Posts Tagged ‘Election’

What If… The Predictions of a Romney Victory Were Right?

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

Did Obama Win Honestly?

One of the things that has become apparent in the week following the elections of November 6th is that vote fraud had been rampant.  As has been widely reported, fifty-nine Philadelphia voting precincts had zero votes for Romney.  While I am willing to believe these could have been quite lop-sided, zero?  The same thing is true in Ohio, in the Cleveland area, but the more stunning thing is that in many of these places, voter turn-out was greater than 100% of the registered electorate.  Simply put, that’s a prima facie case that some sort of fraud or malfeasance has occurred, because it should not be possible for more votes to be cast than there are registered voters.  This entire election is rife with such cases, and it’s not going away.  It raises the question: What if pollsters who expected a Romney win were right, but overwhelming vote fraud set aside the natural result?

One poll watcher from Pennsylvania reports seeing voting machines switching voters’ selection from Romney to Obama on multiple occasions.  We’ve all basically assumed that the various GOP pollsters and analysts had been dead wrong, but what if they had been right, and this election has been stolen?  We’re not talking about a few or even a few hundred votes here.  There may have been fraud across the nation, particularly in swing states, and we wouldn’t know how many fraudulent votes may have been cast or counted.  We must get to the bottom of this, with or without Mitt Romney.  He can concede if he likes, but this is our election.  We shouldn’t accept vote fraud anywhere, in any measure.

The case of Colorado is particularly stunning.  They have county after county in which the number of registered voters is greater than the number of residents.  How is that possible?  In Ohio, some witnessed van-loads of Somali immigrants being carted into the polling places, and being coached on how to vote by Democrats.  Ohio’s laws are lax enough that no verification of one’s eligibility to vote is conducted.  In Pennsylvania, despite all sorts of irregularities, officials plan no recount. No one should be surprised given that on election day, court-appointed GOP poll-watchers were forcibly removed from polling places in Philadelphia.

Let’s just be blunt about this:  This election may have been stolen.  Allen West is still fighting the issue in Florida, where vote tallies suggest some of the most ridiculous fraud anywhere.  Col. West appeared on Hannity on Monday evening to explain his situation.  Not only did Democrats want West defeated, but the establishment of the GOP won’t shed a tear if he’s unseated. Here’s the clip from Hannity:

It may be a longshot to think that vote fraud may have been the margin of victory, but examining the results, just a swing of around 400,000 votes in just four states would make the difference between an Obama victory, and a Romney victory.  If vote fraud had been large enough, swinging the results by 1% of the the electorate would provide the margin in many of these swing states.

I also wonder about the willingness of Romney to concede early, and disappear from the radar screens so quickly.  In an article on CanadaFreePress, Erik Rush wonders if the overwhelming vote fraud won’t have the effect of making a civil war inevitable.  One thing is certain: If the system of elections in this country is so thoroughly corrupted, we the people are being cheated, and our rights are being subverted.  It should never be possible that there are more votes than registered voters in a given precinct, district or state.  Such things undermine the credibility of our elections, and we should fight back against this by demanding a clean accounting of the ballots, as well as those who cast them.  We cannot afford to ignore this, and it’s time that we begin to raise Hell about it.  Mitt Romney may well have lost this election, but with this much uncertainty about the validity of the count, we may never know.

Advertisements

The GOP Establishment Thinks You’re Stupid

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

We May Not Be So Stupid

Every day that passes, we learn more about the people who direct the Republican Party, and every day, we get new reasons not to like them.  If the people of New Hampshire let themselves be pushed into voting for Romney, they no longer need to tout the motto “Live Free or Die,” but should instead adopt the motto: “Principles don’t matter.”  Mitt Romney is using his influence in Nevada to try to push up their primary to push New Hampshire up to December.  To Republicans in New Hampshire, if you allow the Romney campaign to prod you forward, you are going to anger the people of your state.  Go ahead:  Hold your primary during the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year period, and prepare to reap the reward.  Allowing Mitt Romney to try to steal this primary is an unspeakable act, but polluting the holidays with partisan politics is abominable.  The GOP establishment thinks you’re stupid, and they think you will advance your primary into December in order to stay ahead of the others.  The party doesn’t care what will happen to your state, and they think you’re too stupid to notice.

Any state party that yields half of its representation at the national convention in order to permit one candidate to make a bigger splash than the others isn’t serving their electorate.  The Bush operatives still hold sway in Florida, the state that got this all rolling, and now it’s been a domino effect with New Hampshire looking as early as December to maintain its position at the front of the line.  Romney is weak in Iowa, and this is about supplanting the influence of Iowa.  You need to understand that this is an attempt to steal a primary season, to shorten it up, and to prevent any other candidate(s) from gaining traction, but more importantly, to prevent any Tea Party opposition from gaining traction. It also means there will be all those delegates yielded to the national party for the convention, which will effectively lessen the influence of every state.  The people of New Hampshire may be powerless to stop this, and they may not care to because they’ve been told the falsehood that it will improve their influence.  Either way, the country loses.

As this goes on, what you must know is that whatever the 8-pm (EST) blow-hard or his substitute on Fox News may tell you, Mitt Romney has no business being President of the United States.  Fox News has become the establishment Republican propaganda network, and the only thing they’re going to bring to mainstream conservatives is defeat in 2012.  Fox News is compromised in many ways due to the Rupert Murcoch/News Corp/phone-hacking scandal.  You can bet Obama’s DOJ will play that ace-in-the-hole next fall.  In the mean time, Obama and the Democrats are happy to see the Republicans nominate Romney because he is the one candidate in this race they are dead-certain they can defeat.

You’re being told to accept Romney because “he can win.”  I’ve got news for you: If (and that’s a giant “if,”) Mitt Romney can win, then so can anybody else, including “My Pet Goat.”  The simple fact is that Romney can’t currently top 30% in national polls, and there’s a good reason:  He’s a liberal.  He sounds vaguely conservative on a few issues, but in the end, Romney always, always shows his true intentions as a big government, progressive Republican, or as Mark Levin would call such people, “Re-pubic-ans.”

As Tammy Bruce offered today, “I’m wondering now, why the Republicans even should bother to vote in the primaries” as she explains since the Republican establishment is now telling us Romney is the guy.  Meanwhile, Cain is moving up as an answer to the establishment, but so is Gingrich.  Do you think we can beat Obama with these?  The truth is, if we nominate Romney, we deserve to lose.

It’s time to tell the GOP establishment: “No more! Enough!”  Are we willing to do that?  I am.  Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to treat the GOP like a dirty cop.  He should be a good guy, but he isn’t, and in most every respect, he’s as bad as the people from whom he’s been tasked to protect me.  You know what I think of such cops?  To hell with them! I love good cops, who keep the peace, shield the innocent, and do not partake of graft and corruption, and enforce the laws of our country.  When I see a bad cop, however, I don’t care what happens to him because when he battles with thugs, I simply view it as rival gangs at war.  That’s the Republican establishment, and the only way I can reduce their influence is to simply cease aggregating mine with theirs.  I’ll defend myself, thank you very much, because their sort of “protection” isn’t protection at all. It’s more like a protection racket.

I no longer care whether the Republican establishment defeats Obama or not.  If they succeed in getting their guy nominated, he’s not going to offer any relief from the attack our constitution is under, whether from Obama or his shills in the media and Congress.  The simple fact is that Romney and others like him simply won’t do what it takes.  I’ll say it again: Anybody But A RINO.

I’m going to focus on the Senate and the House, and every chance I get to stick it to the Whigs Republicans, I will take it.  The Republican party was founded in the name of a cause in search of liberty.  It will fail if it doesn’t seek to put liberty in the forefront once more, and the GOP establishment is no better than the Democrats in that respect.  None.  You voters in New Hampshire have a chance to send a message by standing this manipulative nonsense down.  Of course, the Romney people are in a hurry to tell you this will increase your influence, but they’re lying  to you.

We can’t win the sort of election we need in 2012 by being against something.  People prefer an affirmative reason to vote.  This is why McCain lost, but until his idiotic “suspended campaign,” Sarah Palin was able to boost him:  She was that affirmative feature of McCain’s campaign.  Whatever surge McCain ever had owed to her presence.  While I don’t know who Romney will pick as his VP, maybe somebody to draw in conservatives like Herman Cain, but whomever it is will not rescue his campaign.  If conservatives hope to actually reform this government, it’s going to require all  hands on deck for a real candidate, but in lieu of that, we’re going to need to learn that we can no longer afford to hold our noses.

If a “President Romney” continues the downhill slide of our country, will the left say it’s because “Romney was too liberal?” No. They will state with straight faces that it had been evidence of the failures of “conservatives” and “capitalism.”  Bank on it.

Note To The GOP Establishment: Forget It

Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

Enough is Enough

My answer to the establishment of the GOP is “No.”  I will not support a RINO.  You can put one up if you like, offering conservatives and Tea Party patriots the fools’ choice between rampant lefty statism and moderate statism, but I will have no part of it.  Do you hear me, Mitt Romney?  Do you understand me Karl Rove?  There shouldn’t be any way you people are in charge of anything given the mess you made during the Bush administration with your false doctrine of feigning conservatism while ruling as progressives.   If we conservatives get our act together in time, we’ll realize that the first enemy we must defeat is you, and then you’ll be in real trouble.   The problem for conservatives at the moment lies in deciding which of these candidates is not a shill for your purposes, and which among them you cannot easily control.  It’s my intention to see to it that we conservatives and Tea Party patriots have a real choice.  You think we’re going to roll over easily?  Forget it!

Ladies and gentlemen, here’s how we can start:  We, not me, but we can create a list of common traits upon which we can all agree and accept them as our baseline.  We can decide what it is to be a conservative, and upon which principles conservatism rests.  We’re going to need to reduce this  list down to no more than ten fundamental principles, and no more than fifteen issues,  and we’re going to prioritize them on that basis.  We should be careful to exclude things from consideration upon which there is little distinction.  We can then create a score sheet and people can offer evidence as to how a candidate may be scored on a given issue.  Long before we get to that, we need to establish the lists.  Our task will not be to endorse a particular candidate, but show how each of the existing candidates stack up against an ideal hypothetical candidate.

The truth is that this has been done by many people and groups.  The difference is that we are going to do it on a shoe-string, on the honor system, and all from our own thoughts and ideas.  We’re not going to copy anybody, if we do this.  What I want to know from you is if you’re interested.  I want to know if I’m wasting my time, or yours.  I want to know if this is worth doing at all.  What I’d like from you, if you don’t mind, is to give me some indication of your thinking about all of this.  You can leave a comment to this post, or you can signify your interest by liking it, or you can send me an email, subject: Interested!  If you have particular ideas, use the subject line: Ideas!

We are running out of time to influence this outcome.  If we’re going to do this, it will need to be grass-roots and fast.  Let me know what you’re thinking.  Myself, I cannot stand the thought of the establishment ruling the day again.  Maybe this is how we can turn the ship around.  Thank you for your attention and time!

Tuesday’s Debate Demonstrated Our Problem

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

One of These? Please...

After some digging, I finally found the debate on Bloomberg TV.  I didn’t know we got that channel until I went looking.  Suffice it to say that I could have saved myself a good deal of trouble and faked my way through by guessing at the way it would go.   It wasn’t inspiring, and in fact, disappointing, not for the lack of fireworks, although there wasn’t much there either, but simply because there is nobody among the eight candidates who appeared Tuesday night that is worthy of endorsement.  It’s possible that if you took the best traits of each of them, you might cobble together a worthy candidate, but it seemed more like a staged coronation of Romney and a further opportunity to hammer Perry.

