Foxnews has become the channel I am least interested in watching. Fox News Sunday’s only panelist with any credibility was Juan Williams. Paul Gigot, Evan Bayh, Bill Kristol, and of course, the moderator, Chris Wallace rounded out the show. In summation: two GOP flacks, and three DNC tools. Bill Kristol said flatly that Herman Cain “He’s not going to be the nominee, he was never going to be the nominee.” Paul Gigot, hedging, said Cain “probably won’t get the nomination.” I am so tired of these establishment weanies who are seldom right about anything taking their shots at authentic conservatives. Let’s be honest about it: How did Bill Kristol’s panting, arrogant support of the “Arab Spring” turn out? After spending weeks bashing Glenn Beck who said at the time that we should worry about the direction of events in Egypt, you would think Kristol might learn some humility.
These wizards, with all of their laughing at Herman Cain simply don’t get it: Conservatives have no patience for the establishment this cycle. They can climb aboard, or they can become more irrelevant, but their days of pretending to conservatives that they really know best are over. It’s a sad day when even Juan Williams will defend Cain, but the rest of these tools are content to throw him under the bus. Watch the video of Kristol, that genius “all-star:”
It’s not so much that I love Herman Cain as it is that I have come to detest the establishment GOP nearly as much as the hard left of the Democrat party. News cycle after news cycle, event after event, for as long as I can remember, these Republican insiders, these geniuses who tell us which candidates can win, seem to get it wrong until the answer is obvious, and then they backtrack in a cacophony of harrumphing. The basic problem with these elite Republican tools is that none of them share much in common with the bulk of us out here in fly-over country. When they venture out of their narrow corridor of insider politics and Washington DC intrigue, they don’t spend much time getting to know us.
It’s a bit like the falsely accused man who retains an attorney who advises his client to “take the deal.” They pretend to know what is in our best interests, and when we revolt against it, effectively saying “no deal,” they pout and become petulant at the impertinence of our claim of innocence on the charges. “Just take the deal,” they implore. “Take Mitt.” For precisely the same reasons that I would never cop a plea on a charge of which I knew I had been innocent, neither will I accept this deal. After all, it’s not all about avoiding jail, as they would argue, but as you and I know, about avoiding the damage to our reputation, seeking justice, and being vindicated by evidence, logic and reason. While we explain in impassioned terms why it is that we cannot support a moderate of any description, they nod, they seem to be listening, but in the end they look at us and explain why “the deal” is better. NO!
In my world, only criminals accept “the deal.” In the world out here where prosecutors frequently sell out the interests of justice and tax-payers, what these Republican insiders do on behalf of our country is nearly the same. “Come on, make the deal.” Their argument is persuasive to some, and in some years to many, but in this election cycle, the conservative base of the party has begun to understand that you cannot make a deal with the devil and come off clean, or even victorious. We’ve been through this too many times to mention. Imagine the ongoing conversation between conservatives and establishment Republicans:
“He is the sitting President…”
“But he’s not one of us!”
“Just take the deal.”
We did. How did that work out? In 1980, it was no better, but it turned out well.
“Just accept Gerald Ford and George HW Bush. That’s the deal.”
“We like Reagan.”
“He’s too old, and too conservative, and the liberals are right: He’s a B-movie actor.”
“He was an effective governor in our most populated state, and we like him.”
“Come on, take the deal.”
Odd, this time it turned out pretty well, don’t you think? In 1988, they told us to take the deal again:
“You can trust George Bush. He’s just like Ronald Reagan, bless his heart.”
“Are you sure? He seems a little, er uh, moderate.”
“No, he’ll be fine. He’ll convince you. See, look at that pledge he made: Read my lips: No new taxes. He’s Reagan part II.”
We grumbled, but we elected him on this basis. When he made deals with Democrats and raised taxes, we again rebelled, some of us leaving the party in 1992, in search of other options.
“Stick with us. Take the deal. It’s better than Clinton. That Perot guy is a kook.”
“I don’t know… Maybe Perot is a kook, but maybe he’s not.”
This turned out well too, didn’t it? In 1996, the establishment was undeterred and unreformed.
“You have to support Bob Dole. I’m Bob Dole, and Bob Dole says…”
Then, in 2000, they offered us another Bush.
“No, this Bush is different. Really. He’s not like his father, much more conservative. Just like Reagan.”
“Are you sure? What’s all this business about compassionate conservative and new tone?”
“Trust us, it will work out. That’s just code so the Democrats think he’s more moderate.”
Then we got four years of socialism obscured by the tragedy of 9/11. In 2004, however, they were back:
“Look, it’s really simple. He’s the incumbent. You have to dance with the one you brought, right, and besides, John Kerry? He’s WAY worse.”
We fell for this line too. By the end, we wanted Bush gone so badly that had he been eligible for another term, some of us might have voted Obama just to be rid of Bush.
“Look, we know John McCain isn’t conservative, but this Obama fellow is really dangerous.”
“We know Obama is dangerous, but so is John McCain.”
“Okay, how about we sweeten the pot and give you a good VP pick, say, oh, this Governor from Alaska? After all, McCain is getting on in years…”
“Okay fine, but we don’t think we can trust him.”
“It will be fine, you’ll see.”
“Due to the crisis, I’m suspending my campaign….”
Now we come to our current predicament.
“Mitt Romney is running again. You liked him in the 2008 primaries.”
“Actually, we liked him better than McCain, which is roughly like saying we liked the prospect of having our wisdom teeth pulled slightly more than having our hands amputated. How about: No Romney.”
“We could put up Tim Pawlenty!”
“No. We’re looking at Michele Bachmann.”
“What about Mitch Daniels? He’s a nice guy.”
“He may be a nice guy, when we can see him over the podium. He’s appointed some really idiotic judges. Wasn’t he the Bush OMB director?”
“Turns out, Mitch doesn’t want to run. Well, his wife doesn’t. How about Rick Perry?”
“To tell you the truth, it’s hard to stay excited about Perry. He’s too much like one of yours. How about Palin?”
“Nah, Palin won’t run. Even if she did, she’d lose. Palin has been marginalized. She’s a quitter.”
“By and among whom? We like her. McCain quit. Remember that whole suspended campaign business?”
“Well, anyway, how about Chris Christie? Any takers?”
“No. What about Herman Cain?”
“Cain can’t win. Cain won’t win.”
“Because we will sabotage him any chance we get.”
“Just like you did Palin?”
“Yep, it’s Mitt or bust.”
“Say, why do you establishment types keep screwing us?”
There is no establishment. It’s all in your head.”
“Yeah, right, and there’s no evil either… We’ve heard this ploy before.”
This conversation is only partially fictional. While these precise words weren’t spoken by a particular agent of the GOP establishment, it’s nevertheless the meaning of what we and they said to one another. Each and every time conservatives have compromised their values and went along with the moderates, the establishment, and the Bush clan(all mostly one and the same,) we have been hammered. Each time. The surrenders, the failures, the endless excuse-making, all so that this crowd of wizards can tell us how to live rather than having Democrats telling us how to live… Why?
I submit to my fellow conservatives that we cannot afford another deal. Whomever we select, it cannot be another one of their choosing. Honest to goodness, listening to the chatter on Fox News Sunday, it is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. One gets the sense that they’ve all spent too much time at the same cocktail parties swilling the same statist kool-aid.
No thanks. I’ve had enough, and while I won’t speak for the rest of you, I suspect many of you are with me this time: