Posts Tagged ‘Election 2012’

This is 1860, and Obama Isn’t Lincoln

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Who We Need

Our country is in crisis, but at present, we have no leader emerging to save the union, and it seems there will be no Abraham Lincoln to save the nation.  Barack Obama is more like his long-ago predecessor, James Buchanan, who was put in place by his party, the Democrats, to protect the institution of slavery.  Obama is in that position, as his job has been to protect and grow the welfare state, and in much the same way as Buchanan, it may be a case before the Supreme Court that defines his presidency.  If Barack Obama and the Democrats have their way, the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act(Obama-care) thus defining the character and inevitable course of the nation, much as in 1857, Justice Taney’s ruling upholding slavery in the Dred Scott case set the nation on a course to civil war. The difference was that in 1857, the court held that federalism applied, and in 2012, Barack Obama’s justice department is demanding that the 10th Amendment and the entire notion of States’ rights be ignored. There may only be one way in which this issue is finally settled, and it may require war.

In 1860, the budding Republican party sought to set the question on slavery right, the abolitionists in the North propelling Abraham Lincoln to the presidency.  Lincoln had the distinction of overseeing the abolition of slavery, but to do so he would need to fight a war.  In much the same way, if Republicans are to begin abolishing the soft slavery of the welfare state, beginning with Obama-care, they will need to elect a leader prepared to wage war in defense of a principle.  After all, in 1860, the South was entrenched in the notion of keeping the institution of legal slavery, but the abolitionists knew that could not be permitted to stand.  In 2012, faced with a Supreme Court case that may well decide the future of the country, we wait to see if the court will act to save the country, or fail to defend the principles enshrined in the constitution as they did in the Dred Scott case one-hundred-fifty-five years ago.

People have falsely compared Obama to Lincoln, thinking his stance on the supremacy of the central government over the states is the most pressing comparison, but this simply isn’t the case.  What will save our republic now is not more government but less, and not fewer freedoms but more, and in this sense, Barack Obama has nothing in common with Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln thought that it was impossible to better the lives of some men by subjecting other men to ruin:

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Reply to New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association” (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

Clearly, Lincoln was not interested in Obama’s updated form of enslavement, and yet that is the central crisis that will confront this nation in the 2012 elections, and for some years to come.  Nobody can say with certainty what will be the final tipping point, but if this nation continues apace, it will plunge into anarchy and civil war, but this time, the government is likely to be on the side of the slavers.

There is something fundamentally flawed in the thinking of those who argue that this is just the natural progression of nations, because what they argue is that Americans are neither wise enough, nor even capable of sufficient self-control to attempt to restrain intemperate desires for wealth derived from naked expropriation, but I submit this is not true, at least not yet, and that we must not permit it to become true.  Once we cross that invisible plane, the ramifications will be known with little delay, as the country you had known and loved and labored to propel disappears into the fog of a war from which only savagery may emerge.

Let us not pretend that we can’t imagine what will happen in such a scenario, but let us not delude ourselves into the beautiful lie that tells us it will somehow resolve by other, less painful means.  Von Clauswitz said that war is politics by another means, and I am here to tell you that politics is just the precursor to war  in such a context as the one in which our nation now persists.  All of the political rancor we now experience would be replaced by open warfare, at least for a time, in the scenario I am describing.  That our slate of Republican candidates might not see this is disturbing enough, but that our front-runner intentionally avoids seeing it is frankly inexcusable.  Of those now in the nomination fight, I think Gingrich is most apt to understand what’s at stake, because his knowledge of history may permit him to see the warning signs with a clarity the others are neither inclined nor perhaps able to see.

Gingrich has a fine understanding of the Civil War, and he certainly knows the history of the period, and how the nation arrived in that predicament.  I think Gingrich also understands that our current predicament is in some ways worse, because whereas in 1861, Lincoln put the government in service of the proposition that all men were created equal, we now have a government committed to the notion that it is the job of government to compel an equality of results.

This is the nature of the grave danger we now face, and it is every bit as dangerous as 1860, but perhaps with the added danger that we now have  a president who is part of the problem.  Put another way, imagine that in 1861, it had been a President from the South who instead caused t he Northern delegations to Congress to walk out, and had engaged in a brutal war to compel Northern states to the “peculiar institution” that had been slavery.  That’s what we now face, as Barack Obama seeks to impose his own form of slavery on the American people.

This is why I insist that this election year is not like 1980, or even 1932.  This election is most like 1860, and if we don’t find a candidate with the common sense and righteous aims of Lincoln, it may have been in vain that we exercised our vote.  If we are to preserve this republic, we will need leaders who are willing to wage even war in defense of individual liberty.  That certainly won’t be Barack Obama, and it surely won’t be Mitt Romney, leaving us to ponder whether it is even possible to save our union once more.

Newt Knocks It Out of the Park on the Etch-a-Sketch Candidate

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Re-Drawing Romney

I wasn’t surprised to see Newt Gingrich pick up this theme, but that he did it so effectively and on such short notice is really just another testament to his mental horsepower.  The former House Speaker appeared at a campaign stop just an hour or so after Eric Fehrnstrom made his remarks to CNN, in which he likened Mitt Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch.  Call it the gaffe of the day, or the confession of the year, but either way, Gingrich was quick to seize upon the moment and throw it in Romney’s face.  After a day-long media mocking, Romney came out Wednesday evening in a tepid response designed to blunt the criticisms, but Newt Gingrich captured the moment in explaining what this episode should strike a cautious note for conservatives.  Here’s the video:

Fehrnstrom really threw his boss into a shark tank with this one.  He’s been a Romney adviser since Romney took office as Governor of Massachusetts.  What this episode demonstrates clearly is that Romney is no conservative, and once he secures the Republican nomination, he is going to move to the left dramatically.  Gingrich is right to make sport of Romney over this issue, because in fact, Romney has campaigned against both Gingrich and Santorum as though he was the more conservative of the three.  I think this episode permits us to firmly dispense with that line of nonsense.  Kudos to Newt Gingrich for not dropping the issue so easily.

Re-Drawing Romney: Mitt Will Shift Left in the Fall Campaign

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

A top Mitt Romney adviser admitted on CNN that whatever conservative positions Mitt Romney is taking now, it’s unlikely to reflect in the Massachusetts moderate’s  Fall campaign.  He likened the shift in positions possible to a nominee in the general campaign to an etch-a-sketch.  Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom was asked on CNN this morning if he thought Mitt Romney’s “hard right” positions would would prevail in the Fall, or whether it would be possible for him to attract the support of “independents” and “moderates.”

Romney is no conservative, and his campaign advisers are trying to pitch you a lie. This whole business is another demonstration of why Mitt Romney isn’t suited to be the Republican nominee, although he may wind up being the choice. The primary campaign has been a sham to conceal his true nature from conservatives, and this is the proof.

Here’s the video from CNN:

Why Romney Isn’t Resonating With Conservatives

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Fish Out of Water?

Why is it that every time somebody in Congress proposes a new way to attack our national spending crisis, Mitt Romney becomes more scarce than a California condor?  That’s the way it seems to go whenever there’s an opportunity for Mitt Romney to commit to something.  He’s trying to win the GOP nomination by avoiding controversy, but also by avoiding being pinned down on any issue.  Where he does take a solid stance, he seems first to assemble a committee to examine all of the ramifications.  People wonder why Romney can’t connect with solid conservatives, and I will tell you that this is exemplar of the problem:  Conservatives expect a Republican candidate like Mitt Romney to know what he thinks about an issue once the details are known, because he already has established principles that define his answer to the issue or question at hand.  This is where Mitt Romney continues to fail the conservative “sniff test:” He seems to have no core upon which he can rely to provide him the correct answers.

I don’t expect moderates to understand this, because in point of fact, they’re not politically oriented in such a way as to perceive this important distinction.  Theirs is a pragmatic view that admits  the inviolability of no principle. Put another way, for them, there is nothing that is outside the realm of negotiations.  The laws of economics?  Subject to political necessity, they’re irrelevant.  The US Constitution?  Subject to the political expedience of the moment, that too goes out the window.  In short, they’re predisposed to view issues first from a political perspective rather than a decidedly philosophical one.  This defines the behavior of moderates, including Romney, and it’s why without a focus group, or at least an advisory committee, Romney will not take firm stands on issues.

Let us try to see this from both sides of the clear divide.  I am a conservative, with libertarian economic leanings much in line with such scholars as the late Milton Friedman, or professor Walter Williams, to name two.  For me, the question of government-run or government-subsidized health-care is a no-brainer, and it translates immediately to my polity.  I hold the principle that the best determinate player in any economic matter is the consumer, who should always likewise be the payer.  My view of such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obama-care is roughly this: I oppose all of them because they are compulsory systems that decide for people how best to dispose of their income and wealth.  These are the facts, and I can’t get beyond them long enough to bother much with the nuances of any of these programs. They’re all intrinsically evil, whatever political excuses one might make for them. They are all enforced by coercion and its threat, and that is enough to damn them irrevocably in my view.  I don’t need a focus group. I don’t need an advisory committee.  What’s wrong is wrong whether one person or one-hundred million persons support it.

