Posts Tagged ‘RINO’

Small “r” republicanism v. Big “R” Republicans

Saturday, July 6th, 2013

Which are You?

I’m a conservative, and I’m also a “republican,” but I am the latter only in the sense of a lower-case “r.”  I believe in the republican form of government promised in Article IV, section 4, of the US Constitution.  Many Republicans (members of the political party) seem to be confused about what this means, and I suppose it is only fair to make them aware of the distinctions between the things many current Republicans now advocate that violate the platform and the principles of republicanism that their party claims to uphold.  Those who become confused about what it means to be a RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) need only consider the small “r” form of the word.  It’s easy to fill out a voter registration card and check the box beside the word “Republican,” but it’s another matter entirely to know what is republicanism.  As we debate issues of critical import to the future of the nation, it’s more important than ever that conservatives know what it is they are fighting, and what form it takes.  The outcome of 2014 and 2016 will set the course of the nation for generations, and we must win it.  This is the heart of the battle between the so-called RINOs and we constitutional conservatives, and it will determine our nation’s future.

One of the concepts that has long been associated with republicanism is that we hold in disdain the notion of a “ruling class,” a presumptively superior elite who by virtue of some unknown mechanism somehow know better than the rest of us with respect to how we ought to be governed.  Indeed, when our republic was established, it was with the experience of a people who had freed themselves from the bonds of a King, who claimed his right to rule over us by virtue of his station of birth.  I do not doubt that some people are superior to others in some particular way, but nearly everybody can claim some attribute in which they are superior to most others.  Some of that is a result of education, experience and training, while some of it results from pure genetic gifts.  There is no gene, however, that entitles one man to rule over others.  There exists no family lineage in America that can rightly claim to exercise a disproportionate power over the affairs of nations and men.  We do not have kings, and while there were a few in early America who advocated for a monarchy, the broad body of the American people rejected the idea as an apostasy aimed at thwarting the very revolution in which they had only so recently succeeded.

The only thing I hold in greater contempt than the man (or woman) who would claim the right to rule over me by virtue of family lineage or family station(a.k.a. “nobility”) is the  poor, twisted soul who would consent to such a proposition.  I am no person’s chattel, and I abhor any human being who claims membership in this species who would surrender themselves as having been of no greater significance than a possession of “better” men.  Those lacking the essential self-esteem to realize that they are by right the sovereigns over their own affairs, equal to any other on the planet, ought to immediately depart these shores to seek refuge in some Kingdom as a serf.  In this sense, it is fair to say that I not only reject a supposed “ruling class,” but also that I likewise hold in contempt the corollary premise of a “ruled class.”  Part of the republican ideal is that classes are a subjectively-defined fraud perpetrated against a people who ought not to be willing to accept it.  Why is it that so many Republicans prefer to think of Americans in a class system little different from their alleged ideological opponents, the statists?  The answer is that too many Republicans are statists themselves, having rejected the fundamentals of republicanism.

By what strange and mystical knowledge do the brothers Bush claim to have the better answer on the subject of immigration, both now pushing the Gang-ofTr8ors Bill?  Why do so many Republicans accept their claim in the unthinking form of a command received from on high?  It  is because too many Republicans have either surrendered or rejected the republican principles under whose banner they march.   If you listen closely enough, you can hear in their intentionally vague language the lost concepts that they will not name, never having believed in them from the outset.  Although a few are now catching themselves in pursuit of the betterment of their propagandists’ art, you will invariably hear them speak of democracy as the goal and the object of their advocacy.  This is not merely loose wording, but a true reflection of the form of government they seek, a form so terrible that our founders placed a stricture against it in the US constitution in the form of an endorsement of republican government.

A democracy is not a form of government most rational people would want, except that they have been taught that it is the desired form.  To hear a President say that he wishes to spread democracy to the Middle East is an arrow through the heart of republicanism.  We have seen what democracy creates in the Middle East and throughout the Arab-speaking world.  Pakistan is a democracy.  Egypt is now a democracy.  Libya is now a putative democracy. Iraq now is a sort of hybrid democracy, but in each of them, what you will observe is how the whole course of the nation is changed by political instabilities, and that the rule of law acts as no restraint upon political leaders in working their will.  Barack Obama is intent on turning the US into a democracy, because democracy is always the precursor to despotism.  Most of the worst thugs of the twentieth century came to power on a wave of popular support that defines the democratic model:  He(or she) with the biggest mob wins.  Even now, in Cairo, when the military perceived that President Morsi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge,) no longer held sway over the largest mob, they placed him under house arrest and offered an interim president who will enjoy for at least a time some popular support.  Throughout the third world, it is fair to say that most countries have adopted some form of governance that lurches repeatedly and often from some sort of feigned democracy to absolute despotism.

A republican form of government is much more stable, and it has been the underlying root of our general prosperity for some two-hundred-twenty years, with a few notable exceptions, in largest measure because nearly all of the occupants of the land had accepted the orderly rule of law and the specific, constitutional methodology by which laws are to be adopted, modified, or repealed.  Having a set of rules that is inflexible, particularly with respect to changing those rules, and obtaining the consent of those who must live under them for a span of two centuries is an extraordinary feat in human history.  The dire flaw in all of this is that from the moment of its adoption, people begin to conspire to overthrow it in one fashion or another, by finding loopholes, imagining a “flexibility” that does not exist, inciting rebellion against it, or seizing power over it with which to subsequently ignore the mandates of the law.

