Tuesday, November 6, 2012

A Very Personal Vision of the Future

All politics are personal. Someone said that. Many others have repeated it.
I believe that to be true. Otherwise, what's the point?

As millions of Americans (most of whom I've never met and will never know personally) go to the polls to elect someone that is going to have an impact on me personally, I think about my vision, not for America's future, not for their future but for my own individual, personal American future.

I want to wake up every morning next year with lower taxes and tax certainty. Because of this I'm able to save more, spend more and plan beyond the end of the month.

I want to read less, watch less and blog less about politics because government is adhering to it's Constitutional mandates and needs less watching.

I want Al Qaeda and every other radical faction of Islamist extremism to truly be on the run. I want China to be playing fair in the world economy and I want Russia, North Korea and Iran to fear our economic as well as our military strength. I want America's place in the world to be like it was when I served in the Army: a position of such strength that our enemies fear us and the world community truly respects us even if they don't love us. Because only then will the threat of yet another war be diminished.

I want there to be less poverty so taking care of those still living in poverty is easier and so my own extended family is less likely to be struggling to maintain a household and a middle-class standard of living. When my wife calls them it will be to talk about our nephews and nieces who are involved in activities, getting good grades and growing up with a positive outlook about their own future. My wife won't get off the phone with a worried look on her face leaving me to ask, "what's wrong?" only to hear about another lost job, a battle with a bank about a loan, declining health or an impending eviction.

I want to worry less about my parents losing their Medicare Part B coverage and having no control over the tests doctors order and the preventative medicine their chosen doctor prescribes because there will be no IPAB (rationing/death panel) between my parents and their health care.

I want to be taking my kids to sports practices and other extracurricular activities. I want the conversations with the other parents on the sidelines and in the back of the auditorium to be something other than, "when are we going to get rid of this guy, Obama? When are we going to get government out of our lives" or if we are talking about each others work it is how we feel secure in our jobs, how we are waiting for a promotion and how our companies are hiring more people instead of laying off coworkers.

I want to fill up my car and my wife's SUV on the weekends and end up paying so much less for a tank of gas that we still have money to take the kids to a movie or perhaps just take a drive somewhere out in to the country.

I want to turn on the TV in the evening and NOT see the President because instead of campaigning he's hard at work with his Cabinet and with the Legislative leadership getting big, important, essential things done for my country and when he's not doing that, he's not doing really anything because he knows that staying out of the way of capable and freedom loving people is the best and most American thing any President can do.

Because what I want is more freedom and less government intrusion in to my everyday life. I want the tidewaters of big government to be receding rather than advancing upward across the shoreline of my personal freedom.

And I choose that metaphor to end because I want to be on vacation, near a beach somewhere with my family, facing up the coastline, with my children in front of me, their shadows getting longer and taller as the bright sun moves across the sky. And if I am there next summer then I will be closer to my personal vision of my America.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Pamphleteer

In the early part of the primary season in 2008 I was having a conversation with an ultra-liberal friend who wanted to convince me that then candidate Obama had a clearly articulated agenda. I asked what it was. One or two elements at least. "Well, I am sure it's out there somewhere. On the website. Look there."

At the time this told me everything I needed to know. While Hillary was talking policy, much of which was a part of her lifelong liberal history in politics, Obama was talking platitudes and the ABB (Anyone But Bush) crowd was buying whatever he was shilling from the stump. People didn't really know who he was or what he intended to do. They just knew he was new and different from everyone else and that was good enough. It also told me that no one I knew was vetting the candidate and no one was drilling down on policy positions. Some of us bothered to do our own vetting of the candidate and we're not so surprised about the past four years. Perhaps my only two surprises are how rapidly he pushed a truly liberal agenda to fundamentally change America and how stalwart America has been in spite of the sheer force of the Obama agenda.

It's four years later and now we all know what we got out of this blind-bargain. Those still in the Obama camp are either coming from the same anti-American ultra-liberal position or they are committing the most massive rationalization of denial and self-delusion. The simple facts can't be argued. The general sweep of this administration has been one of broken-promises, either incompetence or a lack of interest in governing, or both resulting in unmitigated failure. America is worse off than it was four years ago and teetering on the brink of even greater economic catastrophe which will translate into more misery at the personal level of each and every citizen high, low and particularly the in between a.k.a. middle-class.