This is not the view of the moderate, however, as their view is highly politicized, and almost always stealthily self-serving.  Theirs is a view that a majority will ultimately rule, so it’s suicidal to fight against them.  This is the sniveling view of those who falsely believe that humanity is collectively too petty to discern the difference between their long-term enslavement and their short-run benefit. They aren’t really interested in leading opinion, instead taking it as it is, but figuring out how to massage their public relations to best shape public opinion.  Moderates like Mitt Romney are obsessed with gauging opinions before making decisions, because they are unfailingly terrified of “being on the wrong side” of an issue,  and by “wrong,” what they mean is really “politically unpopular.”  They make great pretense about the needs of the people, but this is mere posturing for the sake of their own political hides.

This is the same crowd that will cheerfully point out that their way prevails, as evidenced by the fact that they are in power, where principled conservatives seldom win on a scale larger than a Congressional seat.  Notice that even their view of winning is jaded by the same notion.  They reference not right or wrong, but wins and losses.  This is a highly practical view, but it’s also deeply dishonest absent a guiding philosophy.  That guiding philosophy is what is absent from the likes of Mitt Romney, at least publicly.  He tells us he is a capitalist because he worked at Bain Capital, but his conduct as Governor of Massachusetts evinces nothing but statism.  What conservatives do not perceive in Romney is a man rooted in fundamental beliefs that will not yield, and this is a source of great consternation for conservatives, having suffered through the likes of Bush and Bush.

Conservatives were never altogether happy with either George the elder or the younger,  except perhaps in terms of national defense.  Even in that arena, however, the nation-building tendencies of both men remains the source of much dissension among conservatives.  Conservatives rightly view the United States military as an instrument of national defense, and believe that “nation-building” is a function in which it has no proper role.  The prospect of “nation-building” is a problem for inhabitants, and not for foreigners arriving to impose their own forms of governance upon them.  The conservative sees little valid purpose in expending American blood or treasure on the account of some foreign country with which we are involved solely because it had posed some threat to the American people, who had felt obliged to remove it.

Moderates, on the other hand, can make a case on a different basis, and it flows from their basic view that there exists a political solution for all problems.  This is not the case, in fact, and it’s why after more than a century of dominance by progressives in the Republican party machinery, the party is in such thorough disarray.  Any conservative who rises is quickly sent packing over the first inkling of a flaw, or the first hint of intractability on any issue.  The conservative base of the GOP is tired of being treated as second-class citizens, and this is why Romney’s troubles continue. If conservatives felt he was a solid conservative, he wouldn’t be experiencing this difficulty, but then again, he wouldn’t have the support of the party’s establishment either.

I’m afraid we may be shafted again, with another tepid Republican nominee, who must spend a good time gauging issues carefully before taking a stand on anything.  It’s the tendency of the Republican establishment to advertise such people as “conservatives,” hoping to fool the base.  Some conservatives may give up in desperation now, but it’s not an endorsement of Romney so much as a shrugging of shoulders to what has been portrayed and pushed and engineered as the “inevitable” nomination.  Even conservatives become fatigued, but in such an important election cycle, you would think with all that is at stake, more would make a firm stand.  Of course, there are plenty of conservatives who do, but perhaps not enough yet to stem the tide.

If Romney wavers or missteps, he may find himself in free-fall, and his tepid and careful manner on the campaign trail is evidence that he knows it.  He’s just one serious gaffe from falling by the wayside, but his entire campaign is engineered to avoid one.  Expecting Romney to change his stripes at this late date is a bit delusional, but the media keeps pressing the theme that he’s connecting better with conservatives despite all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it’s time we ask the GOP establishment if they will commit to supporting our candidate next time, or whether they will insist upon putting up another cookie-cutter candidate or another Bush-clan connection.

After all, there’s no sense in waiting until 2015 to start thinking about who will be Barack Obama’s successor.  It likely will not be Mitt Romney.

 

 

The Renewed War on Sarah Palin

Sunday, March 18th, 2012

Proving the Media Contradiction

Predictably, the media is playing up HBO’s Game Change, but it really doesn’t matter in the sense that it’s rehashing of the same old broken narrative about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  On the other hand, with Barack Obama’s outfit hurling excrement, and no shortage of establishment Republicans joining in the mix, I wonder if I’m alone in noticing that for a woman who has been declared “irrelevant” more times than Newt Gingrich’s campaign has been declared “dead,” Gov. Palin seems to draw attention from the left like nectar draws hummingbirds, but fortunately, they have the brains to match.  What never ceases to amaze me is how unfailingly revelatory the left is when they pick out their political target du jour.  They always signal who it is that threatens them most.  Two weeks ago, it had been Rush Limbaugh, and now[again, or still] it’s Sarah Palin.  Some of this is clearly due to the premiere of this insanely dishonest movie, but she’s more than a target-of-opportunity:  Sarah Palin lives rent-free in the minds of leftists everywhere, because she is everything Barack Obama is not.

When Gov. Palin talks about energy, she puts this hapless President to shame.  He offers excuses, but she offers solutions, and while he denounces the idea of “Drill Baby, Drill,” he has no actual answer apart from claiming the economics isn’t economics, and that the laws of supply and demand have somehow fundamentally changed.  He offers that there’s no point to drilling, since it will be years before we will see a result, but at the same time, he takes credit for drilling operations commenced before he arrived in office in order to support the claim that we have more oil production now than when he took office.  Of course we do, but it has nothing to do with his policies, and the proof of that lies in the fact that most new drilling is on private property, and not on leased government lands.  If you ask President Obama, he’ll tell you there’s no need for more drilling, but he won’t even let us build a pipeline, the Keystone XL, that could have been bringing oil to our refineries in eighteen months.   She predicted the inflationary effects of QE2, and the debt into which Barack Obama would lead us.   In fact, everything she has said about Barack Obama has been right on the money.  It’s no wonder his crew at Obama for America put out an anti-Palin rant.  He can’t withstand any scrutiny alongside her.

Of course, it’s bad enough when Obama and his shills goes after Governor Palin, but it’s worse when even some of the GOP establishment types join in the “fun.”  To see the reaction to some establishment types to the movie Game Change merely buttresses the point:  Much like the Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican party, Sarah Palin is faced with a two-front war.  She can’t merely defeat the talking points of Democrats and lefties, because that’s to accomplish only part of the job.  Just like the rest of us, she is faced with confronting a Republican establishment that would prefer she just go away.  Andrew Breitbart described these people as “eunuchs,” but they’re significantly worse than that term implies.  I now consider them to be a fifth column that has merged with Washington DC ‘s permanent political class and engages by willful calculation in the smearing of genuine conservatives, including particularly Sarah Palin.

The latest smears on Governor Palin  come from two basic sources, one being the Hollywood friends of Barack Obama, but also the permanent political class that undermined her in the 2008 campaign.  Steve Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace, and others from the 2008 McCain campaign are trying to rescue their own reputations, and if it takes deceit, and fiction, they’re willing to go all the way. What becomes more striking, however, is the effect she still has on their thinking despite saying in October that she would not run for the GOP nomination.  There’s been much talk about a brokered convention, now a real possibility, and because this is the case, the GOP establishment as well as Barack Obama are worried that somehow, some way, Governor Palin will emerge from that process as the party’s nominee.  It’s true that Game Change would have come out now either way, but let us not neglect the reality that were both of these groups not so fearful of Sarah Palin, there wouldn’t be any reason on Earth for Obama for America to gin up an anti-Palin ad, or for the Huffington Post to run an absurd story based on the brokered convention speculation of the author of a guest submission on Conservatives4Palin.

Think about that for a moment, and let it sink in:  The left has a preternatural fear of Governor Palin, to the extent that when a guest to a website submits a post that references Sarah Palin and a brokered convention in the same sentence, the assumption is made that somehow, Governor Palin is behind the scenes, working her “evil plot” to take over the Republican party.  It’s laughable on its face, but it tells you something about the loosely-hinged minds that concoct all of this.  Geoffrey Dunn’s piece on HuffPo is a perfect example of this continuation of Palin Derangement Syndrome(PDS.)

Case in point?  Dunn can’t wait to explain what a bunch of morons the folks at C4P have been, but the problem is that he validates one of the arguments he can’t wait to rebut.  In criticizing Nancy Laboente’s guest submission at C4P, Dunn make the following statement:

“Labonete’s polemic continues by arguing that Palin is the only candidate who can withstand the “Alinksy attacks” during the election; Palin, she argues, is the lone Republican who has “the smarts to throw the media into a convulsive tizzy and still have her message ring out loudly and win the argument.”

Here’s the problem:  Sarah Palin hasn’t written this article, and already the media(witness Dunn himself) are frothing at the mouth over it.  “Convulsive Tizzy?”  Geoffrey Dunn: Check!  Dunn is the author of The Lies of Sarah Palin.  Admittedly then, he’s been in a convulsive tizzy for some time.

Of course, that’s just the leftist phalanx talking.  They’re so thoroughly deranged by Palin that they can no longer see it.  I once asked the question:  “How do you convince a person who is not in their right mind that… he isn’t in his right mind?”  Over in the semi-rational camp, and I use that term guardedly, Nicolle Wallace appears Sunday on This Week with Stephanoloulos to tell us that she thinks the movie Game Change is basically true:

“One of Sarah Palin’s top advisers said today that HBO’s “Game Change” was “true enough to make me squirm,” despite Palin’s contention that the docudrama about her rise to national stardom during the 2008 presidential campaign was a “false narrative.”