In American history, we have seen all of these methods employed, indeed, some of them are being employed even now, as our President conspires with his cabinet to ignore the rule of law, ignoring the plain language of the law as often and as thoroughly as they believe they can manage in a particular political context.  What good is a law that those who are charged with enforcing it refuse to rise to carry it into execution?  When the public officials whose job it is to see to it that subordinate officials execute the law refuse to discipline those who will not obey, always claiming as an excuse some alleged greater “public good,” what you are witnessing is the reduction of a republic to the state of a pre-despotic democracy.

Many Americans who are demonstrably ignorant of the world’s history of governance believe that our Electoral College is anti-democratic, and on this basis, advocate its repeal, demanding instead to rely upon a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.  While they are correct that the Electoral College is undemocratic, their ignorance is born of an educational system that has misled them to expect majoritarian rule in all cases as the preferred model.  Naturally, that same system has failed to teach them about federalism, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the whole construct that is a constitutional, representative republic, being the precise form of government the framers of the US constitution did adopt and ratify .

Informing them of this distinction, many are still suspicious of it, because it sounds strange and foreign to them, most under the age of forty having never been taught a syllable about it in the government schools.  Even in the school from which I graduated a long, long time ago, the senior-year civics class was entitled “Problems of Democracy.” Had I been a more thoroughly-engaged student, I might have questioned it then, but like virtually all of my peers, I did as I was told, never considering a word of it.  It would take years of study to unlock the knowledge of which I had been cheated, and at first, I resisted it.  How could all of this be true?  How could America not be a “democracy?”  How could democracy be a bad thing?  This is where many Americans get hopelessly stuck, because we’ve adopted the flexible language of lunatics, where we interchange words with the imprecise vulgarity of schoolyard bullies.  “The difference between a democracy and a republic won’t matter to you so much after I beat your face.”

The truth about democracy is what has always been its fatal flaw, perhaps best described by a phrase often mistakenly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but possessed of perfectly sanguine execution, irrespective of its source:

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what will be for lunch.”

Indeed, in a true democracy, there can be no protections of any minority but by violence.  This was the great object the framers of our constitution had hoped to impede.  They knew that majoritarian rule is no form of government for a peaceable, civil society, and that such governments are always ripe for manipulation by unscrupulous and demagogic usurpers.  The whole purpose of all their checks and balances had been to obstruct to the degree humanly possible the sort of instability made easier by democratic rule.  Their constitution set at odds every branch of government, and even divisions within branches, like the House and Senate.  It relied upon a competing fight for sovereign power between the several states and the federal government, all at odds in most cases, except when the most pressing of public crises may discipline them to more affable cooperation.  This was their plan, and their intention, and they hoped that in little-modified form, it could survive some severe tests that they knew would come, as they must for all nations.

With the onset of the progressive era in the early twentieth century, there was a move toward greater “democratization,” that brought with it a string of constitutional amendments, causing a great unwinding of our nation.  The 16th, creating an authority to tax income (and the legal establishment of a class system;) the 17th, changing the manner of election of US Senators; the 18th, instituting prohibition; the 19th finally giving women the right to full political participation all came in this era, with only one of them(the 19th) having been justifiable among civilized people, and one of them(the 18th) creating such terror that it was ultimately repealed by the 21st amendment.  Progressive Republicans of that era helped to install these amendments, and none of them did more damage to the system of checks and balances the framers had invented than the 17th amendment.  It effectively muted the voices of the states as sovereigns in the federal system. It did so by causing Senators to be popularly elected in their respective states, shutting out the state governments as a confounding, obstructive influence on the growth of centralized government.

Our republican form of government was constructed to sub-divide government into so many competing segments and interests that it would be nearly impossible for any one interest to gain supremacy.  It succeeded in many ways so long as politicians held onto the general republican ideals, for more than a century generally held by members of both parties. (It is instructive to remember that the forebears of the modern Democrat Party called themselves “Democratic Republicans” for many years before dropping the second half of their name with the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson.)  It is therefore no surprise that a Democrat party would become the party of the slave-holding South, or that the Republicans would supplant the Whigs by championing the rights of an enslaved minority.  Words, including even party labels, meant something distinct in those days.

In the progressive era, mostly for the sake of political expediency, there were a number of Republicans who began to adopt more democratic notions of governance, including the predisposition of their Democrat brethren to an elitist view of a class system not only in the general populace, but also among political offices and those who occupied them.  The influences of corporations grew, as did the corrupting influence of gangsters during prohibition.  From that era arose an establishment of Republicans who were nothing of the sort, and with few exceptions, have managed to maintain a fairly strong control over that party, most often as the minority party.  Viewed in this fashion, it could be said rightly that the Republican Party has been charged with managing the real republicans into submission.

Who are the real advocates of republicanism in the Republican Party?  Nowadays, we call them “conservatives,” although they are actually the philosophical heirs to the classical liberals of the late eighteenth century, by and large.  “Conservative” is approximately opposite of “liberal” or “progressive” in popular connotation, and since the Democrats had successfully co-opted the term “liberal,” despite being nothing of the sort, they managed to carry off a vast fraud on the American people using a sort of primitive branding that set conservatives against the liberal Democrats and the progressive Republicans.  It has been in this approximate form ever since, with the Republicans adopting “moderate” from time to time as a way to escape linkage with the frightful failures of the progressive era.

Now come we full circle to the moment that is both the beginning and the end.  The Bush clan seems to have some special public sense of duty to rule over the country, as evinced by the fact that despite having had two members of their clan accumulate two solid decades of first influence and then dominance over the Republican Party, they are far from finished. Their ideas are as progressive as any Democrat you will ever meet, the singular difference being that they seem to temper the left’s radical secularism with public professions of faith in the Almighty.  Put in plainer language, they are approximately ecumenical communists, and their particular subset of the broad statist philosophy is known as communitarianism. Whatever did you think is “compassionate conservatism?”

