Posts Tagged ‘Conservatism’

Polls Open in Texas Run-Off: Voted For Cruz Yet?

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

Now's The Time!

If you’re a Texan, you know we have a US Senate seat up for grabs, and you know Lt. Governor David Dewhurts is out to claim the seat, no matter how many lies he must tell, or dirty, distorted ads he must run.  The simple fact of the matter is that there is only one conservative in this race, and it’s Ted Cruz.  Now is the time to swell at the polls, and to send a constitutional conservative to the United States Senate.  Polls open around Texas at 7:00 am on Tuesday, July 31st, and this is the opportunity for Texans to get out there and support a real constitutional conservative.  On your way to work this morning, get the job done.  It’s going to be a tight race, and you can affect the outcome, so let’s get out there and vote for Ted Cruz!

This has been a tough campaign season, and Ted has been out making the case for getting the Federal Government under control. If we are to have any chance to repeal Obama-care, this is a must-have seat, and we dare not fill it with a politician like David Dewhurst who has a long history of going along to get along.  Ted Cruz has vowed to work to repeal every last word of Obama-care.  He doesn’t want to fix it, replace it, or otherwise “improve” it because he knows that’s not possible.  Politicians can put all the lipstick on Obama-care they want, but it’s still a pig, and it is destructive of our liberties.  We simply can’t trust this mission to another Texas moderate Republican.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time is now:  The polls are open. Go vote for Ted Cruz!

Advertisements

It’s True: Bush Did It; Obama’s Finishing the Job

Monday, July 23rd, 2012

He Signed a Lot of Liberal Laws

As Senator Jeff Sessions(R-AL) made plain on last Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, George W. Bush in 2002 signed into law an act that made foreign nationals from Mexico eligible for food-stamps. That’s some damned-good “compassionate conservatism,” don’t you think?  What this reveals is more evidence of what I’ve been arguing right along:  What is killing our country is the unwillingness of conservatives to stand on strict principle, and the intentional undermining of conservatives by establishment Republicans at every turn.  I listened to Dr. Levin launch a tirade aimed at the policies of the former President and those like him, as well as at the government of Mexico for several minutes.  He was right in virtually every detail, and he was right to feel betrayed and put-upon by the people who are supposed to be on our side, but with all due respect to the radio giant and conservative beacon, he missed a few things.  I do not intend here to criticize Levin, but I want instead to show conservatives how he had erred, not in his appraisal of the facts, but instead regarding what we ought to do about them.  Dr. Levin’s error is the inevitable result of the contradictions too many conservatives accept,  even those with the intellectual clarity to have known better:  There is no compromise possible between liberty and tyranny, whatever one’s excuses for the latter.

Here’s the clip:

Alternative content

Nearing the conclusion of his justifiable tirade, Dr. Levin began to speak of Mitt Romney.  He offered:

“I sure as Hell hope that if Romney is elected President, that he doesn’t pull these stunts.”

As Dr. Levin said this, in my own mind, there issued a challenge to the Great One:

“What if he does pull these stunts, Mark?  What will you do?  Not vote for him in 2016?”

Yeah, right…

You see, this is emblematic of why we conservatives have lost much(if not all) of our power within the Republican party.  They’ve called our bluff too many times, and on far too many of those occasions, we have gone along despite our protests.  We always rationalize it in terms of “saving the country” from this liberal demon or that leftist monster, but the fact is that when it comes down to it, we are the ones who have blinked, time and time again.  Anybody who had been confused about the matter should see it plainly now:  Conservatives have been neutered in this manner because we have largely demurred from carrying out our threatened walk-outs.   We lose our spines, the walk-outs never materialize, and therefore, we are seen by the party establishment as mere paper tigers to be managed, but never respected, let alone feared.

You might say to me “but Mark, really, we simply must win, because we won’t survive four more years of Barack Obama. The country won’t survive.”  You may be right, but then again, you may not be.  It could be argued that the country is already dead in constitutional and cultural terms, and Levin is among those who has effectively articulated that very argument.  In 2000, I was assured by establishment Republicans that if Al Gore won the presidency, the country would be over, but I told the person with whom I argued that if George W. Bush was elected, it wouldn’t be much different.  Yes, Gore would have pushed the enviro-fascist agenda harder, but then at least the Republican Congress would have opposed him.  Yes, Gore would have tried some of the same tactics of executive fiat that Obama has tried, but again, at least the Republican majority in both Houses of Congress at the time would have been more inclined to do battle with him.  They didn’t oppose George Bush as he extended the power of the presidency through ever more extra-constitutional power grabs.  Instead, we had a Republican President who had a majority Republican Congress for six of his eight years, and he did immeasurable damage to our republic, whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not.  Yes, he defended the country after 9/11, and yes, he commanded honorably in his role as commander-in-chief, but he had many failings, and the weight of those failings multiplied by the gargantuan multiplier of Obama now smothers us.

To have signed into law a bill that provided for food-stamps benefits to illegal alien Mexican nationals was a crime against every tax-paying citizen in this country, and to all those who will be forced to pay for it over the next several generations, assuming the country survives as a political compartment.  He expanded other social programs as well, created vast new bureaucracies, and otherwise set the stage for everything Barack Obama has done to further the damage ever since he assumed the presidency in 2009.  One might argue that Bush had been well-meaning, but as you know by now, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and it doesn’t much matter whether they’re born in the mind of somebody with an “R” or a “D” after their names.  This is perhaps the single greatest contradiction faced by conservatives like Dr. Levin, who also have good and honorable intentions, and who usually are able to see the folly in pursuing them.

Levin lamented the fact that this isn’t a mere safety net any longer.  He implied that it was instead something monstrous, and he’s right, but let me say to the good Dr. Levin, certainly one of the most talented advocates for our constitution:  There is no rational place in which to draw a line once you begin to build a publicly-funded safety net.  The march of Progressivism throughout the 20th and 21st centuries has proven it, if you needed evidence.  In the early days of our republic, some of our early Presidents drew a firm line when Congress would undertake to create some compassionate measure intended to provide relief to this class or that, always on some construction of the concept that somehow, it could be limited, and that it could be justified in moral terms.  I am here to tell you that it cannot be true that safety nets can be limited and specific, because the primitive nature of pre-humanity is to seek the path of least resistance, or to exercise the least possible discomfort for the greatest comfort available at ease. At its founding, America had the greatest prospects in all of the world precisely because this notion was frowned-upon, and banished in a socially scathing manner, and we tended to consider the purveyors of easy money and easy solutions as con artists and frauds.

Social Security began as a program for widows and orphans.  How long did it remain as such?  The space of a generation had not elapsed before it was extended to wider and wider groups of recipients.  The entire welfare state, from the first bits of Medicaid and Medicare, to AFDC and Food-stamps have all undergone similar transformations, at first for a very limited group, to a broadened eligibility that encompasses vast segments of the American people.  This is what happens, always, once this chain of destruction commences.   It works this way: I say there should be no public safety net. Dr. Levin admits there should be a small, limited one.  His argument is based on his own subjective evaluation of what is the proper level of compulsory compassion.  George W. Bush comes along arguing for food-stamps for foreign nationals.  Levin cries foul, but after all, why is his subjective limitation on compulsory compassion any more valid than the one proposed by President Bush, or President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or some future statist politician? Simply, it is not.

This is how it gets out of control, and it’s really quite elementary: Once it begins, there is no way to reduce it for long.  You might curtail it a little here or there, but eventually people will come to power who will advance it again, and then still more.  This is why our earliest Presidents, fresh from our post-revolutionary travails, did all they could to oppose the encroachment of any of this redistribution under the guise of “compassion.” James Madison, eventually our third President, and the man thought by many to be the father of our constitution, offered this, as he served in Congress debating a bill providing for some sustenance and relief for French refugees from the Haitian revolution.  He said:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” –3rd Congress, Annals of Congress

This makes the matter plain.  There is no room in that statement for a public safety net of any description or purpose, and being one of the authors of the Constitution, one would suspect he understood its intended limits.  Madison would not be the last to make this sort of delineation, and subsequent Presidents actually stated the same sentiment in vetoing legislation proposing various forms of relief for this group or that.  It was not until the rise of the Progressives, in both parties in the early 20th Century that the first great transgressions of this principle began in earnest.

I would argue that Dr. Levin is right insofar as his evaluation of the Bush enactment of the law permitting the provision of food-stamps to illegal alien Mexican nationals, but I must also suggest in the strongest possible terms that Dr. Levin, and those like him of apt reverence for the constitution ought to consider the contradiction implicit in their protestations on behalf of any public safety net. Once it begins, it will not easily be stopped, and usually terminates with the death of the country in the upheaval of bloody revolution.  Only by rapidly undoing it all are we to avoid such mortal discomfort, though the time-frame to undo it all needn’t be overnight, still it mustn’t exceed much more than a half-decade.  We are living with the necessary result of the contradiction explicit in trying to create some firm boundary along the lines of flexible, subjective criteria, perpetually open to reinterpretation by whomever holds the reins of power. Our constitutional principles are fixed, but it is only our adherence to them that has been flexible.

In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison also wrote:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Is this not now the state our republic has attained?  We have undergone precisely the reversal here-described by James Madison, and it will be our undoing.  I am certain that a constitutional scholar with the precision and vigorous intellect of the sort made plain by Dr. Levin’s long history in service to that document and to the republic it had authored must see and be convinced of the fatal dangers of this contradiction harbored so widely, even among our greatest minds.  It is time that we decide if we are going to live in a constitutional, representative republic, or if we prefer instead to be subject to the indefinite power of a colossal government.  It is the choice made plain in the great book Ameritopia, and as a complete work in defense of our liberty, one would expect that with the fullness of time, its author will ultimately embrace the full wisdom of that which he so magnificently defends.

For we conservatives, it is long past due that we should embrace the meaning of Madison’s admonishments.  He didn’t offer exceptions to the principle, but it is only because no exceptions are rationally feasible.  The danger implied was grievous enough that Madison would not countenance its passage, despite surely being as compassionate and charitable a man as any.  He understood that the only manner in which to draw this line was to make it absolute.  He also understood that any less a proscription would lead inevitably to the national turmoil into which we are now sliding.  This is our true challenge as conservatives, because we mustn’t merely begin the already seemingly impossible chore of diminishing the size and scope of the festering blight of the welfare state, but we must begin the process of excising it from our country altogether.   This may seem a fantastical, practically impossible proposition, and yet if we are to restore the republic to the land of possibilities it had been at its beginning, no less will do.

We must undo Obama-care, rolling it back to 2009, but we must roll back to 2002, and then to 1982, and eventually to 1964, and to the 1930s.  We must keep going until it is gone, replacing government with private, volitional charity of the sort that had permitted us to take care of the truly unfortunate persons among us, but that left no room for graft of any sort at taxpayers’ expense.  One-hundred-forty-four million or so Americans now rely upon the welfare state in all its various forms.  That number is exploding, and will soon top half our population, and when it does, there will be no rolling it back, and surely no salvaging of our republic.  Our desire to help others must be restrained from the realm of government.  The contradiction explicit in attempting to have a system that regards the wealth of citizens as one part private property and one part public loot must be abolished, even if there is some temporary pain.  It’s our last chance, time is quickly running out, and I dare say time is a good deal shorter now than any of our public officials dare admit. It’s time to draw an indelible, solid line.

Why Is Paul Gosar in Congress?

Saturday, July 14th, 2012

 

Paul Gosar(R-AZ)

WesternJournalism.com ran this story, with accompanying video, in which Representative Paul Gosar(R-AZ) participates in a panel discussion over the question of adherence to the US Constitution.  The Congressman said that we can’t adhere to it, since fifty percent(or more) of the American people don’t wish to live within its confines.  This admission by a US Representative, allegedly a conservative from a relatively conservative district, demonstrates the serious trouble we’re in, and also why the Republican party simply cannot be relied upon as the vehicle conservatives would use to restore a healthy respect for the Constitution, and a restoration of our republic.  This congressman seems to be one of Boehner’s boot-lickers, undoubtedly sold on the notion that after all, Republicans control only one-half of one-third of the government.  My question for a congressman who exhibits this pathetic attitude, and all the surrender-monkeys like him in the Republican party in Washington DC, and elsewhere around the country is simply this: If you will not stand for the constitution, why in Hell do we need you?  We don’t need excuses for your inaction.  We don’t need more sad stories.  We need people who are willing to lead, and to fight if need be.  Is Congressman Gosar one upon whom we can rely?

