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