They don’t believe in the supremacy of the individual over the interests of the community.  Most conservatives are almost precisely opposite in philosophical leanings to the communitarian front, being Christian individualists in the main.  While they certainly work in their communities and contribute to them greatly, they believe in an individualized form of salvation, and an individual responsibility in obtaining it.  The communitarians conceive instead a form of “collective salvation.” If that term sounds vaguely familiar to you, it is because your current president has used it too.  In this sense, it is fair to say that from Bush the elder, to Barack Obama, we have been on a nonstop course of communitarianism since 1989.  They do not believe in the small “r” republicanism of our founders, and they certainly do not believe in the containment of the state, the only discernible difference being their apparent relative positions on the scale between religious and secular intent.

To demolish the United States will require demolishing its distinct culture, any sort of nationalistic sentiment among its people, and the broadening of the definitions of citizenship and nationhood.  Did you think the Senate’s amnesty bill was just about cheap labor?  It is about deconstructing the United States as a sovereign entity responsive to the interests of its inhabitants.  Now that brothers George W. and Jeb Bush are openly pushing for the Senate bill in the House, or indeed any bill at all that can be a vehicle for the Senate bill in conference, one should be able to discern quite clearly that more is at stake in the matter than cheap labor for some construction contractors.

For those of you who now wonder how any of this pertains to small “r” republicanism, it is so simple as this: Very few of your elected leaders or even your supposed “conservative” spokesmen are interested in the sort of republicanism your founders brought out of deliberations from a sweltering Philadelphia convention.  If you wish to discern who are Republicans of the “RINO” construct and who are actual republicans, you need only key on their records of adherence to lowercase “r” republican principles, including primarily their previous adherence to the US constitution and its framers’ intent. Flowery words don’t matter.  Professions of faith aren’t enough. Look at their records.  Look at their ideas and the principles upon which they rely.  If you are constitutional conservatives, you must in the name of all you cherish perfect the ability to recognize the charlatans at a mile’s distance.  In Washington DC, and in states’ capitals, Republicans are legion, while actual republicans are few, and it’s a ratio we must reverse.

McCain Busts a Spring on Senate Floor

Friday, June 21st, 2013

This morning, Senator John McCain(RINO-AZ) made an impassioned speech on behalf of the Amnesty bill.  Senator McCain is catching Hell as you continue to hammer him and his “gang-of-eight” cohorts.  He still wants this bill in the worst way, but this clip is evidence of the effect you’re having:

Sorry Johnny, we want our country.  There won’t be any amnesty for you, either…

 

 

Mr. L: You May Be a Condescending, Arrogant, Elitist, Neo-Liberal, Mini-Dem Putz if…

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

As usual, Mr. L is on point.  He takes on the same moderate Republican whiner I took on here.  It’s ridiculous to think that guys like James Arlandson comprise any more than a tiny fraction of Republican thought, but somehow, they always manage to get the press.  Always.  Meanwhile, as Mr. L rightly points out, the RINO, Mini-Dem, Neo-Liberal front continues to pretend it’s our place to submit.  Endlessly.  Check out Mr. L’s rebuttal to James Arlandson below.  Be sure to let him know what you think over on his website. Here’s the video:

The Rise of the Mini-Dems

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Miniature Look-Alike

In the ruinous ashes of Republican defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, a number of Republicans have popped-up in media to dutifully serve the narrative that the election had been the fault of conservatives.  Not only is this preposterous conclusion untrue, but also a proxy for any actual examination of why Republicans lost in 2012.  One of the favored approaches of these critics is to suggest that if conservatives wouldn’t be, well… so darned conservative, there’s some chance Republicans could have won.  One writer has even fashioned a new term to apply to staunch conservatives, but it’s not hard to notice that by the connotations of his term, he doesn’t mean to win them over.  James Arlandson, writing in the American Thinker, has coined a new term for most of you and I, and I don’t believe he intends flattery, although the combative part of me likes the label even if inaccurate.  He suggests we “might be Hyper-conservatives if…” and in the form of Jeff Foxworthy, goes on to list a number of conditions he believes characterizes the class.  Myself, I’ve devised a different label for folks like Arlandson because I believe it captures the essence and spirit of their fundamental philosophical frailties, to the extent they adhere to any ideology at all. These philosophically smallish Republicans would honestly make better “Mini-Dems.”

Arlandson’s approach to the matter is straightforward, if a bit muddled.  He alleges that there are certain aspects of some in the conservative wing of the general Republican universe that must disqualify their opinions because he believes certain positions are beyond the pale.  He lists a number of these conditions, and right off the top, he asserts a falsehood without substantiation. What makes it interesting is his use of a term to describe those who vote libertarian.  We’ve heard this term before, and it’s another I’m not afraid to wear. Arlandson says those who wish to eliminate too much government too quickly(while bothering to define neither scale) are “too severe.”  The only other person I know who in recent memory used that term to describe conservatism was Mitt Romney, describing himself, for Pete’s sake.