Here’s the video:

Somebody please offer the Congressman a tissue, and a pair of…  Look, I realize that I have been rather surly about all of this lately, but the fact of the matter is that somebody in his district needs to get in touch with this moral coward and let him know that while the party’s establishment may be following in the mold he and other squeamish Republicans are wont to do, there are plenty of Americans who are becoming convinced by such displays as his that the Republican party needs to die a sudden death.  We all know the realities, but I have a question for Congressman Lie-Down-and-Be-Depressed:  If he is not willing to make a stand when he has the opportunity, truly, what sort of fraud must he be?  This is the nature of much of the Republican party in Congress.  They come home to rally the ‘troops’ but all they’re really doing is to let us vent a little of our frustration in the hope that we will stay in line through yet another election, since they see it all as futile anyway.  They all swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and too many of them either join or simply yield to the latter.

I’ve got a proposition for Congressman The Undescended:  If you believe you can’t win while adhering to the constitution, then why don’t you have the guts to go home and tell your voters that?  Why don’t you have the guts to go home and tell them that in order to restore their sacred constitution, which ought to be your touchstone too, they(and – fat chance – you) may well need to resort to actions rather than words?   You see, with this wilting tendency that has overtaken the Republican Impotency in the House, the sad truth is that we don’t even have one-half of one-third of the government.  It’s bad enough that the Republican nominee has all the fight of this morning’s oatmeal, that their majority leader in the Senate seems to need a dose of starch in order to stand erect behind a podium and make another display of impotent finger-waggling,  and that the Speaker of the House cries ceaselessly about the obstacles and “realities” in Washington, but when rank-and-file members find they cannot serve and uphold their oaths, what they should do is resign their offices, tell their constituents the ugly truth about the state of the Republic, and then lead them into battle, but I don’t mean politics.

What I hope readers will note is that if it is as bad as this Congressman claims, there can be only one course remaining.  If  that is so, why will this Congressman not say so?  The dear ladies in the video are precisely correct, particularly the latter, Stephani Scruggs, so permit me to say a word in her defense, since so few in this emasculated culture will do so with the requisite vigor:  When she says we are slaves, she is in all ways correct.  When she alleges that our constitutionally guaranteed liberties have been stripped from us, she in no way exaggerates the matter.  If anything, to save time, she understated the list by some number, but she did not underestimate the gravity, and to her credit, that much was unmistakable: In order to save liberty, we may be called upon to risk every bit as much as our founders before us. In fact, it seems certain.  If the Congressman’s assertion is correct, and it is not out of line with my own analysis of the futility of the tax argument, then our question to him and all those like him must be: “So what are you going to do about it, now that you’ve noticed?”

All the “moderates” who tell me I’m “too extreme” should instead offer my readers a solution that is workable, but does not consist of more pie-in-the-sky, “silver-linings” rhetoric.  Tell us, bluntly if you dare:  How do we reverse this now that we’ve created the beast?  All along the way, the “extreme” conservatives warned that this would be the result of an uninterrupted string of surrenders dressed up as “tactical retreats.”  If this Congressman is right, you might defend him on the basis that he’s merely being pragmatic.  As I would point out to him, pragmatism of that sort leads to chains, and in fact, it has.  We wear them now, you and I, each working, productive American.  If this can be turned around with something short of violence, let the Congressman explain the methodology, because what he seems to propose is more of the same: Slinking, slithering retreat from battle, all in order to live to fight another day that never arrives.  How does that restore our Constitution?  How does that repair our republic?  How does that loosen the bonds that increasingly weigh us down and must ultimately crush us?  Will any Republican be honest enough to say what may be necessary?  If our founders had been men like these, we would still kneel before the crown, irrespective of our current President’s penchant for bowing.  If we continue to elect representatives who will offer no more vigorous an opposition than this, it’s clear we still do, though the throne may have changed addresses.

 

 

 

Scapegoating Conservatism: Post-Defeat Planners Redux

Saturday, May 5th, 2012

Conservatives?

One of the things I’ve already noticed is the start of the excuse-making on the part of the Republican establishment.  They shoved Mitt Romney down our throats, but some of us have vomited him out of our mouths because we simply cannot tame the bile-raising nausea we feel in the pits of our stomachs.  The immediate response of the GOP establishment has been to manufacture a narrative that will effectively blame conservatives if Romney loses.  They won’t blame his lack of conservatism.  They won’t blame his duplicity or his negative primary campaign.  They won’t blame their own complicity in setting us up with a candidate we don’t want, but what they will do is blame we conservatives, and it’s starting already.

I don’t play that game.  If they wanted to win this election, they could have supported a conservative candidate for a change, but they are very much a take-it-or-leave-it crowd.  You see, if they don’t get their way, they take their ball and their donations and go home, all while they insist we conservatives are to blame if we respond similarly, leading to the defeat of their chosen candidate.  The problem the establishment faces is that conservatives still remember Ronald Reagan, and they know too well that genuine conservatism wins.  They can continue to scapegoat conservatism, but we shouldn’t accept their excuses any longer, and we shouldn’t fall into the trap that this year’s crop of post-defeat planners are already laying.

If I owned a hot-dog stand and after years of selling barely palatable wieners,  I go to something even worse, my customers will likely find them disgusting, causing them to flee.  Do I blame them for their lack of “loyalty?”  I might even cry “but you’ll starve without my hot-dogs,” but will they?  I might appeal to their sense of loyalty as customers of long-standing, but if they don’t like my product because it’s terrible, who is to blame?  Them?  Or me?   In making the loyalty argument, I must purposely evade a concept my customers would be right to throw in my face:  If I were loyal to them, I wouldn’t try to feed them bad product, and rather than worsening it, would concentrate on improving it.

They may even appeal to my patriotism: “How can you let Obama win?”   As with the loyalty argument, I again turn it around:  How can they offer us a candidate who they know many of us will not be able to support, if they care about the country?  In a free market, such intransigence would soon lead me to go out of business, and the fact of the matter is that the same is true of the GOP establishment.  Of course, they’ve tried to rig the market in their favor, but it’s really not possible in the longer run.  They use their influence, given them by means of our votes, to solidify their hold on the “market” of political ideas, and it is our willingness to do so that enables them to continue.

The good news is that we can still make gains from this election cycle.  We can still elect conservatives to all of the down-ballot seats, and as is now plain from polling data in Indiana, where Richard Mourdock is now leading Dick Lugar despite a multi-million dollar campaign against him, it’s evident that we conservatives can still turn the tables on the establishment.  In Texas, we’re having a bit more of an uphill battle as the establishment guy, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst continues to run slightly ahead of Ted Cruz and a whole slate of lesser-known candidates, but with less than a month to go, it’s still close enough that it’s anybody’s race and we may well wind up with a run-off, in which case Cruz looks stronger.

The basic point is that irrespective of the Presidential race, we can still have a significant impact in 2012.  If we can sweep away some of the liberal Republicans in the Senate, and replace a number of the Democrats who are up this year with conservatives, we can stymie President Obama and aggressively pursue him should he continue to use illegitimate executive powers to run an end-around on Congress even if Romney loses.  If Romney wins, it will leave us with some means by which to exert control over him.

Of course, the establishment won’t go quietly.  They will continue their game, and part of their play is to make you feel as though you must support their guy.   Once you realize this, it’s easier to understand how it is that they can sell you a lower quality hot-dog, and you will be forced to swallow it, disgruntled though you may be.  In the end, they know that while they are not really the sole source, or the sole choice, they are the sole choice you can bring yourselves to make.  It’s true in both parties, but what this really means is that in most respects, our country is ruled by a political oligopoly that wishes to leave you with no other alternative.  They can afford to wait you out in most cases, because even if you sit out an election or two in protest, you’ll eventually be ripened by some issue to come back to them for harvest.  This is why they’re willing to lose elections in order to punish you.  After all, it won’t hurt them much, but let’s examine who loses what, and under which circumstances the losses really occur.

If Mitt Romney loses in November, does the GOP establishment lose?  I contend to you that they not only win, but they have set up the manner by which they will win big in 2016.  By then, assuming the country endures(and I believe it will,) they will have managed to create some substantial sense of Obama-fatigue.  Its early manifestations are already showing up in the polls, but you see, for the elites of the GOP establishment, none of it will make any difference to their immediate health, safety, or prospects for continuing profits.  In short, they won’t be hurt because their money insulates them.  Your farms may go down, your businesses may crash, your jobs may disappear, or you may find yourselves in other calamities, but none of that will bother them.  In fact, it will tend to make you more compliant with their desires and demands in the future.  If you’re starving, you’ll take my low-quality hot-dog any way I wish to serve it.

It’s for this reason that they don’t mind losing an election or two(or ten.)  If it serves their long-run interests, it may even be preferable to victory.  It also gives the Republican establishment an opportunity to defame conservatives[again.]  This makes it easier for them to win in the future, because if they can succeed in painting conservatives as heartless, inflexible ideologues who would rather lose than compromise, it makes it all the easier to sell the American people a “compassionate conservative,” who does not actually exhibit the first substantially conservative trait once examined closely.   It’s for this reason that I believe the Republican establishment will be happy to see Mitt Romney lose, because in 2016, you’ll be only too thrilled if they offer you Jeb Bush.  At that point, you’ll vote for the most liberal Republican they throw at you if only you can get rid of the Democrats.

Viewed in this manner, the GOP establishment knows it has conservatives over a barrel, and that’s what they’ve been working to do throughout this election cycle, and in perpetuity.  I realize that the choices they offer us are abysmal, because that’s the nature of their game.  Where I will not budge is on this notion that conservatives will have been at fault if they do not support Mitt Romney in November.  Viewed as any other business competing for customers or clients, the Republican Party has a responsibility to put forth an acceptable candidate.  Failing that, it is they who are to blame, and it is they who are culpable in any defeat suffered.

Of course, that assumes they want to win(in 2012,) but given Mitt Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts, I’m not convinced that’s the case.  They have intentionally put forward a man who is a veritable “poison pill” for many conservatives, and I don’t believe it’s accidental, or somehow the result of political happenstance.   Besides, from the GOP establishment point of view, this allows them to kill off a whole flock with a single stone.  Conservatives and Tea Partiers will take the blame, and they’ll be able to sell us on almost anybody in 2016 when they’ll have an easier time winning the Oval Office because it will soon be vacated anyway.  That’s Win, Win, and WIN from their point of view.

Conservatives and Tea Party types should be prepared for the moment when the blame game begins in earnest.  They’ve already begun to push this narrative, and that’s to be expected, but should Romney lose(and many are fairly certain he will,) you can bet that the morning of November 7th, the questions will commence on FoxNews and other establishment outlets:  “What’s wrong with conservatives?  Why are they so hard to please?  What will we do about the Tea Party?”  Bank on it. Even now, the recriminations are beginning, softly, gently now, but they will build to a crescendo by November the 7th.  I actually had a telephone call from one conservative campaign fund call and urge me to contribute on the basis that Mitt Romney probably cannot win, so we need to shore up the Congressional side, and yet there are those conservatives who say I am a gloomy guy?

On the other hand, if Romney manages to win, this will be an even bigger victory for the GOP establishment:  They will have been able to put up a liberal Republican, and out of sheer desperation, have conservatives support him.  Game over! At that point, conservatives will have no means by which to restrain a Romney administration, because they will have been a paper tiger.  This is the dilemma we conservatives face, which is why I still hold out hope, slim though it may be, for a brokered convention.  There’s a reason Romney is having a closed-door meeting with Santorum, and you’d better believe it’s about trying to get more support.   I don’t think conservatives can afford for either Obama or Romney to win, whether out of desperation to rid ourselves of Obama, or in order to avoid the inevitable scapegoating.  In particular now, it seems the GOP establishment is going after Palin supporters.  Ah well, yes, most of us are accustomed to that, as the same crowd tried to make a scapegoat of Sarah Palin in 2008.

The simple fact remains:  I can’t see how Mitt Romney’s supporters or the GOP establishment will be able to carry off such scapegoating with any credibility.  After all, how unpalatable must a candidate be to lose to an incumbent who has unemployment at around 8%, has record deficits, has added trillions of dollars to the national debt, has overseen the devaluing of the dollar, starved us of fuel and energy resources, hobbled our military, aided our enemies, abandoned our allies, and generally made a wreck of things?

Just how bad must a Republican be to lose in that kind of environment?  How thoroughly must he have been disliked, not only in the general electorate, but in his own party in order to lose despite such conditions?  How thoroughly has his campaign offended some sizable number of conservatives?  Should he expect such voters to shut up and eat the week-old hot-dog he’s selling? Are you ready to paste your palate with that stale, low-grade bun that’s been in the steamer rack four times this week?  The GOP knows what it’s doing.  You still believe, innocently, that they want to win, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent to me that they do not, and I’m not willing to let them off the hook by playing the role of scapegoat, and I won’t eat sorry hot-dogs for a notion of loyalty that is clearly unidirectional.

The Clock Is Ticking: How Long Until Romney Retreats?