My assessment of the candidates, in no particular order:

Rick Perry: Better.  It’s obvious that he was the only candidate Karen Tumulty recognized at the table. While I’m no Perry fan either, this was a bit blatant.  She seemed to be seeking the approval of liberals everywhere as her questions all seemed to have a tone of indignant harumph about them.  Score Perry 20 points just for refraining from telling her to crawl back under her rock.

Michele Bachmann: That’s it? That’s the extent of her arguments?  How many times did she praise Mitt?

Jon Huntsman:  Who cares?  Everybody knows he’s in the room to make Mitt Romney look less liberal by comparison.

Herman Cain:  Blew it big-time on the 9-9-9 plan.  His insistence that the American people would hold Congressional feet to the fire to prevent the 9-9-9 from becoming 19-19-19 is laughable.  He’s either naive or dishonest.  I’m still willing to believe naive.  Also, he mentioned that he would be President so he would veto anything done to abuse his formula.  That’s all well and good while he’s still President, but hopefully, the country would go on a bit longer. What then?  Lastly, never say that “I have some candidates for that job” unless you’re willing to discuss them, because thereafter, it will look as though you’re hiding something, which you are.

Newt Gingrich: Too bad about Newt.  He’s a remarkably smart fellow, but his willingness to join with Nancy Pelosi on theGlobal Warming hoax damned him forever more.  Nobody will really trust Newt. Me included.

Ron Paul:  He made an excellent point about Sarbanes-Oxley, and also about Greenspan vs. Volcker.  Greenspan did help create the bubble. As usual, Paul is good as gold on economics but he’s a disaster on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum: Makes a good point about the importance of family with respect to poverty.  Otherwise, I think he was simply happy to be there.

Mitt Romney:  The good news for Mitt is that he didn’t say too much to get himself in trouble with the press, but every republican should be deeply troubled by what he did say.  Romney is playing a game of class warfare only slightly different from the Democrats, and he’s taking it in a different direction, but it’s the same thing.  He also lied about Romneycare.  In several ways.  Romney is precisely what we do not need: He’s a liberal.

We need to begin to ask the question about what it is to be a Republican.  We need to differentiate between conservatives and progressives.  Tonight’s debate served only to further muddy those waters.  What does the party stand for anyway?  If these people are representative of that, whatever it is, we’re in deep trouble.  Sure, if I could take Paul on economics, Cain on combative business savvy, Bachmann on confronting the welfare state, Gingrich on thoughtfulness, Perry on reducing regulation, and Romney on “looking presidential,” we might have something.  The truth is that we don’t have such an aggregate of good ideas and traits in one person.  If this is the pool from which we hope to draw the person who will defeat Obama, never mind restore our nation, I think it’s time to call Houston, because we have a real problem.

ABAR: Anybody But A RINO

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

Sorry, I've Had Enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitt Romney Won’t Get My Vote

Sunday, October 9th, 2011

This Guy? Please...

I can’t believe Mitt Romney is dredging up Michael Chertoff as a foreign policy adviser.  Chertoff is the former Homeland Security Secretary who lobbied for the so-called “naked-scanning” machines now in airports across the nation and profited from it.  He’s also the pro-amnesty shill who has repeatedly pushed the country in the direction of some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  For Governor Romney to bring in this guy is akin to inviting the fox into the henhouse, which unless you’re a fellow fox, would seem a remarkably bad idea.  There are at least three things wrong with Chertoff, and probably a good deal more, but if Romney thinks this is the man to whom he should turn for foreign policy advice, I can’t imagine that Romney is a man I can support for dog-catcher, much less for president.  Irrespective of what others may say, or endorse, there’s simply no way I can support this un-conservative pretender.

Add to this the latest news that Romney’s son and one of his fund-raisers may have been using campaign ties of his father’s 2008 in finding investors for his project, and what you begin to wonder is if he’s not the sort of crony-capitalist we fear him to be.  Whether there was any sort of illegality isn’t really the question, as we all know how people leap through the holes in laws, but a question of the propriety of all of this, and whether it represents the sort of judgment we ought to expect from a president.  On the other hand, given the crony capitalism running wild in Washington DC, particularly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it may be that he’d fit right in.

Worse yet, it turns out that Romney has appointed a full-blown environmental nut-job while he was governor, and actually pandered to leftists over coal-fired power plants.  From the Wall Street Journal article linked above:

With Mr. Foy by his side, Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

Can you imagine anything more ludicrous?  Perhaps taken together with the headlines of the day, we can put this into context: The Obama administration’s EPA has decided to regulate more coal-burning plants out of existence, to the tune of 28 giga-watts of power generating capacity.  This is a prescription not merely for the destruction of thousands upon thousands of jobs in American coal mines, but a complete catastrophe for the economy in general.  This is a program of intentional impoverishment aimed squarely at the American people, and as recently as during his term as governor, Romney was aboard with this sort of ridiculous program.  He’s a dangerous panderer as well as being the liberal in this race.  Please don’t offer that Huntsman is worse, since I believe he’s in this race only to make Romney appear less liberal by comparison.

I’ve written two other articles on Mr. Romney, and the more I learn about his record, the less I like him, and that’s to say I don’t think he’s worthy of the job, and certainly not the sort of president a beleaguered America needs.  I can tell you with certainty that I cannot now or at any future point support a Romney candidacy, because all of these things combined with the Massachusetts health-care initiative signed into law by his hand resembles Obamacare in almost every important detail.  In short, Romney is the next best thing to Obama from the standpoint of an honest conservative.  Only in the deepest blue of blue states could a person such as this pass for a “conservative.”  I will have no part of supporting him.  There is no running mate with whom you could couple him that could present any improvement.  None.  Mitt Romney is the definition of RINO.  Nominate this guy, and it will guarantee four more years of Obama.

You can read my other articles on Romney here:

Hope Springs Eternal

Saturday, October 8th, 2011

Hope?

I’ve spent some time thinking about Governor Palin’s decision against running for the presidency in 2012.  Many people are wrestling with it still, particularly those people who have poured so much of their efforts into making it a reality.  Even now, over on FaceBook, there’s a group devoted to urging her to reconsider. They’re calling their group Sarah Palin’s Earthquake, and they have chosen that name because of a remark Sarah Palin made in a recent interview in which she said it would take an earthquake to cause her to reconsider.  They want to become that earthquake, and in just more than a day, they have added thousands of members.  I suppose one never knows what might happen, and these intrepid Palinistas are intent upon at least letting their reluctant champion know that they still want her to lead them.

The odds against them are long, but they’re accustomed to that condition, as these determined warriors look around, much like me, and see that no rational alternative to Palin now exists in the Republican field.  I could inventory them and their flaws for you, but if you’re reading this post, you already know the score.  The sad truth for most of Palin’s supporters is that there really aren’t any plausible alternatives that will be even roughly shoe-horned into the great void we had hoped she would fill in the GOP field.  Many people are noting that sad state of affairs with a tone of fatalistic sobriety.  For my part, I have chosen to look at all of this somewhat differently.  For three years running, in various forms, we’ve asked her to run, and she has finally demurred.  I remember the occasion of my own letter to her, and what I said in closing:

“We want you to run, yes, for our own selfish purposes, because we selfishly dare to love our country and our lives. That’s why they hate us. It’s why they hate you. Make your choice, make it in full knowledge of the costs to you and yours. Make it for your own purposes. If you choose not to run, we will understand, though we will be sad, and we will go in search of our back-up plan. We will go in search of the ‘next-best.’ You’ve already borne more upon your back than any thousand candidates have had to bear.”

This now seems to have been the manner of the choice she has made.  We are now sad, but thus far, in our search for a “back-up plan,” we have come up empty.  That’s the unmitigated truth of the matter.  Once again, we are left in the apparent position of having to settle for the best of the rest, whomever that may be.  The others are undoubtedly calling upon her to throw her support behind them, and I expect that will the focus of the media going forward.  The expectation is that wherever Palin throws her support, if she does at all, her legions of supporters will join her in that endeavor like robots.  The problem with this predictable narrative from the media and the establishment is that Palin’s supporters have never been automatons, neither for the political establishment, nor even for her. Palin’s supporters simply aren’t built that way, and will in the end make the decisions they each individually feel are best.  It’s the difference between a fanatic and a supporter, and those who have followed Sarah Palin all this time aren’t mere “fans.”  I continued:

“Nobody will blame you. The part of me that loves justice almost hopes you will walk away. The direction of the country isn’t your fault. It’s ours. We let this happen. We let them cheat and lie and steal our values. We watched them do it. We don’t have any right to ask you to do it for our sake. Where were we? Where was our engagement? Most of us went about our way, trying to pretend what was happening hadn’t been real, or worse, participating in the debasement. There’s no reason you should go it alone on our behalf. In truth, I have nothing to offer by way of compensation except to promise I will not abandon you on the field – that you will not lead the charge into battle only to find your legion has deserted you. The rest may retire from the fight. I will be there, until the end or until victory. I ask only that you choose for the sake of all you love. This may be our last chance. Good luck in all things, Governor Palin.”

Well, that first bit might not have turned out to be one-hundred percent of the truth, but it’s certainly bound to be in the ninetieth percentile.  A few are hurt to the extent of blaming her, but it wasn’t Sarah Palin who left us without options.  It isn’t her fault that the country is in decline.  It isn’t her fault that we let the statists cheat us and lie to us and steal from us our values as a culture and as a people.  That the GOP establishment seems to have managed to pull off another end-run around us is not Sarah Palin’s fault, but ours.  We could have done things differently, and the truth is that if we are now without plausible presidential alternatives to Sarah Palin, it is we who have left ourselves in that position.

Back when I was describing the choice, I was describing it as much for me as for her or for others who might see and consider it.  I haven’t ever wanted to deceive myself or others, and while I knew at the time there were a thousand good reasons for Sarah Palin to enter the race, I also knew that they were not necessarily of a value equal to some reasons leveraging against her entry.  I don’t expect anybody to live for my sake, or the sake of my needs, wants, or wishes; neither in my thinking then, nor in my feelings now.

Sarah Palin doesn’t owe us anything:  Not a presidential campaign, not a campaign for other candidates, nor even an explanation that will satisfy one and all.  It’s her choice and her life, and she must consider these things for her sake and the sake of her most precious values.  She has chosen, and whether I agree with her choice, or the voices of millions disagree, it is her choice and her destiny to do as she feels necessary.  I respect that choice, knowing that as it is her right to choose, my wishes to the contrary have no ability to invalidate her choice.  If she does reconsider, I will respect that choice too, and I will continue to support her in that endeavor.  My pledge was sincere.  I meant it, and I still do.  If she chooses against running, instead to rally the troops on behalf of a cause in which we all agree, I will be there.  It’s as simple as that.

From the moment she first walked out onto the national stage, and brought the energy of her message of freedom to the crowd, I have been there.  To whatever degree she continues to do so, I will still be here in firm support, but I will always respect her choice to determine her course for her own sake and the sake of all she loves.  That’s a big part of what has made the freedoms of our country unique, and it is this that I cherish above all:  This is still the land of self-determination, and while government’s shackles tighten around us like a noose, I am happy to see even one among us escape unshackled on her own terms.

As some have noted, particularly Tammy Bruce, we have a choice, and it comes down to this:  We may be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with the less-than-satisfactory GOP nomination choices for president remaining from among which to choose.  There are still other things we can do, including joining with the Tea Party, those of us who haven’t already, and begin the process of taking over the Senate and strengthening in the House so that no matter which candidate of either party ultimately occupies the White House, we can still control the legislative agenda, and thereby limit the power of a president we may not fully support, or support at all.  That idea isn’t without flaws, and it certainly isn’t a perfect solution to the problems now confronting us, but it surely offers us more hope than to surrender in sadness or to campaign against the seemingly inevitable.  Nothing is written in stone about the outcome of this battle, and this remains the country of self-determination, at least for now.  However we choose to carry out that fight, each and every one of us, let us do it in our own ways as best we can, while we still can.  Hope springs eternal because we still love our country and it’s still worth the fight, whomever we elect, irrespective of who may choose to run for high office.  If we are to save this country, we must begin now.  My hope is that it’s not too late.

One Thing The Nominee Must Do

Friday, October 7th, 2011

Nominee Must Oppose This

I have been discussing what sort of nominee the Republican party must now find.  Given what we are now seeing, it is imperative that the nominee of the Republican party commit to one thing above all others: The program known as Obamacare must be repealed, and stripped from the law, in every possible, conceivable way.  It must be pulled out by the roots.  Even now, the government is beginning to fashion health-care plans for the rest of us who now have our own health-care, because they know they will be driving private health insurance out of the business.  Any of the Republican candidates who wish to obtain my support will be required to commit to the complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and if the candidate will not pledge to do this, I will have no part of his or her support.  Obamacare must be overturned.

The program known as Obamacare is tyranny packaged up as a benefit.  Let me be clear for the sake of any who had misunderstood the nature of Obamacare: It’s not going to provide “benefits” to anybody.  Instead, it’s going to provide a death sentence to millions.  If a given candidate will not commit to its repeal, it is symptomatic of an unwillingness to seriously confront the crisis this country now faces in a run-amok set of entitlement programs that have become the overwhelming burden on those who produce wealth.  I need no such candidate.  I will support no such candidate.  In watching the various debates, among the alleged front-runners, one of them has not, to my memory, committed to that repeal.

Health-care isn’t a right.  Health-care insurance cannot be a right.  One cannot have a right that must be borne into actualization by the efforts of others.  If we examine this  idea carefully, we must recognize that what Obamacare promises to implement is a “right” to health-care to be financed by every working person to the benefit of all persons.  This is Marxism.  It’s also a guarantee that we will have a reduction in the kind of health-care that will be available, in terms of its advancement, its technical sophistication, and the competence of those who will administer it, as well as the conditions under which it will be administered.

We are confronted with a serious assault upon the lives and liberties of every American, except perhaps those wealthy enough to escape all of this.  I don’t blame anybody who would use their wealth to escape the plague of Obamacare, unless they also simultaneously stiff the rest of us to suffer under it.  That is an inexcusable state of hypocrisy that characterizes the leadership of the left, in Congress, and in the executive branch, but also in Hollywood and in other leftist social circles.  There are also a number of people on the elite side of the GOP who fit this mold:  They express tepid support for undoing Obamacare, at best, while knowing they have the means to flee its oppression.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think it’s clear. We can begin to tally all the characteristics a Republican nominee must bring to the game, but an undaunted commitment to the eradication of the Obamacare law must be among them, and if it isn’t, there is no way on Earth that I will support that nominee.  I would prefer to have four more years of open tyranny than the pretense of opposition while it becomes the officially endorsed position of the GOP, and thereby, the country.

Sarah Palin’s Future Role and How It Will Effect Me

Thursday, October 6th, 2011

An Example to Emulate

Since yesterday’s announcement on the Mark Levin show, there has been a good deal of discussion over what sort of role Governor Palin will play going forward.  As ever, that decision is entirely up to her, and if it’s to be as an outsider, participating in a grass-roots charge as one of our decidedly stronger voices, I will satisfy myself with that.  I realize that by supporting her in that end, it doesn’t mean I will always agree with her on every issue or every race, but because she’s been such a powerfully consistent voice, I will always tend to give her opinion more weight than those of most others.  For the same reasons that she has said about how this will ultimately unshackle her, what Sarah Palin has done also liberates me.

My goal now turns to one not at all dis-similar from what Sarah Palin has offered:  I am and always have been most interested in restoring our nation, and indeed, it has been her devotion to that goal that attracted me to Governor Palin.  As she embarks again on this unconventional form of battle, where she seeks political results without seeking political office, I still see in her a force for an amazing potential benefit to our nation, and frankly, given the way things have been going, we need every ally in the struggle we can find.  Sarah Palin remains one of the most powerful advocates we will find.

One of the points Governor Palin has repeatedly made is that one can be a powerful voice without seeking high office in large measure because it is liberating to take one’s message to the people without the constraints within which a candidate must frequently live.  I understand this sentiment too, because frankly, now that Governor Palin isn’t going to run, I feel more at ease speaking frankly about my positions on various issues knowing that nobody will try to paint her with my views on issues by the mere association of my support for her.  You’ve seen this done to candidates before: The media finds one supporter who holds a particular position, and the media goes through twist of knives and leaps of logic to associate the candidates with those views.  Yes, it’s entirely unfair, but as you and I both know, the media is scarcely concerned with fairness.

Let me give you an example: I am of the view that Barack Obama’s actions on a variety of issues makes him eligible to impeachment, but I would not want to state that position so bluntly if Sarah Palin had decided to enter the race, not because I believe it any less, but because I know how the ideas of supporters are frequently turned upon the candidates they support as if it had been the candidate’s own position.  It happens constantly, and I didn’t wish to cause Governor Palin that kind of grief, whether she agreed in principle with my thinking or not.  Why wouldn’t you say it if you believe it?  The answer is simply that we have a large segment of people eligible to vote who might be fence-sitters, or less than clear on the issues at hand, and might be driven off by what the media will inevitably paint as a “fringe idea.”  That’s a minefield into which Michele Bachmann has now repeatedly blundered.  It makes great stump speech red meat, but in truth it tends to hurt more than it helps in our current media environment.

Now Sarah Palin is unshackled, but guess what?  So are you and I.  I have no intention of jumping on any bandwagon of any of the remaining candidates precisely because I want to see what happens going forward with each of them.  I supported a Sarah Palin candidacy because I had agreed with enough of her core principles that she was an excellent representative of my beliefs, and I haven’t gone elsewhere because I’m waiting for some indication that one of these candidates will meet the same criteria, but to simply turn my support on the spur of the moment because Palin is not running would be to betray the ideals she had repeatedly explained about her views and positions on how we must thoroughly inspect and vet each of these candidates.

I agree with that sentiment, and I will continue to do so.  I’m not inclined at this point to throw my support behind any of them, each having demonstrated sufficient reasons for caution.  Instead, I’m going to keep my powder dry, no longer in expectation of a Pain candidacy, but instead because when the time comes for me to choose, since I believe it will be among lesser candidates than the one I’d have chosen, I need to exercise more care and caution in making my final choice.

That’s how I view this, and as I enter my fortieth consecutive hour without sleep, I suppose I shall leave it there, but tomorrow, expect to read a bit more about some of the ideas I’ll be discussing with the goal of restoring our nation firmly in mind.

I Don’t Know If Any of Them Are Fit

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

The "Not Ready for Primetime" Players?

As you know, I don’t support Rick Perry for a whole host of reasons, particularly having been a Texan throughout the time he’s held state-wide office, and knowing he’s got a number of really ugly crony-capitalist skeletons in his closet.  With that in mind, I must say that this story about the hunting lease, and the rock with a racial epithet stinks to high heaven.  I realize that a hint of racism would disqualify a candidate from consideration, and well it should, but to extend this story to impute some racist motives on the part of Rick Perry is simply going too far, and is mere race-baiting nonsense.

Perry has done himself enough damage with his poor debate performances, but what I found stunning in the aftermath of the Washington Post story on this greatly overstated controversy about Perry was that Herman Cain exploited it to make an attack on Perry, by calling the instance “racially insensitive.”  He later walked that back once the full context became known, but his reflex to run with that sort of inflammatory story has caused me to question the temperament of Cain more than Perry.  The only thing perhaps more disgusting was the fact that even after the story had begun to lose some of its initial traction, Romney’s camp pounced once they thought it was safe.  Like you, I believe every one of these candidates should be thoroughly vetted, but I think we’re coming to the point in American politics where the “Gotcha” business that Newt Gingrich has lamented is getting out of hand. Rather than focus on the real shortcomings of the candidates, we’re off on these over-hyped tangents.

This display of wretched gutter politics makes me question the lot of them.  When it boils right down to it, none of them are really exhibiting the character I expect from a president.  Perry has a whole host of problems on a substantial basis of facts, as does Romney, and as I’ve been learning more recently, Herman Cain as well.  The problem is that when you see them pile onto a story like this, you know it’s not about substance.  It’s about scoring “Gotcha” points.  For Herman Cain to now sink to the level of playing the race card, after already having accusations of racism thrown at him over his remarks about “brainwashed blacks” is a matter of a serious failure in judgment.  Romney ought to know better, but he’s apparently happy to stand back and let others make the first attacks and then stick his two cents in and kick his opponent once he’s already on the ground.  That sort of cowardly play is just what you’d expect from a candidate who seems to seek victory by default.

All in all, it’s a pretty sorry state of affairs.  Here we have nine candidates in the race, and they seem muddled and dominated by the media narratives of the day, and that may be the saddest declaration about this field one can make:  None of them seem fit.  More fit than Obama?  Yes, perhaps that’s the case, but are any of these really the people we want to lead(not run) this country?  While the jury is still out on the question, I believe it’s become time for we voters to being answering it.  It’s astonishing that at this late date, what we now seem to have is a group of people engaged in a fight to avoid the worst “Gotcha” moments, but apart from some platitudes, and a horrible lack of policy details, I’ve yet to see anything particularly compelling from any of them, and none of their records offer much solace.

They all need more vetting, and as they become the front-runner, or challenge the front-runner, one after the other, we need to examine their records and their history in office and in business.  Issues like this Perry story are simply concocted nonsense in an attempt to drive the election according to a media narrative.  If we’re to select a candidate, that candidate should have an impeccable record in office, and we must do our best to avoid this sort of tabloid journalism.  It simply doesn’t serve the electorate, and while it can create many nifty headlines and soundbites, it doesn’t do anything to take us in the direction of restoring our country.  I can think of thirty reasons not to support Perry, but none of them have anything to do with some painted-over, turned-over rock on a hunting lease in West Texas of which Governor Perry may have once been aware as an artifact of a terrible, but thankfully bygone era.

Chris Christie Finally Out – Who’s Next?

Tuesday, October 4th, 2011

What does it mean?

I don’t know how he could say it any more plainly.  He was so adamant in his statements today that it seems there could be no way he would change his mind.  A few are clearly disappointed, particularly in the media, and they’ve already run off in pursuit of a new victim.  The media loves to gin up candidates, and then chew them up and spit them out.  Sarah Palin’s right about this, and I’ve said it before:  The media is playing what she calls “flavor of the week,” and I’ve called “savior of the month,”  all with the goal of crushing any candidate the Republican party might put up.  The goal is to wind up with the most liberal Republican possible, amenable to the media if their own guy should blow it, and tolerable to the GOP establishment.  While they push Herman Cain for the moment, we all know how this will likely end: Even if he somehow were to overcome Romney in the long run, and win the nomination, the media will act to destroy Cain too.  This is why the Republican party must nominate somebody who has been vetted already.  The media will save its most lethal ammunition, to be deployed in the general election.

