Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:


Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

Conservatives vs. Leftists

Like you, I was horrified by the results of November’s presidential election.  And I was dispirited.  And not a little angry.  I’ve not been sure how (or even whether) to continue a political blog because it seemed so pointless and that all our work was for pretty much nothing.  But then I remember that it was apathy, even more than ignorance, that got us into this mess, and slinking back onto the couch in disgust really isn’t the answer (tempting though it is).  Worse is staying home and not voting at all (that is not in the least bit tempting. To me, anyway.).

So then I started thinking about what went wrong for conservatives and what went right for leftists, and I had these inchoate thoughts swimming around amidst the other emotions and thoughts.  There seem to be a few of key problems on the conservative side, and these are being heightened and played quite ingeniously by leftists.

First, I think we really need to figure out what we want.  Do we want more government and less freedom?  Do we want what we have now, to maintain the status quo in terms of the government-freedom ratio? I was talking with a friend the other day, and he laughingly brought up the time when we, in Florida, could buy drive-thru beer, wine, even mixed drinks.  I’m not talking about bottles and six packs, here, I’m talking about draft beer.  In a cup, in your car.   Sounds nuts, right?  Even I think it sounds nuts.  But then we got to talking about other Floridian responses to new laws, particularly the seat belt law that coincided with serial killer Ted Bundy’s death penalty appeals.  The bumper sticker of the day was “I’ll buckle up when Bundy does” (referring, of course, to Florida’s electric chair).  He did.  We did.

And no, I’m not saying that we need to all be drinking drive-thru brew, with or without our seat belts.  What I am saying is that we adapt to encroachments on our liberty, so much so that we are (or least I am) horrified at the thought of not only buying a glass of wine in my car but of leaving “park” without my seat belt on.  Frog meet pot of water.

The more laws we have, and this is the foundation of regressivism, the fewer freedoms we have.  Regressives are about totalitarian control, right down to who can have children and how many they can have.  Remember, it was progressives who brought us prohibition, eugenics, and a host of other equally intrusive and/or downright evil threats to our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

When it comes to the economy, we seem to agree that the entitlement culture is a big big problem, but then we defend massive programs that will bankrupt us if they are not reformed.  I’ve written recently about entitlements and how I think that conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  Part of that, I think, is that we tend to get defensive when “called out” as hypocrites by the left.  We are not hypocrites for taking social security, medicare, etc.  Were the first wave of feminists hypocrites because they still depended on their fathers and husbands?  Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites before the American Revolution?  They rejected tyranny but lived under it, after all (so goes the crazed leftist logic on entitlements and conservatives).  You get my point.  Any change requires living in the existing condition until that change occurs.

When it comes to politicians, we want fiscal and some of us want social conservatives . . . so much so that we are willing to let die-hard commies be elected if we can’t have our way.  Obama did not win by a landslide, nowhere near one, and he definitely would have lost if conservatives–yes, conservatives–had their act together and not played into the hands of the leftists (newsflash: they have their best interests at heart, not ours).  Some conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones (by the way, I lean libertarian with the noted and huge exceptions of foreign policy and defense), voted for “anyone but Romney” not “anyone but Obama.”  This boggles the mind, and has had me spinning since November.  I just didn’t get it (actually, I’m not sure that I do now, and yes, I’ve read all the crap about how they are practically the same person, blah blah blah. What tripe!).

Then I read J. R. Dunn’s article at American Thinker, and it sort of clicked for me.  We need to break out of this mindset that we must have the most pure conservative on every issue or on our own pet issue.  If we don’t, we will continue to lose, and worse, our losses strengthen the very people who are destroying this nation.  Let’s look, as Dunn does, at the Akin horror show.  I was right there with everyone calling for that silly silly man to withdraw from the race, so I’m not pointing fingers here, or if I am, I’m including myself at the end of my pointy pointy finger.  I must have tweeted 30 (or more) Akin-related tweets that mocked him, urged him to withdraw, etc.  And I was right.  He should have withdrawn.  But I was also wrong because guess who won that race, Air Claire Corrupt Lying Commie McCaskill.   Yeah, that’s a much better choice than some guy who doesn’t know much about the woman’s body or how to answer questions and avoid obvious errors and is guilty of general idiocy.  Um. No.  It’s not better.  It’s a thousand times worse.  She’s a freaking communist, people (including myself here, what the heck was I thinking?).