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

Crowning Himself

With his speech Tuesday night, it became evident that Mitt Romney intends to take the advice of his establishment GOP friends, and will soon begin a full-on retreat from conservatism.  It’s not that Romney was ever a conservative, but that he was putting on just enough of a show to make some primary voters believe it.  All of that will soon change, and we will see the real Mitt Romney soon, to the degree there is a real Mitt Romney.  He delivered a speech in Manchester, NH, Tuesday night as a victory speech for the primaries on the day, and in so doing, I decided I not only dislike his brand of dishonest politics, but that I’ve begun to really dislike him.  I abhor platitudinous rhetoric spoken with no philosophical backbone, and in my estimation, his speech was full of it.   FoxNewsInsider.com provides the transcript of the speech, and I’ll provide the commentary:

Thank you Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York! And tonight I can say thank you, America. After 43 primaries and caucuses, many long days and more than a few long nights, I can say with confidence – and gratitude – that you have given me a great honor and solemn responsibility. And, together, we will win on November 6th!

Yes, it’s all over, right?  That’s it. All done! Texas hasn’t voted yet. See if you can win the presidency without Texas.  Texas may wind up supporting you, but you presume too much, Governor Romney.

We launched this campaign not far from here on a beautiful June day. It has been an extraordinary journey.

Nobody really remembers your campaign launch, because at the time, Sarah Palin was in the vicinity, and the crowds all went to see her instead.

Americans have always been eternal optimists. But over the last three and a half years, we have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership. Everywhere I go, Americans are tired of being tired, and many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less.

Apparently, you don’t know the same Americans I know.  On the one hand, you tell us we’re eternal optimists, but on the other hand, you tell us we’re tired of being tired?  Which is it? Even if you succeed in getting the nomination, Americans who are tired of those false promises and weak leadership will turn their focus on you, since you also have a record of similar leadership.  Most Americans I know are tired of leaders blowing smoke up their backsides, and to date, you’ve offered nothing but platitudes to demonstrate you’re anything more than just another of the same.

For every single mom who feels heartbroken when she has to explain to her kids that she needs to take a second job … for grandparents who can’t afford the gas to visit their grandchildren … for the mom and dad who never thought they’d be on food stamps … for the small business owner desperately cutting back just to keep the doors open one more month – to all of the thousands of good and decent Americans I’ve met who want nothing more than a better chance, a fighting chance, to all of you, I have a simple message: Hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight.

What is this?  The litany of pandering?  Stop trying to describe in sympathetic terms every conceivable interest group and simply start talking to Americans.  You don’t need to throw a rhetorical bone to women, seniors, and small business owners. And you certainly shouldn’t be borrowing from George W. Bush’s “help is on the way” theme.  If yours is like his, little more than a rhetorical flourish, you’re definitely off to a bad start.

Tonight is the start of a new campaign to unite every American who knows in their heart that we can do better! The last few years have been the best that Barack Obama can do, but it’s not the best America can do!

Looking at your record, I’m not sure Americans will be heartened by their prospects.

Tonight is the beginning of the end of the disappointments of the Obama years and the start of a new and better chapter that we will write together.

To be replaced by the disappointments of a liberal with an “R” after his name?  You’re sounding dangerously like the establishment Republican version of “Hope and Change.”

This has already been a long campaign, but many Americans are just now beginning to focus on the choice before the country. In the days ahead, I look forward to spending time with many of you personally. I want to hear what’s on your mind, hear about your concerns, and learn about your families. I want to know what you think we can do to make this country better…and what you expect from your next President.

Long campaign?  Well yes, you’ve been campaigning continuously since 2007, or sooner, so I suppose that is a long campaign, but I have news for you:  It isn’t over yet.  As your shills in the media continue to put you forward as the inevitable nominee, I’m not finished with you yet, and neither are a number of others.  I just want to know one thing:  If you think you don’t need to compete in Texas for our primary support, what makes you think you’ll have deserved any support you may want from us in November?

And I’ll tell you a little bit about myself. I’ll probably start out talking about my wonderful wife Ann – I usually do – and I’ll probably bore you with stories about our kids and grandkids. I’ll tell you about how much I love this country, where someone like my dad, who grew up poor and never graduated from college, could pursue his dreams and work his way up to running a great car company. Only in America could a man like my dad become governor of the state in which he once sold paint from the trunk of his car.

I know the bio.  Tell us about you.

I’d say that you might have heard that I was successful in business. And that rumor is true. But you might not have heard that I became successful by helping start a business that grew from 10 people to hundreds of people. You might not have heard that our business helped start other businesses, like Staples and Sports Authority and a new steel mill and a learning center called Bright Horizons. And I’d tell you that not every business made it and there were good days and bad days, but every day was a lesson. And after 25 years, I know how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery!

Twenty-five years condensed into a paragraph, but not one word about your four years as governor of Massachusetts?  I suppose that’s a space-saving measure.

Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

He didn’t dazzle me, and he didn’t dazzle other conservatives, so now I’m certain you’re not talking to us.  Already shifting your focus, aren’t you, Willard?  What do we have after three-and-one-half years of Obama?  Let’s see: We have more debt, a highly socialized healthcare program the burdens of which will not be fully known for years.  We have a head of state who introduces radical environmental regulations without respect to our legislative body.  In other words, it’s not much different from what the people of Massachusetts had after four years of Governor Mitt Romney!

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

Did the regulations you imposed on the State of Massachusetts make fuel less expensive at the pumps?  Did the healthcare plan you inflicted on that State make healthcare better? I’m asking these questions because these are some of the things the Democrats and their legion of shills in the Lamestream Media will ask of you this fall, and I suspect your answers will be no better than Obama’s.  You may be treated with kid gloves on the ever-fawning FoxNews, but that’s not going to cut it this Fall.

If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.

Barack Obama hasn’t failed.  He’s achieved at least the initial stages of what he set out to accomplish: He is willfully destroying the country, and transforming it through destructive reorganization.  The fact that you don’t recognize this is precisely why you shouldn’t be trusted with the Republican party’s nomination.

People are hurting in America. And we know that something is wrong, terribly wrong with the direction of the country.

Nice platitude. Even in the best of times, somebody, somewhere is hurting, and there’s nothing you can do about it.  Stop pretending otherwise.  As one good friend reminds me, “Life is tough.  Get a helmet.”  The direction of the country will not be changed by more platitudes constructed to deny reality.  Are you familiar with John Galt?  He’s trying to give you a clue.

We know that this election is about the kind of America we will live in and the kind of America we will leave to future generations. When it comes to the character of America, President Obama and I have very different visions.

Do you really? What concretes exist in this speech to evince that difference?

Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society.

Free? Like Massachusetts?

This President is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars. He’s asking us to accept that Washington knows best – and can provide all.

Ruled from a distant capital? Like Boston?

We’ve already seen where this path leads. It erodes freedom. It deadens the entrepreneurial spirit. And it hurts the very people it’s supposed to help. Those who promise to spread the wealth around only ever succeed in spreading poverty. Other nations have chosen that path. It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt, and stagnant wages.

Yes, we have. The people of Massachusetts have intimate knowledge.

I have a very different vision for America, and of our future. It is an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans. Because there are so many enterprises that are succeeding, the competition for hard-working, educated and skilled employees is intense, and so wages and salaries rise.

Freedom like Romneycare?

I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living. I see children even more successful than their parents – some successful even beyond their wildest dreams – and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it.

I see that America too, but Mitt Romney isn’t its president any more than Barack Obama has been.

This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.

Great! Now, who pays for that school choice? One of the principles of freedom is that he who pays is he who chooses.  Who is paying for the education of urban children?  The parents of those children, or somebody else?  And not only urban children.    Who is paying for this failed education system?  How do people who do not pay expect to have a choice at all?  As to politicians giving goodies to friends, I a much in favor.  How will you stop this, specifically?  Can I see the legislative language?  More McCain-Feingold humdrum? Or real and lasting reform? As to government workers, could you provide us the statistics on average salaries for state employees in Massachusetts both at the beginning and end of your term as Governor, so that we might see an example of what you would do at the Federal level?  What did you implement, as Governor of Massachusetts, that would dramatically reduce the tax burden on the future tax-payers of that State?  You may not answer me, but you’d better be prepared to answer it, because while no conservatives in media are asking, you can bet the left will throw it in your face if you’re the nominee.

In the America I see, character and choices matter. And education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded. And poverty will be defeated, not with a government check, but with respect and achievement that is taught by parents, learned in school, and practiced in the workplace.

Kind of like “welfare wheels?” Not only did you dispense government checks, but you also dispensed automobiles.  It’s no wonder that you should want Americans to forget your years in government.

This is the America that was won for us by the nation’s Founders, and earned for us by the Greatest Generation. It is the America that has produced the most innovative, most productive, and the most powerful economy in the world.

Governor Romney, you have a collectivized view of America’s successes, but the truth is that it was millions of individuals who created the most powerful economy on the globe.  Your fixation with collectivized notions of national greatness are disturbing to economic conservatives and libertarians, and for good reason.  The misleading aspect of your view is this: That America, as a nation, was the beneficiary of millions of individual achievements offers no answer to the problem without first understanding that it is only through the promotion of individuals, their goals and their ambitions, through individual actions that the collective you repeatedly reference may see any benefit.  You cannot speak to America as a single body, or even as classes, but instead, you must see America as a diverse universe of people, surely with similarities, but also unique and each one different from the next.  Capitalism doesn’t succeed when people focus on collectivized notions of success.  Capitalism succeeds when individuals succeed, and we notice, after the fact, that the net benefit to the nation as a whole has been positive.  Drop the collectivism.  It makes you sound like a Northeast Liberal.  Oh, wait…

As I look around at the millions of Americans without work, the graduates who can’t get a job, the soldiers who return home to an unemployment line, it breaks my heart. This does not have to be. It is the result of failed leadership and of a faulty vision. We will restore the promise of America only if we restore the principles of freedom and opportunity that made America the greatest nation on earth.

You continue to mention these principles that must be restored.  Can you list them?

Today, the hill before us is a little steep but we have always been a nation of big steppers. Many Americans have given up on this President but they haven’t ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves. Not on each other. And not on America.

The hill before us is vertical.  It’s a cliff.  Our current President is marching us off, over, and into the abyss.  Most Americans are blindly following.  If they follow you, where will you lead them?

In the days ahead, join me in the next step toward that destination of November 6th, when across America we can give a sigh of relief and know that the Promise of America has been kept. The dreamers can dream a little bigger, the help wanted signs can be dusted off, and we can start again.

How?  Don’t offer me 59-point plans that have been cooked up by the torments of technocratic gobbledygook. Instead, list out those principles you reference, but never name, and tell us how you will apply them.

And this time we’ll get it right. We’ll stop the days of apologizing for success at home and never again apologize for America abroad.

We had it right before.  We know how to get it right.  What we need is for you to get government the hell out of the way. Is that what you did in Massachusetts?  I don’t think so.

There was a time – not so long ago – when each of us could walk a little taller and stand a little straighter because we had a gift that no one else in the world shared. We were Americans. That meant something different to each of us but it meant something special to all of us. We knew it without question. And so did the world.

Most of us are still Americans.  To be an American isn’t about where one is born, much as your father would have known.  To be an American is to exhibit an historically peculiar mindset that abhors collectivized thinking.  To date, you’ve shown little evidence that you understand that.

Those days are coming back. That’s our destiny.

Our destiny?

We believe in America. We believe in ourselves. Our greatest days are still ahead. We are, after all, Americans!

I believe in America. I believe in the prospects of individual Americans, as individuals.  Quit blowing collectivized smoke. One thing real Americans hate is B.S.  In the main, you’ve delivered a load.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Indeed.  Texas will hold its primary May 29th, but since you don’t need us, you needn’t campaign here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to apologize.  Let me suggest to you that if Mitt Romney is the best the Republican party can offer, we might as well join hands with Obama in leaping off that cliff.  At least it will be quick.  I may be at odds with some conservatives who would support anybody to avoid Obama, but so be it.  If when the Texas primary arrives, Romney is the only remaining choice on the Republican side, I will write in somebody else.  Of course, at least for now, Romney is not the only choice, and I will vote for somebody who has actually led a conservative insurgence in Washington DC.  I suspect that the reports on Drudge are false about an impending exit by Gingrich, if only because virtually every other story Drudge has run on Gingrich has been hyped or plainly false.  Mitt may want this primary season to end, and his friends in the GOP establishment have done a remarkable job of orchestrating it so far, but that doesn’t mean we conservatives will necessarily go quietly.

Sorry Mitt. It’s not over.

 

Romney’s Stunning Hypocrisy

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

 

How Different Is He Really?