Let’s be blunt, shall we?  Schmidt and Wallace have a clear interest in defaming Sarah Palin.   If they can shift the blame for the result of the 2008 campaign from their own backs and throw Governor Palin under the bus, they’ll improve their prospects, because in truth, it was the performances of these geniuses who engineered the 2008 McCain defeat with the suspension of his campaign.  Remember, these people are part of that permanent political class that circles Washington DC like vultures.  They may move out for a time, but eventually, they come back, if indeed they ever leave at all.

Ladies and gentlemen, the DC political class is a center-left assemblage of people whose profession it is to assist in governing you by shaping your opinions.  It’s known as public relations, in polite circles, but to say that they’re “mercenary” is an understatement.  Consider Nicole Wallace, whose mentor had been Mike McCurry, press secretary for Bill Clinton.  Then she went to work for George Bush.  If she had her way, she’d probably work for Obama now, but then again… Her husband Mark, also a McCain campaign adviser, is another Washington DC insider who served as an Ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush.   In other words, this is the class of people who goes to Washington DC, makes a mint, and never really leaves, even if their locale changes.

This is why I believe the problem we face as conservatives is the same problem Sarah Palin faces:  She’s not part of their club, and both the left and the GOP establishment simply want her, and us gone.  It’s not the first time I’ve noted that the same people who repeatedly array themselves against all things conservative are the same people who line up against Sarah Palin, and the theme has become predictable.  If we do manage to get that sort of candidate one day who will be up to the task of disassembling the mess in Washington DC, it will surely be somebody like Sarah Palin, if not she, but if that day ever arrives, we conservatives had better grasp the nature of the fight.  It’s a war with two fronts:  One the one, we have the left, that opposes us as deadly enemies; on the second, we have the GOP establishment that wants us gone.  Between them, they share a permanent political class that will always seek to undermine real reform, because their own necks are on the block.  It’s for this reason that real conservatives know Gov. Palin is relevant, and in some ways, more now than ever, particularly against the backdrop of Barack Obama.   All that you are seeing from the media with their self-contradictory narrative of the “irrelevant” Sarah Palin is simply more evidence that they know it too.

In unrelated Palin news, Bristol has a new blog site.

 

Real Cost of Obamacare Revealed

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Wilson Should Have Said It Again: He Lies!

Remember when Congress was running the numbers through the Congressional Budget Office to get a scoring of the costs of Obama-care? Not surprisingly, these estimates fell well short of the real numbers under the arm-twisting and politicking of the Democrat leadership of Nancy Pelosi(D-CA,) then Speaker of the House. In short, they engineered a lie, and that lie was that over ten years, the costs of Obama-care would be “just” $900 Billion, but now the CBO has revised its estimates, and that number has sky-rocketed to nearly $1.8 Trillion.  You might wonder how badly you’re about to be hammered, but you can expect that by the time Obamacare is fully implemented, most working Americans will see their premiums sky-rocket(and in truth, many already have in just the last two years since the bill’s passage.)  Expect to pay more in taxes, and if you’re an employer, you may want to consider what they intend for you with all the new penalties.

Back in 2009-10, when the bill was being debated, they kept going back to browbeat CBO as repeated modifications of the bill continued to exceed one-trillion dollars.  They finally came out with a cost estimate of $940 billion, and this was sufficient to get the support of some wavering Democrats who didn’t want to be tagged with a $1 Trillion expenditure.  At the time, many Congressional critics said that it would come in far higher since the CBO was using a static scoring that didn’t account for economic conditions at large.  Much of the near doubling of the costs are accounted for by a weaker economy than they had estimated at the time.  This is typical CBO estimating:  Look at the sky today, see it is blue, and estimate the cost for umbrellas over the next ten years will be zero.  As you’re drenched for lack of an umbrella, they will explain that their estimates didn’t account for the dynamics of weather.

The entire Obama-care scam is just now kicking into high gear.  Over the next eighteen months, as new features and taxes kick in, along with the mandates and penalties, I don’t think most small or even medium businesses quite grasp how badly this is going to affect their bottom lines.  This is because much of it  has been hidden, and many large corporations have managed to obtain exemptions from the Obama administration.  It’s not clear that those exemptions are even legal, and it’s fairly certain they will end early in a second Obama term.  Our best hope is that the Supreme Court overturns the whole law, since there is no severability clause in this law, meaning that to throw out one portion, for instance the individual mandate, all portions of the law must go.  If that happens, we’ll be extraordinarily fortunate, but we must plan on the fact that this is going to go forward irrespective of the desires of more than 65% of the American people, who oppose it.

When you see Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama, or any other Democrat who supported and voted for this law, you can assume they are liars, one and all, and that they knew full well that this program was going to cost significantly more than advertised.  They lied, because it was the only way to get even their own members to vote for it, not because those members believed the lies, but because it gave them plausible political cover.  Know this: If your member of Congress or your Senators voted for this bill, despite what they may say now, they knew it was an underestimate based on willful ignorance.  You should cast your votes accordingly at the next opportunity.

 

 

Will The Real “Prostitute” Stand Up?

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

The Right Proposition?

Listening to the Democrats, you would think Rush Limbaugh had committed a war crime.   His use of the terms “prostitute” and “slut” that he offered as possible descriptors of leftist agitator Sandra Fluke, and for which he subsequently apologized has been the rallying cry of every lefty feminist in sight, but Democrats generally as they seek to make as many miles on this as they can.  The problem is that contrary to the shrill refrain, it’s not having quite the effect the Democrats had hoped, and what seems to be happening is that there has been a backlash against sponsors who withdrew advertising from Limbaugh’s show.  This flies in the face of all we’ve been told about this episode by the mainstream media, but it also offers a little insight as to who the American people see as the real prostitute, as the double-standard in the media has become apparent with such leftists as Bill Maher getting a pass from certain politicians and political groups.

National Organization for Women(NOW) President Terry O’Neill was asked whether she thought the Obama SuperPAC that received a million dollars from the so-called ‘comic’ Bill Maher ought to return the money on the basis of what he has said about a number of prominent conservative women, including Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.  Her answer is only surprising to those who are naive about the motives of the NOW gang.  Watch the video:

Ms. O’Neill expresses a smarmy contempt for the question, noting that she wants Barack Obama elected, thus rejecting the idea that the money ought to be returned to Maher.  I would never make the mistake of telling you that O’Neill is a “prostitute” or a “slut,” but it is interesting to see how her support of women is conditional and quite obviously for sale.

This brings me to the real object of my question.  You see, while President Obama doesn’t technically control the SuperPAC that accepted Bill Maher’s million dollars, he does exercise at least theoretical moral authority.  He could urge the money be returned if he was as serious as his invoking of his own daughters in a discussion of the Fluke-Limbaugh situation implies, but that’s if you believe his feigned moral outrage.  Here you have the pinnacle of hypocrisy.  Obama waxes philosophically on the shame of what Rush Limbaugh said prospectively of Sandra Fluke, and yet he permits a SuperPAC operating in his name to accept money from a misogynist like Bill Maher?

The fact is that the things Bill Maher has said about conservative women are far worse than Rush Limbaugh’s proposed words, and honestly, if we can see media castigate Rick Santorum because Foster Freiss made his remark about “an aspirin between the knees,”  surely this President, who poses as the savior of women, and who has the President of NOW selling out the organization’s stated principles on his behalf could stand firm against misogyny.

What this demonstrates is that Barack Obama is a political prostitute, and that his principles and haughty talk about misogyny all goes out the window for a measly million dollars.  He’s just announced his price, if you ask me, and he might as well stand on a DC street corner asking for the support of lobbyists in much the same way.  Unfortunately for us, he has no need of a street corner because he has turned the Oval Office into the political brothel-of-state, where he routinely sells out all of his lofty notions about the “interests of the people” and “change” along with whatever else he’s selling on any given day.  The lobbyists had no problem finding him when it came time for the negotiations on the health-care bill, or the financial reform act.  They merely made deposits at the bank of the DNC and his favorite campaign SuperPacs, and for chump-change, he willingly put out.

Rush Limbaugh needn’t have proposed that Sandra Fluke might be a “prostitute” or a “slut.”  He really only needed to point out that the nation’s head madame is a he, and that he plies his trade at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Those who were confused shouldn’t be now, because Barack Obama has made it clear: He’s for sale, and the bidding starts at one million dollars, setting the price at which he will overlook anything, no matter how vile.

 

 

Santorum’s Southern Knock-Out

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Knock-Out in Deep South

I watched a little bit of the election coverage as the results came in from Alabama and Mississippi.  This has turned out to be a big night for Rick Santorum, winning both Southern contests, and showing his viability in the South.  Newt Gingrich finished a close second in both states, while Mitt Romney was a point or two behind Gingrich in both of the primaries. What’s important to note about the contest is that Gingrich has demonstrated that he can still beat Romney in the South, but for Santorum, he’s delivered a one-two punch because he beat both the former speaker, who represented Georgia, and Mitt Romney, who still doesn’t seem to find any traction in the South, or in heavily conservative states.  Mitt Romney is the alleged “front-runner,” but as Gingrich pointed out cheerfully in post election remarks, it’s not much of a “front-runner who keeps finishing third.”