But that’s the ploy, right.  The left hammers on one slip, one thing, until conservatives are beaten down, backed into a corner that is painted for them.  But look what the left does, it rallies around pedophiles, tax evaders, philanderers, liars, fake Indians, druggies, drunks, murderers . . . you name it, and there is some Democrat in Congress or at the state level who is up to his or her eyeballs in that crime.  Crime, people, not stupidity–actual crime.  No wonder they are so gleeful when we turn on some numbnut who made a stupid statement, they are laughing all the way to tyranny.

Now, I am in no way saying that we should send our own list of criminals to Congress nor that we need to moderate our own views or values, but what I am saying is don’t listen to them anymore.  It’s not even hypocrisy from them; they truly believe that a murderer or a pedophile is better than a conservative.  But here’s the thing, we have to stop caring what they think.  I think that a screw up like Akin is ten times better than Air Claire, but they clearly don’t care what we think, and pandering to their standards is killing not only us but our country.  They are heavy into Alinsky, right?  And they are busily holding us to our own impossible standards, and it’s working.  Like a charm.

Second, once we figure out what we want, we need to work for it in every area of our lives.  Where’d the TEA Party go?  Are you working in your community to keep that fire alive?  Our Second Amendment rights are under attack; this is far bigger than the 0CareTax, so where are the rallies?  Are we waiting for a bill to be introduced?  If so, fine, but plan on rallying because something IS going to happen on “gun control.”  Count on it.

And what about those of us who are appalled by the leftists’ repeated victories in the culture war?  Are we still forking out our money for their propaganda?  Financially supporting actors and companies who hate us, our country, and everything we stand for?  What about those of us who are appalled by what is happening in our schools and universities?  Are we involved, making our voices heard?  Or are we doing what generations of conservatives have done (up until ’09, anyway) and sitting on our couches muttering in impotent frustration and anger?

Third, we need to focus our attention on 2014.  If we lose the House, it’s over.  Heck, it may well be over already as so many conservatives proclaim, but it doesn’t look over to me.

Not yet.

But it will be if we don’t stop this litmus test stuff and start supporting candidates who may not be perfect in every way but who are . . . yes, I’m going to say it, better than the alternative.  That is really all we can do now that we’ve lost so much ground; we don’t have the luxury of choosing the very bestest conservative the planet’s ever seen for each and every office (or for any office).  Does that mean that we have to “compromise our principles”?  Sure, I guess so, if you want to think of it that way.  I prefer to think of it as electing people who are not known communists.  Because guess what, our choices are often going to be some nutter like Akin versus the corrupt commie Air Claire or a moderate like Romney versus the corrupt commie Obama.  By sitting home or voting for some obscure loon who will never ever win (what the hell was that guy’s name again?), we are electing corrupt commies.  We, conservatives, are doing that.  Let’s not.

Election Eve

Well, here it is . . . the night before the big day.  The biggest, most important election of my lifetime.  I find myself wavering between being hopeful and optimistic (those D+11 polls are laugh out loud hilarious; no way are dems showing up in those numbers) and anxious and worried.  I’ve read the predictions, read the polls, read the pundits, and . . . I honestly can’t understand how this election is so close.  It seems impossible to me that Americans can still be taken in by the naked emperor wannabe.  But it seems they are . . . at least enough so for people to be saying that this election is close.

I’m not so sure, and looking at the crowds that are gathering for the humble, competent, balanced Romney and the hottie fiscal genius Ryan, I can’t help but be reminded of obnoxious, petty, petulant, and unhinged 0’s ’08 crowds.  Granted people aren’t swooning and fainting and acting like total idiots, but that’s a good thing in my book.  Leftists–those who aren’t insanely predicting a 0 blow-out–are calling this election “too close to call” and a “tie,” so that’s also a good sign.  They aren’t saying it’s a 0 win, and they would be if they thought it was really too close to call.  I’ve seen exactly one Obama-Biden sign and scores of Romney-Ryan ones, so that’s also heartening.  Florida, at least where I am, seems to be going the right way.