He then insists that we might be hyper-conservatives if we cry “third party” every time we don’t get our way.  Actually, I haven’t cried “third party” every time, but only when the party completely undercuts its purported principles for the sake of political expediency, an approach Mr. Arlandson would seem to approve.  The fact that these betrayals are happening with increasing regularity plays no role in his formulation.  His claim is that “grownup conservatives” (ostensibly such as he) “must be willing to suck it up and fight harder for the (imperfect) brand that has the best chance of winning — R.”  Let us imagine we take his advice.  The imperfect brand with the best chance of winning actually won, with the other imperfect brand following his advice.   Hint to Mr. Arlandson: That’s a “D” – Not an “R.”

He argues that we might be hyper-conservatives if… “[We] refuse to work with Dems(even after [we] lose an election.)”  Exactly what work would Mr. Arlandson suggest we take up with the Dems?  Shall we help them ban semi-automatic firearms?  Shall we work with them to more rapidly bankrupt the country(an object Republicans in DC have apparently taken up?)  Shall we stand by and watch the Democrats rape, pillage and burn, or does the mere suggestion of the truth of the situation brand me irrevocably as a “hyper-conservative?” I know one he intends, but he gets to that in a separate line-item, and so shall we.

Let’s apply his faulty strategy to any other human endeavor in which one side wins and the other sides loses.  In war, should we now work with al-Qaeda, since its apparent that despite more than a decade of conflict, our current administration seems committed to failure?  Too late, the President Arlandson suggests we’re no longer to substantially oppose has already done that.  Even in sport, is a beaten football team supposed to work with its rival?  Should a defeated boxer pummel himself in order to work with his opponent? I’m trying to understand the mentality that permits one to believe any of that is possible without simply joining the other team, but I think Mr. Arlandson is fairly-well ahead of me on that score.  This serves as the unmistakable clarion call of an approaching Mini-Dem.

He argues that if we fantasize about shredding or scrapping the school lunch program, we might be hyper-conservatives.  I suppose that cinches the matter, and I should confess, because if this is the standard, I am guilty as charged, and this issue must serve as my hyper-conservative bona fides.  I would also suggest that this is the sort of issue where the Mini-Dem is likewise exposed.  You see, I may be hyper-conservative, but I also know that the ultimate aim of any such program must be the intent to become obsolete by virtue of a growing prosperity, a quantity and quality that will remain out of our reach so long as we continue to fund dependency.  While Arlandson likes to wave Ronald Reagan around with zest, here he instead peddles “compassionate conservatism,” a theory that when turned to practice actually demonstrates neither.  As he decries those of us who would cut government programs “like drunken lumberjacks,” I’m looking around for some whiskey, and where did that blue ox run off to?  It seems Mr. Arlandson has forgotten that Reagan maxim that we should measure compassion not by how many are on government programs, but instead by how many no longer need them.

Naturally, it didn’t take long for him to get around to the discussion of immigration.  After all, it’s a good opportunity to work with Democrats who will be the primary beneficiaries of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.”  Those who want illegals deported are apparently some sort of back-woods rednecks right out of the script of The Deliverance, at least where Arlandson is concerned.  Says he:

“Honestly, I would self-deport from your America if she were ever made in your image. The DNC is gleeful.”

Honestly, I too would be gleeful at the prospect of your self-deportation, Mr. Arlandson.  He offers us sage counsel, as if we’re too stupid to know it, or too lacking in compassion to care, chiding us:

“Immigrants, even illegal ones, are humans.  Never forget that.”

If there’s one thing a hyper-conservative hates, it’s to be the object of condescension by a Mini-Dem, and here, Mr. Arlandson goes too far.  My wife happens to be an immigrant.  I know everything I need to know about the issue, and I am well aware of the hurdles, the obstacles, and the myriad difficulties, but guess what?  None of that stopped me or my wife from observing the law. Put another way Mr. Arlandson, stuff it. How’s that for hyper-conservatism?

He apparently supports the made-up holiday Kwanzaa.  Why should I care?  In his view, admitting the entirely contrived nature of the holiday is to express some part of that quality that Colin Powell would term “a dark vein of intolerance.”  I suppose he needs to take this complaint up with Ann Coulter who famously dislikes the holiday, if she’s not too busy tying Chris Christie’s shoes. This is one more glaring reason that our country should never be entrusted to Mini-Dems, any more than it should be left to the mercy of the full-size imbeciles.  They’ll accept any absurdity in order to appease others, particularly if those others comprise a significant voting bloc that Republicans will never likely capture.

He says hyper-conservatives get side-tracked too easily by hobbyhorses. Like berating conservatives critical of Kwanzaa?  One example he offers is the desire among many conservatives and libertarians to eliminate the Federal Reserve.  He dismisses the notion with a thoughtful and retrospective view of the history and function of the Federal Reserve by simply saying:

“Ain’t gonna happen.”

That’s a nifty assertion, but let me offer a different view to Mr. Arlandson, although he may well reject it as the product of hyper-conservatism:  Nothing made by men lasts forever, so that whether it happens as a result of a seemingly inevitable monetary collapse birthed by that very institution, or instead because the United States of America ceases to exist as a political subdivision on this Earth, it most certainly will happen at some point whether you like it or not.  The question is not “if the Fed will die,” but instead “when,” and perhaps also “how.”  I love it when people like Arlandson deify themselves and make such preposterous declarations, as if they had any power whatever to make it come out the way they dictate.  It’s another tell-tale sign of a Mini-Dem. Apparently unhappy with their station in life as the weaker ideological sister to either left or right, they tend toward grand pronouncements easily debunked by adolescent logicians.    Notice, however, that Arlandson does not answer whether the Federal Reserve ought to exist, or whether it is doing more harm than good, instead merely asserting that it does exist, and on such basis must remain in perpetuity, or perhaps at least until he gets tired of it.  Naturally, he takes on those who get caught up by media questions about the age of the Earth, as though it had been a perfectly settled matter, but he is unable to acknowledge that the sun will burn out, the world will end, the United States will dissolve, and the Federal Reserve system will come to an end.  Apart from the direct intervention of God, these things will all come to pass, but while He might have some interest in the first two events, I suspect the Almighty isn’t spending much of His infinite time pondering the possibility of life on Earth without the Federal Reserve.