To finish in third is a real defeat for Romney, because what it demonstrates is that he’s not getting it done with conservatives. More than seventy-five percent of the Republican electorate in either state considers themselves ‘conservative,’ but with Romney capturing no more than 30%, it’s clear that Romney has some real work to do in the South.  Put another way, in the South, it was Non-Romney 70% to Romney’s 30%.  This late in the game, that’s a pretty stark beating.  While the delegates gained will be split three ways with Ron Paul capturing none(barely breaking 5% in Alabama,) what you really have here is an indication that Romney isn’t the inevitable nominee after all.  He certainly remains in the lead in delegates, but let’s keep this in context.  Taking Mississippi as an example, Non-Romney captured 24 delegates to Romney’s 12.   If it continues at this pace, he will never attain the 1144 mark, and we will have a brokered convention unless one of the other two can pick up significant momentum and finally push Romney down.

I don’t know if that’s possible, but Romney’s camp is clearly worried.  They’re out-spending all competitors at a rate of 20-to-1 in most of these contests, meaning that his return on contributors’ investments in his campaign is pretty low.  Meanwhile, the much more frugal Gingrich and Santorum campaigns are getting much more bang for their bucks.  If Santorum keeps edging out Romney like this, it won’t be long before some money starts moving his way, as the aura of “invincibility” that the media has projected around Mitt Romney begins to fade.

This also means that from now until the convention will become a much more expensive road for Mitt Romney, and rather than sewing this up early as had been his plan, the big money spent in Florida might have given him some momentum, but with narrow victories in Michigan and Ohio, and losses in Colorado, Tennessee and Kansas, but now also these two Southern contests, suddenly, it’s not over, and not nearly so.  It also offers him some serious trouble in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, although he’ll probably fare better in New York and New Jersey among remaining Northeastern States.

If this is any indication of what lies ahead, Rick Santorum may get another bump in momentum, and even Gingrich, though finishing in second in both contests, because it was so close, and because he effectively scored as many delegates as either of the other remains alive.  Romney probably takes the biggest black eye out of Tuesday’s Southern contests.  The other thing this indicates is that in the South, money isn’t everything.  If it were, Romney would have cleaned up, having the huge money advantage he has exploited to great advantage throughout this campaign.

The question remains: What will run out first?  Romney’s money, or the pure passion of Non-Romney voters?  After tonight, it looks like it will be a test of cash versus passion, and conservatives are known to have large reserves of the latter.  If Romney can’t start winning in the South, he may find himself in serious jeopardy even if he ultimately wins the nomination.  Conservative voters simply aren’t motivated in the same way Democrats are, and they aren’t driven by fear.  The desire to defeat Obama may not be enough to get them all to the polls in November, and if it doesn’t, Romney has no chance of winning.

I also think this points out the flaw in many Republican strategists’ view of the South, or of the election altogether:  They want to nominate a guy who may win the nomination mostly on the strength of wins in states where that same candidate will have difficulty against Obama in the Fall, if he can win in them at all, meanwhile, he can’t motivate Southern voters.  I would love for one of these well-compensated professional political consultants to explain to we conservatives how that is a winning strategy against Barack Obama.  It’s predicated on winning without us in the primaries, and taking us for granted in the general.

 

Newt Tuesday?

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

Will This Be His Day?

In the hours before voting is set to start in Alabama and Mississippi, one can almost feel the tension.  Many believe the primaries in these two Southern states is the ultimate test for Newt Gingrich.  In fact, this could be seen as a serious test for any of the three leading contenders.  Rick Santorum would break new ground by winning in the South, perhaps consolidating his position as the anti-Romney.  Meanwhile, Mitt hopes to break new ground, because he’s had significant trouble in the South to date.  Meanwhile, the viability of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy is on the line in these two Southern states.  If he were to lose in both, it could be said that he is all but finished.  If he wins in one, but not the other, it will depend on who the winner is in order to sort out the meaning.  If it’s Santorum, it slams the door in Romney’s face.  If it’s Romney, it signals he’s picking up steam. This is going down to the wire, and Alabama and Mississippi may turn out to be the battleground around which this entire primary season turns.

I expect Mississippi to be the real point of contention, because Romney has support there in the form of Governor Haley Barbour.  Barbour served as Chairman of the RNC back when Newt was Speaker of the House, for context, so these two are well acquainted with one another, but Barbour has sided with Romney throughout the primary season.  Barbour recently ran afoul of Mississippians by pardoning some convicted murderers, and this didn’t sit well with many victims’ groups, and indeed families of the victims.  In the end, the State’s high court upheld the pardons after they were challenged, but sometimes, it’s not about whether a thing may be done, but whether it should be done.

Newt is leading in Mississippi in the polls, although only by the slimmest of margins.  Santorum is talking down expectations, apparently because polls show him shading toward third in both states.  Still, it looks like a virtual three-way tie, with all three men within the margin of error.  This will offer another nail-biter, particularly for the Gingrich camp that must get every voter they can to the polls, needing two wins more desperately than either of the other two.  If Gingrich does prevail in both states, this will change the character of the race somewhat.  Seeing a Gingrich ascendancy from what has been thought to be a doomed candidacy at least three times would be quite a feat, and it would speak to the resiliency of Gingrich as a campaigner.

These will be tight contests, and you can imagine that whomever prevails, it’s going to generate some sort of change in the race.  If Romney wins in either, it will be seen as a breakthrough for him, and if Newt loses both, it will be seen as the end.  If Gingrich can win one, he will be seen as still in but still the man on the bubble.  Santorum is the only one of the three who doesn’t get a terrible beating if he loses in both states.  I’ve made no secret of the fact that among these three, I’d pick Newt, and Rick, in that order.  That’s based on my view of who is more able to articulate conservatism, and who is better able to make the kind of dramatic changes we need in the way things are done in Washington.

I’ll say this much:  If Gingrich does manage to pull off wins in both states Tuesday, he will be seen as having gained momentum in the South, and if he can sustain it through the end of May, Texas will be a big prize that will move within reach.  If Santorum can pick up either state, he can legitimately claim a breakthrough in the South, but the same is true for Mitt Romney.  This is a real three-way race and that’s going to make the outcome all the more exciting in terms of the ‘horse-race’ aspects.  It’s Newt’s best chance to recapture the momentum, and if he does, this race will move from “all but over” to “it ain’t over yet.”

 

Obama For America Takes Swipe At Sarah Palin and Conservatives

Monday, March 12th, 2012

Obama's Goon Squad

This is pathetic.  One could scarcely write a more predictable script for the sorts of things to which the Obama campaign would resort in trying to win the 2012 election.  Here, they’ve created a video ad aimed at trying to ramp up racial divisions, and the irony is that they feature a clip of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin addressing that very issue during a recent Hannity appearance.  Predictably, the Obama-drones tried to flip it, but frankly, I think this ad actually will work against them. Their intention is to portray Sarah Palin and the conservatives who support her as some how racially intolerant is a lie that smacks of the LBJ campaign of 1964 versus Barry Goldwater, but I think this demonstrates who it is the Obama administration really fears:  Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and constitutional conservatives.

Here’s the video:

The ad closes by saying “these attacks are wrong and dangerous.  If you’re tired of it, do something.”  This ad constitutes a threat, and one could say that it borders on incitement.  One can only imagine the sort of thing this group of radicals is trying to incite, virtually proving Governor Palin’s point within a span of seconds.  You can’t run an ad like this and not know that it’s going to create some sort of backlash.  This advertisement actually makes Sarah Palin’s point for her.

There’s something disturbing about the radicalism that is expressed by this ad.  It’s veiled threat is a latent call to indefinite action of an indeterminate nature.  There’s no description of the “something” people should “do,” but merely a call to “do something.”  What?  Let’s be blunt:  The Obama administration is full of radicals, and Obama for America is full of radicals, including the sort of folks who thought that bombing government targets in the early 1970s was insufficient. Remember, Bill Ayers, rather than apologizing for his terrorist behaviors, said he wishes he had done more.  These are the sorts of radicals with whom Obama has surrounded himself.

Here, an ad that features Governor Palin decrying the divisiveness and radicalism of the Obama administration is actually used to incite more, and more of an unknown sort, although we can guess.  With the Occupy Wall Street movement having been unmasked as a front for the Obama-Soros push for a radical social state, with mayhem and violence throughout the protests, and with Frances Fox Piven declaring that it’s going to get ugly, I don’t think there’s any doubt but that this video constitutes an incitement to violence of some sort.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Glenn Beck Abandons Rick Santorum

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Beck Jumps Ship

I’ve been waiting for Beck to say this for some time, and I think it’s been part of his plan all along. While he supported Michele Bachmann, and then Rick Santorum, if you watched the coverage he gave to all of the candidates, you might have noticed that he was reluctant to criticize Mitt Romney. There are those who believe this comes down to the Mormon faith he shares with Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. On Friday evening, he appeared on FNC’s O’Reilly Factor to say that it’s time to be done with the primaries, and that Santorum and the others should get out in order to give Romney an unfettered run to the general election.

