The Willingness to Walk Away

If You're Ever to Win...

This evening, I had been listening to one of my favorite talk-show hosts, Mark Levin, and I came away a little disappointed.  My disagreements with Levin are usually trivial, and I hold most of his arguments in high esteem, but this time, I am not merely unconvinced by his rationale, but utterly astonished by it.  His argument is essentially that he will support the Republican nominee, even if it’s the establishment’s guy, Mitt Romney.  Where I am concerned, there aren’t any candidates in this field who I can fully support, as I’ve recently detailed, but I don’t mean merely in the primary.  Some, I can’t support at all.  There are those who will point to Barack Obama’s ridiculous assaults on the constitution, the uniquely American culture, and the pocket-books of working men and women of every description as moral imperatives that demand we all go to the polling places in November and support whatever candidate the GOP musters.  I’ve heard it before, and I’ve heard it until I’m sick to death of hearing it.  I’ve heard it in every election in my adult life save only 1984.  I will hear it no more.  This is my challenge to the GOP:  Find an actual conservative or watch me take a powder in November.

I imagine most have you have purchased an automobile or two (or twenty) over the course of your lives,  and the first principle I always apply when shopping for a vehicle is to have a maximum number of dollars I will spend for a minimum number of features, warranties, and the like.  I try to always arrive at a dealer’s location with a check already cut if financing will be part of the deal.  I know in most instances that I will find better financing through my own credit union than most dealers will offer.  It also effectively places me in the position of being a cash customer  from the dealer’s perspective.  They aren’t so accustomed to that, because most people stumble in looking to trade because their current vehicle is probably on its last leg, and only come to deal when the current ride is looking a little long in the tooth.  Therefore, my second rule is simpler still:  Never go to a car dealer when I’m desperate for a deal.  The reason is simplicity itself.  If I’m not desperate, I will have no problem exercising that option most critical in negotiating any deal, whether for a car, a truck, a house, a business, or a presidential nominee:  You must be willing to walk away, and if your basic criteria are not met, you must exercise that option.

If you do not walk away, you will be a patsy, and once you give ground on something so basic to your previously established rules, in the future, you lose all credibility at the bargaining table. Your adversary will smell blood in the water, and will know you are desperate, so that he can (and will) shove anything he likes down your throat, and while you may complain or carry on about the unfairness of it all, in the end, you will relent and take the deal offered.  This I have learned the hard way by permitting myself to be that desperate party, and permitting myself to wind up in the situation in which I am no longer a credible negotiator, and therefore unable to leverage my position since it consisted entirely of bluff and was completely without teeth.  If you want to be a perpetual sucker, place yourself in such a position repeatedly, and whether in business or in politics, you will soon find yourself unable to negotiate even the slightest advantage.

If you doubt me, I would ask you to review the performance of John Boehner and Eric Cantor as the top Republicans in the House over the last twelve months.  They have accomplished precisely nothing worth remembering, and at every opportunity have cut and run when the President and Harry Reid boxed them in.  Nothing.  “Biggest reversal in history” and all the rest, but in the end? Not a damned thing.  From the moment the House Republicans cut a deal on the Debt Ceiling rather than insisting upon Cut, Cap & Balance, it has been all down hill, and it has all gone Obama’s way since he figured out how desperate Boehner and McConnell(Republican Leader in the Senate,) really were.  From that moment, Obama has run the table on these clowns, and in the end, it makes them look all the more foolish because they spouted, and postured, and harrumphed, but in the end, they were willing to cut a deal, any deal, to be able to walk away.  Thus died the first allegedly “Tea Party Congress.”  It died precisely because your leadership wasn’t really willing to walk away.

The same is true of individual voters in their relationship to the party’s establishment, whichever party we may be discussing.  At the moment, that party is the GOP, and it’s right that we consider it as individual voters, making a bargain with the party chieftains.  Roughly 70-75%(depending on the poll you choose) of the Republican Party wants no part of Mitt Romney.  They see in him much of what they see in Obama, but worse in many ways, also what they see in John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.  They’re right to be worried about a Mitt Romney presidency, that will be consumed with “making a deal” to the extent that it would make any deal, any place, any time, all in order to secure a deal of some sort.  Details matter not.  It is for this reason that for once, conservatives had ought to reject the voices of our friends who insist we “take the deal” (meaning: Romney.)   We must be prepared to sit out this election, at least on the presidential ballot, because we will not defeat him anyway with a guy who is in such a hurry to cut a deal, and even if he managed to win, would soon undercut us.  They’re already offering us assurances that we’ll be able to push or pull Romney to the right, but the fact is that I do not want a president who needs to be cajoled into conservative actions, because in accepting him to begin with, he will have learned something else: We’re not willing to walk away.

Armed with that knowledge, a President Romney will spend all of his time undercutting conservatives.  He’s a Keynesian, so he’ll increase taxes and/or use more massive government spending.  He will not reform entitlements, and if Obamacare is repealed, it will only be replaced by a program slightly less objectionable.  This is because Romney is a deal-maker, and he’s the guy for whom the deal is itself everything.  It’s about closing the deal, because he expects his commission, and while it may not be in cash, it will be in some false notion of prestige.

It is for this reason that I now inform the Republican Party to the knowing of the world that they either nominate a conservative, or wave at me on the sidelines, because that is where I will be.  A lifetime worth of hard lessons has taught me what I always suspected, but hadn’t the courage or patience to practice in my younger years, because they used my fear of uncertainty against me.  I don’t want the nation to collapse, and I don’t want the Marxist state they’re building, but I also know that a Mitt Romney presidency will only slow its advance, and maybe not by much.  I am no longer fearful of Obama’s predations, because I know that with another moderate Republican, those predations will continue.  I will not be driven to vote for a moral slacker because his opponent is a moral leper.

This evening I listened to a man I admire advance a notion that is ghastly to me.  He has already mentally prepared himself to accept and support a Romney candidacy, and he went on to discuss how he would demand that at least the Vice Presidential pick be a real conservative.  Why would Romney ever do that?  He might look for somebody who was somewhat more conservative, and brought something to the table, like Nikki Haley or similar, trying to energize you, but let’s be honest:  Vice Presidents don’t generally mean much.  To hear Mark Levin effectively suggest that we ought to at least get a conservative VP was saddening.  What it means is that he’s still more fearful of Obama than he is of losing the country, because in his mind, he’s merged the two, but the truth is that Obama is merely completing the job that was begun a long time ago, and has been carried on by successive presidents with damnably few exceptions, and Mitt Romney would do little of substance to change it.