Within minutes of the beginning of Chris Christie’s press conference, a story posted on Politico aimed at bringing up the next one the media would happily throw into the meat-grinder.  The story offered is that attorneys who represent Sarah Palin have been talking to states about the filing date deadlines.  To be honest, this could mean nearly anything, but the narrative being put forward suggests that Palin may be getting ready to jump in.  Maybe.  The problem is that I’ve lost all confidence in the media, and I don’t know what it means.  I’ve become a skeptic, not of Sarah Palin, but instead of all the media tidbits put in circulation each day.  To me, it’s no longer an issue for discussion:  Sarah Palin will announce a candidacy, or she will tell us she’s not running.  Either way, it’s not going to change my immediate future because I’ve decided to carry on as if she will run, and for a simple reason:  She’s the candidate I believe in, I know her record, and I know it compares favorably against any Republican already entered, or any whose names I’ve heard under discussion.

When I saw the Drudge Headline blaring: “Palin Time,” did my pulse quicken?  To borrow a phrase, “You betcha!” Once I saw it was a link to the same story I’d read from a link on Twitter two hours before, I resumed normal operation.  Every Palin-supporter I know is ready to roll.  Every person to whom I speak is hoping the day will come soon.  Until the day she announces her plans, I’m not going to waste many minutes in contemplation of that moment, and while like any of my friends, I’ll cheer when it comes, between this moment and that one, when I discover along with the rest of the world what her plans will be, I am going to continue to prepare for what will come after that moment.

The challenges of any political campaign are many, and while I savor the competition, I know the reality:  It will be a tough process, and it’s going to require all hands on deck, with as much devotion as we’ve ever poured into anything, and maybe a good bit more.  Like many of you, I made a trip to Walmart this morning, and I’ve handed out The Undefeated to potential allies already.  We’re going to need millions of them.  If Governor Palin decides to enter, as all of hope and believe she will, I intend to be already moving, already gaining ground, and already setting the stage for what I believe will be a pivotal campaign in American history.  The truth is that as much as this will be Sarah Palin’s fight, it will be our fight too, and a chance to save our country, maybe our last.  I refuse to entrust that future to cynicism or complacency or the simple folly that better, more able men will take my place.

It is now, if ever there had been a time in modern history when Edmund Bourke’s lament applied, “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”  You may know it better by the oft-used “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”  What his actual words reveal is that he knew not only that good men must stand, but that they must stand as one, together.  Does this not describe our position more thoroughly than the more common interpretation of Burke’s words?  I submit to you that it does, and for us to prevail, we will need to live by its intent.

As I’ve said, I no longer put enough stock in anything the media tells us to read any tea leaves from Politico’s story.  I also know that if it’s true, and its implications are perfectly correct, it doesn’t change anything in my immediate plans.  I’ll work with O4P and C4P and other Palin supporters wherever I find them, however I can.  I’ll still be standing on my little soapbox talking to any who will listen.  I’ll continue to work among and within my family, my friends, and my community as best as I can.  The Tweet that went out from @PeterHambyCNN sums up my view:

the line out of Palin-world: the race is still “wide open”

Indeed, the race certainly remains wide open, and I will pursue it as such.

Follow-Up Note to Erick Erickson: Know Your Audience

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Speaking too Soon Can Hurt

In what can only be viewed as a stunning rebuttal to Erick Erickson’s day-long smirking at Sarah Palin and her supporters, the poll conducted by Redstate has concluded that the first choice for President among respondents to the RedState poll is none other than former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  While Erickson was having his laughs at Palin’s expense, it has now become clear who deserves the last laugh.  By a margin of more than two-to-one over her next-closest competitor, Herman Cain, the Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin scored a whopping 52.4% of the poll.  Poor Erick.  I have a feeling that before long, it’s going to feel more like the “BlackandBlueState,” assuming this polling data is genuine(and it appears to be.) The question had been:

“From the current list of Republican presidential candidates, who is your FIRST choice?”

Here’s a snap-shot from the polling site:

Poll Results(Click Image for Remainder of Results)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that’s certainly going to leave a mark, assuming this isn’t some contrived head-fake.

H/T to poster Michael Wiley for pointing this out last night!

Will Karl Rove Tell Us It’s Too Late for Christie Too?

Saturday, October 1st, 2011

They Think We Can Win With This Guy?

I should be fair.  It’s not simply Karl Rove, but the whole GOP establishment class(which George Will says doesn’t exist,) demonstrating this double-standard in media punditry.  Despite her impertinence in other respects, at least S.E. Cupp included Christie in her demanding article of Friday, but I’m beginning to wonder if all of the attention on Christie isn’t intended for another purpose.  While it’s difficult to stomach the hypocrisy of those who have argued that it’s too late for a Palin entry, saying precious little about a prospective Christie entry in the same context,  this could be a media phenomenon with another purpose entirely.  What if by holding forth all of  this Christie speculation, the GOP establishment is trying to accomplish something else entirely?  What could that be?  With the sudden spectacle of an accelerated primary calendar, we must consider what else may be afoot.

The Bush people are still strong in Florida, much as they remain in Texas.  The recent move of Florida’s GOP primary to January was done with the advice and blessing of the GOP establishment there.  This is widely seen as a way to prop up Romney, and to lessen the impact of insurgents, particularly of the Tea Party stripe.  It may also be a manner in which to eliminate down-ballot challengers in what otherwise would have been hotly-contested congressional primaries.

The GOP establishment understands that if they are to have their guy, they probably will need to go with Mitt. They may view him as imperfect to their ends, but he’s close enough, and they think he can win a general election against Obama (if there is one.)  What moving the primaries up does to candidates is to shorten the time they have to grab mind-share in the electorate.  At present, Romney is probably the clear front-runner, and to kill off any insurgents will require them to get this over with quickly.

At the same time, Christie may be used as a delaying tactic.  If they can cause Palin to hold of just a while longer in entering, assuming she will, then the longer she holds off, the narrower her window will be, particularly in light of this accelerated schedule.   For reasons we’ve discussed at length, there are many good reasons for Palin to hold off in the conventional schedule, and the GOP establishment knows this which is why they spent the entirety of the spring and summer trying to goad her into an earlier entry, to which they would have responded with a Christie or Daniels or even Jeb Bush.

With Romney now having withstood a serious challenge for the top spot by Rick Perry, they’ve come back around to the realities which may mean that they’re left with Romney as their best remaining bet.  Don’t be surprised that after another week of speculation, Christie comes out and says “Well, it’s just way too late now folks.”  This will then be used as a way to hammer Palin if she enters thereafter, so as to attack her with their continuing meme of sabotage.  Of course, she’ll quickly overcome that narrative, and the establishment knows it too, which is why they’ve hurried up the primary schedule:  They will try to knock Palin out by depriving her of the time she needs to carry the ball all the way down the field in time to score.  I believe this underestimates Palin’s appeal by a fair margin, and it may be the establishment’s last available timing-based play to keep her from the nomination if she chooses to pursue it.

If she gets in before Christie swears off his own entry, he might not demur at all, leaping in behind her, saying that while he thought it’s too late, if Palin can make a go of it, so can he.  What all of this may boil down to is an attempt by the establishment to wrest control of the timing card from Palin.  They’re trying to place Christie into the position she has occupied all these months, and the willing media, particularly FoxNews, is willing to go along.  The liberal press will go for anything that creates turmoil in the GOP, particularly between the establishment and the base, so they’re along for their part in this whole thing.

As I suspected, it will come down to careful timing, and as I believe based on previous instances, Governor Palin may be the master of this sort of thing.  She has demonstrated very good instincts and this close to the end of the beginning, I don’t think she’s likely to make any missteps, thereby turning it into what the establishment hopes will bethe beginning of the end.  Expect the unexpected, and be ready to roll.

Revolution by Suspended Elections?

Saturday, October 1st, 2011

Ready to Snap?

I try to steer well clear of conspiracy theories on this site, but occasionally, circumstances and events will lead you to seriously consider some of them.  This week, we had at least two instances of powerful Democrats calling for a diminution of our Republic by extra-constitutional means.  As I covered them, there was the case of Peter Orszag decrying the slow and ponderous process of democracy, and the other was the case of North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue allegedly joking that we should suspend congressional elections for two years to let the members work for a while without immediate consequences from voters.  Most people who have reviewed the audio question whether Perdue was joking, but on Friday, this story gained a good deal more traction when Rush Limbaugh brought it to the world’s attention with a story in the CanadaFreePress: Warning: The Threat of Suspended Elections is Real.

While this entire episode is somewhat disconcerting, we are easily heartened by remembering that such an action has never been undertaken even under the worst circumstances of our Civil War.  If ever there had been a President with the plausible excuse to try such a maneuver, it had been Abraham Lincoln, yet while the war raged, he did no such thing.  For a US President to even begin contemplating such an unprecedented idea would suggest a level of treachery and treasonous intent well beyond anything we have ever seen in the US.  The very idea of suspended elections is anathema to our core principles, when we remember them, and the fact of our sparse historical educations may leave us open to those who would actually consider such things.  This brings us to the question of Barack Obama’s temperament and his suitability for the office to which he has been elected.

In the CanadaFreePress article, Juid McLeod offers this on the subject of Obama:

“Now when we have a narcissistic Obama plunging in the polls, a democrat governor in North Carolina is pushing the envelope for suspending elections and covering up a notion she dropped a bombshell by claiming she was only using hyperbole to make a point for a Rotary Club.”

What McLeod offers here is what many of Perdue’s critics have asserted: That the line about suspending elections wasn’t a joke or sarcasm as she’s since claimed, but instead a sort of trial balloon on behalf of the Obama administration.  That sort of tactic is not unknown in Washington circles, and to be honest, it might not be only the Democrat establishment that is willing now to contemplate such a tactic.  There are many Washington-insider GOP establishment types who would really prefer to avoid a re-election in the coming year if they could because the grass roots conservatives and Tea Party folks are offering challenges across the board.  In fact, some now think the move of the Florida primary to an earlier date is a play in the direction of closing off Tea Party-friendly candidates, and to an extent, they may well have a point.  While in certain respects, it could play a lesser role at the presidential nomination level, this effectively kills off many of the primary challenges that might otherwise have been offered at the Congressional level.  In effect, this whole effort to move up the primary schedule by Republicans may be the play of the establishment in defense against a conservative and Tea Party insurgency, not merely to the White House, but to the rest of the ballot.

“If the election were held tomorrow,  Obama would go down in a landslide strikingly more humiliating than the shellacking he and his party got—and never got over—in the midterms.”

I believe this is fairly accurate.  We’ve known for some time that the President’s polling numbers have been sliding downhill at an accelerating pace, and pollsters and pundits like Caddell and Schoen urged Obama not to run, while Dick Morris now insists that he will not. (Let’s be careful to remember Morris has been substantially less accurate in predicting the political climate than your uncle’s bum knee in predicting the weather.)  It was not only Obama who received the “shellacking,” as an unprecedented number of Republican establishment types also went down to primary defeat.  Still, it is true that Obama has looked potentially “land-slideable” for some time.  Obama’s like most any other politician in his desire to maintain and extend his power, but how he would manage to suspend elections is difficult to fathom, but perhaps that’s the key.  McLeod continues:

“But the 2012 election is more than a year away, and the man who made it all the way to the most powerful office on earth sans identity documents has all the booty, and the absolute power it brings, at his command.  This is Obama’s well-stocked position at a time when only suspended elections would guarantee his re-election.”

It remains true that Barack Obama has been willing to carry out policies and strategies for their implementation that no previous presidents have even seriously contemplated.  What would it take for Obama to carry out such a coup d’etat against our constitution?  Violence?  Riots?  Certainly, one would think something even more traumatic than a civil war or insurrection, if Lincoln is to be our touchstone, but is it reasonable to expect Obama to restrain himself in any way if it is he who is driving the insurrection? McLeod seems to think otherwise:

“A dangerous new chapter is being written in American history that, if successful, is destined to impact the history of the West.  It’s called ‘Re-Election by Suspended Election Revolution’.  Patriots who want their grandchildren to grow up in a Marxist-free America should start the counter revolution called the ‘Revolution for an Obama-free America’ and they should start it “like yesterday”.”