After I vote for Romney/Ryan tomorrow, I’m heading to Chik-Fil-A again–a lot of people on Twitter are talking about this, and I think it’s a great idea.  And then, yummy chicken goodness in hand, I’ll be settling in for the results to roll in.  I would not be in the least surprised by a Romney landslide, but . . .  I’m not counting on it, either. Praying for it, wishing for it, hoping against hope for it, yes, yes, yes.

I hate this.  Hate it.  I hate not knowing what is going to happen to our great country–will we do the right thing and avert true disaster?  Or will we not?  Are we too far gone?


So what are you thinking?  Who do you think will win?  By how much?  And why do you think that?

Scarborough’s “Truth” and the TEA Party’s Promise

Joe Scarborough defends the TEA Party . . . cue “Twilight Zone” theme.  In a jaw-dropping article entitled The Truth About the Tea Party (yes, I’m linking to hack rag Politico for a change), Scarborough writes:

Let’s simply review how terrible the tea party has been for the GOP.

— They energized a conservative movement battered by eight years of bloated Republicanism,

— they shocked the political world by taking Ted Kennedy’s seat,

— they put Obama Democrats in a constant defensive crouch,

— they led the resistance against “Obamacare,”

— they helped bring about the largest legislative landslide in U.S. history in 2010,

— they grabbed six seats in the U.S. Senate that year,

— they helped elect six governors,

— they helped win 700 seats in state legislatures, and

— they helped elect a Republican majority that included the largest number of Republicans elected since 1946.

With a track record like that, the Republican Party had better watch their backs. If this trend keeps up, they might just win the White House and the Senate.

Regardless of what happens in the next few weeks, the general theme that the tea party has been bad for the GOP is pure malarkey.

That’s a short list of TEA Party accomplishments, of course, but it’s a good, meaty one . . .  “gob-smacked” doesn’t cover my initial reaction.  Scarborough is a well-known RINO (whom I consider a progressive–aka regressive), so this defense of the TEA Party is unfathomable.  What is he doing?  And why?

I’m not really sure, of course, but I can guess.  His article always uses lowercase for “tea party” rather than more correct Tea Party or the still more correct TEA (taxed enough already) Party.  Is this purposeful?  Sure it is, and it may also be a Politico editor’s choice, so we can’t make too much of that . .  editors are funny creatures, but I tend to think that Scarborough chooses the lowercase on purpose, to diminish the “tea party” next to the nice, bold caps of “GOP.”

Scarborough makes an interesting (for lack of a better word) observation that may provide clues:

CNBC anchor Rick Santelli’s 2009 rant from the Chicago Mercantile Floor created a viral video that launched a national movement that created a new focus among conservatives. Before that, Republicans had little to rally around.

Before their 2009 formation, their GOP president had just spent $700 billion baling out Wall Street. Their GOP Congress had spent the Bush years driving up the deficit to record levels. The national debt doubled during the Bush years, and their so-called conservative party had shoved through a $7 trillion Medicare drug plan without paying for a dime of it.

Hmmm . . . . Scarborough misreads the TEA Party here, massively.  We are not “GOP” or “Republican,” not by a long shot.  As I’ve said often enough, we would have responded to a McCain big spending, big government presidency in like manner.  We all know that.  Perhaps even Scarborough knows that.  So why, we might ask, is he stating that the TEA Party is, essentially, GOP?  He acknowledges that the TEA Party was a response to Bush’s big spending, big government ways as much as it was to 0’s, but in doing so, he also suggests that we are angsty Republicans, not the Constitutional conservatives that most of us are.  Why work so hard to paint us as GOP?

Here’s the end of his article:

But all in all, most Republicans I know prefer having the largest GOP majority since 1946 instead of Pelosi. We also liked having 700 new Republican state legislators elected in 2010, a national debate focused on less spending and a Democratic president who is now fighting for his political life.

No one knows what happens next. But we can at least start telling the truth about what happened over the past three years. Whether opinion leaders like it or not, the tea party helped engineer a Republican landslide, reframed the national debate and put the president so far back on his heels that even Mitt Romney has a chance to be president.

And that in itself is pretty damned remarkable.  All true, of course, but all wrong at the same time.

The long and short of it, then, is that Scarborough’s article is yet another attempt by “establishment GOP” (i.e. RINOs, progressives/regressives) to turn the tables, to “embrace” the TEA Party, to try–in essence–to control us.  It’s not unexpected, of course, they’ve done this off and on since ’09, but this is the groundwork phase of trying to corral us into the GOP fold, to ensure that we act against our principles as so many progressives have happily done since 0 took office.  We’re supposed to be proud and pleased to have “helped” the GOP; we’re supposed to, should Romney win, sit back and be quiet.  We’re supposed to look the other way should the GOP establishment carry on with their big spending, big government ways.  We’re supposed to see a Romney victory as “mission accomplished” and shuffle back to our couches and back to our long sleep.  Or perhaps they hope we’ll act as regressives have and defend the indefensible out of some crazed partisanship rather than acting on our principles . . . something that regressives left in the dust the second they embraced 0’s “kill list,” drones, war in Libya, continued Bush wiretaps, TSA indignities, deportation of illegals in record numbers, and on and on.

Isn’t that the most hilarious, out of touch, delusional hope since that “hopeychangey” nobody became president in ’08?  Regressives, when they took over the Democrat Party, made the mistake of putting party before principle; we are not that stupid, not that devoid of a moral and ethical core.

Newsflash establishment/RINO/regressive GOP: the TEA Party is not at all interested in the GOP except as it furthers our agenda of limited Constitutional government that gets out of the way of the free market and that supports liberty and personal responsibility in a fiscally-responsible manner.  Should the GOP fail in this regard, then the failed members will be replaced in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and beyond. And that absolutely includes Romney should he be elected on November 6th and then go off the rails into big spending, big government craziness.

That is not a threat, that’s a promise.

Leftists on Campaign Cash: It’s Evil. Or Marvelous. Um, Depends Who Has It.

Everywhere we turn, we hear that the 0 campaign is struggling to raise campaign cash because those evil Republicans are taking full advantage of the Citizens United ruling.  They’re going to buy the election, shriek fanatical anti-capitalist leftists.  They’re going to steal it from Teh Won! How can we let this happen? It’s wrong to raise so much campaign cash, it’s obscene, it’s unethical, it’s downright undemocratic.

Uh huh.

Flashback.  Remember when the 0 campaign was being lauded for their potential to run the first (“unprecedented” and “historic”) billion dollar campaign?  MSNBC does.  That’s why when you click on their post extolling the virtues of massive campaign coffers: “Obama to run moneyed campaign. He amassed a record $750 million in 2008 … he’s expected to hit $1 billion or more in 2012,” you receive the message: “Text: We’re sorry. The text content of this page is no longer available.”

I expect all of these slobbering awe-struck posts will soon be removed (good thing we can grab them first, huh?):

Reuters didn’t find it gauche or unseemly when they thought their buddy would amass a billion dollars to “buy the presidency”: “Analysis: Billion-dollar Obama to run moneyed campaign

President Barack Obama is no longer the outsider candidate who fueled his bid for the White House in 2008 with a flood of small donations from new and young voters inspired by his message of hope and change.

As a sitting president he has far greater authority and media access and his 2012 re-election campaign is expected to raise $1 billion, which is unprecedented in U.S. politics.

ABC was predictably drooling at the idea. “Obama set to announce reelection bid“:

Some believe that Obama, who has a true knack for raising election money, may cross the threshold and could become the first $1 billion presidential candidate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

According to The Associated Press, Obama intends to stay out of the fray until Republicans settle on a candidate next spring. But exactly who that will be is the billion-dollar question.

Roll Call was on the story. “GOP Has New 2012 Target: Obama’s $1 Billion Campaign

But a fat bank account is rarely a bad thing in politics. And most Democrats laugh off the suggestion that hitting the billion-dollar mark could be a political liability. At the very least, Obama’s fundraising prowess could become a distraction as the campaign progresses.

Dems aren’t laughing off big campaign coffers any longer . . . not since 0 started lagging behind in fund raising, that is.  Indeed, now a “fat bank account” is a bad thing.  A very bad thing for Democrats. Now that it’s future president Mitt Romney hauling in the massive cash, they find huge campaign coffers unAmerican and wildly proclaim that (suddenly) large amounts of campaign cash “put our democracy at stake.”  After all, when it’s 0 outspending his opponent as he did in 2008, that’s awe-inspiring leg-tingling good, that’s “democracy” in action, but when it’s future president Mitt Romney, it’s suddenly a threat to our “democracy”?

Uh huh.

And they honestly expect to be taken seriously.  Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?