You can listen to this clip from Levin’s show here:

There are those of you who will damn me for this position, but it is mine, and I’m standing by it.   I will not be herded into another vote for another moderate under any circumstance, because I know such a candidate will not likely win, and will surely not rescue the country if he somehow manages to defeat Obama.  To hear Levin saying that we “need a conservative in the second slot” is to admit he’s already conceding the first slot. What Romney and others in the Republican establishment will interpret this to mean is precisely what Barack Obama interprets Boehner’s endless concessions to mean: There’s an unwillingness to stand on principle for the sake of a politically expedient result, and one that is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination. They’ve placed themselves in the position whereby they’re now clearly desperately willing to “take the deal.”

You’re free to conclude what you will, but I would rather make it plain: If the Republican party nominates another moderate, I no longer fear Obama because I realize there are Republicans equally awful.   I am no longer convinced by the insipid argument that “any of these are better than Obama.”  I no longer believe that to be the case.  Some of them are every bit as bad, and to prove I believe that, and to stand by my principles, I am fully prepared to walk away. Might this lead to a second term for Obama?  Yes. Am I willing to confront that horrible reality?  Yes.  Rather than ask me if I’m willing to deal with that reality, you had better ask if you are.  You had better ask the Republican establishment that is busying itself with the chore of making Romney palatable to you.  You had better go ask your fellow conservatives, because while you can go along to get along if you like, I am prepared to walk away even if the Republican Party sends squads of establishment squawkers to damn me for it.  Watch me.  It’ll be my back side they see, as I disappear in the distance.  This year, no deals!

Leave a comment ?

53 Responses to The Willingness to Walk Away

  1. Keith says:


    I'm registered INDEPENDENT. The media would have you believe Independents are moderates. BS! I'm to the right of Michael Savage and to the left of God. Not one of these GOP candidates will get my vote.

  2. kilt1iron says:

    Mark —

    I did not hear Mark Levin.

    But YOU need to learn how to take the hand you're dealt and out-smart the dealer.

    I imagine Mark Levin mentioned taking the Congress back into TEA Party hand (conservative principles) and hold WHATEVER POTUS to account. Mark probably also said, NO WAY would "Mittens" veto TEA Party driven legislation.

    Am I wrong, brutha?

    • MarkAmerica says:

      I included the relevant portion of the show. I don't accept your premise. Mittens would use Boehner and McConnell to kill it. It would never arrive at his desk. That's how things are done in DC.

  3. Janice Dura says:

    Mark… really got me thinking. Sarah Palin may have done more for us than running for President. She has opened my eyes since she walked onto that stage in 2007. I love my country so much, not just for me, but for future generations. For my kids, and their kids. As I read your piece I realized how right you are and the impact of Sarah Palin on many Americans. Washington DC has sodomized America and we have not stood up to them…..I think it is time. Thank you for this post and so many others. I appreciate your eloquence and I love your patriotism. Thank you again.

  4. John Fedor says:

    Well said Mark ! I had come to the same conclusion when the debt limit was raised and hoped I would not be alone, not that it would matter if I was. I know its too late for this go-round but maybe its time to think about a third party. Or maybe I'll just sit and wait for the revolution to start.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      John, Revolutions are ugly things, particularly in nations long-established. They come out like France, or Russia.

      We're better to start looking at how to make the GOP go the way of the whigs. Seriously. If you can't reform it from within, then replace it from without.

  5. Debra Rivera says:

    Rick Santorum 2012!

  6. Cindi says:

    I've been saying this for a while – and I keep getting blasted by so-called conservatives for saying so. but i 'm exactly where you are…no more voting for the lesser of two evils for me…

    • Michael Teuber says:

      …Cthulhu 2012!

      • Aggressive Foreign Policy…
      • Mental Health Care for all!

      More cynically pragmatic than Mitt Romney.
      His supporters have a religious fanaticism Santorum's can't match!
      More Libertarian on social issues than Ron Paul…
      Deals with the issues at a greater depth than that amphibian Newt.
      A real (Great Old One) Dominionist (not like Sarah Palin)!

      Despair and Paralysis, the antidote to Hope and Change!

      Why Choose A Lesser Evil?

  7. Andrew Pearson says:


    I know little about you. I only recently learned of you on FaceBook, but was impressed with what I saw of your writings. I especially appreciated your information regarding

    That said, I have to say that I am VERY disappointed in this writing of yours.

    Although the points you made about buying a car are excellent, we are not buying a car in this election. We are nominating the Republican candidate for President, whom we then need to elect as the next President of the United States. The two exercises are so different from each other as to make the analogy a total failure.

    Like you, I haven't been happy with some of the results in Congress, lately, especially the ones you mentioned, especially the Debt Ceiling fiasco. However, you need to remember that the "Tea Party" only controlled one-half of one-third of the government. The first rule in negotiating is to negotiate from a position of strength, but we didn't have that. No matter what the Tea Party House of Representatives did, it couldn't force it's will on a Democrat-controlled Senate, nor could it override President Obama's veto. Completely walking away from the situation we have is not the solution, and it strongly smacks of the boy who takes his ball and bat and goes home, if he doesn't get chosen by the team he wants to play for. The disagreeable results to date are, and should be, all the more reason for us to work even harder to add control of the Senate to our control of the House, and to elect a Republican President. To walk away now, is to walk away before the job is finished, and someone with your intelligence and understanding should recognize that.

    In the first place, you appear to be making the mistake of assuming a Romney nomination, and that isn't, by any means, a foregone conclusion. It's very close currently, but Santorum may very well defeat him in Iowa, tonight. Gingrich made a good showing (especially since Ron Paul failed by placing third and in any event, won't be the GOP nominee), and should do very well in South Carolina and Florida. As he is able to raise more money, that will also enhance his potential.

    I am certainly not a Romney fan, and I'm not particularly excited about Rick Santorum, although I like him, and find him more acceptable than Romney. However, the election of either one of them to be President would be far more desirable than another four years of Obama. You say you "don't fear Obama," but I'll remind you of another axiom: "Lack of fear doesn't mean you won't be badly hurt." You should fear another four years of Obama. The bravado of claiming the absence of fear rings very hollow, in this instance.

    I've been involved in politics and political campaigns for over 46 years. In that time, I've learned that we seldom achieve perfection in the governments we choose, but we must always live with the one we select. A Romney presidency, with increased numbers of Conservatives in the House and Senate probably won't be nearly as bad as you imagine. It won't be the one I want, but it will be infinitely better than another four years of Obama. Even the slower-paced destruction of our country (which you fear under a Romney presidency, provided that actually turns out to be the result) is more to be desired than the continued rapid destruction under Obama.