This is the second time in a week that Mitt Romney has said something on the campaign trail that I thought sounded suspiciously familiar.  Both remarks were in the context of Barack Obama’s “hot-mic” incident with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  In both cases, Romney asserted that Barack Obama is hiding his true agenda from the American people, but the problem is that while he complains about Obama’s stealth agenda of radical leftism, and that Obama is just trying to fool Americans into voting for him by sounding more centrist, he’s merely holding off his real agenda until he can secure the election.  The problem is that with respect to conservatives in the GOP, Mitt Romney is doing precisely the same thing.  If he can secure the nomination, Romney will be moving a good deal to the left himself.

In describing Barack Obama on Wednesday, from the Reuters report, Romney said:

“He is intent on hiding. You and I will have to do the seeking,”

Many conservatives will read this and will wonder immediately why it is that he has been hiding from his true record as a liberal Republican from a deep blue state.   It’s not that Obama isn’t hiding, but that Romney is also in stealth mode during this primary season too.  Romney’s dishonesty about his own agenda will make it difficult for him to make these arguments about Barack Obama with anything like a sense of moral authority, because he’s guilty of the same thing.

We already know that Mitt Romney will abandon his positions that sound vaguely conservative, thanks in part to Pam Bondi and others, because he intends to re-reform health-care in his own image.  He will set up a very similar system to that which exists under Obamacare, and indeed exists in Massachusetts, probably minus the mandate.  If he manages to get the GOP nomination, he will begin to quickly separate himself from the so-called “hard right,” although in truth, there is no “hard right” politician in this race.  In fact, I dare say there are not many “hard-right” politicians in the country at the Federal level.

What this exemplifies is the art of “positioning.”  Romney has been using the image as a “Massachusetts Moderate” to attract votes in very blue states in which he has won, and while he occasionally remarks on being a conservative, as readers will have noted, it’s not been a very passionate sort of claim.  Even those tepid claims will be discarded when the general campaign arrives, should he happen to be the nominee.  Of course, we’ve known he wasn’t sincere since he described himself as “severely conservative,” because the negative connotations of the word “severe” in association with conservatism is a view held by the left and by liberal Republicans. Mainstream conservatives don’t consider themselves “severe” in any respect, and this phrase by Romney offers us a bit of insight into his real views.

For this reason, it’s a bit astonishing to see him make these claims about Obama.  It’s undoubtedly true that this President is attempting to hide the radical nature of his agenda, but that’s not exactly new.  What’s new in all of this is the disingenuous nature of Romney’s attack, because for all intents and purposes, he is doing precisely the same thing to conservatives at present that Barack Obama is doing to the broader electorate. Romney isn’t conservative, any more than Barack Obama is a moderate, and in point of fact, there are fewer points of separation between the records of the two men than either might wish to admit.

Romney is definitely misleading conservatives, whether mild or “severe” in their conservatism, because he needs votes from that segment to secure the nomination.  It is much the same as Barack Obama’s attempt to capture independents and moderates:  It’s a lie, and it will bear no resemblance to how he runs a general election campaign, or how he will govern.  Mitt Romney isn’t a “severe conservative,” but instead a severe fake.  April will be a month in which Romney gains many delegates in blue states, but he should not be permitted to get to 1144.  If Mitt Romney can call out Barack Obama’s intended deception in hiding his true agenda, I believe conservatives should waste no time in pointing out that Romney is engaged in a similarly disingenuous appeal.  Mitt’s no conservative, and if he secures the Republican nomination, the “Etch-a-Sketch” will be shaken, and conservatives who had been fooled by all of this will see how severe the deception had been.

And it will be too late to do a damned things about it.

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Sandra Fluke’s Irrational Demand

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Limbaugh to Fluke: Have Some Aspirin

Sandra Fluke is a law student at Georgetown University.  Fluke believes it is the duty of insurers to pay for her contraception.  Of course, what she really means is that she’s another disgusting little socialist who wants others to carry her burdens.   She says she testified in order to shine light on the plight of women who aren’t getting contraceptive coverage through the university.  I have a problem with the mandates under Obamacare, and the one that will require religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage through health-care insurance policies they provide to employees is at the center of this issue.  On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh commented on Fluke’s testimony, asking what kind of woman demands payment for her to have sex.

While Rush was making a play on words, it’s still the fact that at the root of this, there is an undeniable truth.  First, let’s hear from Rush Limbaugh on Thursday:

Yes, Rush is his usual, combative self, but let’s examine the thought behind the sentiment: Rush is saying that Ms. Fluke ought to pay for her own contraception, because otherwise, what she is doing is to make her sex life, and the sex lives of her fellow students a matter for public review.  You can’t demand the public subsidize your “reproductive health” and not expect some sort of public denunciations or judgments.  You simply can’t.  The complaint that Fluke expresses is that this isn’t fair, because male students don’t face a similar burden.  Don’t they?  If they don’t, whose fault is that?  I do not understand the illogical claim of some, and Fluke is one of them, that they simultaneously don’t want government in their bedrooms, but do want them to fully furnish it for them.  I don’t want to hear about the relatively small number of women who actually need contraceptive pills for some therapeutic purpose, because just like in the abortion argument, and the questions regarding exceptions for rape and incest, the exception must not be the aim of the rule.

The answer here is clear:  Keep your contraception private, and it will remain private.  Contraception for that purpose is not healthcare.  It’s contraception.  I don’t care about Fluke’s sexual habits or those of other Georgetown students, but when you sign up to attend a religiously-founded institution, you shouldn’t expect coverage that conflicts with that institution’s firmly-held beliefs.  Instead, Fluke is demanding that Obamacare be enforced on Catholic universities.  I come back to the warning  of Cardinal George, of which I wrote yesterday:  If I were the Catholic church, and this law isn’t overturned, I would shut down every hospital, school, and university under that umbrella and take a bulldozer to them, or I would continue as before and refuse to pay the fines.  Either way, I would not surrender or wilt before the government on this issue.

In short, if it were up to me, Fluke would be looking for a new venue to finish her studies.  The moment people believe that they possess a right to impose costs on others, or force them to suspend their adherence to their own beliefs, a line has been crossed.  Fluke has no right to an education, and no right to contraception at the expense of others, either in cash, or in terms of quashing their beliefs.  This is one more reason why the law known as Obamacare must be overturned.  Limbaugh offered to buy her all the aspirin she needs, but I think we should let nature run its course.  She has no right to expect nature to be suspended on her behalf, and yet that is the actual aim of her testimony.  In the end, what Fluke demands is a government gun aimed at religious institutions to compel them to provide the coverage she wants.  That’s socialism, and in the end, this is really the heart of the matter.

 

Time to Pick Up and Carry On

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Carrying On Through Tears

Andrew Breitbart’s sudden passing leaves conservatives with a gaping hole to fill.  I am certain that Joel Pollak, and all the others over at the “Bigs” in the Breitbart.com universe will work like fiends to hold things up, as to my knowledge, they are all committed to excellence.  Still, the in-your-face nature of Breitbart himself, combined with his friendly and funny outlook are irreplaceable, indispensable parts of what he had been to conservatism.  One of the problems we conservatives suffer is that we are almost always too nice, too kind, too forgiving and too desirous of peace to carry on in battles of this sort.  I understand, because nobody wants to exist in a perpetual state of warfare, whether real or cultural, but I am going to ask my readers to do the unthinkable:  It’s time to stand up, speak out, and pursue truth without fear.

Many of you have always done so anyway, but there has been an element wishing to avoid conflicts.  This same element just wants the primary season over, because they don’t like the spectacle of Republicans attacking one another publicly.  I believe this is a faulty idea, and  I don’t think it helps us to rush this along just to wind up with a candidate who will suddenly be beset by attacks we hadn’t known were coming.   That aside, however, we conservatives are much too careful, and much too timid at times.  I’m sure this arises from faith, and from upbringing, but also much more importantly because we have been carefully propagandized to view ourselves as the minority.

We’re no such thing.  The truth of the matter is that those who say they are conservative comprises roughly 42% of the country, while those who will admit they are liberal are something well under 25%.  You would think with a clear ideological lead in the country at large, conservatives would have a different view of their ability to sway the argument in their direction, but after decades, generations in fact, of a media dominated by leftist thought, most conservatives do not realize their general sentiments comprise a plurality of the electorate and the country at large.  This is part of the confidence we gain from people like Breitbart, or Bruce, Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh and a host of others.

When I learned of Andrew Breitbart’s death, like so many others, I was shocked.  I heard Hannity describe sitting in his office frozen in place by the thought of it, and I reflected on the fact that I had a similar numbness when I heard the news.  I couldn’t quite fathom it.  Here had been this glorious warrior for our cause, snuffed out in what should have been the absolute prime of a long life.  Astonishing.  Saddening.  Maddening.   The question for all we who survive him is now: What’s next?

I believe our answer must be unambiguous, and it must be that we will pick up and carry on and since Mr. Breitbart did heavy lifting for any number of us, we will need to step up.  All of us.  In truth, that’s what this blog is really all about.  I started it because some people though I wrote too well to be hidden from sight, and because I have a fire in my belly too, to restore this nation, and carry its flame forward to another generation that has not yet known the embrace of liberty.  That’s what this blog is about, and it’s what Andrew Breitbart was about, and the willingness to do combat with all who threaten our country, and the liberty it had enjoyed must be defeated, and we must take up that fight.

One of the things you learn from the death of a good man like Andrew Breitbart is that we are a nation built upon the strength of a myriad of individuals, each pursuing his or her own ends, but in honest pursuit, redounding to the benefit of all.  That too is part of the meaning of Breitbart, and from him, we can all stand to learn a lesson in how an every-day American can rise and do extraordinary things.  This moment, one of you reading may be moved by a similar fire within, or in the next moment resolve to step up and take his place on the line.  It will take courage, and it will take a willingness to risk all.

Each day, through various portions of my busy day, I grab moments of various talk-shows that are important, and move me, and make me commit to the fight more than the day before.  Sometimes, the host will tell a story that evokes rage over the doings of some politician, and sometimes it will be a monologue by Tammy Bruce imploring conservatives to get off their back-sides and stand up.  Sometimes, it will be an inspiring interview, but others, it will be a fit of laughter as Mark Levin dismisses a drone caller in just the way the caller had deserved.  Any way you get there is fine with me.  Perhaps you will read an inspiring author.  It doesn’t matter how you came to be moved, but once you have, what excuse can you possibly offer to remain still?

My point to you is simple:  We have suffered a painful and tragic loss that nobody can repair, but there is no a breach in our lines, and we must rush forward to fill it.  None of us can today or any day soon hope to replace Andrew Breitbart, but we must advance to fill the gap nevertheless.  We must shed the tears in order to remember him in the reverence his many contributions to our lives demand, but then we must pick up and carry on. We can best honor him, and all those like him by remaining true to ourselves and to one another, while carrying this fight forward.  The left is enjoying this moment, depraved as they are, because in their view there can be no reverence for one they see as an enemy.  Let me make this clear to you, since so few will do it:  They hold the same view of you.

I’m not asking you to rage senselessly, but I am asking you to carry on the fight, and when you find yourself or fellow conservatives under withering attacks, rush in to defend.  Breitbart did this almost reflexively, because he knew that he would inevitably find that the facts would support the conservative party to an argument in most every case, so his default position was to defend conservatism and conservatives.  It’s why he immediately recognized the false narrative the media tried to paint about the Tea Party and racism, sexism, and so on.  He knew how the left plays its game, but by now, so do you.  Armed with this knowledge, you have everything you need to combat the left.

Timidity will not win the day, and as Breitbart liked to tell us, “everything has changed.”  He’s right.  The medium that is the Internet has spoiled the main-stream media’s stranglehold on information.  It’s destroyed their ability to control the message if enough of us stand up to fill the breaches.  They can no longer conceal the truth unless we permit it.  We’re coming to an election in which the country’s very existence may well be at stake, and this will be the time for our war paint.  We have two important advantages:

  1. We have the truth and the facts on our side
  2. We outnumber them

With these, the only remaining element is that we must begin to behave accordingly.

Video Reminder of the Tea Party’s Fight – Video

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Time to Take America Back

I’ve attached a video to this post as a reminder of the things our departed friend Andrew Breitbart had supported, because while he has passed, the movement he defended and supported goes on.  The Tea Party is still here, and conservatives are still here, so why don’t we take a moment to remind ourselves of where we were just two years ago.  This video went viral at the time of its initial posting on Youtube, but let us not forget this as part of our modern Tea Party heritage.  It’s easy to become dispirited, and it’s easy to forget how much worse others have had it.  It’s time to kick some ass, and we do so, we should remember why we fight:

Mitt Wins Home State

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

He's Smiling - Are You?