So the question is, what's Obama's next act? What will he offer to do if re-elected?

Well let's start with an understanding that those of us who vetted him the first time around paid close attention to his résumé. The difference between now and then is he can add Nobel Prize Winner and "acting" President of the United States. But the rhetoric tells us he hasn't really gained any job experience from the hyper-partisan approach to governing which led to the "shellacking" he and his party took in the 2010 mid-terms. Nor has he learned anything about an American public who has rejected Obamacare and other policies by an overwhelming majority. Nor has he gained an experience level as he trudges through the  dump-truck loads of scandals amassing on his White House doorstep, moving from one to the next in the same fashion of obfuscation, ignorance and obstinance (Inspector General Walpin, Security Breaches leaking details of Stuxnet and the Osama bin Laden raid, Fast & Furious, Illegal Campaign Contributions, WH Soyndra, Benghazi, etc.)

So looking back on the original résumé will tell us everything we need to know and show us everything we will get out of another four years of an Obama White House.

He has ghost-written multiple books about himself with scant few actual accomplishments. We will probably get yet another book. But the self-celebration of this megalomaniac will occur whether he is dictating it in the Oval Office or in the den of his Rezko financed house in Chicago.

He'll keep stalling and dodging the investigation of his scandal-plagued administration. And with no chance of being "Constitutionally" re-elected he won't even bother giving the most cursory appearance of transparency and cooperation.

But his one and only real job skill that stands out on his résumé,
if you can call it that, is campaigning. And that is borne out of a life of "community organizing".

I call him the Rabble-Rouser in Chief. His Alinsky-ite tactics have been on display for five years and on a national stage but the reason that some have written about the ever-shrinking President is that on a national stage, street corner rabble-rousing looks no bigger than it does on the actual street corners where he got his start.

He's gone from carrying a clip board, handing out voter registration cards, flyers to anti-American rallies and pamphlets to . . . well, the same thing on a national scale. Here we are seeing the final days of a campaign that started back in 2009. He's been working to maximize voter turn-out and his latest prop (some may call agitprop) is the 20 page full color pamphlet. This is the "plan" he was coaxed to provide by his opponents after failing to put get out in front after the debates.

As Romney so aptly put, "attacking me is not a agenda". This statement is so irrefutable and of course, underscores one simple reality. If Obama is reelected he no longer serves any purpose as President. He won't need to campaign for reelection and he can't accomplish any real benefit for American citizens by continuing to bash-Bush or attack a Romney who will no longer be running for President at that point.

My question about an agenda is finally answered although it was no easier to find then back in 2008 when I asked that friend what this largely unknown character was going to do for the country in his first term. I had to navigate past many pages that requested a campaign contribution just to be able to read the pamphlet without paying for it, at least not a second time.

The pamphleteer has recycled a lot of tired rhetoric and a fair dose of Romney's own ideas and packaged it up with meaningless graphs and staged photos of the President mugging the camera wearing faux-empathetic expressions.

Well, at least we all got more than 5 days to read it, unlike his promise about the daylight that major legislation would see, legislation that was rammed through with horse-trades and bullying.

But honestly, for a campaign that has been going on for years and not just months, why is it that the pamphlet, the "pathetic picture book", as Rich Lowry calls it, why was that released only 14 days prior to election day? It's because it wasn't really ever intended to be read. Obama himself dropped it on the stage floor and had to hunt for it during a campaign speech, then making a self-effacing joke about it.

His prop is not an agenda for our future. Neither are his attacks on Romney, Republicans, the "1%", job-creators, the energy sector and most of all middle-class Americans facing inflation, a shrunken and anemic economy and the biggest ever tax increase in our tax paying lives. (read about it here: www.heritage.org/issues/taxes/taxmageddon )

If you are really undecided. If you are really taking your voting decision right down to the wire then read what is in the pamphlet and consider the question: "Is there enough in the pamphlet that is different from what I've already seen (and that hasn't really worked), that speaks specifically to me and will improve my life enough so that I would consider letting this guy run MY Country for another four years?"

But I think you already know the answer without even getting past the cover of this thin, glossy prop.