    I sincerely hope you will rethink your position here, Mark. Sitting on the sidelines is no place to be, when there is a Senate and a White House to gain, by being involved. Let's replace Obama, take control of the Senate, and increase our control of the House, then continue to improve on that, next time around. There may not be much of a "next time," otherwise.

    • MarkAmerica says:


      Thank you for reading. I don't expect all readers to agree with me at all times. That's politics. You say my analogy is a failure, but you haven't really explained why. Of course electing a president or buying a car are different activities, but so is horse-racing and politics, and it seems the media never tires of that particular analogy. The simple fact is that as a matter of negotiating, you can't go into any such situation without the willingness to walk away. If you do, you'd better not let your adversary at the table get wind of it, or you are doomed. This applies in foreign affairs, just as it applies in car-buying. What did Ronald Reagan do at Reykjavik, Iceland? He got up to walk out on Gorbachev, and just like in so many of the car deals I've walked away from, the other party chased him down to make a deal. You might argue that foreign affairs is completely unlike buying a car, but I think Ronald Reagan might well disagree.

      If you've been reading my blog for any period of time, you must know what I think of Boehner's whining about "one-half of one-third." It's garbage. You don't always have the luxury of dealing from a position of strength, but even when at a disadvantage, you mustn't yield your strengths. Boehner surrendered them all. The House is the constitutional originator of spending and taxing bills, and what he should have told Harry Reid, Barack obama, and the media is that they had done their constitutional duty, and the Senate could take up Cut, Cap & Balance, or not, but that the House wouldn't be taking further action on the matter until the Senate dealt with the bill they had been presented. Fine. Close down the government. Close it down. Leave it closed. GOOD!

      I figure Harry Reid's constituents would whine a lot louder than Boehner's.

      In the first place? Isn't that the second or third place by now? I was working off what Mark Levin said on his show. I was listening to him effectively submitting to the Romney deal.

      Don't mistake what I've said for bravado, and don't tell me what rings hollow. You don't know me well enough to know my mind on this matter, but check back if Romney is the GOP's nominee, and we'll see who'd been hollow.

      Life hurts. Often. Deeply. Remorselessly. I don't fear pain. I don't invite it, but I am not unaccustomed to it. Please don't use the occasion of your opinion to project you view of the world onto me. I don't fear another four years of Obama as much as I fear four years of Romney, in exactly the same way I didn't fear four years of Algore as much as I feared four years of Bush. You see, people who call themselves "conservative" were willing to accept from Bush without thinking those same sorts of policies they had opposed under Clinton, and now oppose under Obama. How many TARP-heads went along because it was Bush but thought better of it after Obama was in office? Plenty. This is why I don't fear Obama: Every conservative fights him. This is why I do fear Romney: Many conservatives will roll over for him.

      If you've been in politics 46 years, that's roughly as long as I've been alive, so I'll happily admit you have more experience in the field, but I'll also submit that it explains perfectly why you're not interested in having a fight with the party establishment. If that's an indicator of your age, then one would have to admit that if we could simply forestall the Marxist state a little longer, you'll be off the hook, eh? Of course, by then, I too will have attained an age at which I will be less inclined to fight it out, so you see, I'm just as happy to have the fight now, while I'm still able.

      Lastly, as I've said many times in this blog, I will continue to participate in down-ballot elections, and I will only abstain on the presidential ballot. If my words led you to believe otherwise, I apologize, but it's a remark I've made many times, and I should have mentioned it again.

      Slower paced destruction is still destruction. I'm sorry, but I suppose that I'd rather just get it on. Are you familiar with John Galt? You might wish to avail yourself of Atlas Shrugged if you haven't read it, and understand where I'm coming from, and why I am now willing to walk away.


      • Andrew W. Pearson says:


        I did, indeed, explain why your analogy of car-buying fails, in this case. If you look again, you'll see that I said: "we are not buying a car in this election. We are nominating the Republican candidate for President." While some of the same principles may apply in each case, the two are not the same. Your apparent belief that they are the same doesn't make it so.

        Walking away is a good strategy, ONLY if you have nothing to lose, or very little. Reagan had much more to gain than to lose, by walking away at Reykjavik. Walking away from the upcoming Presidential ballot gains nothing, but guarantees a loss, if Obama is re-elected. Your claimed lack of fear at such a possibility doesn't offset the loss we'll incur, during another four years of Obama.

        Speaker Boehner may have used the "one-half of one-third" phrase, but I didn't copy it from him. That was my own observation. I'm not defending Boehner. As I mentioned earlier (did you even read my post?), I am not happy with some of his decisions, either. I wanted them to take a stand on Cut, Cap, and Balance AND the Ryan Budget, and say, as you suggested, "The House has done it's job, now it's time for the Senate and the President to do theirs." I'm all for replacing Boehner with someone more staunchly Conservative. Sitting out the Presidential ballot will have no effect on that situation, however.

        Mark, I only know what you've written above, on this matter. If what you've written is not "your mind," don't blame me for that lack of knowledge. The "bravado" I refer to is your claim to have no fear of another four years of Obama. The damage this country will sustain under another four years of Obama greatly outweighs any pride you might hold for your "absence of fear" of same. Fear is a healthy thing, and the lack of it often contributes to the damage. Correct action, despite one's fear, is what's needed.

        I was against TARP from the beginning. It was wrong under Bush, just as it was under Obama. That fact is one reason for the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party didn't just begin with Obama. Obama just contributed to it's growth. Complaining about possible Conservative "roll-over" is just another non-reason for failing to participate in the election of our President.

        My long experience in politics is exactly the reason why I do believe in fighting with the GOP establishment. It won't be my first rodeo, in that regard. Sitting out the presidential ballot is not the way to carry on the fight.

        Yes, I may be "off the hook" as you so civilly suggest, before you are, except that I don't believe any American citizen is ever off the hook of defending this country, and working to make it the best it can be, as the Founders intended. I'm very saddened to hear that you apparently believe there comes such a time. I plan to carry on the fight, as long as I have breath. And, according to my Doctor on the occasion of my most recent checkup, "You are a stubborn old cuss that I'm going to have to put up with for many years, yet."

        You and I apparently disagree on the best way to fight the battle, Mark. But your implied insults regarding my age and political experience only amount to narcissistic arrogance which isn't productive to our discussion of that issue.

        I'll leave you to your opinion. Best wishes.

      • Andrew W. Pearson says:

        So, Mark, what happened to my response to this post? Are you removing the posts you can't adequately respond to?

  8. joe says:

    Your "buy a car" is sound advice…but hardly appropriate for this situation. What are you going to do…. walk instead of own a car?

    If you walk away from voting… why not walk right out of the USA to some other country? You have an opportunity to vote (and YES…LOSE) to OB…. but you are still an American living here and can continue to fight for your children. You can accept YOUR personal loss, if you want.