Arlandson goes on a bit more, about “birthers” and rape, and the age of the Earth, along with other pressing issues to conservatism, in each revealing his general competence for the description of Mini-Dem.  Like so many Mini-Dems, he wields Ronald Reagan in selective references like a sword, much like full-size Democrats do, but he is careful to remember only that much of “the Gipper” that will buttress his points, but no more.  He quite predictably flees to that age-old taunt about “hyper-conservatives” being too “simplistic.” What this really denotes, as ever, is a willingness to forgo discussions of precise right and wrong; simple truth and falsehood; moral white and black.   This is the signature cop-out of a Mini-Dem, because what they assert is that things are not so simple as to be reduced to a string of binary choices and decisions, though every computer on the planet proves otherwise.  It’s the same old dodge with the same old flavor:  Create gray areas to obscure one’s [intended]wrongdoing.

As a matter of clean-up then, I suppose it’s time to explain what I mean by “Mini-Dem,” and therefore permit you to decide for yourselves whether Mr. Arlandson fits the description:

A “Mini-Dem” is Republican who never has a single big idea.  Big ideas are too risky for Mini-Dems, because the larger (and smaller) part of what defines them as such is their abiding lack of political courage. They refuse to confront difficult challenges because it’s so much easier to surrender.  To conservatism?  No, never.  To Democrats?  Who else?  Mini-Dems would rather join with Democrats and assist their victory than bend their will to conservatism, because they possess the imbecilic need of a teenager to be accepted by the crowd, while actual conservatives realize that saying “no” is necessary job of responsible adults.  Part of the problem may owe to their conception of political courage, in Mini-Dem terms defined by criticizing conservatism to the endless glee of the left-wing media.

Theirs is the position of interminable surrender.  Who wants to go through all that fighting, and after all, “can’t we just get along?” It’s not that they never contemplate a fight, but instead that at the first imagined spilling of political blood, they go running of in search of another excuse for their cowardice. It’s always “we’ll get’em next time,” but when it’s this time, the “getting’em” is always delayed until next time. Next time never comes.  Ever.  If you want to see Mr. Arlandson’s prescribed approach in action, watch the abandonment of all reason and principle by the House Republicans over the Debt Ceiling.  Last time, they said “next time,” but when the next time came, they said again “next time, not this time.”  Do you notice the pattern?  They talk about conservatism, but when the time demands conservatism in practice, it’s always next time.  My own conclusion is that this owes to small hearts, small minds, weak constitutions, and over-indulging parents.  (All right, fine, maybe not that last, but it just felt right.)  In short, they’re almost exactly like Democrats in practice, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think that which defines the larger part of the psyche of Mini-Dems is a preternatural fear of being disliked. It’s like the teenage emotional state of panic that occurs when they realize everybody is looking at them as though they had the world’s largest zits on the ends of their noses. It’s that kind of sheer terror that reveals the Mini-Dem, and it’s another reason why we continue to lose elections.  Their panic at the embarrassment of a naturally occurring dermal disturbance sends them screaming out of the room to the roaring laughter of their peers, not because they had pimples, but because they had freaked out over them.  It makes a more solid conservative wish to grab and shake them. “Get a grip, man: Zits happen.”

The rise of the Mini-Dem was inevitable after moderate Mitt was defeated.  The idea is to excuse Mitt’s moderate or liberal positions, as possible reasons for his loss.  The problem is that these had been most of the cause, but just as Mitt refused to fight over the Benghazi issue after Candy Crowley flat-out lied to the debate audience, this lack of combativeness typifies the Mini-Dem.  We mustn’t have a big and ugly spectacle lest some one notice those zits on our noses, don’t you know?  Therefore, what defines the breed is an near-absolute unwillingness to stand on any principle lest they be mistaken for us.  What are we?  Apparently, we’re hyper-conservatives because we don’t fear losing much of anything save for our souls. Then we’d be Mini-Dems.

 

 

Ann Coulter Takes Another Swipe at Sarah Palin

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Attacking Like a Liberal

One of the things that I have begun to notice is how similar the GOP establishment and its shills really are to Democrats.  Ann Coulter is a Mitt Romney supporter, who endorsed the former Massachusetts Governor after her preference, Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie announced he would not seek the nomination on October 4th of last year.  Ever since then, Ann Coulter has been a non-stop verbal siren for Mitt Romney, a man she told us only a year ago would lose if nominated.  Coulter is never satisfied to let sleeping dogs lie, or to bury the hatchet and move on, but I think she actually takes her shots at Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to curry favor with the GOP establishment.  In this video clip, she was asked about the notion of a brokered convention, and possible “outlier candidates,” and she decided the moment was right to take another miserable swipe at former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It’s bad enough to be attacked by somebody in your own party, but when they resort to the same sort of cheap and nauseating tactics as the left, you know the attacker is a RINO.