Mitt Romney won handily in Arizona on Tuesday, and managed to pull off a narrow victory in Michigan.  While some are again saying “it’s all over,” I disagree with that view.  Romney would have done more for himself had he won Michigan as handily as Arizona, and this makes it anything but a deal-closer, with Super Tuesday only a week away, and Ohio being the biggest prize on the day.  He is trailing in Ohio, with Santorum in front, and there’s still a good chance that this goes all the way to the convention.  Romney doesn’t need to win, but win big, and he’s simply not getting the level of support from conservatives.

Conservatives remain unimpressed with Romney, and every time he gets the chance to stick his foot in his mouth where conservatives are concerned, he seems to bite down with zest.  This leaves us with a problem, however, and there’s really no way around it: The broad conservative base doesn’t trust Romney, and even if he is the eventual nominee, or somehow manages to win the presidency, it’s going to be with a minimum of conservative support.  While many conservatives are saying they will support him if he is the nominee, it’s said in the form of a shrug.  That will make for an uphill fight in the general election, and it’s not a position in which conservatives had hoped to find themselves only a year ago.

Romney’s record is spotty at best, and conservatives know it.  The conservative base has flirted with supporting a string of candidates as an alternative to Romney, but the truth is that they haven’t settled on one who they can support with the fervor they need to win at the polls. If this continues, Romney will wind up as the nominee, and if so, it will be a difficult campaign that will take on the appearance of going through the motions among conservatives.  As many have noted, there’s simply no reason to be excited about Romney, and if he’s what we’re stuck with in November, we may well lose.

I realize many are unhappy with the situation, but the truth is the truth.  If Super Tuesday comes and goes, and Romney is able to win the lion’s share of primaries, it may well be close to over.  The problem is, most conservatives aren’t thrilled at the prospect, but they’re not doing anything to demonstrate the ability to defeat him consistently.  They have jumped from one to the other to the next in perfect unison with the media talking points, and the only conservative who bucked the attempt to destroy him at all was Newt Gingrich, but only because it took more than one attempt.  If Gingrich doesn’t perform well on Super Tuesday, it’s hard to see how he goes on. While it’s still an open question as to who will be the nominee, the window of opportunity is closing.  We’re running out of time to mount a serious challenge to Romney, and Santorum is the top dog at the moment in that pursuit, but I’m not sure he’s the right one.  We have little time to rethink this, or face the prospects of a Romney candidacy, and a like second term for Obama.

Limbaugh: Establishment Republicans Scared to Death

Monday, February 20th, 2012

Cultural Conservative v. Moderate

Romney is looking weak in Michigan.  Rush Limbaugh opened his show on President’s Day with a monologue on the GOP panic over the rise of Rick Santorum and the diminution of the “inevitable nominee” Mitt Romney.  What Limbaugh has identified is a trend we’ve been watching for some time, whereby the GOP insiders are doing everything they can to put Romney over the top.  It’s true to say that Romney is in trouble, but he’s clawing his way back a bit in Michigan, as the media continues to hammer on Rick Santorum, suggesting that he’s too conservative.  It’s not clear that Rick Santorum is really so conservative as they pretend, and it shows the problem the establishment has with its man Mitt:  While they try to convince us that Romney is conservative, they detest cultural conservatism.

The juxtaposition is laughable.  On the one hand, the GOP establishment tells us Mitt is a conservative, Romney himself saying he was “severely conservative,” but the conservative wing of the Republican electorate knows better, simply by examining his record. Romneycare is merely the most egregious example of Romney’s flat-out liberalism, but it’s far from the only one. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is too conservative on social issues, although the fact that he is really doesn’t make him a well-rounded conservative because he stood with a number of big-spending plans, like the Medicare prescription drug program implemented by President Bush.  If nothing else, what this should provide to you is a template for which leg of the conservative stool the GOP establishment would like to be sawed-off.

Abortion? They don’t want to talk about it.  Matters of faith or conscience?  They’re simply not interested.  Questions of moral concern?  They won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.  They run shrieking into the night rather than confront such issues, and the reason is simple:  When it comes to these issues, important to a vast swath of the GOP electorate, they only pay lip-service but never deliver.  These are the people who know they cannot nominate a pro-abortion candidate, so they trot out candidates who will claim they are personally pro-life, while their voting or governing history indicates something different.  I will never forget how at the end of their respective presidencies, the two former Bush first ladies each in their turn came out to speak their minds on abortion, parting company from their respective husbands.

This is significant, because what it should demonstrate to you is how these RINOs are culturally distinct from the conservatives whose votes they know they need.  This is particularly true with respect to Christian conservatives who live out their professed faith as best they can.  The GOP establishment considers them rubes and bumpkins, and pawns in their struggle to maintain power.  This is the deadly secret of the GOP establishment, and it’s the basis of their secret fear: They hope you will not notice that theirs is a philosophy that avoids the discussion of cultural conservatism because they see it as divisive.  They’re right:  These issues are divisive, but what they divide is the establishment from the greater body politic that is conservatism.

This is the meaning of their view of a “big tent.”  They think the big tent should take anybody, and accommodate its rules, traditions, and values to any who wish to join in, but the problem with that is the mush that is made of those things by this procedure.  More, as cultural conservatives begin to realize that their views are no longer respected, they begin to slip away out under the tent flaps, unwilling to be associated with the amoral circus to which they are then witnesses.  As Rush Limbaugh said today, to the establishment Republicans, a guy like Santorum, a devout Catholic, is some kind of “three-eyed monster.” This is undeniably true, and it’s why you shouldn’t be surprised, if you’re a conservative Christian, that they view you in much the same way.

To them, your faith and your adherence to it are evidence that you’re faulty, and that you should be ignored, but they’ll pander to you just enough that you’ll vote for them if it comes to it.  This is what they’re hoping is true with Mitt Romney, and that in the end, they can scare you away from real conservatives.  To them, religious convictions should be abandoned at the exits of your church.  They want Christian votes, but that’s as close to them as they’re willing to stand. Their push for Romney is more evidence of this bias, because Romney’s record on cultural issues has been flaky at best.  If Romney fails to close the deal in Michigan, they may look to somebody altogether new, who has a somewhat more “acceptable” view to Christian conservatives.  If so, it’s likely to be another Bush family friend, if not Jeb Bush himself, as they hope to freeze out cultural conservatives.  Their approach is basically in opposition to mainstream conservatism, the goal of which is and ought to be to get the most conservative nominee possible who can win.  The GOP establishment wishes to get the least conservative nominee they can make to pass muster with Christian and cultural conservatives in the GOP, because they wrongly surmise that this is the path to electoral victory in the general election.  They’re wrong.

 

 

Santorum Becomes Media Punching Bag

Saturday, February 18th, 2012

Is He Really a Neanderthal?

Of the remaining GOP candidates, I am inclined toward supporting Newt Gingrich, so I don’t really want to be told I’m in Sen. Rick Santorum’s corner, except that in this case, I am.  The media has been trying to make the Obama administration’s contraception mandate into something other than an attack on religious liberties, and by the middle of the week, they saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.  They portrayed Rick Santorum unfairly as wanting to impose his personal views on contraception on the rest of the nation, but this is a bold-faced lie.  He actually went out of his way to say that he wouldn’t  impose his values through law, but instead that it is proper to raise the issue as a matter for national discussion.  For this, we should throw him under the bus?

That Santorum has reason to believe contraceptive measures each imply risks for women is really not so controversial as the media pretends, and frankly, I’m a bit tired of the licentious view of human sexuality that says “anything goes,” without respect to the consequences that are frequently ignored until they are realized.  That Santorum is willing to speak to this issue is no crime.  There is no need for me to rattle off the litany of solid science that supports Santorum’s view, but then again, in our current culture, some of this may be news to some of you. You are free to site all the opposing science you want, but the truth is that the following are irrefutable:

  • The best and most effective way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain from sexual intercourse.  There.  I said it.
  • The best and most effective way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is still to abstain from sex.  There.  I said that too!
  • The best way for a child to avoid a life of poverty is to be born into a two-parent household in which the parents are both married and monogamous.  Yes, I said it.  Don’t like it?  Tough.  It’s true, and remains so irrespective of your personal feelings on the matter.

Part of what Santorum suggests is that our culture promotes a sort of narcissistic mindset that ignores all of these facts, and that various forms of contraception, never mind abortion, give too many people a false sense of security that all too frequently leads to one or more of the negative alternatives to the truisms listed above.  You may not like it.  You may not want to be told that, and it is understandable that you wouldn’t necessarily want Rick Santorum imposing his views on this through law, but since he’s specifically said he has no such intentions, and since his voting record in Congress supports that claim, the only reason to hold this against Rick Santorum is that some would rather not hear it.

Why?  It’s simple, isn’t it?  People hate to be told they are wrong, or that they are making bad choices, particularly when they are in the midst of making them, and especially when they have made the same bad choices repeatedly.  In listening to Karl Rove running his mouth on Friday night’s Hannity show on Fox News, he said that social conservatives shouldn’t “appear to be judgmental.”  What?  I suppose that’s the preferred position when you’ve divorced your wife and had Dana Perino handling the press on the occasion, but part of the problem in this country is that all too frequently, we’re not judgmental enough.  We didn’t arrive at a situation where sixty percent of births are to unwed mothers because we were too judgmental.  We didn’t arrive in a situation in which we now honor with lowered flags those who died at their own hands because we are too harsh in our judgments.  We don’t have an all-encompassing welfare state because we were too harsh in our pronouncements about the idle poor, or the causes of their condition.  Our prisons aren’t packed to overcrowding with repeat-offenders because we punished first-time offenders too harshly.

This country isn’t suffering from an surplus of judgment.  While some may part company from me on this point, I actually find it refreshing that a candidate is willing to speak to the moral decay of our country.  I heard the Tea Party Patriots’ Mark Meckler being interviewed by Mark Levin on Friday, and he said that we have a distinct advantage over our founders in that they created the framework upon which our efforts to restore our country can rely.  While I understand his meaning, I couldn’t help but think that if I had to choose the framework of law embodied in our Constitution, or the moral character of our people circa 1790, I would choose the latter because they were able to construct and abide by the former.  I see little evidence for hope that the inverse postulate is true, and that by some magic, people who have neglected their constitution will suddenly re-adopt it and thereby be improved in all measures.  It was the character of the nation and her people that created the US Constitution, and not the reverse.

While the media goes on to tell us why Rick Santorum is too judgmental, I think it’s time we consider what it is that the “bully pulpit” of the presidency is intended to be, and while it certainly isn’t the proper platform from which to ceaselessly castigate the American people for our various moral failings, it is the proper venue in which to gently chide people to return to the better angels of our nature.  Thus far, what I’ve heard from Rick Santorum on these issues doesn’t resemble the former nearly so much as the latter, and I am quite satisfied that he knows the proper boundaries.  Of course, the Romney crowd in establishment media is helping to drive this theme against Santorum, so it’s really not surprising to see theses criticisms rising in volume, but I think it’s fair to point out that much of this criticism is undue.  In a culture in which casual sex has been normalized, out-of-wedlock-births comprises a clear majority, and the welfare state raises more children than do parents, it may be time that we begin to discuss these issues, not as a matter of legislative priority, but as a matter of judgment.  That Rick Santorum seems willing to do so against the tide speaks well of him even if the media won’t.

Mitt Romney and the “Conservatism Quotient”

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

Why Not Me?

The talking points over the last few days in the media have included the theme carried forward by Governor Palin at CPAC that some of our GOP candidates may not be as conservative as we’d like.  This is undeniably true, and the particular focus of that criticism heretofore has been Mitt Romney.  People in the media seem aghast at the notion that most mainstream conservatives might question his record as a conservative, but their incredulity may simply be another expression of their basic disconnect from the American people in general.  It’s clear that most of the media is comprised of people who don’t understand why Catholics, and indeed Christians generally, would be so upset by the Obama administration’s attacks on First Amendment protections, but they demonstrate a similar lack of understanding of the questions conservatives are asking about Romney’s supposed conservative credentials.

Let us first stipulate that capitalism and conservatism are two different things, and that corporatism is yet another.  The problem for the mostly leftist media is that they mistake these all as interchangeable, despite the fact that they are distinct. Whether this is journalistic slothfulness, or simply reflects their ideology, what it demonstrates is why they are surprised that so many who are center-right look at Romney’s record and question the veracity of his claim to conservatism. As I have written, and as others including Governor Palin have mentioned, what Romney seems to lack is a conservative instinct, or put another way, he demonstrated a statist reflex while Governor of Massachusetts.  Rather than looking for conservative solutions, most of the programs he introduced merely threw tax-payer funds at problems through the creation of new agencies, bureaus, and commissions, or extending the authorities and responsibilities of those already in existence.  When a politician does this, and reliably so, as was the case in his term as governor, actual conservatives notice and frequently rise in opposition.