Americans need more than a pamphleteer. We need more than rhetoric. We need more than a community that is "organized" and we certainly need more than rabble that is roused to march towards the logo of a false-vision. We need a plan and we need a proven leader who is ready to make that plan a reality.

Friday, October 26, 2012

The Path Without Ohio

If 2010 and the Tea Party taught us anything it is that the truly historic thing about 2008 is that history and conventional wisdom doesn't necessarily apply.

The left leaning pundits and the Beltway types keep pushing the idea that no President in modern history has been elected without Ohio. To which I say, the South used to be a bastion of Democrat electoral votes at one point in time and that is clearly no longer the case. If Dixie-crats still exsisted then why is there not a single electoral map that shows Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia in play as a swing state? Times change. This may be the year of the victory without Ohio.

The simple fact of the matter is there is at least one logical, mathematical formulation that gets Romney to 270 without Ohio. Here's one of mine.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Too Cute by Half?

My favorite part about the 3rd and Final debate is the word "final".

I don't know if I could take another one with all the Super Bowl pre-game build up that is only eclipsed by the post game "Spin room" sessions. I mean, they call it a "SPIN ROOM"! They could release the transcripts before the broadcast and before the actual debate for that matter and then I could go to bed at a reasonable hour.

If I've been ready to cast my vote in this election since the Spring of 2009 then I am twice as ready now.

The pundits on the Right say that Romney's Obama appreciation society was a smart tactic; part of a larger strategy. Very little daylight between their positions. Aimed towards capturing undecided women who are more likely to be war weary doves. In retrospect he was able to lock Obama in a boxer's hug, preventing his opponent from swinging big and landing any blows; ultimately taking Obama out of his own strategy to a point of frustration and visible irritation. Meanwhile, Romney just needed to come away looking "presidential" and not lose the debate or at least not lose it through some grande blunder. And the economy is Romney's big winner so diverting attention away from the domestic issues in the final weeks dilutes his strongest angle of attack.

And if it sends Obama back to Chicago in January, I guess I won't say much more about it. But for now . . .

I was really uneasy about a lack of punches by Romney in the final round of the heavy weight bout. I was made to feel increasingly uneasy as he agreed with Obama on so many foreign policy positions and even responded wrong "in the main" by 180 degrees to say that the mission was close to being achieved in Afghanistan which immediately evoked images of U.S. servicemen being gunned down by newly minted Afghani security forces. Its working, you say? Benghazi went asked (sort of) by Bob Schieffer and totally unanswered and unchallenged.

The Right is dining out days later on zingers about a shrinking Navy and Obama's lame and incorrect response about bayonets. There was really only one truly presidential, albeit Reaganesque moment when Romney went on the attack about the "apology tour". The long answer was very well delivered and perfectly capped off with “We don’t dictate to nations. We free nations from dictators.”

Obama was so flummoxed he turned his head and tried to get a lifeline from the moderator.

enough said.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Reagan Question or The 2012 Moment

Years ago, maybe as early as 2009 the bumper stickers and T-Shirts were popping up with the slogan

The comparisons and similarities were only compounded over the past four years by the petulance, the ridiculous "green" agenda that manifested as a war on fossil fuels and skyrocketing gasoline prices, a roiling sea of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East; essentially failed policies followed by negative results and blame-staking by the man in the oval office.

So as we entered the campaign season many of us have been waiting for the moment.

The pivotal moment in the 1980 election came in the one and only debate a little more than a week before the election.

Watch it here:

Last night we may have seen that moment.
In The Weekly Standard article by Jeffrey H. Anderson he writes

An undecided voter said to Obama, “Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.”
Obama immediately began his reply as follows:  “Well, we’ve gone through a tough four years. There’s no doubt about it.”

To which Anderson concludes Obama is admitting: I haven’t done or accomplished anything to earn your vote in 2012, and you’re right not to be as optimistic as in 2008, because it’s been a rough four years with me at the helm.  


Thursday, October 4, 2012

"Video Killed the Radio Star"

I seem to recall polls that were taken during one of the historic debates between Nixon and Kennedy. Radio listeners, hearing the content and, from a style perspective, only the intonation thought Nixon won. Of course, that debate was historic because the "optics" were very unfavorable to Nixon who looked small, sweaty (read as nervousness) and pale. The people who watched the debate on TV gave Kennedy the win.