Here’s the clip, H/T Sharktank:

Coulter lied.  I have never heard or read one word from Sarah Palin whereby she suggests that she should be the Republican candidate if we wind up with a brokered convention.  Many of her supporters would like to see that, but not once in all her media appearances has she ever said she would be that candidate, and she has explicitly said that the GOP establishment wouldn’t permit it.  She’s likely right, and as if to prove the point, here is Ann Coulter jabbing at Governor Palin for something she never actually said.  It makes one wonder what is next from Ann Coulter.  Will she next tell us that Tina Fey’s portrayal of Governor Palin is accurate, or that Julianne Moore’s is any better?

I realize politics can be a nasty game, complete with a bunch of ankle-biters(and some would throw me in that category) who take their shots at targets of political opportunity, but as a grass-roots activist, I wonder about Ann Coulter.  Apart from appealing to moderates and liberals with her attacks on Sarah Palin, and her unceasing, sycophantic support of Chris Christie, I am now in the position of being forced to ask what Ann Coulter has done for conservatives lately.

The truth is that when you listen to what Ann says, it no longer seems to be the speech of a firebrand conservative, but the compromising and haughty harrumph of an establishment lackey who has overestimated her worth to all concerned. Coulter apparently sees herself as part of the “in crowd,” but even if so, that won’t last the first time she questions something the GOP establishment does.  For the moment, however, she’s safe, and she’s still useful, because she stands ready to propagate their talking points with the unquestioning  obedience of a megaphone.

Actual conservatives hear her real message loud and clear, and are abandoning her to her establishment friends.  I wonder how many copies of her latest literary cacophony the RINO wing of the Republican Party will buy?  It’s a relatively narrow market segment, after all. Maybe that’s the problem:  For a long while, Ann Coulter was the one of just a few highly visible Republican women, and perhaps she doesn’t like the competition?  She’s seems concerned to a state of near distraction that Sarah Palin has the FoxNews job, doesn’t she?

 

Why “Compromise” Has Become a Dirty Word

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Compromise or Capitulation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Barbara Bush Thinks This Campaign Is The Worst Ever

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Who's To Blame?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy Wall Street’s Newest Member: Mitt Romney (Video)

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Mitt Occupies Arizona

This is absurd and ridiculous.  Here we have candidate Mitt Romney doing his best Barack Obama imitation, but Ron Paul won’t take the slightest swipe at him in a debate?  I’m sorry, but this sort of class-warfare rhetoric has no business in a Republican nomination fight, and to hear this from the mouth of Romney tells me all I really need to know.  He doesn’t want the 1% to get the same charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions as “middle-class” Americans?  I have a question for Governor Romney, who is unwilling to make the logical or moral argument for keeping one’s wealth:

Why not, Mitt?  Why are you ashamed of your wealth?  Why are you afraid to claim a right to your property and wealth?  Why does greater wealth imply a lesser claim to it?  This is bizarre and absurd, and it’s another reason the Republican party should never nominate this self-defeating fool. He’s already ceding the argument to Barack Obama. If he’s willing to go this far now, what will he do if he gets the nomination?  Grovel?  Will he openly apologize for his personal fortune?  Will he apologize for the fortunes of others?  This man doesn’t deserve to keep his own wealth, because he doesn’t know how to logically defend it against jackals.

H/T RightScoop:

This is despicable.  Mitt Romney should be ashamed.

 

Romney Still Doesn’t “Get It”

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

"Safety Mitt"

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

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

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

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

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

What Do You Call Somebody Endorsed By GHWB, Dole, and McCain?

Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

Birds of a Feather

“Loser.”  Seriously, on Wednesday, Senator John McCain, (Rino-AZ,) endorsed Mitt Romney(Rino-MA).  This follows on the heels of other endorsements from other famous losing GOP establishment types, including Bob Dole(Rino-KS) and George H.W. Bush(Rino-Texas via Kennebunkport).  Frankly, I am less than astonished by the RINO brigade coming out to support one of their own. This is why the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs.  It’s time to look at how we can develop a new challenge to the GOP establishment from within the ranks of the TEA Party.  Otherwise, we’re going to be permanent losers.  Unless and until the Republican party stops taking conservatives for granted, this is going to be the result.  I hope you folks love Barack Obama, because the GOP is determined to make sure you see a lot more of him.  Four years worth, to be precise.

 

 

Ann Coulter’s Sad Obsession With Establishment Republicans

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Coulter Kissing-Up to Willard

In a column entitled “If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?,”  Ann Coulter laid out her stunningly unconvincing case in favor of Willard “Mitt” Romney.  What Coulter seems incapable of grasping is that the base of the party will not accept Romney, and may even abandon the party if he is the nominee.  Coulter’s argument is that Newt Gingrich sucks, so therefore, we must now accept Romney.  She attempts to herd readers into supporting Romney on the basis that Obamacare won’t be overturned if we don’t win the White House in 2012.  I’ve seen this coming for some time, but it seems many conservatives won’t flinch this time.  They shouldn’t.  We will not win the White House in 2012 with a moderate, progressive, flip-flopping Romney, and as I explained at length recently, it is because Romney is an ideological zero.  Conservatives are not satisfied with Willard, and the establishment’s attempt to scare them into Romney’s arms has begun to anger them.  Coulter is speaking for them, but not you.

Coulter’s biggest criticism of Gingrich comes from the flap over his consultancy with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Gingrich earned $300,000 in consulting fees, personally, while his company was paid a total of around $1.6 million. The conclusion being drawn from Coulter(and others) is that this is evidence of some sort of crony capitalism, but given Gingrich’s history of consulting, think-tanking, and similar activities, it may not be a stretch to believe that this was a legitimate consultancy.

After assailing Newt, she moves on to make her case about Romney and Obamacare, and makes some rather bombastic claims on Romney’s behalf:

“The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

“Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.”