    Are you also walking away from your children's future?

    Mark, go throw a few stones at the moon… get that frustration and anger out of your system…. and then come back and plan to win for your children's future. Don't walk away now.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Joe, I'll not toss rocks at the moon. I've done my duty. I'm simply tired of those who offer me a lemon that will leave me walking in a few miles anyway, and take my cash besides. That's what Romney is, but there is no lemon law to see I get my money back. Once again, I can vote in all the down-ballot elections and abstain from voting in the Presidential election, or write in a name, or whatever. The point is, I'm not walking away from my child's future. I'm fighting for it.

      I'm not interested in fighting for a big fat zero. Or Romney…Same difference.

      • joe says:


        I owe you an apology…. I opened my e-mail and was responding to it….. and didn't realize that it was Michael Teuber who had posted his 'passionate' message.

        I should have known you express yourself intelligently. Oh well.

        We (you and I) are on the same page regarding having two foes to defeat….OB and Romney. Frustrating at best. Well, we can't touch OB (yet)… but we can fight Romney by becoming actively involved in defeating his nomination as the Republican candidate.

        Let's continue to work together toward that goal…. and enlist …one by one… the millions of loyal Americans to assist us.

    • Michael Teuber says:

      I don't own a car. To suggest that I must is to accept a whole series of choices as metaphysically given. 'I want certain things, therefore I must do whatever is required and compromise my principles to have them.'

      Yeah, if you won't vote for Romney, then why don't you just move to France you commie bastard? I always suspected Mark America. He has read Ayn Rand. She was from the Soviet Union, you know.

      Think of the children! (If non-sequiturs don't do the trick emotional blackmail should git 'er done.)

      Its futile to reject voting for a man who spits in your face and tells you its raining. You have a responsibility to help Mitt plan your children's serfdom. Don't be all emo, get your ass in line!

      • joe says:

        Where did THAT RESPONSE come from? Look carefully at my initial reply to you. My reply was sincere. The language I used…and continue to use does not demean or insult you. Amazing, simply amazing.

        Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth…nor think you know what I am thinking.

        Now I must reflect whether your outburst is simply the result of temporary frustration… or if it shows a more serious side of your real personality.

        Is this posting merely frustrated desperation? I sincerely hope so. You have written too many excellent posts in the past months.

  9. Stand Taker says:

    Ever since Sarah nixed running "at this time", my 2012 election result optimism has almost been in freefall. We're 10 months away and I think I can see the despicable dots connecting. I don't want to see them, and it makes me sick to do so.

    But if you look at the lame Romney, the still ravenously evil and sycophantic Obama media, the still idiotically sleepwalking and apathetic electorate and the we'll-do-and-say-anything-to-keep-power Obama administration, it looks like we're sheep being led to slaughter. There may be meadows around us to make us think everything will be ok but it's a facade to distract from the meathouse rapidly approaching.

    Unless a literal 11th hour miracle, a 2nd Obama term looks assured. We've had 3 years, going on 4, to see this horror show play out. And have our best and brightest rushed forward to wrest America back from the evil? Nope. They slunk back into their existence of denial and cowardice.

    The Iowa Caucus split between Romney and Santorum says to me that the Republican base is torn between just the kind of thing Mark said. The Romney voters think it's best to just choose "someone who can win". The Santorum voters are desperate to keep the last conservative guy, his values and theirs, from being kicked out of the room.

    At this time I too am very, very seriously considering staying home on Election Day 2012. The question I keep coming back to is what I'm going to tell my kids about this election. Will I be able to say I did everything I could to spare them the fallout of a 2nd Obama term? What was more important: doing all I could've to remove Obama from office for the sake of the country's future and theirs or taking my unnoticed integrity stand?

    I think many face this. Is it better to have possibly some America with Romney or no America with Obama? What disgusts me the most is that this is where we're at after everything that's happened to us.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Stand Taker,

      This is the problem: Sometimes, you have to be willing to watch a thing fail. Otherwise, nobody learns. Have you ever watched your kid do something, warn them, tell them, teach them, and they do it anyway? Provided it's not going to kill them, sometimes it's a valuable lesson, but this country is really cruising for disaster as you suggest. It is a horror show, and I think too many are still enjoying those peaceful meadows of which you speak to realize how bad it's gotten.

      As you'll remember, my favorite book is Atlas Shrugged, and one of my favorite parts is when Dagny arrives in Galt's Gulch and it is explained to her that nobody there is permitted to fake reality in any way, whatsoever. Every day, I interact with people who seem to be engaged in a self-fraud by which they convince themselves that it's all going to come out fine. Among other things, math is a requirement in my job. For that reason, I am able to reason out the future in some respects based upon what math reveals, with respect to our currency, our economy, and any number of related matters. It isn't pretty.

      Most of your countrymen are only vaguely aware of it. They don't bother with the concretes, and they can't be bothered to think it all through, because "it's too depressing," or "it's too negative," or "it's too hard," or "too boring."

      Am I happy about the way this is going? No. Am I prepared to fight for my country? Sure. I don't consider my oath ever to have expired. Am I willing to drag out the inevitable in order to help people maintain their self-delusions a while longer? No.

      I think most often of this:

      "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." – Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

      • No – you are now a "social engineer" who has decided that your inaction is worth the pain and suffering of others "so that they can learn a lesson."

        Your job is to make the best with what you have. ANY CANDIDATE who cuts the Corp Tax to 15% or less, the cap gains tax and stops ObamaCare will revive the economy.

        You and I agree that isn't enough. But it does buy time to get others in position. But that's not even going to happen.

        My God, the votes tonight aren't even binding! And it confirms 60% do NOT want Romney or Paul. Romney STILL won't win SC or most of SuperTuesday. It is even possible for a Palin to come into a brokered convention with Santorum and Gingrich each having 1/3rd of the votes and out maneuver Romney!

        C'mon. Fight like a girl!

      • Stand Taker says:


        That is a wonderful Paine quote. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I only wish I could fully embrace the courage that wrote it.

        The child example is very humorous, and bittersweet. We're facing a country full of adults living very childishly. Who are imperiling their very existence and ours. As you said, the child must reap the rotten fruit of consequences directly caused by its own actions. That self showing, and not us telling them, is the last tangible hope we can have for the sanity of common sense.

        And funny you mention Atlas, a book I need to discover anew. It's both satisfying to identify with and terrifying to accept. It's the account of the undercurrent I feel everyday; that the far-fetched, the bizarre, is now reality. I'm man enough to admit that reality has stirred in me the most fear I've ever felt in my thirtysome years. It has caused me to re-examine my halcyon days which, in light of my awakening to what the last 20 years of national neglect has really meant, don't seem nearly as halcyon. We've been on a steady downhill march post-Reagan. I didn't fully see it until 2008.