Here’s the video, courtesy Mediaite:

I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I really don’t understand how with Santorum challenging Romney closely, Beck can justify walking away. He mentions the numerical impossibility, but that’s a lot of hogwash if you examine things closely. It’s entirely possible for Romney to stumble, and for Santorum to pick it up, or even for Newt Gingrich to rise back to the top, and Beck’s position in this seems at least somewhat self-defeating if we are to believe he has supported Santorum since Bachmann’s withdrawal.

From my point of view, it appears that Beck’s support of Santorum wasn’t all that strong from the start, and he seemed to be moving in Romney’s direction all along. A number of conservatives have questioned this change in Beck, and it’s really a bit disturbing, but Beck will likely discount such talk as “conspiracy theories.” It will be interesting to see who else caves and goes along with the Romney ticket before the outcome is clear. After all, much of the whining at present is based on the notion that a brokered convention would be a disaster for the party, and thus the country.

I don’t believe that. I think the Republican party could stand the cleansing provided by a good floor battle. It would likely lead to either a real moment of unification or a moment that will lead to what I see as the inevitable split in the party. The problem is that false unity will not provide victory, and the proof of that was in 1976, when the party suffered a defeat after conservatives had a dishonest theme of unity shoved down their throats. It took them another four years to get their act together, and for the conservatives to take over the party, but the result was Ronald Reagan presidency.

Some argue that we can’t afford four more years of Obama, because the country might well collapse under the weight of his maladministration. I am inclined to agree, and that’s why I believe it is more important than ever that when the GOP nominates a candidate to face Barack Obama, that such a candidate must be up to a real fight, and must be able to draw distinctions between the GOP and the Democrats in clear terms. I don’t think a contrived unity will accomplish that, but if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we may indeed find ourselves faking it come November, and while fakes and frauds may win as Democrats, it’s not going to work on conservative Republicans. Too many will simply stay home in disgust, and I won’t blame them.

Why The Establishment Wants Gingrich Gone

Saturday, March 10th, 2012

Out of My Way, Pal!

The GOP establishment wants Gingrich gone, and this explains why we’re now seeing a push in that direction. Naturally, Rick Santorum wants Gingrich gone, because he thinks that he will be the beneficiary.  This may be a mistaken notion, being pushed by the establishment because they know the truth of the matter: If Gingrich gets out, Santorum will be locked into a one-on-one fight with Romney that he almost certainly will not win. Voters shouldn’t be misled into the belief that what Santorum needs is a one-on-one contest.  Placed in that position, a large number of Gingrich supporters will migrate not to Santorum’s campaign, as the media establishment pretends, but choosing instead to migrate to the Romney camp, although perhaps grudgingly.

If you only watch the headline coverage, you might think the polls indicate that the anti-Romney vote is somehow uniform in its opposition to Romney, but apart from the fact that there are multiple non-Romney candidates, the divide is a bit more meaningful than the difference in preferences between chocolate and vanilla.  Many of the people who support Gingrich are of a mind to avoid candidates who seem “too religious,” as has been the knock on Santorum.  It’s not that they don’t have deep faith, or are somehow anti-religion, but that these are voters who believe that faith is a deeply personal matter that shouldn’t be continuously aired in public as the basis of governance.  They prefer a strong separation of church and state, at least in terms of policy, although they do not agree with policies and rulings that prohibit “in God we trust” on the currency, or a generalized, acute hostility to faith.

Santorum has been positioned as a candidate who wears his faith on his sleeve.  That’s not entirely fair, but in politics, perceptions are driven by images and soundbites, and the media has effectively portrayed him that way whether he deserves it or not.  For some fair portion of Gingrich support, this is not palatable, and if left to choose between Santorum, who they view as somewhat theocratic, and Romney who doesn’t talk so frequently about his faith, the withdrawal of Gingrich would likely provide just enough new grudging Romney support to permit Romney to defeat Santorum in short order.

The Romney campaign is well aware of this, and it’s why they focused so much attention on knocking off Gingrich in Florida. It also shows in its approach since Super Tuesday. Romney is not spending much effort on Kansas, but they are spending time in the South, where Alabama and Mississippi will hold their primaries Tuesday. It’s not Santorum that they’re worried about, because they know that if they can push Gingrich out, they will pick up more of the former Speaker’s support than will Santorum.  Too many Newt supporters view Santorum as more unpalatable even than Romney.

The GOP and media establishment knows this to be the case, and this is why one after another, they are coming along to tell us now is the time for the party to coalesce around Romney, by ditching Gingrich.  Notice that they do not urge Santorum to get out, or even mention him in this context.  Instead, they’re focused on Gingrich.  If they want Romney, you would think they would focus on his current top opponent, but that’s not the case in the media flurry of “Newt needs to go” pronouncements.

Rather than focus on Santorum, they are pushing for Gingrich to get out, and that should provide you all the insight you need to understand their real motive.  If Gingrich gets out, this contest will be as good as over.  The inevitable candidate will be the nominee after all, and the GOP establishment knows it. That’s why they’re even willing to see Santorum win in Alabama and Mississippi.  If Gingrich wins these two on Tuesday, he will remain a contestant.  If he doesn’t, it will likely spell the end for the former speaker. Whether Romney himself can win in the South, or Santorum makes no difference except in the short run.

I think Santorum is catching on to this aspect of his vulnerability, and by now he should realize that if Gingrich gets out, his own time on the stage won’t last much longer.  Too many conservatives will decide to jump aboard the Romney express, being wary of Rick Santorum and the impression the establishment media has cultivated about Santorum.  Some of it is deserved, and some of it isn’t, but that won’t matter if Gingrich exits any time soon, before Santorum will have had a chance to try to correct that record to the degree he is able. It will be a quick one-two blow and both Santorum and Gingrich should realize this and focus on Romney’s negatives, rather than pummeling one another.

 

S.E. Cupp Criticizes Sarah Palin’s Voting Rationale

Friday, March 9th, 2012

It's What You Don't Know...

S.E. Cupp, the columnist and Glenn Beck associate who appears on his Internet-based TV network, GBTV, wrote an article published on CNNs site that ought to be debunked.  Cupp isn’t happy with Sarah Palin’s support of Newt Gingrich, but then again, I’m not so sure that she’s happy about much of anything.  She seems to think that Governor Palin ought to choose either Romney or Santorum, but abandon Gingrich since Cupp thinks there is no way Gingrich can win.  She goes as far as to suggest that Sarah Palin’s motives might be suspect, and that given her own career, the former Alaska governor ought to support anybody but Newt Gingrich.  I confess not knowing Governor Palin, but merely observing her at a distance, despite a few hand-shakes as just one more face in very large and frantic crowds in each case.  Still, what I know of her record, and Newt’s, suggests many good reasons for her vote in the Alaska primary.

Governor Palin has long been an advocate of “sudden and relentless reform.”  For S.E. Cupp, I suppose it’s hard to imagine Newt Gingrich in that light, but a few things of note come to mind when I remember that Governor Palin embarked on her own political career at approximately the time Newt Gingrich began in his own rise to prominence.  Watching from faraway Alaska, I’m sure the future governor must have been struck by the fact that Gingrich faced a media onslaught probably not replicated against any Republican since Goldwater or Reagan, that is, until she entered the national spotlight in 2008.

Of course, back in those days, S.E. Cupp was another of those who was a teenager in High School, so I don’t expect her to remember much of Newt Gingrich in the period except the media impressions she absorbed along with the history she has more recently learned.  Born in 1979, Cupp would have been only fifteen years old when Newt Gingrich led the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1994.  In her span of political awareness, Republicans in control of Congress has been a mixed affair, but for people of my generation, and the Governor’s, who had never seen a Republican Congress in their entire lives,  although we saw Republican briefly control the Senate for a few years in the 1980s, the House of Representatives had been so institutionally Democrat for so long that many wondered if that could ever change.

Newt Gingrich brought a plan to the task, and he set out to carry it into reality, and whatever else you might say about him, what he accomplished in the period of the mid 1990s is nothing short of unprecedented.  For those of my generation, or older, most will remember how Gingrich absolutely floored the media, and how he was able to stir up Washington DC into a hornet’s nest like we’ve seldom seen.  He went with specific promises, calling it the “Contract With America,” that Democrats mocked as the “Contract On America.”  While ultimately, not all of the items passed through the Congress, in the House, each measure promised was at least brought to a vote.  In this sense, what Gingrich tried to bring to Washington DC was most definitely an instance of “sudden and relentless reform.”

Cupp may be forgiven for not remembering that, young as she was at the time, but what she may not be forgiven is the failure to consider it in her prodding CNN op-ed questioning the former Alaska Governor’s motives.  She could have researched it, or reached outside her own knowledge, but instead, she offered nonsense like this:

“Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? “I have appreciated what he has stood for,” she said. “He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses.”

“Again, Palin’s free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.”

Here, Cupp questions not only Governor Palin’s motive, but also the veracity of her claim that she “appreciated what [Gingrich] has stood for,” and that “he has been an underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses.”