Coulter seems rather certain of herself, but I remain unconvinced.  Coulter reduces criticisms of Romney to “Romneycare and Mormonism.”  To be honest, I don’t know anybody who is criticizing Willard on the latter, because most Americans are relatively accepting of religions that are not their own.   Romneycare is another matter, however, and it’s not the only instance of his statist reflex.  There was the “Welfare Wheels” program, among other things I’ve covered, and of course the whole flap over the illegal immigrants hired by his landscaping contractor, who he publicly chastised, continued to use, and who ultimately brought illegal aliens back to work on Romney’s lawn.  I’m sorry, but I don’t view Romney as a conservative.  Among conservatives, he’s consider a “Mush” Republican, a “Repubic,” and a “RINO.”  I think that’s a fair assessment, so that I am baffled by Coulter’s unceasing support of this sort of Republican.

Coulter has long claimed to be a conservative, but I have serious doubts about her claim.  She couldn’t wait to bash Sarah Palin’s voice, or anything else that may have displeased her.  She spent the majority of 2011 pushing the notion of a Chris Christie candidacy, and as soon as Christie announced he would not run, but would instead endorse Romney, Coulter spent a five minutes one day in mourning for the Christie candidacy that would not be, but then jumped into supporting Romney.  I don’t trust Romney, like many conservatives, and the reason is simple: Mitt Romney goes out of his way to avoid staking out positions that we can later reference when he ultimately screws conservatives.  It’s what the establishment does.  It puts me in a mind to remember the words of another conservative who had some troubles with  progressive Republicans:

“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!” -Warren G. Harding

Of course, with Coulter on the warpath for Romney, arguing that only Willard can save us from Obama, I am likewise reminded of Harding’s Vice President and successor, Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge, who famously said:

“When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.” -Calvin Coolidge

 

 

 

Levin Takes On Rove

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Calling Rove Out

It’s time to get real.  George W. Bush isn’t president any longer.  Irrespective of what Bush and his political operatives would like, the Bush family does not control the Republican party, and particularly conservatives.  They may control the party apparatus, and its clear that Karl Rove is still involved in shaping the establishment narrative.  Thus far this election season, Rove has told us why various Republicans are unworthy, and why various Republicans “can’t win,” but what Rove leaves unstated is how he’s operating on behalf of certain patrons.  Appearing on Fox News with is handy little white-board, Rove has become a spectacle of establishment manipulation, but his problem is that nobody is falling for it any longer.  We know who Karl Rove is, and what he’s after, and we have a pretty fair idea which interests he represents.  I’m not interested in what Karl Rove thinks, or what he’s pushing this week. AWR Hawkins at BigGovernment.com takes on Rove’s claim that Cain is done, and Levin discussed the article.

Mark Levin seems to feel the same way about Rove’s position.  On his show, Monday, Levin went after Rove saying “Karl, they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you.”  You can listen to the segment below:

At the very least, it’s clear to me that the division within the Republican party really comes down to the establishment that still caters to the Bush crowd, and the conservative wing of the party, and this divide is rearing its head again in the current attacks on Herman Cain.  I think conservatives may be so tired of the establishment script that they may simply ignore Rove’s pronouncement of the death of Cain’s candidacy.  After all, who the hell is Karl Rove?  I believe the conservative wing of the party is so disgusted with this well-timed attack on Cain that they may suspect, as I do, that this story about Cain has been generated not by the left, but as a hit-job in the Republican party.  Time will tell, but it’s hard to ignore this repeated trend.

Dana Perino Says Romney Is a Conservative

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

Only Missing the Button

Is she trying to secure a job in a presumptive Romney White House?  I’m not certain, but after watching her performance on Tuesday night on Hannity’s show on Fox News, I can tell you that she ought to just break out with a big Romney 2012 button.  Perino actually referred to Romney as a conservative, but the truth is Mitt Romney is roughly as conservative as Barack Obama, at least if we ignore what he’s now saying long enough to examine his record.  Romney’s problem is that  he sounds vaguely conservative, but his record and his own personal conduct reveal is a “conservative” in exactly the same sense Mayor Bloomberg of New York is a “conservative,” which is to say: Not at all.   When Dana Perino calls somebody “conservative,” it’s approximately as though she’s saying the person in question is somewhat to the right of Karl Marx.  I don’t trust the RINOs any longer, and neither should you.

Recently, Romney has been talking tough on illegal immigration.  He’s argued in favor of a tough set of standards and procedures for employers to verify the eligibility of workers to hold down a job in the US.  As recently as last Monday, he appeared in a Town Hall meeting and said this:

“So I say if you want to stop the flow of illegals, you need a fence and you have to turn off the magnets,” Romney concluded. “So what I would do is, number one, have a system that makes it easy for an employer to know who is legal and not. And number two, crack down on employers that hire people illegally.”

Isn’t that wonderful?  Isn’t that special?  Ms. Perino would undoubtedly hold this forth as a sign of Romney’s alleged “conservatism.”  Unfortunately for both she and the Mittster,  some folk have slightly longer memories.  At least twice in the last five years, Romney has used a landscaping company that has employed illegals in cutting his lawn.  In neither case did he do anything about it until informed by journalists.  This makes it difficult to take Romney seriously as a “conservative.”  Some will seek to excuse this, but let’s be honest about it:  If he can’t keep illegals off his lawn, what chance do the rest of you stand?

Of course, as you may have seen if you surf past Mark Levin’s website, this isn’t the only problem with Romney’s alleged “conservative credentials.”  As the Boston Herald reported, Romney instituted a program of free wheels for welfare recipients, whereby the State of Massachusetts defrayed the cost of insurance in combination with donated cars that constituted an outrage locally.