        I fear being an American with no America to call home. If being John Galt is the undercurrent, this is the overarching theme. I think about it everyday. More than Obama. More than financial collapse.

        I think about what George Washington would do and who he was. He was a man of character and conviction, whose hand was steady through every season of life. That has to be the way through this mess. We have to live and die by our principles, whatever the result.

        Mark, thank you for every word you write. It makes me a better organizer of thoughts, a better thinker, and renews my often-taxed hope.

      • Pat Cashman says:

        I don't usually take joy in smack downs, but I will here on your smackdown of Andrew and Moon Rock. I'm pretty tired of the useless drivel that has become American lore. "It's better to choose the lesser of two evils.". Look where that has gotten us. We are continuously kicking the progressive down the road instead of picking it up and throwing it out. The fight is now and that is to make it blatantly clear to the established types that there time is over. There will be a new generation of Americans in January 2012. We can do this the hard way, or we can do it the hard way. But I have not lost hope. I believe that, like most of us conservatives, Rick Santorum has seen the light and has had that awakening that Sarah Palin has brought down to the lower 48. At least he his following her lead today. He is going to be brought out to the wood shed by the establishment behind the guise of a Romney super PAC. If he survives, then it is by God's grace that he does. If he doesn't survive, there is his wingman (woman) reluctantly waiting to take the baton. And then we will not have to settle for an evil. If I'm wrong about this hope of mine, then me and my children will watch America suffer until the next awakening, and we shall be part of it. But I will never cast a vote for Mitt Romney. Ever, and under no circumstances.

    • Michael Teuber says:

      "And have our best and brightest rushed forward to wrest America back from the evil? Nope. They slunk back into their existence of denial and cowardice."

      Is that supposed to be a reference to the woman who endured the most vile sustained campaign of scorched earth politics of personal destruction in living memory? Three years of libel, slander, and abuse at the hands of the Republicans she helped save from irrelevancy and the political grave coupled with the organized corporate media distortion machine and the Axelrod/Emmanuel camarilla of personal annihilation have rendered cheap shots at her integrity or courage out of bounds.

      If it was a reference to those usually referred to as the 'best and brightest', well, who do you think got us into this mess?

      Paraphrasing the remarks of the lady in question at the Reagan Centennial, 'Ronald Reagan is not coming back, an Army of Davids must rise to replace him.'

      • Stand Taker says:

        I'm well aware of what Sarah endured/continues to endure. You talk as if she took the slings and arrows in the sacrifice of a 2012 presidential run. But we know she never declared as a candidate, dont we?

        I believe Sarah was ramping up to run last year but was stonewalled. We know, being astute observers of political skullduggery, what the GOP establishment is all about. So I was not referencing Sarah with my "best and brightest" comment.

        Where is Paul Ryan? Allen West? Marco Rubio? Nikki Haley? Jim DeMint? Jason Chaffetz? Even RINO Christie couldn't muster enough sack to do something.

        Before you or anyone lunges to pick apart those un-candidates, I'm merely suggesting that they, at least Ryan and West, show some semblance of conservatism in contrast to what we're currently choosing from.

        The country is being destroyed like never before in its 236 years and these guys rush to find a seat on the bench. I'm flabbergasted by this fact.

  10. Thomas Dixon says:

    I was afraid you were going to say that, Mark. Throughout my time with you, I've gleaned the essence of your values and stamina. And, though you've never wavered your stance as to the hypocrisy being displayed by both parties, I didn't hear you removing the sword from its scabbard. When Col Travis faced his volunteers in March of 1836 and scored that ominous line in the cold dirt, every man knew his eventual fate should he decide to remain steadfast to his principles. Each of them stared the Devil in the face that day and looks down on us now wondering how we'll react.

    You are absolutely right about the ugliness of revolutions. Any who have been fortunate to avoid actual combat need only play the game of Risk with five friends to experience the destruction opposing forces suffer irrespective of odds. I would like to think there is sufficient leadership in the right places to "…make the GOP go the way of the whigs." But, after re-reading your first four paragraphs and recalling events that resulted in the 2008 debacle, I don't see much sunshine.

    The sidelines may only be our first rally point. Because as you concluded, whether 2013 smiles on Obama, Romney, or other Progressive, we must be ready for a rising tide or tsunami. Either way, we can be sure the onslaught of destroying our values will continue and escalate.

    I, too, will join you at the Alamo. Certainly not what I had in mind for my twilight years, but only God knows when I'll be relieved of duty here on earth.

  11. Mark,

    You are a patriot. Quit acting like a spoiled OWS protester who didn't get their free college loan.

    John Adams was one of the founders incredibly frustrated at the indecision and constant hand-wringing by those afraid or unsure of declaring Independence. He expressed many times in his letters to Abigail that he'd had enough or would try to coerce a resolution quicker and more to his liking. His dilemma was that it wasn't his decision alone. The final decision would not just jeopardize his family, but the fortunes of all. And frankly, he didn't have enough votes.

    William Wilberforce was another thought it was often fruitless to keep arguing his position to other members who either laughed, derided or demeaned him. Yet he didn't give up in frustration but kept watering the rock that blocked the passage of slavery prohibition. Yes it took 30 years but he saw the lives of millions – and the soul of Britain – saved.

    Similarly Newt Gingrich wailed away at the end of the day to an empty house and CSPAN cameras. In a PBS interview years ago, Vin Webber and others said it was the determination to stay in the fight – even with distasteful partners at times with the belief the GOP would once again win the House. He was laughed at (often) and since has confessed the dilemma of working with what you have versus waiting for the perfect circumstance.

    The bible says He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.

    You think Washington felt like he had the "perfect" fighting force with 1/3 shoeless in attacking the Germans that Christmas 1776? Hell no. He worked with God gave him.

    Have you READ who Thatcher – or even Churchill were before being elected? Reagan raised taxes EIGHT TIMES in office. None of our heroes gave us a clue who they would truly become and then we've glamorized who they were and what they truly did.

    Levin (like Beck) sure can get a little too girly. So what Romney won Iowa. He WONT win SC and is still tied with Newt Gingrich nationally. he trails in almost ALL of the Super Tuesday states. Perry is going home to Texas to "reassess" his campaign. Sarah effectively drove a nail in her BFF Bachmann's campaign the past two nights. (It was dead already, but why would Palin kill her off and no one else? Weird and stupid). This additional 12% to 15% ALONE would give Gingrich a lead.