Is S.E. Cupp now a mind reader, able to detect that perhaps Sarah Palin had not “appreciated what [Gingrich] stood for?”  Cupp writes: “if they were true.”  How can Cupp pretend to know what Governor Palin has appreciated?  Of course, the dead giveaway comes in the next paragraph, as she explains why this cannot be true:

“What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She’s for small government; he’s shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he’s the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.”

Cupp doesn’t get it, but more, it’s clear to me that she’s toting somebody’s barge, or lifting somebody’s bale, and my guess is that his name is Mitt Romney.  Gingrich was an outsider even when he was in Washington.  He was never accepted by the establishment class there, and he’s still not, and back in 1998, after the loss of a few House seats, it was his own party that threw him overboard as Speaker in early 1999.  He resigned because of that, and not due to scandals, as some have dishonestly alleged, including the former Massachusetts governor.  The truth of the matter is that Gingrich was run out of town on a rail at the first opportunity.  The establishment never really liked the college professor from Georgia very much, anyway.

It’s also true to say that Gingrich was a reformer, at least in 1994, and he certainly did more to upset Bill Clinton’s applecart than anybody else at the time.  If not for Bob Dole’s surrender over the FY 1996 budget, because he was seeking the Presidency, Gingrich might have accomplished a good deal more, but the DC establishment crowd undercut him.  While Cupp may not remember all of this, those of us engaged or at least attentive to politics at the time could not have failed to notice what really happened.  Of course, not satisfied with that she goes on to explain why Gingrich hasn’t been the underdog:

“And he’s hardly been an “underdog.” With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he’s enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn’t. If Newt’s been an underdog, I’m sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.”

Apparently, Cupp didn’t notice that what Adelson has contributed over the last few months to the Gingrich effort is a pittance compared to the money spent against him by Mitt Romney.  The difference is staggering, and in South Carolina, where Gingrich had a stunning turnaround, it was despite the fact that Romney outspent him by more than two-to-one.  In Florida, where Romney prevailed, he did so spending more than five-to-one.  I don’t know where Cupp learned math, but in my view, that’s an underdog.  She mentions name recognition, but that isn’t always that large an advantage.  Just ask Dr. Samuel Mudd.  Of course, Cupp may not have heard of him, either.  Cupp came of age in an era when Gingrich had been portrayed as the “Grinch,” and that probably made something of an impression on her.  She turned twenty as Gingrich’s own party had just pushed him under the proverbial bus.

For Cupp to question Governor Palin’s motives or veracity is pathetic, particularly in light of all Cupp doesn’t know, apparently, but to finish with this flourish is a study in conceit:

“Maybe Palin’s got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.”

“But I’m sure she knows what she’s doing.”

For a woman who professes to know who is or isn’t “establishment,” Cupp certainly speaks their language like a veteran. I also notice that she manages to specify “far-right conservatives,” as though that is the entire core of Governor Palin’s support, but the truth is that her support is a little more wide-ranging from the center to the “far-right.”  Of course, all of this seems all the more incompatible with reality, as Governor Palin has frequently said she didn’t think endorsements were that important.  The last line is simply a parting shot at the Governor, and if Cupp’s nasty tone hadn’t been evident before, it shines through here.

S.E. Cupp probably has a long career ahead of her, but I’d ask her not to imagine that she knows so much as she seems to think.  History didn’t start when she became politically aware, and whatever her preconceived notions about Gingrich, she ought to be careful not to project them onto reality or into the consciousness of others whose knowledge of the period may be somewhat more complete and more detailed.  Part of the problem lies in the fact that what Cupp knows about Gingrich, she probably has learned from others, rather than having observed it first-hand, and in that sense it may be colored by the lenses of others but she should also know that before one remarks on the beliefs or motives of others, one ought to at least endeavor to see things from the subject’s perspective, or even read what the subject has written.  In this respect, Cupp failed miserably.

“But I’m sure she knows what she’s doing.”

 

Mitt Romney’s Sorry Excuse for Romneycare

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Helping Obama Socialize America

Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted that the Tenth Amendment and the principles of federalism forgive Romneycare.  Many question this assertion, but to date, Romney has dodged and evaded it.  While the media continues to talk about contraception, Rush Limbaugh, and every evasion they can imagine, but none have asked Romney any question in opposition to this premise.  I want to know when the media will finally get around to vetting this, but it seems they have bought the lie that since Romneycare happened at the state level, it’s somehow different.  That’s not the case, and it never will be, but for the willing media that simply refuses to address this issue. In order to make this plain, I am going to explain once more why Romneycare is not excused and may not be forgiven on the basis of federalism.

The principle of federalism exists because of the way in which our nation was formed.  Our constitution is best compared to a contract in partnership among the several states.  In this sense, the states are superior to the Federal government they created, in precisely the same way that the individual retains sovereignty even after entering into a partnership.  A contract of marriage is another similar concept.  On the grounds of the marriage compact, one spouse does not gain the authority to coerce the other to an action.  When such things occur, there’s generally a dissolution of a partnership or a divorce in marriage.  Of course, the Civil War set a precedent in this regard with respect to the states, but the principle is sound even if our observance of it has not always been the most faithful.

What Mitt Romney argues with respect to his health insurance reform plan in Massachusetts(hereafter: Romneycare) is that the state of Massachusetts is eligible to do to individuals that which the Federal government may not.  The problems with this argument are many, but let us focus on just a few.  First, the Tenth Amendment doesn’t offer protections solely to the states, but also to the people.  In fact, one could also argue that  the Ninth Amendment, also applies. Here are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

  • Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These are important parts of our Constitution, and while many of our children will study the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth, sadly, the others are frequently neglected.  The Ninth simply states that just because a right wasn’t specifically addressed in the  Constitution does not mean it does not exist.  In effect, citizens could rightly claim all manner of other rights under the auspices of the Ninth, and they have.  The Tenth is considered to be a strong pro-federalism Amendment, reserving power over all matters not specifically mentioned to the States, or to the people.  What this means is that the Federal Government cannot come along and create whatever laws it wants, without respect to the sovereignty of the individual states, or to the individual people residing in them.

To be perfectly frank about this, if we applied the Tenth amendment more strictly, as should have been the case, many Federal laws now in existence would be tossed out as violations.  That said, what Romney claims is that the State can do to individuals that which is forbidden to the Federal Government.  Again we return to the Civil War as a precedent, but we needn’t go that far. We need only go back to the 1960s, when Kennedy sent the Feds to enforce the rights of individual citizens against the State government in Alabama, led by Governor George Wallace.  Notice that the Tenth Amendment had no application there, since the rights being protected were recognized by the Federal Government, and disparaged by the State.

Here starts the trouble.  Romney argues that unlike the Federal Government, that must abide by a commerce clause that forbids the Federal Government from interfering in intrastate commerce, by enumerating interstate commerce alone, the state of Massachusetts is under no such restriction, and in fact is merely exercising its authority over intrastate commerce.  Romney, his shills and his supporters all claim that this is just like automobile insurance.   Most states in the United States mandate some form of auto insurance, but this is a deception too.  The states may not compel anything beyond liability insurance.  They cannot force drivers to purchase collision insurance, comprehensive insurance, road hazard insurance, or anything of the sort.  They may only compel the purchase of liability insurance(and most states permit a liability bond of self-insurance,) and only because the vehicles to be operated are to be operated on the  public roadways.  On your private property, the state has no such authority.  Therefore, the authority of the state to compel the purchase of insurance(or posting of bond) is contingent upon your use of the public roadways, but their ability to compel is limited to liability insurance.

Once you understand this, the argument of Mitt Romney evaporates.  The mandate in Romneycare compels the individual to purchase insurance that he may never use, but most importantly, insurance to cover his own injury or loss.  This is the equivalent of forcing you to insure your lawn-mower against losses that only you might incur(damage, theft, etc,)  or insuring your car against yourself with a sledgehammer in your driveway.  The State cannot compel the purchase of such insurance, and the reason is simple:  The government has no interest in it, and thus no standing.  The claim of Romney and other statists is that the state does have an interest, by virtue of the fact that you might show up and demand healthcare irrespective of your ability to pay.

This is a result of the legal requirement by the Federal Government that an emergency room cannot turn persons away for lack of ability to pay. Effectively, what Romney and those like him argue is that because the hospitals may be coerced to take non-paying patients, that this then gives the state the authority to compel all to insurance.  This is like arguing that because some people commit robberies, we ought to be compelled to purchase pre-paid legal services, one and all, or that because some people may be bitten by rattlesnakes, we all ought to carry around a snake-bit kit, and redistribute the costs on a uniform basis.

This is absurd, and in fact, this is the root of the Romneycare scam, and what you have is really the result of an unjust law that requires some people to provide services to others irrespective of their ability to pay.  Imagine somebody walking into the grocery store and filling their cart or basket and then walking out without paying on the basis that everybody needs to eat.  Of course, we’ve short-circuited this too through the foodstamps program. In truth, with medical care, we’ve short-circuited this with Medicaid and Medicare, and much of the unpaid medical bills are generated by people who find themselves uncovered by situation.  All of it is really socialism, writ large, and Mitt Romney’s attempt to pretend otherwise is a shame, but the fact that the mainstream media permits him to evade the subject with talk of federalism and “states’ rights” is a damnable scandal.