Meanwhile, Chris Christie was out telling the world how the Occupy Wall Street protesters are a lot like the Tea Party.  I’m sure Ms. Perino would insist Christie is a “conservative” too.  I am sick of these Bush operatives telling us that some RINO or other is a “conservative.”  They spent three decades trying to tell us that George HW Bush and his son George W Bush are conservatives.  It simply doesn’t sell any longer.  All of these people have tried to co-opt the Reagan legacy, and none of them substantially agree with what Ronald Reagan believed, and absolutely all of them are big advocates of some sort of amnesty for illegal immigration, stealth or otherwise.

If you’re a Tea Party patriot or a conservative, you are probably angered by all of these phonies in media telling us who is or isn’t a conservative.  This has been the problem with the Republican party since at least 1988, and prior to 1981.  In fact, one could say this was one of the great obstructions Reagan faced while he was President.  I have no use for the Republican establishment, and Dana Perino is one of the worst shills for the establishment GOP Bush cronies in media. I’m tempted to shout from the mountain tops in a hat-tip to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, circa 2000, who warned his fellow Democrats in what may have been the one and only time anybody should have listened to Jesse:

Jesse Jackson:


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!

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.

The Establishment’s Fake Chris Christie “Ground-swell”

Monday, October 3rd, 2011

Too Close For Comfort?

If you watch Fox News, or indeed, almost any media, suddenly, all the buzz is about New Jersey Governor Christie and his possible entry into the GOP nomination fight.  I think this is a lot of smoke and mirrors.  Christie currently has national name recognition on par with so-called second-tier candidates, and with the primary season moving up, it’s hard to imagine him building sufficient name recognition outside the Northeast corridor.  Of course, Ailes over at Fox News has been doing his best to give him more media coverage and drive up the number of people who recognize him, but this is just another example of the manufactured hype being created around Christie.  The GOP establishment is either looking for somebody new to play javelin-catcher now that Romney is back in front,  or they hope to supplant Romney with somebody they think can cause more excitement.   Either way, Chris Christie may well be just the man for the job.  As part of their bid to make Christie more palatable to the base, they placed him in the presence of Nancy Reagan last week, but this an awkward attempt at disguising Christie as a Reaganite that gains little from any but the most superficially-inclined voters.

This isn’t to say there aren’t any people genuinely interested in a Christie candidacy.  Ann Coulter has become positively unhinged over the prospect, but the truth is that there’s no real ground-swell of support for the New Jersey governor.  He simply isn’t all that well-known or liked outside the Northeast corridor.  An overbearing, loud-mouthed bullying attitude may play well in New York City, but it simply doesn’t play in Peoria.  If Christie runs, he will not capture the Tea Party segment, and he will not cut into Romney’s core of support.  This leaves one to wonder what Christie’s purpose in running might be.  The answer is simple: He’s there to try to suck up the oxygen in a bid by the establishment of the GOP to stop or at least mute a Palin entry into the field.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

The simple fact of the matter is that apart from some high-dollar contributors of the crony-capitalist variety, Christie really doesn’t offer much to the Republican party at large.  The Northeast, liberal Republicans already have a candidate, and while they wish he would get more support, they’re satisfied enough that Ann Coulter has now come out to support Romney.  Christie’s only chance to win will depend  upon co-opting the Tea Party segment, and given his record on a number of issues, it is likely that he won’t get their support.  He’s simply too liberal, and too uninterested in issues important to the Tea Party.  He may pay lip service to some of those issues, but as Stephen Bannon pointed out in his interview of Todd Palin Sunday evening, it’s really not much of an accomplishment to cut state budgets when you have no choice, but it is a big deal to cut budgets in time of surplus.  Tea Party folk are discerning enough to recognize this vital distinction.

Chris Christie could best be understood as an exemplar of the problem with the Republican establishment: He doesn’t really believe in the things important to the conservative base of the party, never mind the Tea Party. It’s another sorry charade offered to us in the form of yet one more “savior” for the GOP, just as the line of them we’ve been presented over the last nine months.  What I found particularly telling was the Karl Rove interview by Hannity as they waited for Christie to speak at the Reagan Library last week, and Rove said:

“Well, and look, it’s not just wealthy donors. There have been fellow Republican governors, party activists, grassroots Republican movers and shakers. I mean, this has been a pretty interesting thing to watch. In a very short period of time, since his swearing-in in January of 2010, he’s become quite a figure on the national stage, because of what he’s done as governor. He took on the teachers unions. He’s blunt, he’s straightforward. He’s the every man of American politics. And he’s got a — he’s got quite a following.”

As usual, Karl Rove is trying to paint a picture that bears little resemblance to reality.  To call Christie the “every man of American politics” is a laughable attempt at positioning.  More, when he  says “…it’s not just wealthy donors,” he’s essentially lying.  That’s the vast bulk of Christie’s support, and Rove knows it.  Christie has little in common with the base of the GOP, or the Tea Party, and that’s the point insofar as the establishment is concerned.

I think you can see as well as I what is really going on here.  This is another put-up job by the establishment, and whether they expect Christie to win the primaries, stealing Romney’s base of support, or if he’s being put up as a body-block for Romney, it essentially doesn’t matter.  It’s a hoax  to call this a “ground-swell” or the result of “grassroots Republicans.”  What this really means is Rove and the rest of the GOP establishment are trying to maintain their power.  By now, nobody should be surprised about that.