Last night I was driving my daughter back from Volleyball practice and thanks to the wonders of a space age technology era (ushered in by Kennedy) I was listening to the start of the debate via satellite radio. I listened to a good 10 minutes of back and forth, heavy on statistics, verbal sparring, occasional jabs but I wasn't hearing anything that grabbed me and so I assumed there was a television audience who's eyes were glazing over. Where Romney was hanging a lot on this debate I felt that he was losing.

Between over-exposed Obama trying to sell the same, tired rhetoric peppered with some outright obfuscation of the facts and a lame attempt to co-opt Republican positions and Romney sounding like the Bain CEO reading a 10-k from one of the many public companies failing to reach their revenue goals in an Obama economy, well, I was growing not only disappointed but bored.

I switched off the radio. Came home. Got the kids to bed and thought I'd come back to it in the morning and hear the pundits who would use a salvo of coordinated DNC talking points to eviscerate Romney.

But I went to the DVR recording and once again, just as they did in the Nixon-Kennedy era, the "optics" provided a fundamentally different impression. The combination of the content and the visuals were in favor of Romney and Obama's own cheerleaders thought so based on their tweets and post debate commentaries.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

PaRt of the PRoblem

Here's either one of the unsolved mysteries of the Universe or more likely, part of the problem Conservatives face when advancing the causes of a Constitutional Government, A Free Market and ultimately Liberty.

Apparently it is acceptable to be or at least call yourself a Republican and still be
a) Undecided ?
b) Favorable ?!?

about Obama in 2012

And I know the sample for a survey is small, perhaps only 1000 people. Does that mean roughly 100 people surveyed (40-Undecideds and 70-Favorables) have been in a coma until minutes before the pollster called them?

Who are you people?

And to Laura Ingraham's point last week, if Republicans can't win this election they need to just disband the party.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The First Woman President

Out of all the catch-up reading I did over the long Union Labor Day weekend this piece was the best and made me chuckle.

Kevin D. Williamson of the National Review was making a comparison between Obama and Romney, looking at them through a primal, or as he calls it "tribal" lens as a means of discussing the fitness of leaders based on the sex of their progeny. If you aren't clear on the political leanings of National Review the comparison is telling enough. Obama: two daughters. Romney: 5 sons and a growing platoon of grandsons.

Kevin writes: "Romney . . . is basically a tribal chieftain.
                     "Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes."

Like any good, pithy writing, I kept returning to it over the weekend, flipping it over in my mind. Then I realized, just as Clinton was the "First Black President", thus robbing Obama of that honor, Obama IS the First Woman President, thusly, returning the favor to the Clintons. Democrats can school you chapter and verse on how Obama robbed Hillary of that honor.

And it makes perfect sense. The Democrats are all about redefining things, like the very meaning of America thanks to the Progressive agenda, or words (i.e. the definition of the word "is" - thanks to professor Bill), or math (i.e. prosperity where $4000 decline in average annual household incomes is called growth or that more subtle calculus of "jobs created OR saved"). So why not redefine Race and Gender in a Progressive world where all things are fungible?

So now that we have looked at the historic nature of the Obama Presidency from all absurd angles isn't it time to move on? 

Sunday, July 29, 2012

100 Days

There is no question that in 100 Days something will happen that will effect us all.

In 100 Days we the American voter may hand Obama a Referendum on his entire Presidency or voters may elect him to a 2nd term and with that they will be providing another kind of referendum. An Obama reelection is an outright rejection of the entire concept of America. It would be a rejection of Constitutional limits, government restraint, free markets and individual liberty and responsibility.

Those of you out of work and who want to work and have a better life for you and your children: you have a clear and logical choice.

Those of you who have been out of work at some point over the last 4 years and/or watched your savings dwindle and/or put your life on hold or downsize your plans: you have a clear choice.

Those of you who have reduced expectations and are not satisfied with having reduced expectations about your future and the life your children will have: you have a clear choice.

Those of  you who run businesses and are tired of making the difficult choice of laying off employees and not being able to hire because you are concerned you will see another downturn in your business have a clear and logical choice.