Sarah Palin: I Voted for Newt

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

On Super Tuesday, Fox News talked to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  She was asked who she voted for in the GOP Primary in Alaska, and she was blunt: She voted for Newt Gingrich.  She explained her thinking, and she explained why she thought the Republican primary contest should go on.  She also referenced the behavior of the media, and its focus on other irrelevant issues, or distractions.  She pointed to the focus Newt Gingrich has placed on the energy question, and she made it clear that Barack Obama must be replaced if we are going to turn this country around.

Here’s the video:



Why “Compromise” Has Become a Dirty Word

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Compromise or Capitulation?

Barbara Bush complained on Monday that “compromise” had become a “dirty word.”  If that’s true, it is only as a result of how it has been abused by liberal to moderate Republicans, the media, and the liberal establishment that dominates the country.   Mrs. Bush is part of that establishment, so quite naturally, she is unable to see this the way the conservative base of the party does, and since she’s one who considers herself smarter than the rest of we ignorant rubes, it is now probably high time that somebody explained the problem with “compromise,” not as it is defined in the dictionary, but as it has come to be understood by most grass-roots conservatives who recoil at the word.

A real “compromise” is the result of a process by which both parties to an exchange get some part of what they wanted in exchange for having yielded a little.  A compromise is an exchange, if you will, trading value for value as in commerce, but it extends to many intangibles.  That’s what compromise is supposed to be, but these last two decades and a bit more, that’s not what compromise has been in the United States.  Instead, compromise has come to mean something else entirely, and if you ask conservatives, they will now tell you that it is approximately this: Republicans (particularly of the Establishment class) surrendering on principle to the left, gaining nothing, and getting nothing but a promise of “getting along” that never materializes, but always winds up in another kick in the teeth.

If Mrs. Bush doesn’t understand this, it’s because in her insular view of the world, she doesn’t see the kicks in the teeth, and the principles at  stake are not hers.  It’s a relatively easy matter to yield principles belonging to somebody else, and the Bush family has a long history of doing just that.  They make a pretense at being conservative, but there’s little substance behind the claim, and if truth is told, more often than not, they’re  at the root of many of the sell-outs conservatives have suffered over the last two-and-one-half decades.  Even before the breaking of the “Read my lips” pledge of George H.W. Bush, the elder Bush administration had begun to back-track from the idea that his was a third Reagan term, which had been the basis for his election.

Of course, after the famous sell-out, the elder Bush went on to defeat, and his son George W. Bush, elected narrowly in 2000, did much the same while in office.  He worked together with Ted Kennedy in a “spirit of bi-partisanship” under a supposed “new tone”(of compromise, a.k.a: surrender) to enact the No Child Left Behind program, along with the Medicare Prescription Drugs fiasco, and of course all of the bail-outs and TARP.  The younger Bush famously offered that he had to set aide capitalism to save it.  This last was the final straw for many conservatives, because rather than letting the market work as it should, Bush intervened in order to save big banking interests and GM, but none of this translated into “saving capitalism.” Each of these had been surrenders disguised as compromise, and everybody in the conservative movement knew it.

It’s difficult to win a political debate when members of your own party are undercutting your efforts.  This was the case with all of these issues.  When the elder Bush raised taxes, including a stupendously destructive “luxury tax,” Democrats both chortled in contempt at the breaking of his pledge, while simultaneously urging him to break it more thoroughly.  When George the younger went along with Democrats on education and prescription drugs, both times the Democrats hammered him for “not doing enough” while simultaneously waving the “compromise” in the face of conservatives.  So yes, Mrs. Bush, “compromise” has become a dirty word among conservatives, and the men in your life are the cause.

Just as conservatives don’t want another false conservative getting the nomination, because it defames “conservatism” by the association, conservatives are in no mood for surrenders and sell-outs of their principles that will be disguised as “compromise.”  Every conservative in the country worth his or her salt knows that what the Bush clan offers as “compromise” or “conservatism” are not.   That may cause Mrs. Bush some consternation, but conservatives don’t need or want her advice, and while she may get her way in this primary, that doesn’t mean real conservatives will have compromised.   This one won’t. Let’s hope that as Super Tuesday gets under way, more conservatives will take this stance.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Barbara Bush Thinks This Campaign Is The Worst Ever

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Who's To Blame?

Former First Lady Barbara Bush complained on Monday that this is the worst campaign ever.  Then she went on to say that she doesn’t like the fact that people think compromise is a bad thing.  The former First Lady also recorded a Robo-Call for Mitt Romney to be used in Ohio and Vermont, and I have to wonder if she realizes how she is contributing to the “worst campaign” [she's] ever seen in [her] life?”  After all, nobody has run more negative ads than Mitt Romney, and nobody has done more to try to dominate the other by virtue of unbridled ugliness.  I can’t imagine that her words are very welcome among conservatives, so she must be addressing the RINO encampment with this nonsense:

“I think it’s been the worst campaign I’ve ever seen in my life,” Bush said Monday at a conference on first ladies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “I hate that people think compromise is a dirty word. It’s not a dirty word.”

Actually, one very ugly primary campaign I remember was in 1980, when the former First Lady’s husband used many of these same tactics in order to make ground against Ronald Reagan.  Of course, in the end, since her husband wound up being on the ticket as Vice President, I’m sure she’s forgotten those messy details.  “Voodoo economic,” anyone?  That’s right, it was her husband who gave life to that phrase, but what he described as “Voodoo” went on to create the greatest sustained peacetime growth in the history of the country.  Of course, I’ll bet she doesn’t remember 1998, and that “Read my lips, no new taxes…” business that became the basis for her husbands defeat in 1992 after he broke that promise.

Small wonder she doesn’t like that the word “compromise” is viewed by many conservatives as a “dirty word.”  Her husband is part of the reason, because what he called “compromise” was merely surrender, on the matter of tax increases.  He signed into law a luxury tax that drove a large number of domestic boat manufacturers out of business, and it was so bad that the Democrats repealed the law under Bill Clinton because it had created such a severe effect.  What George H.W. Bush then called “compromise” was nothing less than complete capitulation on the promise he made during the 1988 campaign.

I make no secret of the fact that I believe the Bush clan is responsible for more damage to the Republican party in general, and the conservative movement in particular.  I think the elder Mrs. Bush should keep her opinions to herself where the current race is concerned, because by her own participation in it, supporting the person she does, she’s contributing to it, and it is her wing of the party(the left wing) that has caused the trouble we’re in.  It’s her candidate who has turned this into an ugly contest, and I wish to convey only one thing to Mrs. Bush:

I will never vote for any of your descendants or even your non-familial preferences.  Never.  And no, I’m not open to compromise.

Gingrich Speaks to the NRA – He Gets It

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Newt on the 2nd Amendment

If you missed Newt Gingrich when he addressed the National Rifle Association in mid-February, you missed a great speech.  He referenced history extensively, and explained the real meaning of the Second Amendment and its critical importance as a political right.  Gingrich did not mince words about the reason for the right to keep and bear arms, its origin, and its continuing relevance and application in our modern world.  It was encouraging to hear a politician say that he understands the new direction of the attacks on the Second Amendment being levied by the Obama administration and the institutional right.

This speech is a classic:

The idea that the Second Amendment is about hunting and target practice ignores the fact that the first purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is a political right, meant to keep government in check.  Yes, that’s right.  The idea of the founders is that by the guarantee of the Second Amendment, the American people ultimately retain the right to throw off a tyrant.  This is why every socialist on the planet, or in the history of the planet, eventually gets around to banning firearms: It’s easy to rule over disarmed peasants.  I am gratified to see that Gingrich has a thorough understanding of this aspect of our constitutional system of government.  His knowledge of history helps explain why this context is not lost on Gingrich, and it’s one of the many particulars of his candidacy that exhibits his qualifications for the job he’s seeking.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is the GOP Establishment Leading Us Over a Cliff?

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Here We Go Again?

With Super Tuesday just two days away, I have a question or two about the direction in which the GOP establishment is leading the party.  We have been told that Mitt Romney is “inevitable,” but even if we accept this notion, I wonder what it will mean for the country in the upcoming elections.  Mitt Romney’s unfavorability ratings have soared, and half of Americans now see him in a negative light.  We are told his organization is first-rate, but apart from the gobs of money he and surrogate SuperPACs are spending, I really don’t see where that’s having any impact.  When you break down his support by income group, Romney only carried one segment in his recent narrow victory in Michigan, and that is the group earning over $100,000 annually.  If most voters were in that group, one might not have reason to worry, but the problem is that most voters are not.  Take away that segment, and Romney lost Michigan to Santorum.  This leads to my question, and I’ve narrowed it down to just this: When the establishment of the Republican party tells us Romney is “inevitable,” my mind leaps to November 7th, and asks: “Inevitable defeat?”