It’s quite clear that Obama is unlike previous presidents inasmuch as he is willing to undertake actions that his predecessors would not, for instance, willfully ignoring laws enacted by Congress in refusing to enforce them, in matters of immigration, and frankly on any other matter that suits his administration.  We are learning from “Operation Fast and Furious” that there exists a cadre of people within his administration who are willing to sacrifice Americans and Mexicans to create an excuse for the restricting of gun sales, so what would lead anybody to suggest this administration would not go further still in maintaining power?  He may even have willing accomplices in the establishment of the GOP, still smarting from their own losses to the Tea Party, and with all this in mind, one can only imagine what sort of “bipartisan concessions” Congress might be willing to accept in the face of some ginned up or real emergency.

As I have said from the beginning, I tend to avoid conspiracy theories, but the problem is that in this case, there’s too much evidence to suggest that the potentiality is there, because the panic is there,  so that the intent may be there also.  Obama has a well-documented presidential record of driving our economy off a cliff, flouting the law, instigating unrest, and instituting extra-constitutional policies without reference to the rule of law.  In short,  he’s already taken on the appearance and behaviors of a dictator in many key ways, and it’s really not a giant leap to imagine that he could push the envelope a good deal further in the name of maintaining his power.  He’s desperate, and he’s building his army who will be happy to support such an operation.  Whether he will actually attempt something of the sort is perhaps a matter of controversy, but he’s clearly demonstrated the audacity and capacity for worse.

Erick Erickson Finally Explodes

Friday, September 30th, 2011

Shrinkage

This situation has been developing for some time.  I always wondered what the date of the explosion would be, but unlike the movies, there was no ticking timer to indicate when the bomb of Erickson’s composure would finally explode.  Erick Erickson, purveyor and chief propagandist for RedState.com, continued his war against Sarah Palin and her supporters on Friday, treating his readers to hourly updates as to whether Palin has announced or not.  It’s a failed attempt to be cute, because in writing today, Mr. Erickson was less than perfectly truthful with his readers.  His first snark-o-gram of the day was a breathless essay claiming that if Palin doesn’t announce today, she’s somehow betrayed her supporters.

“Palin supporters have, for a month, been tweeting and blogging that this month would be the month Palin announced. U.S. for Palin, a pro-Palin website, took the time to knock both Ann Coulter and me, noting how Palin would announce on her own time table and if Ann and I and the rest of the media had paid attention, we’d know that “all the media and her supporters have to do is wait till September 30th, 2011.”

Let’s clean this up a little, for Erick’s sake: “Some Palin supporters…”  I haven’t been saying this, and have actually been urging patience for a somewhat later date, for strategic reasons.  I suppose if Mr. Erickson ever left the confines of Red State in search of an opinion, he’d already have known that, but then again, those of us out here in the hinterlands of the blogosphere are accustomed to his insular worldview.  His tactic is simple: Quote one article, on one site, and extrapolate from this “Palin supporters” which seems rather a universal statement.  As I said, “A few,” or “Some” might have been better, and certainly more honest. Even if he found a dozen such stories, it would be no more honest to leave the scope of his claim unlimited.

“Palin has, for months, listed September as her drop-dead date. Those are her words. They are not words calculated by the media to box her in. Since then, Palin has moved the date around, said she may announce later, moved it into October, and all sorts of things. But she left a strong impression with many of her closest supporters that September 30th would be the drop-dead date. Again, her words and no one else’s.”

“Listed?”  Listed where?  I’d appreciate it greatly if Mr. Erickson could link us to that spot in an official Palin or SarahPac communication where this is stated.  Nowhere have I heard or read from Governor Palin that she will definitely make a decision by a certain date.  Rather, as Mr. Erickson admits, she has always talked in terms of time-frames.  He writes of “a strong impression,” but he doesn’t specify the identity of these “closest supporters.”   Maybe he meant “closet supporters,” as in those who support Palin but don’t wish to admit it publicly?   I honestly don’t know who he intends by that remark, and he certainly doesn’t tell us.   When did a mere impression inferred by one person become an obligation upon another? Is Mr. Erickson now contending that “impressions” are equal to “facts” or “statements?”  I had the impression Mr. Erickson did commentary on the news, rather than making it up.  So much for “impressions.”

“Whether Sarah Palin announces today or at some other time, it is stunning that a potential candidate who has had no real job for two years could drag her feet this long on such an important decision holding up supporters on the sidelines who at some point might just need to move on.  After today I think she does, in her own words, get “perceived as stringing people along.”

This may be the worst of the lot. Here, Erickson flatly contends that she will be perceived as “stringing people along.”  I don’t know any committed Palin supporters who feel this way at all, but I’d add this too: Until she announces whether she will run, or not, the whole notion of “stringing people along” is a moot argument, and I’m disgusted with this continuing mantra from those who wish to somehow force Palin’s hand.  She will announce her plans when she’s damn well ready, and not a moment sooner, and if Erick Erickson is unhappy with that, perhaps he should simply stop covering it.  There’s no requirement for him to cover Governor Palin.  There’s no reason, since he clearly thinks she’s irrelevant, for him to mention her at all, and yet he cannot restrain himself.  Why is that?

Let me make a few suggestions to Mr. Erickson, since I am also a Palin supporter, and since I’ve heard a few people mention the September 30th date, (although I’ve never heard Sarah Palin say anything but “Time-Frame.”)  Obviously, I’m a nobody out here in the blogosphere, and that’s where I’m happy, but let me give you my perspective.  On the pages of this blog, I have explained why I thought waiting was a smart tactic for Sarah Palin to adopt.  I’ve explained at some length why it is that I believe there’s no real benefit to her in announcing any earlier than she absolutely must.  I’ve explained all of these things, and more, I’ve explained why I support Sarah Palin irrespective of whether she chooses to run for President in 2012, meaning come hell or high water, whether you like it or not, if Sarah Palin decides to simply become an advocate for candidates, causes, and issues, I will support her in that venture too, and I will continue to support her PAC as long as she chooses to keep it in operation.   Part of the reason for that is because I appreciate her willingness to stand up and be counted on a variety of issues from which most politicians demur.  Another reason lies in the fact that I believe she is motivated by the right things, based on her record, her pronouncements, and her actions over two decades of public service.

Now Mr. Erickson can like that, or he can hate it, but either way, I don’t give a damn.  He’s no more important to this process than any other media personality, and as I’ve had help in demonstrating today, it’s clear that there is no shortage of people in the media who believe their role is to shape news rather than offer opinions or report on it.  I don’t know what brand of hubris permits Mr. Erickson(or others) to believe that he’s central to this question.  Given his past pronouncements on Palin, it’s certain he’s not talking to her supporters, but instead merely about them.  Erickson has reduced his own stature to that of a petulant child screaming “Now!”  It’s a sad spectacle, and I really don’t care to watch it much longer, because I hate to see people self-destruct.

On the slim chance that Erickson makes it out of his RedState bunker long enough to look around, let me say this to him directly:  Enjoy your nifty little hit-job now.  Mark it on your calendar alongside the other critically important moments in your life.  Revel in it.  Make the most of it.  There will likely come a day when you will be handed a three-course meal of crow, and when that day arrives, I plan on spoon-feeding you the first ladle-full.

What S.E. Cupp Doesn’t Understand

Friday, September 30th, 2011

Pushing a Broken Narrative

CNN has posted an article by S.E. Cupp and I must say I disagree with Ms. Cupp completely.  She argues that the Christie and Palin question is a detriment to the GOP.  Add Ms. Cupp to the long list of people trying to tell us when it’s too late for this one or that one.  Lately, it’s become an absurdity to watch.  I can’t imagine that it’s possible that she believes her own impatience ought to drive the party’s choices, but there she is demanding: “Time’s up, Christie and Palin. In or out?”  Excuse me if I fail to take Cupp’s complaint seriously, declared as if she has anything to say about it.  Perhaps she should return to tweeting all things Tony Stewart.  Maybe she would have told Reagan he had better jump in.  Who knows, but more to the point, who cares?  What Cupp’s column demonstrates is the arrogance of the media in its attempts to  influence events according to their agenda.  Besides, while this article is posted on CNN, I know that Cupp’s associations have included The Daily Caller, and of course FoxNews, so I’m not surprised to see her further this particular narrative.

I would like Ms. Cupp to substantiate the following claim:

“And now, the will-they-or-won’t-they game has flipped from fun and energizing to damaging to the party. Christie and Palin now do conservatives more harm than good.”

I disagree, and her article doesn’t explain this charge very well.  It seems to consist of an assertion that Christie and Palin are taking “valuable resources and attention” from the rest of the field, but what goes unstated is that if the rest of the field was compelling, neither Christie nor Palin could get any attention.  The very fact that they get so much attention makes it clear that her thesis is based on broken logic, and indeed, the very existence of her own article demonstrates the point:

“With the question marks still lingering in the ether, and pundits on both sides of the aisle still performing their daily trapeze act — swinging back and forth between “yes, he’s running” and “no, she isn’t” — the focus on Christie and Palin has taken valuable resources and attention away from the rest of the field.”

She doesn’t need to pay it any more attention if she doesn’t wish to, but then she writes an article giving it more attention.  More, she goes on to make the claim:

“Because of those question marks, conservatives haven’t been able to invest fully in the candidates who are running. They haven’t been able to imagine one of them as president. They’ve held back support, money and endorsements, because they still don’t know that the field is settled.”

My laughter over this jewel cannot be quieted.  Conservatives “aren’t able to fully invest in candidates?”  Suddenly, Cupp’s argument seems more like a “Winning The Future” moment than any sort of conservative commentary.  There is absolutely nothing forbidding conservatives from committing to any of the declared candidates.  What Cupp offers here is actually an insight from the perspective of the establishment: These are people who hedge their bets, and the non-entries of Christie and Palin have essentially frozen a goodly sum of cash that might go into play should one or both ultimately announce, or swear off.

Cupp finishes off with this self-aggrandizing flourish:

“Time’s up, governors. If Chris Christie and Sarah Palin want to run, get in there. If not, definitively and convincingly take your names out of the running. Conservatives need to begin the arduous job of whittling down the field and picking their frontrunner. The fact that there have been five GOP straw polls in as many weeks with as many different winners is proof that these unanswered questions are creating a dangerous ambivalence among conservative voters.”

S.E. Cupp now runs the conservative movement?  Does she speak for you?  She doesn’t speak for me.  For whom is she speaking, anyway? That should be the question that you take away from all of this.  Which conservative voters have become “dangerously ambivalent?” I don’t know any.  Ambivalence will be measured by turn-out during the primary season next year, and not by gauging the number of big-dollar contributors still clinging to their cash.

I’ll give Ms. Cupp her due:  She did an excellent job of trying to advance a phony narrative.  All I can say is “Better luck, next time.”  As I pointed out in my coverage earlier Friday, this all comes down to strategy, and none of us should fall into the trap of believing Ms. Cupp doesn’t know that.  What we should also recognize immediately is that Cupp’s article is a part of somebody’s strategy, and when taken together with Williams’ article on FoxNews, it begins to paint the picture more clearly as to the identity of the driver of this narrative.

Who Is Behind “Americans Elect”?

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Who's Behind This?