    (Santorum has no infrastructure and is so inspiring that not a single Federal legislator he worked with (or any other) has endorsed him. And guess what? He is FACTUALLY less conservative than Newt. have you LOOKED at his non-existent economic plan??)

    Romney hasn't won this thing. Anything can happen. Romney could even be inspired to suddenly become someone we didn't think he could be. Just as a Souter can turn bad, a Truman can surprise the world and give God's people their homeland. God loves this country. We've prayed. We have to keep fighting and believe he'll work with what we have.

    I'm not sure why you don't feel Gingrich isn't conservative enough. I would think the ONLY person besides Palin who has mentioned reform from the legislature to the code (and cited that single qualification of Palin FIRST before any other) would give you a bit of hope. Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer, Michael Reagan and Chris Ruddy see it.

    Anyway, who the hell owed you the perfect conservative?

    Quitcher bitchin' and start praying.

    And most of all, trust God. Even the MOST worthy man (or woman) in our eyes will let us down. In fact, they already have.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Wait, Jim, are you actually suggesting Mitt Romney may be "the next Ronald Reagan?"


      I knew you must be joking. That was the dead-giveaway.

  12. Bruce O'H. says:

    For the last 4 years, I have fought the three fronted battle: against the Left, the media, and the Moderate Republican establishment. I am a Conservative.
    What I got from Levins show was to work our tails off for the candidate that we prefer. But if that candidate is not the nominee, and Romney is, then we need to vote against Obama in the end.
    You state above, "sometimes you have to be willing to watch a thing fail."
    No, I don't, not when it's my country. And no Patriot would be willing to. I hope you don't undermine us by convincing too many people not to vote against Obama in the most important election of our lifetimes.
    You certainly do not deter me from doing everything possible to remove him.
    If we don't, 30 years from now, your children will be saying, "I wish my dad had voted against Obama, but he stood on his principles against the Republican Party"…
    This election is not a choice between two evils of similar stripe. We have an internal enemy in the White House. A man who despises our country and is doing everything that he can, as quickly as possible, to bring her down.
    He MUST be removed.
    I implore anyone reading this blog not to sit the election out, no matter which Repub candidate is the nominee.
    In the meantime, I will work to add to Santorums momentum and do my part to help him beat Romney.
    But if he doesn't beat Romney, I'm not going to stomp my feet and refuse to vote against Obama.

  13. Helen says:

    Did you see Sarah talking to Cavuto last night? She practically proclaimed that she (some other folks) would jump in if romney mamby-pamby is the candidate. NOW, she's singing my song! Can't wait!

  14. juneau says:

    I sat and watched the Iowa Caucuses results last night and realized, there is not one 'establishment GOP' candidate who can beat Obama because they will never win the independent votes. To win the independents from Obama, we need Ron Paul (or some other candidate who appeals to them — it isn't Romney or Santorum, that's for sure). So, Levin can crow all he wants about holding his nose and voting for Romney, Mitt cannot beat Obama, for exactly the same reason Obama was elected in 2008 — the independent vote. Could be all the establishment GOP voters should hold their nose and vote for the candidate that COULD actually beat Obama??!!

  15. I agree with you that voting for the lesser of two evils should stop and we should not hold our nose and vote for the establishment pick HOWEVER Ross Perot taught me a lesson. He ushered in 8 years of graft, political positioning and treason. While we were distracted by soap opera sex stories, the politicians got richer than ever before, the courts were stocked with activist judges, and untold secrets were sold to China for political contributions. Then the Republican establishment sent in another Bush to calm things down, coax in the unbelievers into the herd, and set the stage for the next “progressive" surge.

    That said, it is imperative that this surge be stopped (or slowed) immediately. A second Obama administration, even with a Republican Congress , would be a disaster, He has already shown he is perfectly willing to rule by executive order, and the Republican establishment has shown that it's fine with that.. In another 4 years we will be bankrupt, we will have abandoned all our traditional allies, we will be engaged in a perpetual policy of appeasement to Islam, and most of our individual freedoms will be gone. The choices of Republican candidates we have will only slow that.

    If Trump plays the roll of Perot and gives Obama the election this conversation is mute. If not, we must once again hold our nose and vote to slow the progression. The problem is it cannot stop there. We cannot groan every 4 years over the choices we are given and do nothing about it. The system is rigged against a third party, what must be done is an aggressive takeover of the Republican Party starting NOW. Every precinct, every county, every state, must be taken over in a coordinated effort. When it comes right down to it, the "power" in the parties is held by a surprisingly small number of people easily outnumbered by a concerned public.

    Will the “lesser of two evils" solve the problem? NO. Will it buy time to fix the problem? YES, but only if that time is used to fix the problem.

  16. rob hart says:

    "I am not for sale." Me too, Sarah…….."Wake up America" it's about "sudden and relentless reform" for "restoring America" to her exceptional nature. I will be going "Rogue" and will be free of guilt in doing so……..Thanks for your article.

  17. piban says:

    Mark, I understand where you are coming from and why. Actually, you make more sense that others saying they are disappointed in you with this article.

    Giving in is giving up. How can we NOT get what this country really needs if we give in and give up. Like Sarah Palin says, you have to stand your ground. I throw in,,,, even if it means not voting. I don’t like the idea of Obama another 4 yrs. but, really what is going to happen if we just give in to another car salesman wearing a different color suit that does not have the constitutional fortitude and backbone to RULE by the constitution…. Not a damn thing. It won’t matter because we still have not gotten anywhere.

    Principle has got to win here. Otherwise who are we to say I was honest. Honest, no people who vote for another salesman wearing a different color suit is lying. So, who is better off. No one! Because when people keep lying to themselves, the only change they will see is the person is the different person who will change their dirty underwear in the Whitehouse. Oh, yes I have heard all the glass is half full not half empty garbage. Get real, get some guts and stand up for once. It’s WE the PEOPLE who have to stand up. WE WE WE!! Not those dirty lying entrenched rich bastards that have made this society into kingdom and peasant world. Have a wonderful day and for once be honest and truthful.

  18. Mark, my only wish is that I could learn to be as eloquent as you have been in your posts. I completely concur and understand your immensely thoughtful and insightful posts. Our problem is not only Obama but in fact the media, the electorate, and the establishment of both parties. The majority in this nation is disenfranchised and being held hostage by the ruthless left and by the incompetent, compromised, cowardly right. Many have awakened and come to realize our predicament. Many have not. Perhaps things have not become dire enough to stir more of us to action. Perhaps sometimes inaction is action. The fight for conservatism, indeed for Americanism, for some semblance of self-governance is palpable but may be only in its early stages. As individuals we can judge our representatives only through observation of their behavior and careful examination of their record. How many of our fellow citizens even take a look before, during, and after elections? How many are distracted by the clever manipulations of the powerful in the process of fulfilling greedy, selfish, individual agendas? Who's teaching and guiding our youth in civic matters? in learning to simply think critically or converse meaningfully?