Mike Huckabee hosted an interesting forum for three of the four candidates remaining on Fox News, Ron Paul declining to participate, and it was interesting, detailed, and permitted the small panels to ask the candidates questions directly, and have a real exchange with them.  At the end, they each gave a closing statement.  What I found interesting about this was that among them all, it seemed to me that newt Gingrich gave the most detailed, specific answers to the questions.  It was clear that he had a better grasp of the issues than the other two, and while neither Romney or Santorum fumbled badly, viewing each in isolation this way, it was clear from the perspective of a viewer, Gingrich clearly ruled.

There was some discussion that Romney came across as personable, but at one point, during the closing statements segment, it seemed perfectly plastic.  Mitt’s time had expired, and Santorum was walking up to take his place, and Romney, now on his way out, did the laugh and grab thing that seemed contrived, as he placed his hand on Santorum’s shoulder and so on.  It seemed out of place. It seemed contrived. It reminded me of when meeting with a group, including somebody who I know can’t stand me goes through these motions in an attempt to disguise the ill will, but must keep up appearances.

This is the sense that one gets about Romney, and while it may not bother some in the GOP establishment, since that is how they function anyway, it is a signature of the plasticity of Mitt Romney and the whole upper echelon of Republican party insiders.  There are a few who can carry this off but it’s an intangible thing one senses in an intuitive way.  If this is the best Mitt Romney can offer, I fear my question will answer itself.  As I replay the moment in my mind, what it evinces is a desire by Romney to force an impression of warmth that a dog kennel strapped to an automobile’s rooftop roundly disputes.

It is true at this point that Romney seems as though he’s in command of the delegate count, but that’s another issue in which I must object. Hard delegates?  Soft delegates?  Last minute changes to delegate distribution?  It seems to me that the whole question of delegates is so thoroughly muddied by all of the rule changes, and the manipulations makes the delegate count suspect in a variety of ways.  Put bluntly, I don’t see how the RNC can have a rule in place that says no contests may be winner-take-all before April 1st, but then permit them to be winner-take-all.  Something doesn’t add up, but I suspect I’m using the wrong formula, which is roughly: Whatever the GOP Establishment decides:  Sum equals “Inevitable.”

Of course, with Super Tuesday looming before us, it is entirely possible that even with his win on Saturday in the state of Washington, Mitt Romney will not carry all of the states contested.  Santorum may win in some, and Gingrich will almost certainly carry at least Georgia.  What emerges from this picture is that while Romney may indeed get to 1144 delegates, it’s not clear that this inevitable nomination will translate into a victory over Barack Obama.  With his negatives on the climb, he faces an uphill battle in which he may find himself portrayed as he is widely seen, even in the Republican party: Wealthy, out of touch, and hopelessly incapable of defeating Barack Obama.  In a world in which perception too frequently drives reality, this may spell doom for the GOP come November.  I ask once again: Can we afford an “inevitable nominee” who is widely perceived as capable of no more than  inevitable defeat?

 

Sarah Palin Talks to Fox News Weekend Live

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

Governor Sarah Palin appeared on FoxNews on Weekend Live.  She discussed the field of contenders, and whether she would get out and campaign for the GOP nominee if that happened to be Mitt Romney.  They talked briefly about the HBO fiction called Game Change, and her PAC’s response to it with a video.   Then she was asked about whether she would accept a GOP nominee’s offer of the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket, and she threw a name into the hat for consideration as the GOP’s Vice Presidential nominee that many of you will find quite interesting.

Watch the video:

Gingrich May Be Staging a Comeback

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Up in the Polls

Wednesday evening, Hot-Air reported the results of a poll that seemed to suggest that while he has a long way to go, Newt Gingrich may be seeing something of a resurgence in support.  It’s minor, but he jumped two points in his Gallup Support Rating.  Part of this may be due to Rick Santorum’s failure to best Romney in Michigan.  Some of his comments during the Michigan campaign swing may have hurt him, and this may cause him some serious problems. If he can’t grab Ohio next Tuesday, it may well spell the decline of Santorum’s hopes.  Gingrich is predictably strong in Georgia, but the interesting fact of Super Tuesday may be that we could have three different winners among the ten states.

Santorum is leading in Ohio at the moment, with Romney behind by eight points in second.  Gingrich is back in third, but well ahead of Ron Paul. In Georgia, it’s the reverse order, except for Paul, who is still fourth.  In other states, it’s a mixed bag, with Gingrich doing well in Tennessee, and Romney is doing well in Idaho.  What all of this suggests is that the race isn’t over, and until the non-Romneys reduce by one, he may go on to win.  Neither Santorum nor Gingrich are likely to quit, but much of that will hinge on Super Tuesday’s outcome.  If something incredible happens, and Gingrich loses his home state, as he himself mentioned, there’s probably not a way forward for somebody who cannot secure his home state.  That would be a blow to Gingrich, but for the moment, he looks strong in Georgia.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Super Tuesday being split up three ways, because that would certainly keep this thing alive. Among these three, I still prefer Gingrich, but I’d vote for my dog before I’ll vote for Romney in the Texas primary.  Speaking of Texas, our primary was supposed to be on Super Tuesday, but it’s been bumped back due to a redistricting court case.  Now, Texas is tentatively scheduled to hold its primary on May 29th, making it not quite irrelevant, but surely reducing its importance.  I don’t think this has been accidental either, as Texas probably wouldn’t support Romney unless he is the only one left standing, and by the end of May, he may well be.

Drudge Thought He Took Care of Newt

Whether Newt Gingrich can actually launch another comeback off of Santorum’s relatively poor performance in Arizona and Michigan is another question, but Gingrich has exhibited resilience throughout this campaign.  It’s also true to say that he’s probably the best-suited to contend with Barack Obama in a debate, but he’s also the only one among these candidates who stands a chance of reforming Washington DC, excepting Ron Paul, but he’s got a different agenda, and I don’t believe he’s all that serious about winning.  The funniest part of this story is seeing that Drudge has run with the same Hot Air story as his headline.  If Newt does rise again, I wonder what Drudge will do to him next.

I hope we get to find out.

 

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.

Pam Bondi Admits It: Romney Will Push Romneycare

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

A Job in Mind

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said a mouth-full in an interview with Greta Van Susteren On the Record. She effectively admitted that Mitt Romney will only seek to repeal such parts of Obamacare as are in conflict with his own ideas, so that we’ll see a push for Romneycare nationwide. She makes several dishonest arguments, but one thing that is certain is that she already believes she has a job lined up in a Romney Administration. After all, she helped deliver the critical Florida primary. After all, where would Romney be now if he had lost in Florida?  Voters in Michigan and Arizona beware!  Romney is who so many have suspected all along: A big-government liberal from Massachusetts.  Watch the video here:

It’s bad enough to be ruled by Barack Obama and his friends in the Democrat party and throughout the far-left establishment, but to find that Republicans have the same notions is simply despicable, and here, Bondi confirms it.  While she pretends this is a states’ rights issue, it’s nothing of the sort.  This isn’t about federalism, but about the nature of one’s right to one’s life and liberty.  To attempt to push this line explains why Romney wouldn’t back away from Romneycare, and used the same poorly-formed argument to excuse it:  He intends this for all of us.

Rather than talking for two weeks about contraception, perhaps we should have been spending a little more time vetting Romneycare and Mitt’s intentions, but then again, maybe mis-direction has been the point.

Romney and Santorum: Dead Heat in Michigan Polls

Monday, February 27th, 2012

Close in Michigan

This shouldn’t have been close.  In 2008, Mitt Romney won in Michigan by nearly double-digits.  The very idea that the son of a Michigan governor should happen to find himself in this position demonstrates how thoroughly many conservatives have tired of establishment candidates.  What should have been a walk-over won’t be, and instead we’re likely to see a terribly close contest that may come down to the wire.  If Romney loses in Michigan, he might as well go home, because if he can’t win here, and convincingly, I don’t know how you can argue he will ever beat Barack Obama.  There’s also an Arizona primary on Tuesday, and at the time of this writing, that contest is not nearly so tight, with polls indicating a big Romney lead.

After getting the endorsement of another Republican governor, with Jan Brewer endorsing him over the weekend, but she seems to have more pull with Arizonans than Nikki Haley demonstrated with South Carolinians.  There is also a healthy Mormon segment of the vote in Arizona, so taken together, Romney probably will maintain that edge.  Let us also remember he has the endorsement of US Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain, who was able to stave off J.D. Hayworth in a primary challenge in 2010.  I expect that he will win there comfortably, but if it closes up significantly, it will hint at the continued weakness of Mitt Romney.

Romney needs to win Michigan on Tuesday, but conservatives need Rick Santorum to win.  There is certainly reason to believe Santorum could pull it off, not merely because of the closeness in the polls, but also because he’s doing particularly well among evangelical Christians in the state.  Naturally, Romney has a significant cash advantage, as he has had throughout this primary season, but as has been seen in some states, that advantage doesn’t necessarily equate to victory if the grass-roots activists in a state begin to push for somebody else.  If Romney can pull off an unexpectedly large victory in Michigan Tuesday, he’ll certainly retake the initiative, but if it’s very close, or worse, he loses entirely, it may be a show-stopped.  Tuesday’s  returns will offer us a good deal of insight into the rest of the primary season.  If it’s close, it’s not over by a long-shot in the run-up to Super Tuesday, and if it’s a blow-out, it may well signal a consolidation in favor of the victor.