A friend sent me an interesting Youtube video a couple of days ago, and I’ve been spending some time watching it and thinking about it.  It’s a video from PBS consisting of an interview by Judy Woodruff of Doug Schoen and Elliot Ackerman, two of the principals of this group.  As I listened to them, this all sounded very enticing on its surface, but the longer they spoke, the more I began to wonder about who is behind all of this.  It seems like an effort to circumvent the ordinary electoral process, and when I think of that notion, the first thing that leaps into mind is George Soros and his effort to take over the Secretaries of State who oversee elections in all of our fifty states. I’m always a little wary about third party movements and similar efforts, because I always wonder who is behind them.  Before leaping into any such effort, it’s worthwhile to see what we can learn about such an organization.

Sometimes, it’s quite obvious, like in the case of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, but other times requires a good deal of investigating.  This case is not so obvious because they’re not mentioning any particular candidates, but instead a process of direct nomination skipping the two-party system.  Watch this fascinating video:

My curiosity got the better of me, and I immediately went out in search of answers.  I knew a little about Doug Schoen, but not enough to be thorough, and I had never encountered Elliott Ackerman before.  I started by going over to the AmericansElect.org website, and looked for an “About Us” or “Who We Are” page, and I found one.   It’s here:  Who We Are  Study this list.

Now understand that I don’t believe in guilt by association, but I want us to be careful and thorough.  Elliott Ackerman is the son of Peter Ackerman, and Joanne Leedom-Ackerman.  Douglas Schoen is a long time insider.  Also on the list is Carla Hills, former US Secretary of Housing and US Trade Representative.  As you look through the list, there is no shortage of movers and shakers, or those with direct ties to the elite.  This is a rather funny list of people to be working on a well-funded “grass roots” organization, isn’t it?

Speaking of funding, where are they getting all of that money?  Judy Woodruff asked directly, but Elliot Ackerman side-stepped the question.  We can come back to this in due course.

What is curious about this group is the number of connections it has with another group.  Just for the sake of curiosity, I compared the folks listed on the Who Are We page for Americans Elect to another group: The International Crisis Group.  So who what do these two groups have in common?  Well, Douglas Schoen and Carla Hills, but also an interesting tidbit: Joanne Leedom-Ackerman is part of this group.  As we remember from above, that’s Elliot’s mother.   This is a happy coincidence, with father and son working in one group with Doug Schoen and Carla Hills, along with many other elites, and wife and mother working in another group with Doug Schoen and Carla Hills, along with many other global elites.

Now while young Mr. Ackerman wouldn’t tell us who is contributing to the Americans Elect group operations, it could be interesting, for comparison only, of course, to take a look at who is funding ICG.  According to Wikipedia:

“Philanthropist George Soros who is chairman of the Open Society Institute is on the Board of Trustees.”

Isn’t that just the most amazing thing?  Just like clockwork, in walks the villain.  Now of course, since the young Mr. Ackerman declined to tell us who is bankrolling Americans Elect, we’ll have to leave that to our imaginations for the moment.  Ahem.

Now I don’t mean to tell you anything in particular about Americans Elect, but before a single person involves themselves with this organization, I would encourage them to ask the leadership to disclose who has funded their operations to date.  In short, I believe in full disclosure, particularly if an organization’s stated intention is to elect the next President of the United States.  In that spirit, here’s a little more about Pappy[Peter] Ackerman:  Founder of Americans Elect Used Tax Shelter Scheme

Just imagine:  Soros funds Obama.  Soros funds others.  Soros funds all sorts of things.  To be honest, when I heard Doug Schoen say the word “openness” while he and the young Mr. Ackerman refused to disclose the name(s) of donors, my antennae were immediately raised.  Remembering Schoen has urged Obama to decline renomination, I was further intrigued.  This is the signature maneuver of a Soros operation, and while all of this could be simple coincidence, as you know by now, in politics, those are actually damnably rare.  Watch out for this group.  There are a couple of ways this could go, and I’m wary about most of them.  While there is no direct tie to Soros as yet, the single degree of separation for so many of the key people certainly makes me wonder.  I could see this being used to exploit people to the detriment of the country, which is generally the trend with anything in which this elite jet-set is involved.

Thanks to my friend Carl who helped chase down some info for this article!

Election Seasons are Fluid

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Is Time Really Up?

It’s funny how some people get hung up on imaginary deadlines.  You can bet the media loves to create them, but what should you and I make of them? For months now, we have had the media and establishment DC-insiders try to tell us when Governor Palin should get in, or when it was too late, and all the rest of their game.  Worse, from my point of view, among some supporters, there’s an impatience that while understandable enough, always seems to gravitate toward the theme that “she must jump in NOW!”  Ladies and gentlemen, please permit me to suggest that there’s nothing to be gained from an entry now.

Today, in the blog section of the New York Times Online, the headline proclaims that “Palin is on the Verge of a Decision about Presidential Run.”  Well, knowing that, we should…do what?  The author of the piece again pumps up the expectation game, and again seems to push her toward entering sooner rather than later, and then another piece appearing in the Washington Post Online relegates Palin to “second tier status” based on a CNN poll that shows Palin over 20 points behind Obama in the head-to-head, which is at significant variance with that Marist/McClatchy poll of last week that finds Palin within 5 points of Obama.  So while one side tries to encourage her entry, the other side tries to dissuade her.   Both publications are establishment outlets.  When one observes the establishment presenting conflicting narratives, what you can guess with some confidence is that they’re hoping is to make something stick.  What neither of them suggests is that she should wait.  It’s either “jump now” or “go away.”

I’m not offering advice, but I’ll be honest: I like Governor Palin’s strategy of waiting.  Having waited this long in what seems a strategy to let some of this sort itself out, now that this strategy is beginning  to pay off, it’s no time to accept an arbitrary notion about some date on a calendar.  Late September?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Middle October?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Elections seasons are fluid, and the most successful candidates remain adaptive and flexible.  If you wish to succeed, you must adjust your plans to suit the situation on the ground.  I think the message to take from Governor Palin’s refusal to be trapped into some arbitrary time-table is this:  She wants to remain flexible to make her announcement when it will have the most impact.  A candidate committed to victory should do no less.

Be patient, my friends. Election seasons are fluid. Circumstances change.  Who would have predicted Perry’s verbal melt-down, excepting me and a few others, even three weeks ago?  Things change.  The unexpected happens.  People and situations are not perfectly predictable, or we wouldn’t bother with elections.  Our preferred candidate should do her best to remain flexible, and not getting pinned-down to a certain date or range of them is a great way to keep her options open.

Leading By Default?

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

Can I Win Without Speaking?

After the FoxNews/Google debate, it had begun to crystallize in the view of many Republicans is that Rick Perry isn’t the candidate many had hoped.  Capturing the straw poll in Florida on Saturday, Herman Cain reached new heights as Perry’s slide down hill has accelerated.  Bachmann has peaked and begun to taper off, while Gingrich, Paul, Santorum and Huntsman continue to struggle in the middle-to-low single digits.  This leaves Mitt Romney out front, not because he’s such a great candidate, but because to date, his chief opponents have grossly underperformed.  This begs the question most conservatives want most to ask: Is Mitt Romney capable of carrying the conservative banner into battle a year from now?  Most conservatives seem to believe the answer is a firm “no,” but it nevertheless leaves Romney in the position of the last candidate standing.  He’s done nothing revolutionary or proactive to seize the lead or stay at or near the front of the pack, but instead seems to have landed in the lead by default.  If we’re to defeat Barack Obama in November 2012, it’s going to take a stronger candidate than Mr. Romney has been to date.

When you examine his debate performance, the best you can say about Romney is that he hasn’t gotten into serious trouble, but he has flipped and flopped to the extent that most conservatives are looking elsewhere.  Mr. Cain’s straw poll victory on Saturday demonstrates the point:  While Romney doesn’t spend much energy on straw polls, knowing he will not win them in front of a conservative audience that constitutes the base of the party, and the overwhelming majority at straw poll events, he believes it’s better to avoid energetic participation and score poorly than to engage fully and still score a a small proportion of support.  He realizes the infinitely larger black eye that embarrassment would confer on his campaign.

What this demonstrates, perhaps more than anything, is Mr. Romney’s complete lack of courage for a fight.  He’s not even willing to make his pitch to conservatives, and that means he knows he cannot win their support except by virtue of being the only candidate remaining.  His unspectacular campaign mirrors his less-than-thrilling debate performances inasmuch as while he says nothing particularly offensive, he also fails to inspire even a tepid response.  In short, Romney’s strategy is to cruise carefully while avoiding clear debacles, and hope to survive to lead at the end, knowing that the anti-Obama sentiment prevailing among Republicans will be enough to carry him through the nomination.  That may be a suitable strategy for winning the nomination, but it’s unlikely to win the Presidency in 2012.

In Thursday night’s debate, Romney got into a battle with Perry who was busy criticizing the former Massachusetts governor’s health-care plan, and challenged him on changing between what he had said in his book and what he has been saying on the campaign trail about the plan’s possible application for the entire nation.  Romney said:

“I said no such thing”

and that “Romneycare” was merely:

“a state plan for a state.”

The problem with this statement by Romney is that he knew it to be untrue.  While in paperback, the idea that his health-care reform plan might have national application was omitted, the fact is that in his original hard-bound book, No Apology, it was clearly stated:

“We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Either Romney was lying, or he hadn’t read any but the paperback version of his book.  That puts his jab at Perry into better context:

“I actually – I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing.”

What Romney sought to imply about Perry’s book is that he hadn’t written it himself, and while that may very well be true, it calls into question if Mitt remembers writing his own.  This illustrates the problem with Romney too, because for all intents and purposes, he’s just another well-polished, glad-handing politician who is at least vaguely conservative, but to the conservative base, this speaks volumes about his lack of credibility across the board because it strongly implies a basic dishonesty in Romney’s approach and his policy positions.

This is the likely cause of Herman Cain’s runaway Florida GOP Straw Poll victory on Saturday.  In addition to the poor or at best fair performances of the two alleged front-runners in the Thursday night debate, combined with his own compelling performance, Cain suddenly looks a good deal more attractive to voters than to these two.  Better, if Cain continues to press forward, there is some chance that Romney will be forced to abandon his strategy of winning by default.

The top five in the Florida GOP Straw Poll:

  1. Cain: 37%
  2. Perry: 15%
  3. Romney: 14%
  4. Santorum: 11%
  5. Paul: 10%

This result is a testament to Cain’s strong performance in Thursday’s debate, but it also speaks volumes about the lack-luster performance of the supposed front-runners.  If Romney pursues his current course of avoiding engagement much longer, he risks falling into single digit territory particularly if there is a later entry into this race.  Perry is self-destructing, and while he does so, Romney plans to capitalize mostly by doing exactly nothing.  We Republicans should ask ourselves if that is the sort of candidate we expect to defeat Barack Obama as well as restore the nation now floundering economically under the weight of programs of the same sort Romney has himself implemented in his own state.  Perhaps this is key: When asked during the debate if he thought Obama was a socialist, he vacillated to avoid a direct answer.

With a general election on the horizon that promises a billion dollars of Obama campaign cash, we simply can’t afford another nominee who will not engage fully in this fight.  Romney may win the nomination by default, but he can’t win the general election that way, and the conservative base of the party knows it.  If he won’t speak the truth now, talking to the base of his party, will he ever?  If not, how does he intend to distinguish himself from Barack Obama?  These are the questions Mitt Romney must answer, but chances are that like most everything else, he’ll take a pass and hope to win by default.

Thinking About The Presidency

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Too Much Power?

One of the features of the 20th Century and continuing in even more grand form now is the extent to which the office of President of the United States has come to represent the country at large.  Given the development of mass media, it’s not surprising, but in truth, I’m not sure it’s been entirely healthy.  We speak of presidents as “running the country,” but none of these characters, neither the worst nor the best of them, ever really run the country, or at least, that’s not what our founders intended.  The President and the federal establishment are supposed to be as remote in our daily lives as they are from most of us in geographic terms.  The notion of the President “running the country” is illusory in most respects, and a testament to the fictions propagated by government in collusion with media that we perceive things in this way.  We shouldn’t regard our government as such a fundamental part of our daily lives, but over time, people now view the presidency in this light.  It is time that we begin the discussion about returning the government and our elected politicians to their rightful place, but the trouble lies not only with the temperament of our presidents, but also with the character of the presidency.

Our present constitution was established in part to create a stronger federal government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation.  That government was considered insufficiently weak by those who saw flaws in its ability to bind the country together in issues of taxation and expenditure, particularly with respect to a common defense.  This left the presidency, merely an instrument of Congress, in a state of impotence, incapable of responding to changing conditions, or coordinating the new nation’s defense.  This was intolerable, and there were significant problems even collecting revenues.  Provisioning for the Army was unreliable, and there was little of centralized form in the execution of law.  The United States was at this time more like a version of the present day United Nations, or European Union, in the sense that it was strictly a treaty among the separate and sovereign states, with little of their powers delegated to the confederation except as pertaining to warfare and foreign policy.  Some critics today would suggest that it had certain advantages over our existing constitution for precisely these reasons.

The anti-federalists argued that much as our Articles of Confederation had perhaps been unduly weak as a reflex against the tyranny of the British empire, in much the same way, the proposed constitution was likewise unnecessarily and even dangerously powerful as a reaction against the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.  Patrick Henry and George Mason were among the most notable critics, and there can be little doubt that he considered the new constitution to contain too many weaknesses, loopholes they thought, through which despots could arise.  The anti-federalists had three central objections:  There was no “bill of rights”; there would be a centralizing tendency; the government would take on an aristocratic character.  While the new constitution was ultimately amended to quiet critics on the matter of a bill of rights, the other two objections have come into sharper focus as it is clear that the history of the 20th Century is one of the centralizing of power, and the death of the concept of citizen legislators, resulting in a permanent political class that rules seemingly in near perpetuity.  The anti-federalists worried about the presidency created in the new constitution arrogating to itself new and terrible powers not specifically proscribed in Article II.   Some would argue with good cause that they had been correct, since at varying times throughout the course of our country, successive presidents have tended to accumulate more power than their predecessors.

This is the curious problem that now confronts us:  We must elect a President who will exercise the power of that office to slowly, wisely return such excessive power to its proper jurisdiction, either in the Congress, or within the several states, but perhaps most importantly, with the people.  Of course, this will not be done without the will and legislative commitment of Congress, but the truth is that a new President, properly inclined, will be able to change and diminish not only the role of the President, but also of the Federal Government generally.  Our nation has become too focused on and dominated by Washington DC.  This is why our federal budget has exploded out of all previous bounds. This is why we are beset by a regulatory nightmare in our small businesses, in our homes, and in almost every other facet of our lives.  We must begin the process of deconstructing the federal establishment to a degree that permits us to function as a nation again without daily reference to Presidential, Congressional or judicial whimsy.

The office of President of the United States was created to remedy an over-weak central government, but it has been so thoroughly enlarged in its power that we must elect a person with the character and temperament to practice self-restraint in the exercise of powers not explicit in the Constitution.  We need a leader who will slowly, carefully devolve as much power as is prudent back to the states and the people.  Our current economic morass is evidence of the accumulation and centralization of power in the hands of those who run our federal government, and they have become a blight upon our economic future, and indeed, our lives.  One need consider only those EPA regulators who have banned inhalers for Asthma drugs.  Some people will die because they will have been unable to afford the new inhalers, but the regulators are unelected, and frequently unaccountable, and they create new rules by which we are governed without respect to how those rules may harm us.  President sign executive order implementing what are essentially de facto law, with the stroke of a pen.  Somewhere along the course of the last two-hundred years, we have lost contact with the stern warnings the anti-federalists about the arrogation of power and the aggrandizement of the presidency, never mind the general growth of a permanent political class that no longer much cares for the will of the people, or even the constitution to which they’ve sworn to uphold.  These are also questions we must ask the GOP candidates for nomination, because we will soon lose our country if we don’t reduce the reach and scope of the U.S. Federal Government and its powers.  It’s time to tear down this leviathan, before it kills all of us.

Time To Go On Offense

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

Time to be Heard

One of the reasons that so many of my fellow Tea Party patriots and Palinistas are ready for a Sarah Palin campaign to begin it because we’ve become so tired of the smears against us.  Each time they mock Sarah Palin, those in the establishment are taking shots at us too.  Each and every time they smear Sarah Palin, they try to slip something in about those of us who support her that will tend to paint us as those people.  You know… Those people.  Yes, they mean us.  It’s true for Tea Party patriots too.  This interminable war on the Tea Party and Sarah Palin has gone on, will go on, and the establishment in DC will maintain its stance against us, either until we go away quietly, or until we displace them.

This country is ours, and for decades, ordinary Americans with extraordinary virtues have kept this country afloat while the party of DC keeps crashing the ship of state into the largest icebergs it can find.  I don’t know about you, but for once in more than three decades, I’m ready to finally fight them.  Rather than endlessly defending ourselves, our principles and our leaders against smears meant only to debase, dismiss, and disable, I think it’s time that we went on offense.

You and I are of a different character than the establishment. Most of us still hold to the notion that we should live virtuous lives, not in expectation of any reward from without, but for all the rewards provided within.  That’s quite different from the entirely mercenary view the establishment has of the world, where everything is for sale and anybody may be purchased so long as they maintain a steady stream of our money flowing.  The Tea Party grew out of a recognition by some among us of the situation with the establishment.  The party of  DC issues orders, while we comply, without reference to the costs to us, the pain to the nation, or the endlessly disastrous results that their orders have never failed to beget.  In considering all of this, however, we cannot become like them in part because it’s not in our nature, but also because we know that’s not who we wish to be.  For us to prevail, our form of offense must take on a different shape than that of the establishment.   We don’t share the moral ground they occupy, and frankly, we don’t want to slide into the gutter with them.

So what are we to do?  How do we oppose them? How do we even begin to combat their narrative?  It starts here, on the Internet. It starts with letters to the editor, on-line and snail-mail.  It begins with phone-calls to talk-shows.  At every opportunity to question the establishment, we must do so.  We must begin to take the battle to them.  We must show up at their town hall meetings. We must send them faxes.  We must do all of the things that will show them we are here for the battle, we’re of no mind to surrender or retreat, and we intend to advance, around, through and over the objections of the DC establishment on the way to victory.

It’s not as though we don’t know how to do this.  Some of you have been doing so all along.  You Tea Party patriots ought to know all about this, because in truth, from the moment Joe the Plumber asked Obama that question, and Obama  was exposed as an unrepentant socialist, you have known how to win.  Ryan Rhodes of Iowa Tea Party fame asked a simple question.  The DC establishment wilts in the light of truth, and we don’t need to join them in the sewer to expose what they’ve done, what they are doing now, or what they intend.  It only requires that we stand up, for our values, for our standards, and for our rights.  They will accost us with taunts and smears and lies, but we should ignore the worst filth, and respond on issues, policies, and reality.

Tell the truth. Confront any lie with the truth.  Ask questions that expose the truth by leaving the liar to pose another lie in response.  When somebody like Karl Rove says “Well, it’s getting late, but I still think there’s time for [some establishment candidate] to get into this race,” you should deluge the media outlet in question, and Rove, and anybody around him with “Didn’t you say it was too late for Sarah Palin if she didn’t get in on the 3rd of September?” It’s something we ought to recognize:  Questioning their own pronouncements exposes their nonsensical narratives and themes cause them intense pain, not because of guilt, since they feel no shame, but because of their exposure.

Another thing that tends to happen is that we give the lamestream media a pass.  We’re so accustomed to their unethical journalism that we mostly accept it in frustration and out of a sense of futility.  Why?  I’m a blogger.  Some of you are too.  Many of you are active in social media and in political fora, and in your workplaces and your families and in your congregations.  Some of you take your local papers or listen to local radio shows, but as frustrating as these outlets can be, what is a little frustration in the face of all that now confronts us?  Even as we happily read the Miami Herald story about the poll posted on Drudge and elsewhere Tuesday night, did you notice the opening slam on Palin built into the story:

WASHINGTON — Look out President Barack Obama. Even Sarah Palin’s gaining on you.

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds…

I placed it in bold. What you see here is another example of bias.  “Even Sarah Palin?”  Even I  can see this is an example of biased journalism from Mr. Thomma, who wrote this article.  This is the sort of thing we’ve become accustomed to fighting all the time.  It’s now an assumption that even in positive news about Sarah Palin, there’s always going to be some way in which it is tilted against her, we who support her, or the Tea Party. Most of us are exhausted with having to defend against the more subtle smears, never mind the more obvious examples.  What we must do is challenge these outlets, not simply on the subject of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and such smears as they heap upon us, but in every story.  You will be hard-pressed to find an example of journalism that doesn’t involve some form of this kind of smear.  More, we need to challenge the baseline narrative of the media that suggests we’re a fringe, tiny minority.  They all know this isn’t true, but they like to pretend it is.  Let’s make some noise, and they won’t be quite so able to conceal the truth any longer.

Like you, I feel the frustrations of watching the establishment smear us, mock us, and otherwise defame us.  Make no mistake about it: Every one of their miserable attacks is designed to demoralize you.  They attack the things you cherish, the people you love, and the concepts of virtue by which you have lived your life.  As it turns out, as I finished this article, I looked and found this article by Nicole Coulter on Conservatives4Palin.  Much as I suspected, it seems I’m not alone in my thinking.  Let’s engage the battle as we know we must, in all the ways that  we can.  Everything about this is worth our efforts, and we shouldn’t wait when we already know what needs to be done.  The best part is that we don’t need to become purveyors of filth or senseless attacks because the facts are on our side.  Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to go on offense.

New Poll: Palin Within 5 Points of Obama

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Hmmm... Palin Moves Up, Will Obama Move Out?

Credit to Ian Lazaran at Conservatives4Palin for digging up this story.

From the original article:

“After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.”

Notice what the Herald points out as the key reason.  That’s right, among the critical independents, the ones whose votes you’ve been told she’s “too conservative” to win, she’s now leading.  Let’s simply extrapolate the obvious.  This far out from a general election, and no Republican is polling better against Obama than Sarah Palin.

When you listen to the LameStream Media, remember this.  They’ve known this would be the case all along, which is why they continue their assault on her.  Be of good cheer, my friends, and keep up the hard work!

My Birthday Wish

Thursday, September 15th, 2011

The Promising Texas Sky

Tomorrow, the cake I won’t have should have had nearly fifty candles, but I’ll be happy if I get my birthday wish despite the absence of the smell of burning too much wax.  I’m not fussy, and each year, when my wife and daughter ask me what I’d like for my birthday, I generally say something like “nothing” or “another year,” because I don’t expect to be celebrated or rewarded for having survived another year.  This year may be a bit different.  I have the privilege of being born the 16th day of September.  For those of you who are unaware, Constitution Day is the 17th of September, but this is one of those rare years when the 17th falls on Saturday, causing us to mark the occasion officially on the Friday before, which is tomorrow, the 16th, and my birthday.