Those of you who appreciate your access to world class medical care have a clear and logical choice.

Those of you who have difficulty buying or selling a house: you have a clear and logical choice.

Those of you who have pride in America; who believe in American exceptionalism have a clear and logical choice

Those of you who find more wrong than right with America; who perhaps daydream about living in another, very different country with a foreign culture; you have a clear and logical choice too. Be prepared to own up to that choice while we all endure the misery you would have us endure for the sake of your whimsy.

Those of you who have no problem collecting government assistance or food stamps and would actually prefer this status quo over some alternative; I have no words for you. Voting for you is a hypocrisy. Voting is exercising your freedom and to be content with government being in control of the most basic aspects of your existence; well, you are no longer free.

Those of you who need me to spell it out for you any more plainly; those who don't understand what your choice is in this next election; those of you not understanding what you are choosing in this next election; your lack of understanding is an atrocity. Stagger-step obliviously through your zombie existence. Do not pass the polling place. Do not vote.

In 100 Days will it be a new "Morning in America" or it will be The Twilight and the End of America as we go from Bad to Worse and then not at all.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

New Flag for the Not So Golden State

As California goes bankrupt and heads towards receivership there may be a rare opportunity to not only rewrite the state constitution but also redesign the state's flag.

Here are a couple of design elements that could be implemented in to the new flag



Meanwhile the rest of us are left with an ever-increasing downward pressure on the economy that is making it more difficult than ever to do business of a personal or commercial nature so I guess the joke is really on all of us not living in California. Thanks idiots.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Alternate Reality

Imagine a time when there was an extremely wise elected Premier of a great and free country. Before his time in office the country had been under siege. Radical Religious types, some of them residing in the country, had taken up various arms and designs against the country and its allies. They deployed their brethren in schemes involving skyjacking, kidnapping, murder and sometimes merely setting off explosives in public; sometimes killing but often maiming and always terrorizing the good and innocent citizenry of this fair land. This man was elected Premier specifically to address this, the most pressing issue of the day.

The Official Doctrine of this country had a specific provision that allowed its citizens to purchase, own and carry firearms for self-protection. The Premier, after considering many alternative plans to combat the terrorists decided to work with the other political entities within the country along with police and private and commercial institutions to enact a law that would use this provision and now require everyone in the country to buy a firearm and carry it with them at all times. Should an act of terrorism become apparent any and all citizens would now be able to protect themselves. Because the citizens were required to be armed and ready to thwart the plans of the radicals it would make the success of these schemes less likely. The Premier and his allies argued that mandatory firearm ownership would be very effective in reducing this type of violence. His political rivals argued to the contrary. This would only increase the amount of violence and bring rise to vigilante justice. Local police already had permit authority and could ensure that citizens were able to pass criminal background checks and be properly trained before issuing a permit to carry a firearm in public. They were already vastly more knowledgeable and experienced in the entire process than the new country-wide bureau would be for many years to come while instituting and enforcing this new law.

We don't know the ending to this story in this Alternate Reality just like we don't yet know the ending to a similar story in our own

. . . keep all this in mind as we wait to hear how the Supreme Court Justices rule on the Obamacare mandate.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

People of New York . . .

. . . why do you demean yourselves by repeatedly returning Chuck Schumer to the Senate?

Today he again proves his Constitutional Illiteracy by proposing a Bill of Attainder to capture a few hundred million dollars of Capital Gains that Mr. Saverin is expatriating to avoid.

As I sift through the Lame Stream media accounts of this story and even Fox I see no mention of Article I, Section 9.

Chuck "the Rat" Schumer while promoting his Unconstitutional ex post facto Law is quoted as saying

“This tax-avoidance scheme is outrageous,” Schumer said. “This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong.”

He's half right. Capital Gains tax code is the great American success story gone wrong. The fact that successful Americans have to leave the country to avoid unfair taxes is wrong. The fact that idiots like Schumer are so wrapped up in their socialist rhetoric that they speak as if Mr. Saverin's investment earnings are their money to confiscate is the true great injustice.

It would never pass anyway but wondering if the legislature Schumer is proposing would apply to Charlie Rangel.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Will SCOTUS Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Obama's Victory?

I largely base my analysis on the quite transparent statements and questions made by eight of the Justices this week and by the mangled and embarrassing argument made by the Solicitor General.

Quite comical was the thought bubble hovering over Elena Kagan's head during these proceedings.

As Obamacare appears to be headed for defeat in the Supreme Court, remember when I said I am that annoying guy who likes saying, "I told you so" . . . well . . .

Let's re-read my previous post and then start the roll call of the bodies scattered about that Obamacare battlefield like Bart Stupak, Barnie Frank, the Democratic majority in Congress including the Speakership, and perhaps, eventually, even Barrack Obama will succumb to his healthcare battle wounds.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

"Victory" They Say

. . . well let them taste the mouthful of ash from their victory.

The definition of a Pyrrhic victory: costly to the point of negating or outweighing expected benefits (health care reform, historical legacy or otherwise).

After a year of fighting freedom loving, Constitutional minded patriotic Americans at every turn these radical liberals may have won the battle over Government Controlled Health Care Rationing but throughout history lost battles like these have marked the turn of the war tides. At Thermopylae and the Alamo the defeat became a rallying cry for the ultimate victor.

"This weekend will mark the beginning of the end of liberal ascendance here in Washington, D.C.," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared Saturday, March 20th. "I don't know if our victory will come on the third Sunday in March or the first Tuesday in November, but our victory will come.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

After the 3 State Primary/Caucus Last Week

The field is

  • Gingrich - Ready but not Able
  • Romney - Still Waiting . . . and growing nervously impatient.
  • Perry - Back Home
  • Huntsman - Who? (btw - hold on to those t-shirts and buttons - they're real rare artifacts)
  • Paul - Even More Cracked
  • Bachmann - Romney Veep in the Wings
  • Santorum - Finally Arrived

Friday, February 10, 2012

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

On Newt Gingrich and the National Review Romney Super PAC


I am having a difficult time understanding how you have trained more vitriol on Gingrich in six short months then you have on Obama over the past three years or that Romney's Super PAC has fired at him in the last 16 days.
It is becoming increasingly hard to follow the twisted logic in some of your arguments. I'm reminded that being a Conservative means not looking at our political representatives as messianic figures. I'm reminded that ALL of the candidates currently in the race are flawed, and yet there has been less said about the parabola most of Ron Paul's debate answers follow than the unquestionable lack of Newt's viability.

Even the Tea Party has been pretty straight-forward about the fact that they will throw their full support behind the Republican nominee, regardless of who that is. I am having difficulty understanding your unequivocal entrenchment against Newt because all your words are recorded for future reference. What do you do to not look like a flip-flopping Romney or someone lacking any seriousness or very little relevance (i.e.Ron Paul) if Gingrich gets the nomination? How will you pivot? Or will you continue stating that he's "not ideal", he's not "our" guy. "You voters are making a big mistake, but by all means, get excited even though we've gone above and beyond the call of the fourth estate to demoralize you about this nominee and the process" and "It's your suicide America. Go vote for him in November anyway"?

Right now you sound imperious and petulant about the fact that voters; American citizens are making choices that run contrary to your "expert" opinions. You come across sounding fairly elitist. None of you are experts on the matter of eking out an existence outside of the Beltway and in the real middle class. Perhaps voters are voting their conscience and how it relates to what is important to them. Wouldn't that be a novel concept. What would the Founding Fathers say about that?

I will keep my subscription until I get the issue that reads, "Newt's Your President Now Even Though We Warned You. Sayonara America" along with the article by Lowry lamenting those bygone, halcyon days of the Obama administration, another by Goldberg remaining hopeful that American's will get their sense back in the summer and run a recall campaign a la the labor unions v. Scott Walker and the one pager behind the back gate by Steyn comparing Newt's inauguration to some arcane Greek tragedy and the final decline of America to the maple syrup from his beloved Vermont, inevitable but slow and perhaps not as sweet.

I'll keep that issue on file next to my letter to cancel my subscription. Perhaps that's what you fear most. If there is a conservative agenda being competently advanced in Washington D.C. by a House and Senate majority and unimpeded by Obama's veto that people will stop reading National Review because the storm of radical progressives will seem to have passed.

