless.”  Voters have heard this from both sides so often that whether one side or the other may actually speak plainly about it for a change, most of the relatively low number of voters who pay attention only within the six weeks preceding the election(at best) will feel as though they’ve “heard it all before,” and chances are, they’re right.  The problem is that politicians inflate things all the time.  It’s the norm.  The last time a presidential nominee explained the facts and had no need to embellish, and could merely point to the complete disaster at hand was Ronald Reagan, because all the evidence supported everything he said.  People were living it.

This ought to weigh in Mitt Romney’s favor, and it would, if we were living in 1980 America.  The problem is, we are living in 2012 America, and it’s a very different country.  Consider that we have millions who have spent 99 weeks on unemployment.  Consider that we have roughly fifty million people receiving foodstamps.  Consider that we have a total adult workforce that constitutes fewer than one-fourth of the total population.  We may have passed that critical point at which more people are now beneficiaries of big government than are paying for it, and if this is the case, the economy could become a good deal worse, and it wouldn’t matter because Mitt Romney’s tax arguments, if he were to make one, would fall on the deaf ears of those who have a net tax rate less than or equal to zero.  If we’ve passed that tipping point, Romney can make the tax argument until he’s blue in the face, but it won’t matter to the outcome.  More, with Obama-care now uninterrupted in its implementation by the court, there is now one more inducement to the non-workers, and that is why Democrats were willing to walk the plank in 2010 when the law was passed: They knew once it was in place, we would never be rid of it without revolution.

Of course, it’s not as though all tax-payers will side with Romney, because you can count on the unions to show up and support Obama.  You can bet that the education establishment will support Obama.  The trial lawyers will be there.  In short, all of the usual Democrat constituencies, even those who actually earn a living, are likely to support Obama over Romney because they are either doctrinaire leftists, or because they’ve accepted the language of class envy.  Either way, Romney doesn’t stand a chance in hell of getting their votes.  When you consider this together with the legion of dependency-bound persons who live in large measure or entirely from the system, without effort, you’re looking at what appears to be a majority of voters, or something very close to it.  Romney is going to need to become creative, and find other ways to convince voters, because I no longer have confidence that taxes are a winning issue with the majority of the electorate any longer.

After all, if you say to the millions upon millions of government dependents that you will now reduce the size of government, what they hear is “I’m going to cut your subsidy.”  That’s a disaster they can believe in, and it’s the only one they are inclined to see as relevant.  After all, they’re not paying the bills, and they don’t have any moral compunction whatever about robbing those who do.   Romney can’t rely upon this as his line of attack because for so many voters, it’s now ineffective.  Not only are they carefree about taxes because they’re not paying them, but also because they know that the taxes are supporting them through various federal programs.  Romney’s fifty-nine point economic plan is irrelevant to many, because apart from siphoning off the economy, they’re not participants in it, and have no intentions of changing that sad fact.  Knowing this, I’m not certain why anybody makes the argument any longer, but in Romney’s case, it may be even less effective, as Democrats now make the case that he sheltered millions offshore.

Taxes have sadly moved into the same realm as the deficit and the debt as election issues.  Everybody pays these the appropriate lip service, but the truth is that our system of taxation has become so lop-sided that too many Americans don’t care.  There are simply too few with “skin in the game,” as Barack Obama would say, because they simply don’t pay for any of the government expenditures, and probably never will.  Our massive welfare-state needs a massive overhaul, but we may have passed the point at which we could expect to have popular support to do it.  Mitt Romney may campaign with taxes as his prime issue with which to drive support at the polls, but it seems as though it may no longer be enough as the traditional Republican strategy loses effectiveness.  This is made worse by the fact that for many of those who have heard this talk, and actually want something done about it, they may have low expectations that Romney or any establishment Republican would do the first thing about it.  They have every reason to be doubtful.

The Exasperating Insufficiency of Mitt Romney

Monday, July 9th, 2012

What is he willing to do?

Many people will hold their fire until November 7th to say with gusto what is already known, and has been for some time:  Mitt Romney isn’t up to this campaign.  He might be a nice guy.  He is a good father and husband by all reports.  He may well be an effective businessman.  What Mitt Romney isn’t is a leader.  Mitt Romney is stuck in a hollowed-out, anti-ideological mold, from which his training and temperament will not permit him to escape.  There is no way to say it but one:  The Republican Party needs a different candidate, and it needs that candidate fast.  Romney isn’t going to win this election, because he isn’t capable or willing to do what it will take, and the reserved, staid Republican establishment wouldn’t support him if he did.  Instead, they’re willing to go down rather than let a conservative take the wheel, because when it comes down to it, they retreat rather than soil their hands in the muck of it all. After months of my prognostications about Romney’s inability to win, it’s all beginning to come true.  Romney should have a double-digit lead in the polls, but he hasn’t, and the reason is simple:  He’s not ideologically sufficient to the chore, and he’s failed to evince any passion for the task at hand.

If you’ve ever watched the movie “The Untouchables,” starring Kevin Kostner and Sean Connery, you already know what I mean.  Al Capone was a ruthless killer, and Connery’s character(Mike Malone) demanded of Kostner’s Elliot Ness: “What are you prepared to do?”

Elliot Ness responds:  “Everything within the law.”

Asks Malone, insistently: “And then what are you prepared to do?”