Many have already asked me what my birthday wish would be, if I were to make one, but I always remind people that according to the legend attending the idea of birthday wishes, to state it would be to negate it.  In truth, I’m not a superstitious fellow, so I suppose I can share with you a few thoughts on the matter.

The US Constitution is the most exquisite piece of legal artwork in the history of man.  It’s a document that outlines the foundation of a country the likes of which the world had never seen.  It is a precious thing, full of the best hopes and intentions of men who struggled long over the notion of what sort of relationship government ought have to the people it was constituted to serve.  What the US Constitution really codifies is a set of ideals for the governance of a free people who will find the least possible obstruction from the bonds of an aggressive state.  It is also precious because within its text lies the legal and political methodology that defines how it may be changed.  This is the feature to which early American historians pointed in describing the Constitution as a “living document.”  There are effectively two ways to change it , being the amendment and convention processes.  This sets our republic apart from all the ones that came before it, and most of those that have have been birthed since, because there in its own text lies the only legitimate method by which to change our fundamental laws.

Before our constitution, there were kings and tyrants and despots.  Even the earliest republics suffered from flaws, and the inability to modify them to suit the survival of their nations ultimately spelled their doom.  Ours was the most thoroughly studied and contemplated document of its kind, and it stands still, though frayed around the edges, as evidence of the good people can do when motivated by shared values and ideals, even where there are some differences among them.  It was not perfect, but over time, we have shored up its shortfalls, corrected its wrongs, and improved it in most ways.

One hundred or so years ago, we began the national process of self-destruction.  Increasingly, we ignored our Constitution and began to ruin its purpose and meaning.  It’s a matter of national shame that something so precious could be slowly wrecked and pillaged along with the freedoms it once represented, but such is our predicament now that government often rules without any respect or reference to it.

Of all the things I wish, not for a mere birthday, but for the sake of all I love, is to see the day when the US Constitution is restored to its proper place of supremacy, and that those who render interpretations of it are of a character to understand its original meaning and value.  This will be no small undertaking, and it will take leaders throughout government, at the federal, state and local levels to see this done.  They will need to have the support and prodding of an insistent people who will no longer settle for the proposition that freedom is obsolete, or independence is outdated.

At present, there is only one political party that fosters and nurtures such leaders, and it is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Instead, it is an informal association of constitutionalists and patriots who we now call the Tea Party.  The Tea Party is an outgrowth of the mainstream of America, and not the right-wing radicals media has portrayed them to be.  They’re more centrist in the sense that they don’t care so much about parties, more independent in that they don’t feel undue loyalty to the parties, but strong in their belief that the Constitution provides the basis for a civil society in which all can strive in freedom for prosperity.

This group has no official leaders in the sense of traditional parties, and they tend to cleave to no elected officials in particular, willing to discard or adopt them as the politicians’ actions warrant.  You might think of it as a performance-based policy uncommon in an environment where the party faithful dominate the political landscape, no longer sure why they support a candidate, and no longer able to demonstrate their preferred politicians’ adherence to any principles.

As it turns out, this is also a fair portion of the Republicans’ conservative base.  That’s significant, because while not large enough on their own to rule the country, they are large enough to control or at least strongly influence one party.  If they are faithful to their ideals, they can do more to drive the agenda than any party in recent history because of their centrist, independent strain that respects first the constitution before party or politician.  It is here that their secret power lies, because these are the people who have constituted the “silent majority” who had remained mostly quiet as the two parties dominating the country ran the Constitution into the ground, and with it, its law, its economy, and its people.

While they don’t look to any one leader, and there is a wide diversity of opinion among them, they’ve noticed that the politician they support most, because she has always supported them, is one of their number.  She rose to her status by being a grass-roots, common-sense conservative.   This appeals to the Tea Party, and her willingness to state their case to a media that chases her while ignoring them is something that makes her precious too.  She has become their voice, in the main, whether she intended it or not, and it is true that they respond to her in full understanding that she is not perfect, but she is the most suitable to the mission they see ahead.  She’s done more to upset the apple-cart of out-of-control and corrupt government and its cronies than the combination of politicians in the remaining forty-nine states. In that sense, Sarah Palin has been the greatest advocate for the restoration of the US Constitution of any politician in more than a generation.  The Tea Party sees it, and knows it.  So do many conservatives in the Republican party.  So also do many unaffiliated Independents and not a few Democrats.  This makes her something much, much different.  She is the woman for her time.

Never before in our history have we seen such a confluence of events that threatens the very existence of our republic, and we now have a body politic largely composed of crooks and liars, some of them committed on principle to the destruction of the republic that had been founded, and still more committed unto death not to notice. When an American who understands how broken things really have become notices, and worse, speaks out, he or she is labeled a “terrorist.”  That is what our government has slowly become.  Sarah Palin threatens to overturn all of that.  The Tea Party is in the unique position to lead, and this may be their moment, perhaps their last chance for a generation if not longer.

There were two things on my list that I wanted desperately for my birthday.  One has arrived in the form of a merciful rain, soft and not fully satisfying the dread conditions we’ve faced here on the parched Texas prairie, but the promise to sustain us until more may arrive.  The danger of fire will not be gone, but it will reduce it some for a few days or a week if milder temperatures persist even a little.  Having gotten this birthday wish a day early, I at once feel greedy to state another, though in truth, the rains came a day early, freeing up my wish to a sole purpose.

I will not speak it here, or name it, out of a respect for the legend, but I think at long last you know it, and if it is granted on Constitution Day, I will revel in it and work tirelessly to fulfill its meaning and value.  Maybe I will get my birthday wish, and maybe I won’t, but if I do, there’s a pretty fair chance you will know it.

Why Timing Wins Races

Thursday, September 15th, 2011

She Knows Racing

Having been a fan of NASCAR for decades, I’ve noticed what some others may have realized about Sarah Palin, and the importance of timing in official entry into the race for the nomination.  Sarah Palin’s been in the race, whether anybody realized it or not, since November 5th, 2008. Her position as McCain’s running mate and the very positive influence she had on the race meant that the party’s base would look to her for leadership in that position unless she openly demurred.  After stepping aside from her office in July 2009, Governor Palin began to carry the burgeoning Tea Party’s banner.  The Tea Party was born as a reply to Obama’s over-reaching, and Palin’s relation to it merely accentuates the point: She’s exactly the right candidate for America, but to win, she’ll need to consider timing like a NASCAR veteran. It looks as though she has.

Have you ever watched a NASCAR race at a super-speedway like the tracks at Daytona or Talledega?  These races really come down to a good deal of tactical thinking in the last few laps.  First, you must survive the first 490 miles or more to be present for the finish.  Through much of the early portions of these races, you will notice generally fewer cautions as drivers are usually very patient.  They don’t wish to cause pile-ups early on, or worse, become involved in one, and at speeds exceeding 200 mph at times, it’s really not difficult to upset the carefully balanced racing machines.  It’s a test of driver, pit-crew, and machine, but more importantly, the mind.  These high-speed tracks are for strategic thinkers.  Early, you simply must stay out of harms way, conserving your equipment and fuel, while not permitting yourself to fall too far out of the running.  Drivers are generally conservative in the early and middle stages of the race if they hope to be around for the finish.

As the laps near the end of the race approach, drivers begin to make much more risky moves.  They’re less apt to wait patiently in line, and a specific tactical positioning becomes all-important.  If you’re not familiar with NASCAR, or the peculiarities of the super-speedways, generally considered to be the tracks of two miles or greater in some sort of oval configuration, you may not understand why it’s so very important that drivers ride along in line for most of the race.  In racing at the high speeds attained at these larger tracks, there is a phenomenon known as “drafting,” whereby two cars nose-to-tail can together go much faster than one car by itself.  This is because at those high speeds, one of the biggest limiting factors to going even faster is the resistance of drag from the air the car must punch through in order to go around the track. By lining up tightly, two cars still have the mass of two cars, and the power of two cars, but only the drag of 1-3/4s(approximate.)  This means that the two cars together can push to slightly higher speeds, perhaps 5-8% more, but in the vicinity of 200 mph, that’s not insubstantial.

If you watch one of these races, you’ll quickly realize that they become most exciting in the last ten or fewer laps. At that point, pairs of cars will split off in order to press for the lead, but a car left hung out without a drafting partner is in big trouble.  Worse, if two cars get a short distance out front, and get out of line too soon to battle for the lead, what often happens is that those who have remained behind are able to quickly catch up, because while two cars in line may have the drag of 1-3/4 cars, two battling side-by-side have the drag of nearly three cars because the air compressed between them can’t flow off of their front ends smoothly.  In this scenario, those staying in line in 3rd, 4th, and 5th place quickly catch up the front-runners and usually overtake them because they became too greedy, too soon.  Think of it as NASCAR’s version of “peaking early.”

The most thoroughly crafty drivers are those who put themselves in the position to be near the front at the end, in order to take advantage of another phenomenon called the “sling-shot.”  This consists of using the draft of a partner in front of you to actually gain more speed than the car in front.  If you’ve ever passed a large tractor-trailer on the highway at speed, you may have experienced something similar as you found your car being pulled toward the areas of low pressure immediately behind the truck or inside the wake it cuts through the air. This can accelerate you toward the truck, and in a similar way, a skilled driver can use the drafting partner in front of him to gain speed.  What the “sling-shot” requires is using this phenomenon in tandem with a wide sweeping break away from the stream, and frequently, a drafting partner or two will fall in behind. The key to carrying this out is timing.  If you do it too soon, you’ll have the same thing done to you.  If you wait too long, you won’t have the space to get it done, and because you’re not out front, it will be easier to get caught in another driver’s wreck.  Timed correctly, this maneuver yields the best chance for success, and in race after race, the people who led most of the way are eclipsed by this maneuver within seconds of the finish.  You might wonder why the driver in fourth would go along with the driver in third, and the driver in fifth would go with them.  The answer is that in choosing to do so, you increase your chance to finish higher, in this scenario finishing first, second, and third, rather than third, fourth, and fifth.

You may ask how this could apply to Sarah Palin.  Simply put, despite not being officially in the race, only Palin is in double digits other than the two alleged front-runners.  That’s right.  She’s sitting in third, and the front-runners have begun to battle side-by-side.  In two consecutive debates, Perry and Romney have been hammering one another, and it’s beginning to take its toll.  The two are beginning to induce a great deal of drag for their efforts, and the rest of the field will begin to catch up.  All that is now required is the momentum of a sling-shot maneuver, and only one person is really positioned to carry it out, but timing will be critical.

What does a NASCAR fan in Texas know about the competition that would apply to politics?  I can tell you without flinching that just as the race of 500 miles frequently comes down to the maneuvers executed within sight of the finish, so it is also true that a presidential primary can come down to those last weeks before state ballots begin to close to new entries.  As we turn and burn toward that date, the front-runners are now all the more conscious of their rear-view mirrors.  They can see the lady from the north bearing down on them with steely resolve, and she may well have drafting partners, but if she can gain enough momentum, and time it correctly, she won’t really need them. There’s still a lot of track ahead, but the front-runners know she’s back there, and much like her comments Monday night about Perry, she occasionally gives them a little bump to remind them she’s back there.  The closer to the end we get, the more tempting the side-by-side battle between the two leading egos will become, and then, when they will have thought themselves safely ahead, and beyond her reach, the crowd will start roaring “Run Sarah, Run” and the real race for the nomination will begin in earnest, as with a momentum her competitors hadn’t thought possible, she suddenly roars up to fill their mirrors.  She drops down to the inside in turn four with the field following her, and suddenly the two-car race has come down to three, but she has the momentum…

As they come to the line, the crowd thunders: “Game on!”