By the way, I do that. I cancel subscriptions. I just mailed Esquire their $4.99 annual subscription offer reminding them that I canceled theirs years ago, not because I had too much reading material but because they made some idiotic editorial decisions that caused me to lose interest.

In the meantime perhaps "The Editors" can have a moment of transparency and explain why a Newt Gingrich Presidency is more detestable to you than another term for Obama.

I've heard it said that Republicans find a way to self-destruct. I thought the Conservatives among them were different. I guess those of you in the pundit class of the Conservative wing are really no different.

P.S. Not sure if Melissa O'Sullivan's article is more reactive or redemptive for the sake of NR's Editorial direction but it surely is instructive to the entire Newt bashing crowd


Sunday, January 22, 2012

About Last Night

A few observations about last night's Republican Primary election results.

Rick Santorum really struck a dulcet chord with his opening line about "Three states, three winners, what a great country." The inevitable winnowing of the primary field has occurred. Not fast enough for the pundits. Certainly too quickly for primary voters in states four through forty-seven to have a say as to whether or not they thought the other five candidates were viable alternatives. But with three different winners, even though a lone frontrunner hasn't emerged, it makes a few other things clear. This Primary is different from 2008. The pundits and establishment are not going to steer the outcome as easily as they did last time. The spirit of 2010 which was characterized by a diverse, engaged and better educated voter making decisions for reasons that matter to them and not based on the agenda of the "experts"; that spirit appears to be alive and well in 2012. What a great country indeed.

The pundits are clearly bothered that the people of this great country are not listening to them. They are bothered that their conventional wisdom is a broken tool when attempting to apply it to another unconventional election season. They've prodded, pushed and insulted us because we aren't on board for the establishment candidate. The Not-Romney sentiment is making enough of a difference and with last night's results the pundits are being forced to admit it even though as Krauthammer observed about his own fallibility, "humility isn't easy" and National Review editor Steve Hayes felt the need to insert some snarky comment about Newt's many falls and so far, equal number of resurrections. The establishment (Right, Left and indifferent) is on notice. The status quo must go. The change feared by the establishment may very well be coming soon.

And what about the fourth candidate, you ask?

Ron Paul is still untethered from reality when he speaks to his supporters. And yet there is a realist underneath, a realist who is skipping the Closed Primary state (declared Republicans only) Florida because he knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance there. Keep in mind that Florida is a very populous (read: lots of electoral votes) swing state. If you aren't ready to take on your own party there to gain the nomination, what will be your strategy in the general election when Obama is looking for places on the "57-58" state Roulette table to place over one billion dollars of casino chips?

Message to all of you who are not 19 year old boys in fear of being drafted to fight the wars against America's enemies, disaffected Obama supporters and disingenuous Democrats lurking in Republican Primaries in an attempt to torpedo the outcomes in the selection of our candidate: Ron Paul is not getting the Republican nomination and does not care if Obama gets reelected as a result of his persistence in this campaign. He took fourth place in a four man Open (that means Democrats could vote) Primary. Do not bother giving him any support. Ron Paul needs to go home along with voters who are confused about his intentions and his viability.

Finally, let none of us forget that the campaign is really about removing Obama and his "transformational" wrecking crew from D.C. and out of our lives. Gingrich, once again delivers the rallying cry. In a center-right country with a shrinking Democrat voting base there is the potential of a landslide in November if the nominee runs "an American Campaign."

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Bain of Conservatism

I am reading this story in the Washington Examiner after what was obviously a Mitt Romney loss to Newt Gingrich in last night's debate


Ever since Reagan cleaned Carter's clock in that final debate before the election the conventional wisdom is front runners only lose ground in debates so why risk it?

In this case, if he doesn't show up, Mitt is going to look like the Bain analyst who is crunching the numbers and playing the short odds instead of looking like a leader who gets going when the going gets tough. Which is to say his absence will make him look increasingly arrogant, impatient for the "coronation"; in short, stands to lose more than he will gain by not being in attendance.

I've worked around these Bain guys and it's not the free market capitalism that offends people. It's all the gutlessness and shrewd calculus that people are sensing. It comes across as cold, almost reptilian. This is what makes Mitt the perennial 24 percenter; the loser to the loser.

Time to go big or go home