Conservatives have gotten wise to the Trojan Horse tendency of liberal Republicans who frequently campaign as conservatives during primaries, but also govern as big government liberals.  Of course, many have noted that Gingrich and Santorum seem to share in at least some of this criticism, and to varying degrees, that could be true, except that Romney’s health-care reform program, widely referred to as “Romneycare” outpaces by leaps and bounds the most unconservative acts of the other two in any reasonable comparison.  This is ultimately the reason the Republicans lost Congress in 2006:  Too many looked at the spending programs of the Bush administration and the GOP-led Congress and concluded they could no longer support what was at the time thought to be egregious spending.  George Bush may have claimed to be a “compassionate conservative,” but his “compassion” was destroying conservatism. All of these adjectives stacked in front of “conservatism” now raise suspicions, but this is why I believe Sarah Palin has begun to say “constitutional conservative” because rather than being vague, it specifies that the conservatism under discussion pays respect to our Constitution.

It’s not that actual conservatives don’t have “compassion,” but that they don’t believe government is the proper conduit for it. What Romney’s record reveals is merely another liberal who simply applies state authority to problem-solving.  There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that government exists to solve all problems, and it is in this venue that Mitt Romney has shown his tendency toward big government.  Romneycare was merely the most brutally statist of his programs, but it was not nearly the only one, with the absolute buffoonery of the program widely known as “Welfare Wheels” serving as another.   More, in terms of regulation, Romney was only too happy to go along with the latest enviro-fad on the question of carbon, and to use the executive power of his state to push through implementation of ideas that are both anti-growth and anti-human.  If liberals in the press have some confusion about this, it’s no surprise, because they will generally favor such programs and regulations.

Romney’s reflex has been to reach for the power of government as a way to confront most issues.  While the media points to his business experience as evidence of his alleged conservatism, what conservatives know instinctively is that business acumen does not translate into conservatism, or even capitalism, but all too often, corporatism.  Conservatives understand that people who are concerned with the welfare of corporations may be capitalists, but all too frequently, they slide across the line and become crony capitalists.  This is why actual conservatives may not really care very much about Romney’s business experiences, but instead focus on how he governed as a more accurate indicator of what a prospective Romney presidency would be.   On this basis, conservatives don’t like what they see, and it’s here that Romney loses them.

The other problem is that consistent conservatives tend not to be flip-flopping, vacillating, “evolving” thinkers in the sense that they’re open to throwing out all principles in favor of some expediency.   Romney has demonstrated this tendency repeatedly, changing his view on abortion, on global warming, and on gun control, along with a whole host of issues that strongly suggest he doesn’t really have core beliefs, but instead mere transient positions that are exchanged like suits, one each for every audience.  Romney doesn’t seem to hold hard and fast to anything, and this troubles conservatives who wonder: “If we elect him on the basis of his alleged conservatism today, will he tomorrow revert to his big government, corporatist tendencies and stick us with the bill for our trouble?” It’s a perfectly valid question, and Romney’s campaign has as much as admitted that he has changed his positions on some things for exactly this sort of response to political expediencies.

To conservatives, this is as much a problem as anything, apart from the concretes of his positions, because what it means to average Republican voters is that Romney will not be pinned down on anything, and that he will therefore be unreliable.  It’s not as though we haven’t seen this before, after all.  In a recent Fox News interview, Romney said of Palin’s remarks “I’m not quite sure what she’d be referring to, ” but I think it’s pretty clear, and I also think Governor Romney knows it: He touts a record as a conservative, but on so many issues, he has been every bit as liberal as Ted Kennedy.   His campaign has effectively conceded he has changed positions to win office, although it was posited in terms of his shifts to the left as temporary shifts.  This worries conservatives, because what it implies is that he may well do the same with respect to us. Once he secures the nomination, will he suddenly morph from “Conservative” to “Moderate” to “Liberal?”

Many conservative Republicans and Tea Party voters remain skeptical, and the reason the media won’t understand it is simple:  Just as they don’t understand why the contraception controversy is an infringement on the free exercise of religion, since they are generally insincere in their faith, neither can they understand why political positions shouldn’t be fungible depending upon the office one seeks.  It’s ultimately the same thing: For them, values, principles and positions should be as flexible as a weather vane.  The problem is that conservatives don’t believe this is so, and they tend to recoil from any who do.

Pining For Palin: What Most Conservatives Noticed

Sunday, February 12th, 2012

Still the One

My bride wasn’t home when Sarah Palin spoke at CPAC, so she wasn’t able to view the event live.  When she arrived home, we relaxed in front of the television, and I played the event on the DVR. After watching the event, I asked my wife for her impression.  It matched most of the comments here on my little blog site, and it was comprised of a single question:  “Why in the hell isn’t she our candidate?”  Here we had the person many consider to be the most eminently qualified to lead us out of our national quagmire, and she isn’t a candidate in this race.  Here was the most thoroughly engaging and compelling speech of this entire campaign season, and it was delivered by a non-candidate who some in the GOP establishment tell us is “unelectable.”  By what standard?  For my part, I have lost all patience for this faulty argument.  After attending her speech in Indianola, Iowa last September, and having viewed this speech from afar, if Governor Palin isn’t electable, I have no idea which Republicans can fulfill that definition.

I have read a few criticisms of the speech Palin delivered on Saturday and they all seem focused on superficial nitpicking.  The most frequent of these has been that it was filled with “red meat,” but what of it?  I believe in a balanced diet, and red meat is an important component of any conservative menu.  To criticize this is to suggest what too many Republicans of a more moderate leaning have accepted for far too long: We must never openly and harshly criticize our adversaries lest we be seen as being every bit as unrefined and undisciplined as they.  I reject this too.  The willingness to explicitly and unrepentantly castigate our opponents does not speak to a lack of “refinement” as if the idea of a political campaign is purely to demonstrate one’s social graces, but it is instead to incite a little energetic and vigorous candor into an issue to which the electorate will respond.  If this is the worst of the criticisms, then let those who propose them be damned, because I see no merit in such an argument. In point of fact, I would contend that electability rides on the shoulders of the candidate’s willingness to speak in such language to those whose votes they would solicit.

Still, the reality is that Governor Palin is not now a candidate, and more is the shame of the loss implied for conservatives. When announcing her decision in October last year, she cited her need to observe her values of God, family, and country, in that precise order.  With this as her final answer, despite our desires to the contrary, there is nothing to do but accept it.  This leaves us where we’ve been, and with nothing to do but forge ahead with the remaining candidates.  On the other hand, what this will remind many conservatives is what we had missed.  At some point, as a movement that is a subset of a party, we will need to address this problem we seem to have, where for whatever reason, our best and our most able candidates, dynamic and appealing, get left on the sidelines in the most important contests of our time.

Buck up conservatives, because while it’s apparent that we’re going to be forced to settle, we still have time to decide among those remaining, in order to work out who in this bunch is the best prospect to lead our nation philosophically, and also to win.  It’s my firm conclusion that the former begets the latter.  I don’t believe candidates with alleged “electability” creates a winning philosophy, or George W. Bush wouldn’t have left office with approval in the high twenties.   I believe a candidate with firm and principled beliefs is best suited to election, and is therefore by definition most electable.  The problem in our current race is that the best-suited will not necessarily rise like cream to the top.  Money doesn’t make great candidates either, because as we all know, whomever the Republican nominee, no matter who among those remaining is selected, despite any financial advantage at present, there will be no such advantage when we arrive in the general campaign season, with Obama’s purported war-chest to exceed one billion dollars.

I think we should begin to consider which among these has made the most of the least.  After all, if we follow Governor Palin’s example, we should take note of the fact that she clearly knows how to win while having nothing like the funds of an opponent, as she demonstrated in her political career in Alaska.  Perhaps this is something we ought to consider when looking more closely at the rest because it is fairly certain that none of them will have the sort of cash on hand that will be at the disposal of the Obama campaign.  As this race goes on, we might want to reference Sarah Palin’s successes, because while she may not be running, I think there is much to be learned from her both in terms of selecting our eventual nominee, but also in combating Obama this Fall.

I think almost every conservative who viewed Saturday’s CPAC keynote will have noticed that she stands head and shoulders above our actual candidates, but as I said, that wistful, wishful thinking.  The fact that Governor Palin is not in this race doesn’t preclude victory in November, but it surely will make it a good deal more difficult, as so many viewers concluded on Saturday.  There are those who think if this drags on into summer, and we wind up with a brokered convention, it will spell doom, but I think it also presents a possible opportunity, not merely for an outcome aimed at stopping the establishment, but one more moment of pause to reconsider who all of our alternatives might include.

Sarah Palin Addresses CPAC

Saturday, February 11th, 2012

Governor Palin Welcomed at CPAC

Governor Palin spoke at CPAC on Saturday, delivering the Keynote address to an overflow crowd, and  her address was enthusiastically received, but I noticed something else.  Not everybody in the room was there merely to hear her speak, as a segment of the audience serenaded her with their rendition of “Happy Birthday,” as Saturday was indeed her birthday.  There was a brief incident a few minutes into her address when some “Occupiers” who had made it into the room made a ruckus.  Never satisfied to let anything go by without negative drama, “Occupiers” created some sort of disturbance, and were immediately overpowered by the crowd, and then Sarah Palin, with “USA USA USA.”  The Occu-pests were escorted quickly from the room and Governor Palin pointed out to the crowd how easy it had been to win.

There were many highlights in this speech, far too numerous to catalog here, but I’d like to bring your attention to a few.  She discussed the fact that our country is in trouble, and that we must be united to restore it.  She warned:

“We are not red Americans, we are not blue Americans; We are red white and blue, and President Obama, We are through with you!”

The crowd roared their approval, leaping up to yet another standing ovation.  When it came to the theme of her speech, it was clearly to rev up the crowd for the election season ahead, and citing the lack of a federal budget for more than one-thousand days(actually over 1100 now,) she said of his spending priorities, simply:

“He mucked it up!”

Again the crowd applauded on its feet in collective approval.  She went on to talk about the decline of the nation at the hands of Barack Obama’s government, and of the looming disaster hanging over all our heads, for generations to come, she vowed:

“So help me, God, it is not a future we will ever accept!”

In one instance, she likened the corrupting tendencies of the permanent political class in Washington DC not to a “swamp,” but instead to a “hot tub with jacuzzi.”

Governor Palin is an astonishingly effective public speaker and politician precisely because she believes in America, and in constitutional conservatism, but more importantly, because she communicates with the raw force of simple ideas that have withstood the tests of time and crisis.

She said that once the nomination battle had concluded, she would support any of these because Obama must go.  That united the crowd that clearly suffered a divide along the lines of the various contenders, because all then stood in a rousing standing ovation.

This has been my only discomfort with the speech, because here was one  politician who clearly motivated and inspired the over-sized crowd(minus the aforementioned handful of Occu-pests, who were inspired in another way.) None of the Presidential contenders who made speeches at CPAC this week had attracted this kind of crowd, nor this kind of enthusiastic support.  This leads me to a conclusion and some of my readers may again chastise me for it,  but the question is aimed squarely at the GOP establishment, and to a certain degree, at us:  I believe we are running the wrong candidate, because among all those still in the race, none of them have roused quite this level of overwhelming support.

Governor Palin is able to inspire people because they perceive her as real, genuine, and sincere, and she connects with them in a way I haven’t seen in a politician in a long time, if ever.  To see her sidelined in 2012 is disheartening to many, and having talked to a few who were in the room, the end of her speech was a sort of let-down, because, as one asked me directly: “What are we doing?  Why isn’t she our candidate?”

Having replayed the speech two full times, and having now examined closely the reactions of the crowd, I can’t help but agree with my friend.  The establishment may not like her, but the grass-roots conservatives love her, and the GOP establishment’s attempts to diminish her is a strategy they undertake at their own peril.  Governor Palin is able to rouse audiences from their seats, and conservatives in general from complacency, and even the Occu-pests cannot resist her, the last of these drawn like moths to a flame singing their wings.   It’s not possible to ignore that while some in the media, and in the party establishments have claimed she is “irrelevant,” today’s keynote address and the response of the crowd clearly demonstrates the fallacy of that meme.

Well done indeed, Governor Palin, and Happy Birthday!

Here is the complete video, in three segments(Courtesy the Barracuda Brigade):

Saturday’s CPAC Session and Governor Palin

Saturday, February 11th, 2012

Pointing the Way

Many “Palinistas” and many conservatives in general are wondering what former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will say when she delivers the keynote address on Saturday, the final day of the CPAC conference in Washington DC.  There’s no way of knowing in advance but as with any such appearance by Governor Palin, I expect she’ll offer further insight into the 2012 election cycle, and almost certainly will “rally the troops.”  I think most are waiting to see what she’ll say, and whether they’re establishment wing of the GOP, or grass-roots conservative activists, you can bet that they will want to know her thoughts on virtually anything about which she’s willing to speak.  As with any event at which she speaks, there will be people coming in from all over the country to hear her, and a little birdy at CPAC has already told me there is a bit of a buzz in expectation.