    What can we do as individuals?… What you are doing: thinking, writing, speaking, and engaging others intellectually, honestly, passionately, while sharing one's experience and knowledge.

  19. sedeuce says:


    How long did it take the Progressive movement to spawn the traitorous alien that is Barry Soetoro? Along with the treasonous lamestream media and the dumbed down electorate that it took to elect him, over 100 years!

    Enough conservatives woke up from actually living their lives to create the Tea Party movement and generate the greatest electoral turnover since the Great Depression in 2010 and yet not enough Tea Party politicians were elected to even control the leadership of THEIR OWN PARTY in the House and Senate! But because it hasn't gone exactly as you would like as fast as you want, you're ready to throw in the towel in the Presidential election and watch the country that you say you love go down the toilet.

    It takes more than 3 years to create a Revolution, especially one at the ballot box. Isn't this one of the most significant accomplishments of our Founders? That they designed an entire political system so revolutions could be accomplished without the loss of actual blood? In a sense, whether we agree with it not (it makes me want to puke, personally) isn't that exactly what the Progressives have done? And now, because the establishment of the more conservative of the two parties isn't ready to just turn over the keys to you after 3 years, you're ready to risk the absolute destruction of our country. By not voting for the Republican candidate, you will most certainly be casting a vote for Obama. In so doing, you and anyone else of like mind are virtually insuring that no bill that could counter the destruction wrought by the Progressive congresses over the past decades, and especially the past 3 years, will come into law. You consider yourself a Patriot?

    An argument was made in the last presidential election by conservatives that votes should be withheld from McCain so a Progressive would be elected to wake the country up. Mission accomplished and then some. We're walking a tightrope here and, as you know, if Obamacare and Dodd/Frank are allowed to continue down the paths that are built into the bills for another 4 years, it is truly the end of the country that our Founders envisioned and created. The end.

    I don't for a second believe that any of the Republican candidates would veto the repeal of Obamacare. Not a chance.

    Not only do we have to do more than hold our noses and vote for whoever the Republican Presidential candidate is, we will have to do everything we can for them to win because s/he will be going against the most overwhelmingly negative and dirtiest campaign in our history. At the same time, we have to do everything we can to increase the Tea Party numbers at ALL levels of government so that the Revolution can continue to grow. It is a process. It works. The Progressives have proven that. Fortunately, because we have the Founders and the greatest governing system ever created on our side, it won't take us anything like 100 years.

  20. I have to say that i agree with you Mark 100% the buck stops here and ill not give my vote to the GOPs Socialist so they can play the game only rather a quick revolution then a slow death!

  21. Andrew W. Pearson says:


    My apologies.

    I just logged in again, and my second response to you did not show up, although ALL of the other posts did. Therefore, I thought you had deleted my second response. I'm happy to find that it was a computer glitch, and not your doing.


    • MarkAmerica says:

      Andrew, because of some past issues with some out-of-control folks who were unwilling to control their language, or refrain from savaging their fellow posters, I set this blog to require approval of the admin. (Me.) I don't use that to delete disagreements(as you can see very plainly) but to prevent some of the attacks and so on we would otherwise confront. It is an inconvenience, since it means I have to periodically go in and approve comments, so there can be a delay/lag.

      Sorry for the inconvenience.

  22. juneau says:

    Just got to say…this blog and the many comments are truly enjoyable to read. I not only agree with most of you, but the depth on the issues, knowledge of history and the eloquent way you present your opinions are top-notch. It's nice to be here, among other thinking conservatives.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Thank you Juneau!

      • Thomas Dixon says:

        Juneau, I couldn't have said it better. I regard Mark's blog as one of the benchmarks to my investigative research. Not only does he state his view precisely and support with modern footnotes, but monitors the site with mailed fist to ensure integrity throughout.

        Further, the folks who take time to discuss issues are, for the most part, equally informed and present points of view that may be outside my comfort zone. It's gratifying to be able to discuss complex issues and I find it enjoyable to learn from them, too.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Thomas, that's why I value my readers, and why I won't let these comment sections be turned into absolute zoos for the endless bash-fests I see on other sites. I want people to feel comfortable discussing things even if they disagree substantially with me, or with other posters, without fear of reprisals and all that nonsense. It started to happen at one point early on, and after three or four days of escalating verbal acrimony, I decided to put a stop to it. Thanks for noticing!

  23. mimsborne says:

    Good article, Mark. I shop for cars the same way as you. When I drive on to the lot, it is after I've set the price on the phone, and I'm always ready and willing to walk/drive away if the salesman tries to change the deal.

    I'll continue to support the most small-government fiscal conservative in this race, but I think after the nomination is won by a Rino, I'll just concentrate on Tea Party candidates who are running against Rino's. For instance, Dan Liljenquist for Senate in Utah (to replace Orrin Hatch). As to my actual Presidentlal vote in November, I will not cast it for any of the big-government guys. If that means Obama wins over Romney, then so be it. I doubt Obama would get much [evil] done with a Republican led Senate and House, though.

    • sedeuce says:

      mimsborne, the problem with a second term for Obama is that the evil that you refer to is already baked into law in the form of the future requirements in Dodd/Frank and especially Obamacare. If they are allowed to fester and grow like a cancerous tumor without repeal for the 4 years that would be an Obama 2nd term, it will be virtually impossible to extract from our society. Overcoming an Obama veto of a repeal bill takes 67 Senate votes. Overcoming a Democrat filibuster of a repeal bill so a Republican president can sign it takes 61 Senate votes. Doesn't seem like much, but the fate of our Republic rests on this.

      In addition, it will take multiple terms to root out all the Progressive slime that has wormed its way into our Federal government, a task not even touched on by W, the "compassionate conservative" – do you really want 4 more years of all that the EPA, FCC, Justice Department, NLRB and the endless other alphabet soup agencies have dumped on us over the past 3 years? Can we wait another 4 years to flush the obstructive environmental rules that have prevented us from taking advantage of our own natural resources? The list goes on and on.

      This country will not survive another 4 years of the destructive force that is the Obama administration. And the saddest and really most pitiful reason for letting all of this go on would be because we're not happy with the fact that we as a voting populace have allowed Progressivism to seep its way into our entire political system, including the Republican establishment. We have to do what is necessary now, which means electing a President who will sign the necessary repeal bills, while continuing to further the Tea Party Revolution. We will cease to exist as the last, best hope of humankind if we do not and we've got almost exactly 11 months to get 'er done!