If Mitt Romney is willing to take that blood-oath, I’ve seen no evidence he is living up to it.  Instead of hiring the sort of political aids who could help him “get Capone,” he’s hiring people who have a record of “getting” fellow Republicans. This is an astonishing situation, because what we see is a Republican party establishment not willing to deal harshly with statists, in part because of their own statist reflexes, and in part because they haven’t the stomach to fight anybody but conservatives, apparently.  Now, lest you think it’s just me saying this, I have news: There is a growing list of people who have finally noticed what I’ve been saying all along.  Rush talked about little else on Monday, and Hannity too.   As I called to your attention over the weekend, at least one Tea Party leader is asking if it is “too late to switch[candidates?]“

It’s gotten so bad, in fact, that no less an establishment Republican than Charles Krauthammer is urging Romney to abandon intellectual honesty and simply call Obama-care a tax and be done with it.  Even the Wall Street Journal is figuring it out, but it could well be too late to fix it.  Consider the meaning of all of the criticisms Romney is now receiving:  He’s being told to fight, but he’s being told to abandon intellectual honesty to do so.  That alone will wind up as an Obama campaign ad.  It’s not that Mitt Romney is incapable of winning, but that he seems hopelessly inept when it comes to carrying on the fight. Where was this Mitt Romney in the Florida primary?  Newt Gingrich might now be the nominee if Romney had been so tepid and accommodating of his Republican opponents as he is of Barack Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is the height of absurdity for the GOP to have been reduced to abandoning intellectual honesty to defeat Barack Obama.  It is the height of absurdity that the country now faces the very real possibility of a second term of Barack Obama, because the GOP establishment has given us a guy who is impaired in his ability to fight by virtue of his own record, and restrained from doing battle with Obama by virtue of the GOP establishment mind-set.  Consider that Speaker John Boehner actually extolled the non-virtues of Romney, telling folk that [he]“can’t make you love Mitt Romney.”  When’s the last time a sitting Republican Speaker of the House said that about a presumptive Republican nominee?   This is their guy, and they wanted him, threatening to take their ball and their dollars and go elsewhere if we had “too conservative” a nominee. The conservative base became disgusted, but they could not overcome the “if you want to win, vote for Romney” talk, as every last conservative who had been paying attention these last dozen years knew with near certitude that Romney would not defeat Obama.

The National Republican Convention in Tampa is rapidly approaching, just seven weeks away, and if that party does not get its act together quickly, it is going to end its convention with a nominee who will possess neither the ability nor the will to win.  It’s time Tea Party conservatives begin to ask what it is that they are willing to do.  It may be time to have that brokered convention so many had feared months ago, because it may be the very last chance to save the country.

Palin Haters Not Exclusive to Left

Sunday, July 8th, 2012

Them's Some Kooky Sheep...

I must admit to having read some bizarre conspiracy theories about Sarah Palin, because in seeing what these nuts write, one gets a sense of just how thoroughly out of touch some people have become.  For far too many rank-and-file Republicans, it’s all a cult of personality.  Few are concerned about fundamental principles, to such an extent that they are unable to linger over even the most obvious facts that might stand in opposition to their odd-ball theories.  I have been sent a link to a group of such odd-balls on Facebook, where one may find the most obtuse concoction of cobbled-together propositions embraced by psychological delinquents I’ve seen since the anti-Palin bloggers I have covered in the past.  It’s a veritable nexus of dumb, and it seems to be composed of Romney supporters who seem to believe Sarah Palin is an evil genius, setting up for a 2016 Presidential run in which she expects to face Hillary Clinton in what these brain-addled doorstops term a “mud-wrestling match.”  It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that they have nearly one-hundred members.

This means there many more deluded, psychologically broken people in Romney’s camp than one might otherwise expect.  Their basic theory?  Sarah Palin is trying to undermine Mitt Romney in 2012 so she can run in 2016, and she’s being aided in that venture by none other than Rupert Murdoch.  Yes, there are certifiable mad-caps in the GOP, too.

Before any of the Palinistas reading this get too excited, I’d like you to have a sample of the intellectual rigor of the people who are positing this theory.  Says one:

“The whole point of Obama care is to take over Health care by creating another government beauracracy. It’s a communist take over of an industry. The people will not benefit from this, because they are not supposed to benefit from it. It is designed to create more liberals who will be working as beuracrats for the communist government. This has nothing to do at all with Massachusets, that’s just their cover to throw people off the trail. It is a communist take over. Communists always have a group of people they oppresss as part of their power grab. Obama care has already selected the first group that they will oppress, those without health care who cannot afford it. They will be given an oppressive …tax, that they cannot afford. This will then be used to garnish wages and confiscate personal property of those who do not pay the penalty. Year after year the debt will grow. I bet they will imprison people who fall into the catagory I described. The beauracrats, hired by their buddies in the government, will over see this oppression. This has nothing at all to do with Massachusets, or even health care, it is merely a vehical to bring communistic practices full circle. Who knows what mandated laws will be implemented once by Obama’s beauracrats, get going? The sky is the limit. Health care is only the vehical, not the goal. It’s just an excuse. What are we seeing already with the millions of dollars being put into the solar energy. It’s the same thing, they are empowering their own as they declare war on us. Has nothing at all to do with Massachusets. And sadly, too many will find out only when it’s too late.”

I kid you not.  This sad person isn’t merely a terrible speller, but is also blinded to reality.  Somebody should tell this young woman that Mitt Romney imposed precisely the kind of system about which she spends most of her time criticizing, and that in fact, Romney-care is the prototype for the system against which she is railing.  Yes, this is an example of the logic you will find in this group of utterly helpless people.

Naturally, you can expect a torrent of useless babble from any group that announces its intentions thus:

“It’s TIME for the Conservatives and the Moderates to UNITE to STOP Sarah Palin from pushing her way into this Presidential Election. Whether through manipulation, deception, or down-right dirty politics via a Brokered Convention, Palin is POISON and always has been. This group is OPEN, we are not speaking to just ourselves and don’t intend to. Join this group, share a link to this page, invite your friends. There is a WEALTH of info here documenting the REAL SARAH.”

Of course, the hits keep coming, because this group of mad-caps is so twisted-up with hatred for Sarah Palin that they can’t even objectively consider the nonsense they’re spewing:

“Regarding the argument that Christie would make a bad VP pick for Romney because Christie woud overshadow Romney, I have this to say:

“To overshaddow someone, you have to do it DELIBERTLY, When that happens, it’s no accident. Anyone who thinks overshadowing is done on accident is a FLIPPIN fool. Decent people with character know when to hold back. FLIPPIN backstabbers never hold back, cause it’s always about THEM!!! People with character know how to make it clear they are NOT number one. Christie has character, unlike the last no account, backstabbin, FLIPPIN quitter!!!!”

If you were to choose to”delibertly” avoid this group, I would understand. The same poster seems to study slow-motion video clips of Sarah Palin, turning every motion of her face into a secret, subliminal message:

“Because this is the Sarah Palin Conspiracy Threory, might as well mention it cause it’s something I have noticed before:

Speaking of Historonic personality disorder and excessive attention seeking, just saw Palin in slow motion licking her lips and heaving as she was being interviewed by Hannity, her eyes got really narrow and then really wide as if she was coming on to him during the interview. I have seen her do this with other men who let her run all over them. It’s like she does it on purpose, not only for control over the interviewer, but for control over the male viewers. Wonder if anyone else has noticed? Oh, and by the way, when Palin kept insisting that she is supporting Romney, because it’s: ABO – Anybody but Obama, and she kept repeating this over and over like she was trying to slap down Romney and degrade him with that, I noticed Hannity didn’t protest or confront her on this. Wonder if the lip licking has anything to do with Hannity’s compliance when it comes to Palin?”

Yes, this is real. I’m not embellishing anything. I couldn’t fake being this stupid, and I don’t believe anybody else could fake it either.  Undeterred by anything even vaguely resembling a fact, this genius continues:

“The reason why the Palinbots are pushing for either Rubio or Jindial as the VP pick for Romney is because of this:

“The reason why the “base” (and I call them that losely, cause I think we all know that they are just a segment with their own selfish agenda, that has nothing to do with real people like us), is pushing for those lackluster two is cause they don’t want to win this time around, they want to throw it for their Imbicial Snow Queen. They know what they are doing, and it ain’t pretty. They can take it their two lackluster ones, and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Sorry for the crudeness, but they’ve earned it.”

Most Palinistas I know wouldn’t want either Rubio or Jindal, never mind “Jindial ,” whomever s/he may be.  If Palinistas had their way, I think most would like to see Allen West as VP.  Of course, the lunacy that pervades this Facebook group is quite stunning, and all the more when you consider this bit:

“The Tea Party is still dreaming of a Brokered Convention. Shame on them!”

This appeared with a link to an article in the Washington Times, in which Tea Party Nation’s Judson Philips is quoted as asking: “Is it too late to switch?”  This remark was made in the aftermath of Eric Fehrnstrom’s remarks about whether Obama-care is a tax or a penalty.  The rabid Romney-bots in this particular Facebook group simply cannot conceive of the thought that Mitt Romney might be seen by the broader base of conservatism as something of a sell-out.

They weren’t satisfied to go after the Tea Party, as they attack Mark Levin for his support of Sarah Palin, and generally regard Palinistas as brain-dead zombies.  Yes, they are leaping to the defense of Mitt Romney from the she-devil Sarah Palin, who they will tell you is a socialist.  That’s right, for these folk, Sarah Palin is a socialist.  Try not to soil your computer screen with spewed coffee as you laugh at these flakes.  I promise, you will read their ‘critiques’ of Governor Palin as very nearly a parody of leftist critiques, and I think this demonstrates my point from earlier Saturday.  If they had been mere Romney-bots, we might not have spotted the fact that these are full-bore kooks every bit as bad as any on the left.  It’s refreshing to have one’s assertions born out within the space of an afternoon.

Editor’s Note: While it is clear that these people claim to be Romney supporters, it is certain they aren’t doing this with the blessing or endorsement of the Romney Campaign.  Then again, he couldn’t tell the SuperPacs what to do when they were bashing Newt Gingrich, either. (Wink Wink) They could also be Obama-shills, attempting to stir up trouble between the Palinistas and Romney-bots, but at least on the surface, these appear to be genuinely nutty Romney supporters.  Go figure.

 

We’ve Been Ambushed [Again]

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Time To Abandon Our 'Leaders'

Talk to a few war veterans.  Speak to men who’ve been in the real thick of it.  When you’ve been led into the valley, higher ground all around, you’re at the mercy of every enemy with a sling-shot.  The best way to survive an ambush, they will tell you grimly, is to avoid walking into one.  The fact is that a well-laid ambush is designed to catch you off guard, on indefensible ground, when you’re least apt to be able to put up any significant defense, and to kill you off quickly.  There won’t be time to think of alternate plans.  There won’t be time to dig in.  If you find yourself in this situation, the enemy intends only one thing, and it usually doesn’t involve the taking of prisoners. If your leaders are so inept(or treacherous) as to place you in this situation repeatedly, or occasionally, if necessity led you into the Valley of Death, you really don’t have many options.  The idea is to react almost automatically, by training rather than deliberation, because it’s the only chance you’ll have.

One could suppose that you might drop your arms, wave a white flag, and hope the enemy is taking his time long enough to consider momentarily whether to give quarter.  This approach generally earns the focus of fire, and a quick death.  You can drop low on your belly seeking such minimal cover as the kill-zone affords(by design, naturally) and try to win a battle pitched decisively against you, but you won’t likely last unless the enemy becomes bored and inexplicably wanders off.  No, these options don’t offer much hope at all, so the great wisdom of military experience is that you must not hesitate, you must not linger, and you must not delay: Turn and charge the enemy.  It’s a low-odds approach, and it means charging those with superior position, infinitely better cover, concealment, and tactical preparedness, but as bad as that may sound, it’s still your only plausible chance.  If we conservatives are ever to escape from the perpetual statist ambush into which our GOP establishment leaders continue to march us, we will need to break out.  The survival of our nation now depends upon it.

You might insist that we continue to follow the same inept Lieutenants, despite the fact that they’ve demonstrated repeatedly the willingness to walk us into a hail of political bullets from which there is no easy escape.  Why?  On Monday night, listening to Mark Levin, I could hear a wistful, not-quite-defeated, but resigned tone in his voice when he said “We’ve been boxed in. What else can we do[but support Romney and the RINO brigade?]” Yes, it is as hopeless as that.  Yes, it is going to be a slaughter, again.  Yes, even if we manage to drag this turd across the finish line, he will betray us, appoint more John Roberts-class judges, and yes, he’ll rationalize raising our taxes, tinkering with Obama-care, but not repealing it, and otherwise slugging us in the jaw for our efforts.  Yes, that’s what we could do, and it’s certainly what we’ve been asked to do(and have done) many times in the past.  Yes, we have.  Yes, we can.

On the other hand, there is still another approach to consider. We can abandon the Republican party.  Loudly.  Now.  Why wait?  As these hapless leaders walk us into ambush after ambush, setting the table for the enemy, and practically joining them, we always look stunned, like deer caught in the headlights of an on-rushing truck.  We’re always surprised when they do it to us.  Why?  We’re always surprised when their judicial appointments turn on us in order to curry favor on the cocktail circuit.  Why?  They’ve screwed us so many times, and in so many ways, we ought by now admit that we like it, since we seem disinclined to do the first thing about it.  Oh, let’s have a Tea Party.  That will show them!  Or not.  How long did it take the GOP establishment to begin its attempt to co-opt and mute the Tea Party? Ten seconds?  Another ambush…

I have been considering this a long time, as I’ve recognized that there is a contingent within the Republican party that does not share our basic views, our values, or our commitment to constitutional conservatism.  They actually hate us more than the leftists, if there’s any evidence that they oppose the leftists at all.  One can spend a good deal of time trying to discern why that would be, but the motive is probably less important than the fact.  They want us to lose.  They are willing to give the country away to the leftists, one piece at a time, so long as we don’t have it.  Some of them view it as their duty to drag us ‘forward,’ ever smarter, as Levin would call them, “the masterminds,” and they always know better, they believe.

Well, they don’t know better.  They don’t know what is best for me and my life, or you and yours, but they claim to speak on behalf of a mythical creature they call “society.”  They’re always in a hurry to introduce us to society, this monster they’ve constructed, and every time we catch a glimpse of it, the beast has grown more ugly than the last.  This is what waits for us in the weeds of the ambush, and for my part, I have no intention of playing along.  They have told us now for months, nay, years, that we must defeat Barack Obama to have our country back, but the truth is they don’t want it back.  They want Obama’s vision.  They have helped him obtain it, and while they may throw the dogs a bone or two over which to scuffle and snarl in the dirt at their feet, they’ve no intention whatever of walking this back.

McConnell and Boehner have each in their own way admitted it.  As I posted Monday evening, McConnell is already making excuses for his future inability to repeal Obama-care.  Boehner is setting up meaningless repeal votes in the House, when at any time in the last eighteen months, he could have set up a vote on withholding funds for it, but no, we’re going to have a fake dog-and-pony show-vote on the 11th of July so we can all feel like we exacted our pound of flesh while having accomplished exactly, precisely nothing.  This is what passes for leadership in the GOP.  This is the result of decades of spineless, candy-assed surrender-monkey thinking, and for the most part, we’ve permitted ourselves to be marched into the kill-zone again and again.

Pardon me, but I’m no longer interested in being led to an inevitable death.  The way I now view it, there is even less to fear from Obama than before.  We will now have Obama-care, we will have Cap and Tax, we will have no freedoms whatever, and I imagine it will only be some short period of time before he appoints another mastermind to head up some nutrition mandate, with Michael Bloomberg spear-heading the effort, telling us we mustn’t have table salt or more than 16 ounces of a soft-drink.  No, I have no interest in participating in this.  I am going to resist. I will not comply.  I will not be a party to any of it.  Barack Obama can enact whatever he likes. Congress can go full-bore leftist backed up by the Roberts-led Supreme Court jesters.  I don’t care.  They can all kiss my ass.  Until they man-up and are willing to come force me to comply, they’re not going to get my docile cooperation.  Taxes?  SCREW YOU! Hey, John Roberts, tax this! Mandates?  Come and mandate it if you think you can!  Bring friends.

You can have your blessed Republican party.  I will be party-less.  I am already country-less, having watched mostly in silence as it has been deconstructed over the course of my life.  If I’m going to be slaughtered in this statist kill-zone, I might just as well take my chances and charge the ambushers, because a possible or even probable death is still better than a certainty.  I simply don’t care what any of the talking heads say any longer.  There’s no point in extenuating the matter.  The Republican party, its line of inept Lieutenants, and its clear commitment to undoing my liberties, is simply dead to me.  Promises, promises.  Mitt Romney might win, but if so, he’ll do it without my vote.  I will not vote to empower him any more than I will vote to re-elect his play-acting “opponent.” I am out to defeat the GOP.  Yes, this means the liberals will win.  Is that any different than now?  How, exactly?  No, the first thing to do when you’re being ambushed is to recognize that your survival now depends on getting out of the kill-zone, and the GOP establishment has made of the party an endless sea of death for conservatism.  I’m out.  Feel free to seek cover next to your Lieutenant.  He’ll be glad to use your corpse as cover.

The Curious Statements of Bill Clinton

Thursday, June 7th, 2012

Best Buddies?

Many of you will have noticed the oddity over the last week in which Bill Clinton both defended Mitt Romney, and seemed to disagree publicly with President Obama.  Dick Morris raced out to tell the world that he believes Clinton wants Obama to lose, but there are a few problems with that idea.  Clinton isn’t really the sort of guy on whom conservatives should hang their hopes.  If they cite him as an authority for the purposes of a tax cut argument, what will they do when the former President returns to previous positions(and he already has) arguing in favor of higher taxes?  There are conspiracy theories circulating on this subject, and nearly all of them end with Barack Obama losing to Mitt Romney because Bill Clinton will “spike the election.”  I believe Clinton would undercut Obama if it served his ends, but the question must be: Does it?  Perhaps worse, I think some Republicans are falling too easily into citing the impeached serial liar as some sort of authority on economic policy.

Let us remember who it is we’re referencing when we talk about Bill Clinton.  He’s the guy who tried to let his wife ram a healthcare plan down our throats.  He’s the guy who promised to feel our pain, but instead spent most of his two terms feeling-up interns and other “targets of opportunity.”  This is the guy who ignored Al-Qaeda, and who missed vital opportunities to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.  This is the wretched man who turned over the Department of Justice to Janet Reno, who in turn turned over much of the day to day operations to one Eric Holder, now serving as the Attorney General.  He has a history of cover-ups that began well in advance of Fast&Furious, stretching back to the Waco operation. Bill Clinton was also the guy who blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Rush Limbaugh, and who couldn’t wait to use the legislative impetus provided by the act of domestic terrorism to enact a nonsensical “assault weapons ban.”

Bill Clinton was the President who helped to created the Housing bubble from which we are still suffering, and he is the goon who lied endlessly, along with his willing accomplices in the lamestream media about the intentions and ultimate effects of the budget the Republicans tried to put through in 1995-6.  He lied endlessly about Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Congress, and he sent his favorite congressional hatchet-man, David Bonior(D-MI,) to do his dirty work.  He lied to a grand jury under oath, and only the malingering of a federal judge prevented him from facing a criminal rather than civil perjury charge.  These are merely some of the highlights of his “esteemed” career in the oval office, or the anteroom in which he caroused with interns, and he lied repeatedly to the American people, waggling a finger, and chastising the people who would even dare to ask him such questions.

I offer this brief refresher up because it seems that some Republicans are gleefully referencing the Slickster’s remarks on the basis that he speaks with some authority.  He has no credibility.  When Clinton pointed out that he had balanced four budgets, I only saw one Republican politician willing to point out that Newt Gingrich had a substantial role in all of that:  Sarah Palin.  Still, it was a bit bothersome to see so many Republican rush out to refer to a guy who they ought not use as a benchmark for anything, budgetary or otherwise.  The simple fact is that Clinton is and always has been out for Clinton, and while it’s true that his wife is the hardcore leftist ideologue in the family, it is also true that Clinton is himself a leftist, albeit a somewhat more malleable one.  It was Clinton who insisted on referring to taxes as “contributions” or “investments in America,” if you’ll recall, so I would just as soon cease the Clinton-worship now.  Still, his behavior seems curious to political observers, because it seems to clearly undermine Barack Obama.  Why would Clinton do that?

I suspect that if that were his true aim, it could only have one or two possible objectives, and both end with Hillary occupying the Oval office.  After all,  if Obama is damaged enough, maybe he follows Doug Schoen’s advice and steps aside, leaving the Democrat convention open to somebody else, or if Obama loses in November to Mitt Romney, perhaps there’s a shot for Hillary in 2016.  On the other hand, one could conclude that both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham are Soros-shills, and that this may be part of a plan to replace Obama on the ticket with his Secretary of State should Soros find it necessary to pull the plug on a weakened Obama.  Of course, these theories and all of the myriad permutations of them require that we assume that Clinton wants to undermine Obama, but is that the case, or are Republicans being sand-bagged by the Slickster[again?]

As of Wednesday, both Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell made statements referencing Bill Clinton’s remarks, and it leaves one to wonder if the pair aren’t being led down the garden path by the former cigar-aficionado-in-chief.  When one considers the possibilities, one must always remember that despite any differences among them, the Obamas and Clintons are leftists, and if there’s anything they can unite on, it’s defeating conservatives.  It’s probably true that the former president never quite got over Obama’s playing of the race card in 2008, and it’s probably true that Hillary views the Obama administration as a bunch of amateurs, but what of it?  After all, Hillary’s record both in the Senate and in her current job aren’t exactly glistening examples of effectiveness, and while her husband is often given credit for the economic conditions of the 1990s, it’s important to note that it was the conservative insurgence in Congress that actually had built the conditions to the degree we had some fairly prosperous years.

Whether Bill Clinton is actually out to undermine Barack Obama, or is merely playing a game of cat and mouse with Republicans, I don’t think conservatives should fall into the trap of believing that Clinton would be doing much better or much different if he were in office today.  Bill Clinton’s administration is not a model of good governance to which we should turn for reference.  On the other hand, the active and aggressive Congress led by Newt Gingrich that put the brakes on Clinton’s escapades, and restrained the growth of government for the first time in my life is something we should reference, and while Bill Clinton poses as the elder statesman in his party, the simple fact is that if he had gotten his way, unopposed, through 1994-96, he’d be remembered with every bit as much doubt as Barack Obama faces in the electorate now, and we conservatives would do right by history as well as the political debate in this country to remember it that way.

 

 

Romney Appointment Evinces Healthcare Intentions

Tuesday, June 5th, 2012

Romney and Leavitt: Healthcare BestFriendsForever?

Monday, NRO published a brief piece referencing a Politico article discussing Mitt Romney’s pick to head his transition team, if he should win, Former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt.   The Leavitt appointment raised eyebrows in conservative circles, even getting a mention on the Rush Limbaugh show, because his company has profited handsomely from the start-up of the state Health exchanges under the auspices of Obama-care.  That’s right, Leavitt loves the state exchanges, as he’s cashed in on them, and while some have urged me to drop my opposition to Romney and climb aboard his campaign bus, or at least occupy the kennel strapped to its roof, I’ve been unwilling and this is one of the reasons for my resistance.  I have no interest in electing another statist to the White House, but more than this, I really don’t wish to be in league with the profiteers who are working overtime to make sure that whomever occupies the White House next year, we will be universally shafted with Obamacare.

NRO picked up on the following in the Politico piece, and it’s significant:

Leavitt has said some relatively positive things about certain elements of Obama’s health reform law, suggesting earlier this year that “Obamacare” empowers the HHS secretary “to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in the right direction.”

[Leavitt chief aide Rich] McKeown, who still works with Leavitt at his Utah-based health care consultancy, acknowledged that the former governor does not want to undo one key part of the controversial legislation [Obamacare].

“We believe that the exchanges are the solution to small business insurance market and that’s gotten us sideways with some conservatives,” he said.

The exchanges are not only a matter of principle for Leavitt — they’re also a cash cow.

The size of his firm, Leavitt Partners, doubled in the year after the bill was signed as they won contracts to help states set up the exchanges funded by the legislation.

One of the things I warned you about the GOP establishment is that there are those who have not only political sympathies with the left, but also a number of people who have learned how to profit from the big-government mechanisms the left invariably puts in place.  These people are nefarious, and in the end, they always undercut conservatives and conservatism.  They’re more interested in the deal, and making a buck than in standing on any principle.  Conservatives are right to worry when they see Romney appoint somebody to his transition team who is such a thoroughly enthusiastic advocate for the exchanges being set up by Obama-care.  Let’s not mince words:  There is a class of Republicans who are willing to make money off of governmental actions without respect to ideology, philosophy, or any consideration beyond their own bottom lines, and by all appearances, Leavitt is one of these.

Leavitt is close to Romney, having been Governor of Utah, particularly when Romney was working with the Salt Lake City Olympics, and there can be little doubt that Romney’s choice for transition team may indicate some of the back-scratching that goes on in politics, but I also believe it reflects part of the problem with Mitt Romney.  He’s not a conservative, and he’s probably going to work to keep at least some parts of Obama-care, as I’ve contended right along, and he’s effectively admitted it in his previous statements.  Once you realize this, it’s an elementary matter, and the importance of the controversy over Leavitt’s appointment to a prospective Romney transition team tells the tale.  Back in February, Florida Attorney General and Romney supporter Pam Bondi told us the same thing.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re in real trouble here.  If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn Obama-care in its entirety, we’re never going to see it repealed in full.  The Romney crowd simply won’t do it, because they’re making too much money from setting up the state exchanges, and in the final analysis, we won’t be able to get out from beneath the heap they’ll dump on us all.  Much as many conservatives have always suspected that Romney would oversee the full implementation of a program that is just like Obama-care, for all intents and purposes, we must now do what I have always stated we would be forced to do if Romney somehow manages to win the presidency:  We will have to play self-defense, not merely against the left, but also against a Romney administration.

 

…and Another Thing…

Sunday, May 20th, 2012

Who Me?

While I’m busy declaring war on the GOP establishment, I ought to make mention of another thing that burns me up.  Some of you will have noticed throughout the primary campaign season that certain GOP candidates seemed unwilling to go after Mitt Romney on a number of issues, and always seemed to defer to him in various ways.  It’s true.  Some of them seemed more interested in blowing him kisses than in defeating him, and to be blunt, some of you along with me thought at times that they may have been conspiring with Mitt right along.  If to withhold one’s criticisms of one’s opponents is to evince some sort of collusion, I must now ask you what it must be if Mitt Romney does it with respect to Barack Obama.   This business of Mitt Romney repudiating the examination of Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and other leftist radicals is disgusting.

Mark Levin commented on this subject last week, and he properly flogged Romney.  RightScoop provides the audio.

Levin is spot-on here.  Romney used every conceivable advertising gimmick and revisionist historical fraud to attack Newt Gingrich, and he and his surrogates left no stone un-turned in seeking to hammer the former House Speaker, but when it comes to Barack Obama, some things are simply off limits.   Ladies and gentlemen, I must ask you with a sense of grim foreboding:  If you believe that Ron Paul held fire on Mitt Romney in exchange for something, why do you suppose Mitt Romney is insisting on holding fire against Barack Obama?  Answer it.  If you believe there is a quid pro quo in the first instance, please tell me what you believe about the second instance?  Don’t tell me that Romney is “unwilling to go to the gutter,” or some such nonsense.  He was more than willing when his opponent was Newt Gingrich.  He was more than willing when any of the would-be non-Romneys rose, even momentarily.  Sure, he used surrogates, but what is this business about leaving the Rev. Wright issue alone?

Does he believe it will buy Obama’s silence on Romney’s religion?  It won’t, and the evidence is that it hasn’t.  Knowing this, why would Romney seek to repudiate all of those who raise the issue of Rev. Wright?   When it was about obtaining the nomination, Romney was a “no-holds-barred” and “hey, that’s politics” sort of guy, but now that it’s Barack Obama, whose defeat is the object of this entire campaign, he’s pulling his punches?

Don’t tell me that the GOP establishment wishes to defeat Barack Obama.  Don’t tell me they don’t constitute a “fifth column.”  Don’t pretend to me that Mitt Romney is anything but another statist placeholder who will lead us into defeat.  I have taken all I am inclined to take when it comes to the Republican establishment.  It’s not that they don’t know how to win, but that they don’t want us to win.  Holding back on Barack Obama’s associations with radicals isn’t a strategy to “keep clear of the gutter,” as some would suppose, but a strategy to let Barack Obama go un-vetted for a second consecutive election cycle, and the only reason somebody, anybody, could possibly want that is…

What?

You see, there are those who have already begun to argue that Romney, if he loses, will do so because of a lack of support.  The idea is to shift blame to conservatives, Tea Party folk, or anybody else who will not step up and vocally support or at least vote for Romney.  I reject that thesis as a scandalous lie.  Don’t tell me Romney wants to win but doesn’t want to talk about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or Bill Ayers, or the whole rogues’ gallery of philosophical villainy that accompanies Barack Obama.  Then, after rejecting these obvious problems with Barack Obama, I’m to blame if Mitt Romney loses?

No way.

If Mitt Romney loses, it will be because he failed.  He failed to be a conservative.  He failed to insist on talking about Barack Obama’s radical associations.  He failed to rally the base of the Republican party.  He failed to motivate conservatives.  He failed. If you want to blame me for a Romney loss, have at it, but I won’t accept blame.  Here we have a candidate who saw no problem in hammering his Republican opponents in dishonest ways, but who now shrinks from talking about the truth of Barack Obama, and some wish to blame me?

If you will not call a monster by name in public, why would you be surprised if others will not view him in that light?  After all, we elect Presidents because we expect them to tell us the truth even when it’s unpleasant.  If we know the truth about Obama, but Romney won’t say it, what could be the justification?  At what point does somebody step up and ask Romney:  “Why won’t you talk about Obama’s radical associations?”  Why, after saying he cannot tell the superPACs that support him what to do, when it came to Newt Gingrich, is he now going out of his way to dissociate himself from any discussion of Obama on this subject by those superPACs?  What he’s done is to “call off the dogs” on this, something he refused to do when it came to Gingrich just a few months ago, laughing it off as the nature of politics.

I am beginning to think Mitt Romney will have a good deal for which to answer if/when he loses in November, because if he refuses to talk about Obama’s past, he’s helping Obama to win.  Every conservative in the country must know this, lest a parade of the “political analysts” tell us it’s our fault.

Again.

 

 

 

Our Crisis

Saturday, May 19th, 2012

Thomas Paine

I was interested to read a piece and listen to the commentary by “Mr. L” posted on his Mr. L’s Tavern blog about why he won’t be out beating the drum for Mitt Romney this Fall, and I find that I simply cannot disagree.   His reasoning is sound, and in many ways, he repeats the complaints I’ve lodged, as well as those leveled by other staunch conservatives who realize Mitt Romney simply isn’t a conservative, by any measure, or in any significant way.  To be blunt about it, Mitt Romney is a liberal Republican, and while he may well be the party’s nominee, he’s not my candidate, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to hold my nose and vote for him.  I’m not alone, apparently, but there exists a growing number of people in the Republican party who are so desperate to be rid of Barack Obama that they will accept almost anyone.  I don’t like counterfeit conservatives, and in fact, it’s fair to say that in many respects, I dislike them even more than Obama, and it’s because they do more to undermine our nation than Obama ever will.  How many times have we been undermined by Republicans who rush to surrender to the statists?

In war, the only thing worse than the enemy is a saboteur or spy or collaborator, who pretends to be one of your own, while working to undermine you.  This is the reason that in war, we traditionally deal severely with traitors and such, because in fact, they are worse than the enemy because you’ve relied upon them to be on your side.  I have come to view the entirety of the Republican establishment in that light, and there’s really no getting around the fact that in many ways, they serve as a fifth column for the statist phalanx.  They pat us on the head like children, with all their solemn assurances that they understand the conservative point of view when they want and need our votes, but when it comes time to implement policy, the pat on the head is replaced by a swat on the behind as we’re sent to a perpetual time-out in the corner of the classroom.  After decades of this, we should begin to bring our own dunce caps.  We’ve been snookered again, but not by Barack Obama.  Despite the great Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the GOP establishment has never accepted our ideology, while they have accepted our votes and financial support.

We should expect Obama to lie, and to advance the cause of statism at every turn.  He’s a statist, and we’d be shocked if he did anything else, and for that reason, we have risen to oppose him.  The problem remains that we are still losing, but the reason we’re losing is not because Barack Obama is such a masterful politician.  He’s simply not that good.  Instead, we are losing because we accept leaders who dither and negotiate and squander every tactical advantage in pursuit of a strategy that doesn’t include any concept of victory you or I might accept.  Instead, the GOP establishment leads us from retreat to surrender, on one battlefield after the next, and the truth is that until we supplant them entirely, and until we push them out of the party, or abandon it to them, going off to form our own, we will never find victory, as it is ever delayed, forestalled, or abandoned as an idealistic goal never to be achieved.  Their approach rests on the basis of the “pragmatic” calculation that politics is all about the “art of compromise,” in establishment terms, but translated into language you and I understand: “Complete and unconditional surrender…over the long run.”  The Republican establishment offers that the statists are like The Borg of Star Trek infamy, and that we “will be assimilated.”

Mitt Romney is part of the greater parcel that ails the Republican party.  He’s exactly that which most conservatives can at best hold their noses to support, but at worst can merely look at with disdain, or even contempt.  As a matter of factual consideration, the truth is that Romney’s operatives were already undermining the McCain-Palin ticket during the 2008 election cycle in October, before the defeat, and they were already establishing the narrative that it was Sarah Palin’s fault.  Mr. L picked up on this fact, and I’ve discussed it here before, but I raise this only because Mr. L, while delivering the bill of particulars against Mitt Romney, mentions that the Romney bunch had been attacking Palin as early as Novemeber 5th of 2008, but I beg to differ only inasmuch as we now know they were attacking her a good deal earlier, in October.  It’s a minor point, but it’s not insignificant, as many of you voted for John McCain solely because he picked Sarah Palin to join him on the ticket, and in the context of a political “war,” it’s important to know who was working on behalf of Benedict Romney in shoving Palin under the bus, and when.  They didn’t wait for the defeat, but proactively began to establish a narrative aimed at undermining Palin for the future, and of course undercutting McCain-Palin in that cycle.

Bearing in mind that many of you were holding your noses to vote for McCain at all, motivated in large measure by the prospect of the able young Governor of Alaska as his running mate, it’s important for you to recognize who it is that you’re now being asked to support.  I say “asked,” but the truth is more like “cajoled” and “prodded” and “urged,” and in a few cases, “bullied.”  I won’t be bullied, so those vocal Romney-oids can cease with the e-mails.  I’m much too busy to read much e-mail these days, but what I do read won’t be the various iterations of “support Romney if you’re a real patriot.”  Excuse me?  The next time I see somebody named Romney walking a mile in the combat boots I once wore, talk to me about patriotism.  Otherwise, they can shove off.  While some of these were still in diapers, or standing on a stool to be breastfed in the absence of a Time magazine photographer, I was following orders all over the globe at the behest of a real Commander-in-Chief, so lay off the ridiculous appeals to a misplaced sense of patriotism.  It won’t work on me, so forget it.

You see, this is my basic dilemma, and it’s no different from what many of you now share:  Romney may well be all there is in 2012, but can we survive four more years of Obama?  I’ve decided that for me, the answer doesn’t matter any longer, even though I think the answer is “yes.”  Yes we can.  Yes we will.  What I’ve decided we cannot survive is another four years of an “opposition party” that doesn’t oppose diddly.  That’s right, I said it.  I have come to view the GOP establishment as the political enemy I must defeat.  I can’t defeat the statists by siding with their gentler , plodding version.  The constitutional republic will not be restored by going somewhat more slowly into that good night.  I recognize that many view Romney as a stalling tactic of sorts, and as a way to buy a little time to shore up Congress, take back the Senate, and so on.  I say to you that if you shore it up with Boehner, Cantor, and their ilk, while capturing the Senate only to place it in the hands of Mitch McConnell, there’s no point, and you’re not even delaying the inevitable.

I may find in short order that I am writing to read my own typos, and little else, but that’s okay by me. From obscurity only to return to obscurity is fine where I’m concerned.  I realize some conservatives have such an over-riding fear of Obama that they would vote for anybody at all who would oppose him, but I must tell you that I am not that desperate.  I am not afraid of the big bad wolf, huff and puff though he may.  My emotional, political and philosophical house is made of brick, and besides, I’ll always resist the further encroachment of government.  Over this last month and one-half as I have dealt with issues of a personal, professional, and agricultural nature, what I began to recognize is that Ayn Rand was correct: The only way to resolve such a problem is to withdraw your material support.  I think most of you already do that, each in your own way.  After all, how many of you have contributed to the GOP lately? You might selectively contribute to candidates or causes, but the party?  No. You’re not foolish, and you don’t wish to oil a machine that continues in many instances to work against you.

My question must then change:  If I do not wish to give my material support to the Republican Party, should I give the most precious thing I have to give — my vote — to the service of a party that has worked non-stop for three-and-one-half years to shove Mitt Romney down my throat?  A vote is a valuable thing, and I view it a bit like one’s virginity.  You shouldn’t yield it frivolously, because once you’ve done so, there’s no getting it back.  The glorious thing about a vote is that you have a new one to give in each election, although it can never fully repair any damage you may have done with its predecessors.  I want politicians to understand that my vote isn’t automatic because one has an “R” appended to his or her name, and that I expect performance.  The same is true of parties, and causes, and virtually anything in politics or the free market.  I don’t yet know how I will vote, but I am inclined to withhold it from either major candidate at this time.

There will be the inevitable cursing and gnashing of teeth aimed at me, along with the many others who may decide to stand in opposition to the GOP establishment.  I welcome it as I do the aches and pains of age that now greet me each morning , confirming  by unpleasant means the good news that I remain among the living.  In the same way, I expect that I will find that there exists some number of conservatives who will dislike my stance…immensely, but I will take their vocal displeasure as evidence that they understand the implications of my stand.  If the people who would tend to vote Republican in lieu of a conservative candidate wish to win the White House, they’re going to find their path difficult.  Like Mr. L, I will not “rah-rah” for a liberal Republican.  I will not trade my virtue for momentary satisfaction that will leave me feeling empty in the searing light of the morning after.

I recognize there will be those of you who disagree with my position on this, but that’s a deeply personal choice we must make, one and all.  I’m not so afraid of Barack Obama.  I’m not frightened of all of the things we believe he might well bring about, because I now view most of them as inevitable, and I know that Mitt Romney will neither stop them, nor even be inclined to do so if he could.  I also know that in another generation, we won’t have so many people willing to resist as we do now.  This is and has been the intention of the statists right along, as they have propagandized our children for five decades.  I have long agreed with the words of Thomas Paine, for so long as I’ve known them, and now that the time is drawing nigh, I will not wilt from them, or pretend they hadn’t been uttered, or written:

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. ” -Thomas Paine

Is this not the sentiment of all conservatives?  I think it so.   Will a battle with the GOP establishment be messy?  Undoubtedly.  Will conducting it whilst the raging statism of Obama continues apace make it all the more desperate a battle?  Surely.  Will I yield for the sake of a false unity that abides no satisfaction of my complaints?  No.  These times truly are what Paine reported as he wrote of The Crisis:

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

If this is not the character of our resistance to tyranny, I must ask “Why bother?”  Do I trade my vote to forestall it only?  For what will I next trade it?  A month’s delay? A week?  Another miserable breath?  If I must ask myself about the character that has been my life, I cannot for so paltry a sum diminish it.  Life may abound in compromises, but even so, knowing what constitutes compromise from that which embodies surrender is a critical distinction I cannot ignore.  I will not be bound to Mitt Romney, and I will not admit that Barack Obama controls my fate.