What Governor Palin offers that draws such crowds (to the chagrin and despair of the GOP establishment and the leftist media respectively,) is her plainspoken approach to identifying the problems our nation faces, and the facts that are inescapable about our current plight.  She is not merely a doomsayer, however, as she offers concise solution sets for addressing our problems, generally to an audience of grass-roots folk who are anxious to see the implementation of the sorts of reforms she advocates.  One could scarcely imagine a presentation in which she would not offer ideas about the way forward, but not only for conservatives, but also for the whole body of the American people.

Since her announcement of October 5th on Mark Levin’s show that she was not going to be seeking the Republican nomination “at this time,” many held onto hopes that she would later enter the race.  In the intervening period, she has made frequent appearances on FoxNews as a contributor, including during primary and caucus coverage in the early states.  In recent weeks, she has taken the position that she would like to see the primary process continue, because she believed that there was still a good deal of vetting left to do.  As part of that strategy, she said if she were a South Carolina voter, she would vote for Newt Gingrich, and this seemed to have some effect as Tea Party folk turned out for Gingrich in overwhelming numbers despite the scorched-earth campaign of Mitt Romney in a state where the supposed Tea Party-favored governor had endorsed and was stumping with Romney.

To many in the GOP establishment, Palin is a thorn in their sides.  They realize that her populist streak actually makes of her a threat to the status quo they enjoy.  What she will say on Saturday, whatever its content, is sure to have an effect on the election cycle of 2012, if only because so many conservatives seem to key on her for direction.  Among grass-roots activists, she is able to fire them up and she brings an enthusiasm to such events born of her optimism about America.  When she speaks of America and Americans, it seems always to be informed by her own love of both, and her devotion to the country her own children will inherit.

I know there will be Americans who will view the CPAC keynote with an abiding interest in what Governor Palin will say, and in the way she will say it.  She has a flair for turning phrases that will permeate the blogosphere, and that will rebound for weeks or months through social media, in a sort of long-lasting echo carried by those who admire her commitment to the country’s future.  Some “Palinistas” are having viewing parties, frequently virtual, but all in the spirit of hearing her message and carrying it forward.  As an observer of social media, it is always amazing to see how many people become thoroughly energized and invigorated in the political sphere in the wake of one of her major speeches.

Saturday will be a fascinating day if only to watch the growing buzz around Governor Palin’s speech, but conservatives will be most interested in the content of her address.  She is scheduled to speak at 4:30 Eastern, or 1:30 Pacific.  CPAC is scheduled to be televised on C-SPAN, and the live stream on CPAC.org should be active.  Whatever she offers Saturday, it will likely cause a stir simply because the conservative movement simply cannot get enough of Palin’s common sense applications of conservative ideas.

Note: If you’re a Tammy Bruce subscriber, she’s posted that the TAMChat will be open during the speech. These sorts of virtual viewing parties are springing up all over the Internet.

Romney Deck-Stacking At CPAC?

Friday, February 10th, 2012

What Won't He Do To Win?

Mitt Romney has a real problem, and despite denials, it’s clear that he has a real problem with conservatives.  It’s so bad that he met with a number of conservative leaders at the CPAC conference in Washington DC on Thursday, for a meeting in the presidential suite of the Marriott Wardman Park where the CPAC is holding its annual conference.  According to CNN’s report, this meeting included thirty influential Republicans.  With a private list of attendees, one can see why Romney would keep it quiet, and this makes it clear that despite all the denials of Romney and his campaign, they understand that they’re in serious trouble with conservatives, and this may be the start of his attempt to bring reluctant conservatives along.

I doubt this will be all that successful, because while he may appeal to so-called “conservative leaders,” I doubt how influential they will be if they suddenly appear before conservative audiences pushing Mitt Romney.  For any of those who participated, this is a danger too, because it’s just as likely in this volatile election cycle that conservative grass-roots activists will merely see such moves as evidence that the alleged “conservative leader” has sold out to the establishment, and the secret truth is that they will be right.

I’m having a good deal of difficulty viewing Ann Coulter in anything but a negative light since she’s essentially jumped the shark with respect to the GOP field, and also in her views of late on such issues as Romneycare.  Conservative activists are on the look-out for evidence of precisely this kind of shift, and even if it is not so bombastic as Coulter’s has been, it will nevertheless be noticed by the party’s conservative base.  The base is clearly sick of the negative attacks, and also the way in which the establishment has been actively shoving Romney down their throats, so if they persist in this practice and now co-opt other conservatives in an attempt to sway the base, I can see the wheels coming off in a hurry.

If the head of the NRA or other representatives of that organization now come out and make pro-Romney statements forgiving for his earlier anti-second amendment positions, that organization could well suffer because most conservatives now know they can simply pack up and move to a different organization(like Gun Owners of America) that holds the same positions, only more staunchly, but do not get into bed with politicians who have sold them out previously.  While Romney is scheduled to speak Friday, so is Ann Coulter, and it remains to be seen as to how the latter, particularly, will be welcomed by the crowd.  Coulter may catch a little heat.  If so, she deserves it.

One of the reasons this was kept quiet is because it is precisely the sort of acknowledgment of the Romney problem with conservatives he and his campaign have been denying all along.  If this is seen widely for what it is, a blatant attempt to ingratiate himself with high profile conservative leaders, it will be a signal in part about Romney’s desperation.  The longer this race goes on, the harder it is going to be for Romney to sew up the nomination in advance of the convention, and he had hoped to be further along on less money than he is at present.  He’s spending money like water, and it’s going to take a toll on his opponents, but the problem is that no matter what he does, the nagging facts about his less than stellar history as a conservative probably means he’s going to fight this to the bitter end.  It’s a yoke he has earned, and he’s not likely to cast it off easily.

Governor Palin Talks to Greta about True Conservatives

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

Governor Sarah Palin spoke on Monday night with Greta Van Susteren on the FoxNews Channel. The conversation focused on the GOP primary race, and the manner by which the various campaigns have been approaching the contest.  She discussed how to a certain degree how the candidates are damaging one another, but not laying a glove on Barack Obama.  She points out that at the end of the race, this must be the focus.  She also addressed the lack of enthusiasm:

Like many conservatives, she likes Ron Paul’s approach to budget-slashing, but she remains cautious about his foreign policy agenda.  At the same time, she had nice things to say about all of the candidates, but she was clearly warmer toward some than others. She also mentioned Gingrich’s clear superiority in debates, and also repeated the notion that Obama wants to face Romney in November.

Are Conservatives Satisfied With the Field?

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Is There A Better Choice?

I’ve written enough about this subject to paper the bottom of an industrial size aviary, but I’m intrigued by the question, and I wonder how the readers at this site feel about the question.  It’s clear that there is significant dissatisfaction among Republicans in general, conservatives in particular, and no small measure of discomfort among Tea Party folk.  Today, I read a blog post by a friend who assesses the situation, and simply concluded that we’re in trouble if we don’t come up with another solution to the problem.  He rightly points out that Romney surely cannot win, but that there’s not a great deal more hope for any of the others. My friend isn’t long on words, but he’s generally spot-on, and you might wish to take a look at his article here.  His contention is simple: Get another candidate or prepare to inaugurate Barack Obama for a second term in January, 2013.

I certainly don’t like to seem pessimistic, but I think given all we’ve discussed here over the last week, we’d be foolish to ignore the matter and pretend it isn’t a problem. There are those who would broom this entire field, and there are those who would sweep all but one away, but in fact, it’s my contention that there’s such significant dissatisfaction that the GOP will have a hard time rousing the base this fall, if the nominee comes from among this group. While I find Newt Gingrich most able of these, that isn’t to say the electorate will agree, but I maintain that Mitt Romney simply cannot get it done because his strategy relies far too heavily on a cash advantage he will not have over Barack Obama, and he spends a good deal of his time avoiding his relevant history and record when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Whatever you may think of this field, I’d like to survey your opinion.  Feel free to leave comments in this thread in further explanation of  your responses,  and if you would support another candidate if they were to enter soon, who would that candidate be?  (Please place in the comments section below.)  Here’s the question:

Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Caught!

It’s horrible when you realize that one who you had thought had been conservative makes a point of proving your belief wrong, while insisting otherwise.  The meaning of the word “disappointment” hardly covers what has gone wrong with Ann Coulter’s writing over the last year, but when you realize that she has sidled up to the GOP establishment, the truth becomes undeniably clear.  Proving that Ann Coulter is willing to forsake all her principles in favor of the latest establishment candidate, she has written a piece that is not only manipulative, but purposefully omits several important facts.  Worse still, at one point, Coulter flatly lies, and no excuse of incomplete information can possibly cover it.  Coulter wishes Three Cheers For Romneycare, but I know her cheers are really for Mitt Romney, and this cobbled-together nonsense constitutes a lie Ann Coulter ought not to have told.

Coulter couldn’t wait to posit the lie, but it’s such a well-known lie, she buried it at the end of a paragraph leaning on Rick Santorum for out-of-context, irrelevant support:

“Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.”

This is demonstrably untrue, but what is stunning about this claim is the un-writing of history it proposes.  My readers will doubtless remember the flap over the line pulled from the second printing of Mitt Romney’s book, where he originally made this very argument.  This was of such controversy that it has been mentioned in the debates, so how is it possible that Ann Coulter ignored this while depositing this steaming pile in your midst.  The original text of Romney’s book(H/T ABCNews) included the following text:

We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” –No Apology – Mitt Romney (emphasis added)

As you can plainly see, Ann Coulter lied, and it angers me that not only did she lie, but that I was forced to dig up a link from the ABCNews site to prove it.  This also demonstrates another point, and it’s an important one you should note:  While Ann Coulter tells lies on Romney’s behalf, the radical left will give him no such pass in the general election should he become our nominee. Shame on Coulter for this lie in obstinate denial of well-known and widely-viewed fact. If Coulter doesn’t know this, I can only wonder how, since it’s clear that she reported watching the debate in which Governor Rick Perry(R-TX) raised the issue.

“No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.”

Really?  I am claiming it.   I am.  Several states and individuals are suing over this requirement of Obamacare. That Coulter doesn’t seem to notice that many Americans aren’t claiming a right not to buy it, but that this is the result of the opposite concept – that government has no authority to force us to buy it – makes it perfectly clear that Coulter now holds a view of individual liberties perfectly compatible with Barack Obama’s views on so-called “negative rights.”   That Coulter is now reduced to making the backward argument of leftist filth-mongers should tell you all you really need to know, but I am still shocked by it.  Nevertheless, unable to deal with reality, she throws out this laughable tripe:

“The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.”

One might wonder what is controversial in conservative circles about the idea of the unconstitutionality of an individual mandate, except for the fact that Ann now seems to support the notion.  I almost cannot believe that Coulter has written this, as she urges the nomination of Mitt Romney as our only chance to repeal Obamacare. Why?  Why repeal it, Ms. Coulter?  Her article suggests she has absolutely no problem with it.  I’ve told my readers over the last few days that I believe the GOP establishment doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, and that Mitt Romney is the Trojan horse to make sure repeal never happens, but now Coulter comes along to virtually flaunt this in our faces.

Incredibly, she concludes her article after paragraphs of misdirection, manipulation, and at least one flat-out lie with the following:

“The problem isn’t health insurance mandates. The problem isn’t Romneycare. The problem isn’t welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.”

The problem is the health insurance mandate.  The problem includes Romneycare.  Democrats are indeed a party to this problem, but by this incredible piece of dishonesty posted under the banner of what had been thought to be a conservative writer, what we now know the real problem is that we can no longer tell how Ms. Coulter is any different from those who would rule over us.  If this is Ann Coulter’s version of conservatism, she can keep it along with the rest of her lies.

It’s getting so that we can no longer discern when Coulter is telling the truth or a lie, since she now carries Romney’s water in ludicrous pieces like this one, but less than one year ago, before Christie bowed out, Coulter insisted to us that Mitt Romney could not win.  Take Coulter with a grain of salt. This episode makes me question all the things she has ever written, never mind what she’s said.  I remember her attacks on Sarah Palin, but at least we now know why, don’t we?  Of course, I did believe she meant it when she implied that the Tea Party consisted of emotionally driven morons.  Coulter has a sad obsession with the GOP establishment, but we have known that for some time.

Do I believe you, Ms. Coulter?  No, I must state emphatically now that the real problem we face as conservatives lies also in part with you.

Romney Still Doesn’t “Get It”

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

"Safety Mitt"

In Romney’s response on CNN Wednesday morning, in which he said he wasn’t “concerned about the very poor,” he went on to make another remark we ought to examine.  I realize what he was trying to say, but what his full statement revealed is that he doesn’t understand why the country is on the verge of total collapse.  In stating his lack of concern, he mentioned that “we have a safety net” and that if it’s broken, he’ll “fix it.”  This is the problem with Romney:  We don’t need to “fix” the safety net.  Instead, we need to dismantle it.  What his reflex reveals is what conservatives have known about Romney from the outset:  He is a big government Republican who wants to “patch” the system, but he has no vision for overhaul of a welfare state that dehumanizes, and converts Americans into a permanent underclass, rather than to help them restore their dignity.

Conservatives understand that the welfare state “safety net” cannot be maintained in its current form because it functions too well as a hammock, but not so much as a trampoline. This difference is something Gingrich well understands, and was at the heart of his rebuke of Juan Williams in the Fox News Debate in South Carolina two weeks ago. Taking the approach of Gingrich was a stunningly successful rebuke of the leftist talking points that will predominate in the general election when the Republican nominee squares off against Barack Obama.  Romney doesn’t seem to grasp this, and it’s because he’s part of the Northeast liberal Republican establishment that tends to view the underclass as the object of their own well-intended welfare statism.  They think that people in poverty cannot lift themselves, and they concede the matter by collaborating on the growth of the welfare state with all the other liberals.

It is this fact that should worry you about Mitt’s alleged “electability,” and it further demonstrates why Mitt simply doesn’t get it.  He can’t identify this thinking, because his blue-blooded reflexes are in agreement with lefties’ views of the poor.  He sees them as the inevitable victims of life’s lottery, and not as people who should be launched into productive, self-sustaining lives of prosperity.  In effect, he sees them with the same underlying contempt as liberals actually feel, and expects them to remain a perpetual burden, with no hope of re-training, education, growth, development, or anything that would lead them to an earned prosperity.  If you want to understand the failings of Mitt Romney, it is here you must begin your journey, because what this small slip-up helps you to understand is that at his fundamental root, he suffers all the same moral and philosophical failings of a leftist.  He is one of them.

This is where his tendency toward allegedly benevolent big-government programs is born, and it is here that he aborts conservatism.  In his first reflex, when it counts most, his response is to push people toward a safety net built not of voluntary private actions by citizens in outreach to others among their own number, but to reckless big-spending government programs that convert individual poor people with momentary life issues into a permanent, institutionalized underclass that will never escape, and can never prosper, and must forever be a burden to their fellow men.  It is a hopeless, wilting view of humanity that surrenders to the notion that some people are helpless, from birth, by virtue of their environment, or both.  It assumes that people may be left in such circumstances until doomsday, with no expectations that they will ever lift themselves from that condition.

This giant hole in Mitt Romney’s understanding of conservatism is one of the larger reasons he cannot win in November 2012, because what it admits is a view of the poor much in line with Barack Obama’s, and it pays homage to the same faulty preconceptions about those who languish in our welfare system, where opportunities are seldom recognized, much less pursued.  It explains his inability to connect with conservatives too, because in this view of the poor, Romney prescribes precisely that which will not help those so-afflicted.  He’s admitting that he will be another governmental enabler, like the government programs in which the methadone substitutes for other chemicals, keeping the user strung out in lifelong stupor, but yielding no rehabilitation, either in addiction, or dignity. This is Mitt Romney, and it’s why after more than a half-decade in pursuit of the presidency, he still doesn’t “get it.”

After Florida…

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Florida's Rotten Fruit

I know that for some, this will strike some as a contradictory note compared with what I wrote on Tuesday evening, but it’s not if you’re reading carefully.  On Tuesday evening, what I told you is that Floridians just voted to re-elect Obama, and I firmly believe that.  The problem is, Florida is an important state, but it’s hardly the be-all, end-all the Republican establishment will spend the next several weeks pretending it had been.  My post on Florida of Tuesday evening should serve as a warning to others, who hold strong conservative and Tea Party values: I believe 2012 will be a watershed year, and the identity of the Republican party’s nominee will define the election.  If we select a conservative who voters can differentiate substantially from Obama on the most important issues of our time, we can win.  If we vote a barely-right-of-Obama candidate, who has similar big government leanings, we will lose, and we may well lose the House, never mind regaining the Senate, but what I need you to understand is that this contest is not yet over.

I’ve explained at length all the reasons Romney can’t win, and I’m certain most readers here can tick them off like a shopping list of items, but by now, we all realize that one thing militates against a Romney victory more than any other:  Romney-care.  It’s effectively the ultimate death-knell of his campaign, and he can’t use it in the general, which is why he’s using it in the primary.  In the general campaign, Obama will absolutely slay Romney with his pathetic “states’ rights” argument, because in truth, even Obama knows that’s nothing but a useless dodge.  Don’t misunderstand:  Obama is fine with Romney-care – it served as the model for his own healthcare reform – but he knows Romney can’t speak of it without doing damage to himself minimally equal to any he might inflict on Obama.

Can Romney claim “Obamacare will bankrupt the nation?”  He can’t if he wants to avoid Obama  reminding voters that Romney’s own program is bankrupting Massachusetts already.  Obama will say his is different enough to bankrupt the nation, and of course, he will use the claims of “social justice” and “civil rights” in opposition to the “states’ rights” argument.  In truth, I can’t imagine how Romney doesn’t wind up yielding on this issue.  I can’t see how he presses it, and frankly, I can also see Obama attacking his position on repeal, which may not help Obama with independents, but it will be his rallying cry to his base.  He will dangle the carrott of its benefits before the eyes of his supporters, while whipping them with the stick of Romney’s promised repeal, and there Romney will stand, flat-footed, neither able to respond in defense or in counterattack, neutered forevermore on the subject.

I keep stressing these points because what you must know is that Florida can still be the aberration and not the trend-setter.  One of the problems we face is turn-out in the coming primaries and caucuses, because Obama’s goons have nothing better to do than to give us our candidate.  In Florida, it was largely Broward and Dade counties that gave Romney his margin of victory, and this should tell you everything: Those are overwhelmingly Democrat-heavy counties, and that Romney did so well in them offers you a clue as to the real identity of many Romney voters there. You can be assured that a large number of Democrats cross-registered so they could vote in the Republican primary, since they already know who their own nominee will be.

Here I sit in Texas, and as anecdotal as it may seem, I know several hundred people here well enough to know where they stand at the moment on the primary race, and what I can tell you is this:  I don’t know a soul among them who wants Romney.  Ron Paul? Sure, a few dozen. Rick Santorum? A few dozen more.  Newt Gingrich?  He has a commanding lead among the Republicans I know, but among Democrats, and left-leaning independents, the answer is unanimous:  Romney.  Some of them have already told me they have registered last year as Republicans so they could vote Romney in the primary.  It’s the plan, you see.

The only way to overcome all of this is for conservatives and Tea Party folk to unite and overcome Romney. Florida’s result need only be as meaningful as you allow.  It needn’t be a trend-setter.  As I’ve explained at length, I don’t believe Romney can win in November, but there is still plenty of time to prevent that from being our sole choice. Romney isn’t a winning campaigner, and while any who oppose him must overcome his bankroll, as I explained on Tuesday, that needn’t be the driving force. It’s now up to you: Lose with Romney or win with a conservative(or at least such reasonable facsimile as we can muster.)  Mitt’s not inevitable just yet.

Florida Votes For Four More Years of Obama, Obamacare

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

Florida Primary Victor

On November 7th, when we look back on the Florida primary, it will be in knowing recognition that today may have been the day on which the die was cast.  We will cry over our breakfast plates, and Barack Obama will come to rule with an iron fist, unrestrained by worries over future electoral defeat.  The fact that none will consider as they vote for Romney on the phony basis of his alleged “electability” is that he cannot and will not defeat Barack Obama for a number of important reasons, and while this fact is well-known to those who support him, that’s simply part of the plan.  The dirty secret of the Republican establishment is that they don’t want Obama-care repealed, because for two years at least, they’ve been figuring out how to profit from it.

Obama-care is the issue Mitt Romney is unable to address, and without it he will have nothing, because the leftist administration now in power is rigging the statistics, and pushing cash into the market in order to help people feel more comfortable and not so thoroughly inclined to oust Barack Obama in November.  In short, they’re placing camouflage over their failures, because they just need to hang on through re-election, and then the true crises will begin.  If Obama is re-elected, America as you have known it is over, but the dirty secret is that Romney will not make more than a token challenge to him.  He will not outspend Obama five-to-one in any way like he has done in Florida in pursuit of the nomination.  He will not have the resources, and you can expect his SuperPAC funds to become more skimpy once he clears the convention.

This is because the core of Romney’s support in this primary season are liberals in Republican clothing, who do not wish to repeal Obama-care.  It’s part of the progressive vision to which they adhere, but more importantly for them, it’s going to be a profit center.  The GOP establishment is filled with heavy-hitters who will get all sorts of government contracts in the short run to help run the health-care exchanges at the state level, and will be among those who profit most from Obama-cares implementation.  Obama bought them off, if you’ll remember, during all of those closed-door meetings with medical and pharmaceutical companies, and a few information technology companies too.  If you thought the people in league with Obama-care are all Democrats, you’re in for a shock.  No, the establishment wing of the GOP is waiting in the wings to cash in, and they already are so doing. You wonder why they want Obama-care? Examine where so many implementation dollars are now going.

This is the problem with Romney, when you boil it all down, and apart from the fact that he’s not supposed to win, there is the problem that he cannot. The one issue on which a wide majority of Americans agree is Obama-care, but this is the issue he will yield, because of Romney-care.  This is thoroughly damning to Romney’s campaign, but we will not confront the fact that without this issue, Republicans cannot win in 2012.  Mitt Romney cannot motivate the base, and they already know that. The Tea Party will not hold its collective nose in 2012, and the establishment already knows this.  If the GOP had wanted to win, they would have selected almost anybody else.  No.  Anybody else will not be beholden to the establishment, and will not easily do its bidding.  What do these masters of the party desire?  Power and money.  That’s power over you, and thereby the control over your money.

The biggest smiles on this last day of January 2012 will not be at Romney’s campaign headquarters, nor even in Obama’s, although they’ll be grinning from ear to ear in both. Instead, the smiles will be widest in the halls of the establishment’s seat of power.  Obama-care will go forward along with its namesake, and this will permit the final undoing of America, and if you don’t like me pointing it out, you may be part of the problem.

Florida: It Isn’t Over

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Florida Primary Looms

Most media outlets are reporting an advantage for Romney in the double-digits, but in looking at most of these polls as I reported Sunday, most have samples that are far too small and margins of error that are much too high.  I’ve seen a concerted effort to raise the sample sizes, and lower the margins of error, but they’re still diddling around with the numbers.  They’re hoping the net propaganda effect will leverage in favor of Romney getting more votes from those who are undecided.  This isn’t surprising, because the GOP establishment is getting a good deal of help from their friends in the media. It’s for this reason I am convinced that the Florida primary will be much closer than is being reported, and it’s also why I suspect there’s still a chance for Gingrich.

The whole purpose of the media massacre that was inflicted on Gingrich last week and through the weekend was to soften his support.  At the same time, I saw a media and establishment theme emerge in which the question of Romney’s Mormon faith was the issue, but not by people opposing him.  Instead, it was from his own camp, alleging that the people of South Carolina just hate Mormons.  You know, that “Christian Right” who have some sort of alleged problem with Romney’s religion.  In this entire campaign season, the only people I have ever heard raise this question were either media shills for Romney, or campaign shills for Romney. I’m located firmly in the midst of the Bible Belt, and I haven’t heard a single person say one word about Romney’s faith.  What I have heard them say, often and loudly, is that Romney’s problem is his liberal record.

I am not inclined to believe this election in Florida is “all over,” or that even were it, that this primary race is “all over.”  It’s simply not true.  Wednesday morning, we will have conducted exactly four states’ worth of caucusing and voting, with forty-six to follow.  I don’t know whose calculus indicates that this somehow wraps things up for Romney, even assuming he wins in Florida, but I suspect Florida is going to be a good deal closer than the media pretends.  My evidence is admittedly second-hand, apart from the manipulated polls, but there’s also the sense on the ground that Gingrich is drawing larger crowds in similar venues, and Gingrich is getting Tea Party support, and this combined with the story NewsMax is carrying about an ongoing Gingrich surge suggest to me the “it’s all over” meme is just that, and nothing more. My advice to Floridians remains the same:  Tomorrow morning, if you have yet to vote, go to the polls and defeat Mitt Romney, even if it means holding your nose. Nothing will deliver a more important message to the establishment, that still doesn’t take you seriously even after the whip-saw turnaround in South Carolina. It’s not over, not now, and not even tomorrow.