      How about a strong enough Tea Party representation in Congress to elect Michelle Bachman as House Speaker and Jim DeMint as Senate Majority Leader? Think things would get shook up a bit?

      • Which is more destructive or problematic: Obama and this administration or the Republican party and leadership who refuses to stop or fight the destruction, corruption, indeed criminal behavior? The Republican party refuses to be the opposition party, refuses to represent and work on behalf of a majority of the American people, and fails to honor the oath of upholding the Constitution each and every day while whining and lying.

      • sedeuce says:

        I don't think it's even close here – we need either a Republican President or a veto-proof Republican majority in the Senate to repeal Obamacare. If Obamacare is not repealed soon after the next Presidential election, we can kiss our country good bye because all of the "good stuff" that will be like narcotics to the "depend on government" crowd starts to kick in. The stuff that had to be put off to get the supposed cost of the program below $1 Trillion out of the CBO. There is no way a third party can be started up in time to pull this off. We can rant and rave about the Republican party establishment and leadership, and I agree with all of that, but supporting the Republican Party is the only way to save our country in the short term by starting to dismantle the cancer that Obama and the radical Progressives have infected on our Federal Government. If we keep supporting Tea Party candidates at all levels of government, eventually, we will take control of the Republican Party. The point is that no Republican President, including Romney, is going to veto the repeal of Obamacare. Obama will. It's as simple as that.

  24. CPB says:

    Agree, gm4363!! I, too, learned a lesson from voting for Ross Perot – I was much younger and much more naive, but the lesson is yes – we need to work MUCH harder in reforming the Republican Party. And I, too, think we may need to buy some time that is not under Obama or his minions’ control to do it. One of the primary goals should be getting legislators that will vote for term limits – for all federal offices. If legislators actually had to live and work with the laws they pass, they just might consider doing things a little differently. Unfortunately, I think the other major hurdle is the huge number of uneducated, uninformed, and for the most part, uncaring voters and I don’t have any good answers for that problem.

    Mark: While I agree with many of your thoughts above, I will not choose to sit out this election and will, once again, hold my nose and vote for whoever ends up winning the Republican circus (I sincerely hope it is NOT Romney, BTW) – for two main reasons: (1) Obamacare and (2) the Supreme Court, either or both of which have the potential to destroy this nation, in very short order.

    Michele Bachmann was right when she said if Obamacare is allowed to continue into 2014, we may never be able to get rid of it. Once whiny, entitlement-minded voters start reaping the socialist benefits of the legislation, it may be impossible to ever take them away (re: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). We obviously need health care reforms but attempting to tweak the bad stuff in this piece of junk will never work – it must be repealed and start over. As bad as most of the current candidates are, I don’t think any of them would veto legislation to repeal Obamacare. (Of course that also means we’d better get enough conservatives in both houses of Congress to ACTUALLY get the repeal legislation passed!!)

    If you have read Levin’s book “Men in Black” you understand the extreme danger that our Supreme Court poses. Since these justices are lifetime appointments, another 4 years of an Obama administration could possibly introduce another 2 or 3 Kagan or Sotomayer types and give us a majority of very liberal, legislating-from-the-bench group of justices that could continue to screw up this country for many, many years after the country finally “learns its lesson”, if it eventually does. I’m just not sure we can afford that risk with so many of our justices being as old and/or as ill as they are right now.

    As a fellow Texan who has lived here all my life and voted in this state for many years, I am very aware of some of the issues you have with Rick Perry. But I will continue to support him in this race – partially because I think he is the “least-worst” option at this point and partially because I think he is our best chance at starting to get rid of the completely out-of-control federal government and attempt to get more of the control back to the states and local government where we, the people, have a little better chance of making significant changes. We expect Democrats to dislike any Republican candidate, but just look at Perry’s conservative opponents to observe what a threat he appears to be to big Washington government – the MSM, Karl Rove, the Bushes, the rest of the GOP Establishment all hate him; even Fox News is alternately either marginalizing or completely ignoring him. It is making this even more of an uphill battle for him. As you have said many times, the DC culture is so corrupt and powerful right now, average voters have very little say in the direction this country is headed – and it doesn’t seem to matter which party is in charge. We conservatives have allowed this to happen by not standing up and screaming loud enough. We are going to have to get confrontational and aggressive to make any real changes, but we didn’t get into this mess overnight and it is going to take time to get out of it. In the meantime, in my humble opinion, we cannot afford to allow these two very permanent, destructive issues muck up the waters even more.

  25. Shawn says:

    I agree with you 100%. Couldn't have said any better myself.

  26. ChevalierdeJohnstone says:

    Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah.

    Absolutely spot on.

    Choosing elected officials entails a moral responsibility. To vote for a candidate whom one believes will not defend and endorse one's moral values is to betray and destroy those values, because it is to actively support a candidate who is ethically and morally wrong. Voting for the "lesser evil" is evil. It is always better to stay true to one's moral ideals and lose the election, than it is to betray those moral values. Even if it means the absolute destruction of the country, countries can be replaced. Souls cannot.

    If you believe the GOP candidate does not share your basic moral values and ethical principles, it would be a great evil to vote for that person. It is not possible to vote against Obama. It is only possible to vote in support of an alternate candidate. Always remember that in a democratic republic the elected representatives are responsible to the electorate. Our government is created solely by the people. This means that you, the voter, bear complete and total responsibility for every action of your government. So long as you participate in the election there is no escaping that responsibility. You cannot beg off by claiming that you didn't know, or didn't support some particular policy. You elect a candidate, not a policy platform. If that candidate, when in office, uses the power you voluntarily gave to them in an immoral or unethical manner, you are responsible for granting them that position and power. The fact that you share this responsibility with all other voters in no way diminishes your own personal responsibility.

    This is why the only branch of government to be popularly elected under the original Constitution was the House of Representatives, and why the real (and unratified) first amendment to the Constitution specified a formula to fix the number of citizens per representative at a relatively small number. It is barely possible for a few thousand people to carefully examine, in person, face-to-face, from among their number a candidate who is a known member of their community in order to determine his real values and commitment to uphold those values. It is not possible for the massive population of an entire country to know what is truly in the heart of their President. Thus locally-elected representatives, known to the members of their communities, would serve as State legislatures, and choose from their own membership individuals intimately known to all of them to serve as Senators; likewise the locally-elected State legislatures would appoint Electors to choose a President, known to and by each of the Electors. In this way the principle of subsidiarity was achieved with all power ultimately resting in the hands of the individual citizen who was responsible for choosing from his local community someone to represent his personal interests in the government of the State and of the Nation.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: