A Time For Choosing in the Great RINO Hunt
If this past weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., is any indication, we have a real RINO problem on our hands.
No, I don’t mean that Mitt Romney is a Republican In Name Only. I mean that a particular strain of attendees at this year’s conference seems obsessed with RINO-hunting – and that is not a productive sport in which to engage at this point, especially since the hunters don’t seem to have any idea what their prey really looks like.
Refresher course: A RINO goes to Washington and acts just like a Democrat. Tax and spend. Elitism. Corruption.
A RINO is not your fellow Republican who doesn’t happen to agree with you that gay marriage is the most important issue facing our country today.
Upon my arrival at this year’s convention — and I mean literally while checking in — someone approached and asked if I voted for pro-life candidates and would I be willing to wear a sticker saying “Kick the RINO out!” Later at the conference, I was heckled and called a “RINO” by a Rick Santorum supporter for declining the offer to wear his candidate’s sticker.
I always understood the Grand Old Party to stand for, in a nutshell: Limited government, strong national defense, and individual freedom and responsibility. I respect that others have passionate and well thought-out arguments for traditional marriage and other social issues, but is it really worth dividing the party? Right NOW? Of course abortion is a controversial issue and if you believe that life starts at conception it is morally right to lobby for pro-life candidates and vehemently oppose abortions – but folks, you’re only hurting the GOP with this RINO rhetoric.
Last I checked, we have a 15 trillion dollar deficit and a president who is a complete ideologue. A president who refuses to cut spending and modify entitlement programs despite our dire financial crisis. A president whose administration files suit against our own states for enforcing federal laws. A president who picks and chooses which laws he’s going to enforce (DOMA) based on his ideology. A president who plays petty politics with class warfare. A president who doesn’t listen to the American people when they speak out against unconstitutional power grabs like Obamacare. A president our enemies perceive as weak, cowardly, and unsupportive of our allies. This list goes on.
So the message at CPAC should be strong, targeted, and united. It was not. Of course, this is not particularly surprising given that the organization that mounts CPAC, the American Conservative Union, voted last year under pressure from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, among others, to exclude GOProud.
you rock!! it is about time someone pointed out that draining the swamp is the only job. Nice article
Ace, I feel for you buddy! My, such misdirected animosity! Sounds like the first unsure steps of a fractured personality (statistically not very likely) or cognitive dissonance issues (Bingo!).
You should know, hostility is generally considered a form of angry internal rejection or childish denial in psychology. In everyday speech it is more commonly used as a synonym for anger and aggression.
In psychological terms, hostility is the willful refusal to accept usually overwhelming evidence that one’s perceptions or beliefs of the world are wrong and hopelessly delusional. Instead of the normal response of reconsidering, the hostile person attempts to force or coerce the world to fit their view, even if this is a forlorn pathetic hope, and however further harmful the cost to one’s self esteem or damaging social impressions one makes on other people, or even an electorate.
Whilst testing theories against reality is a necessary part of life, and persistence in the face of failure is often a necessary part of invention or discovery, in the case of hostility there is the distinction that the evidence is not considered and a stubborn decision is made to try again despite the same outcome. Or instead the evidence is suppressed or denied, and deleted from awareness – the unfavorable evidence which might suggest a prior belief is flawed (or in laymen’s terms, full of shit) and is instead ignored and willfully avoided. Psychologically, it can be said that reality is being held to ransom, and in this sense hostility is a pointless form of psychological extortion – an attempt to repeatedly try and force reality to produce the desired feedback, in order that your deluded preconceptions become validated. Your fellow party members in spades!
In this sense, hostility is a response which forms part of discounting of unwanted cognitive dissonance, or to put it another way, in simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that factually conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one’s stupid beliefs (“Government get your hands off my Medicare!”). In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where “cognition” is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior, despite belligerent endeavors to negate it. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent (some would say, pullout of one’s ass or gingrich) new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict, regardless of how badly misspelled your point of view is .
For instance: A person who clings to the same simple-minded world-view, even when the world view has essentially shown it doesn’t work. A person who refuses to do something (even if for their own benefit) because to do it would be accepting that something else they felt strongly about was wrong (or would benefit from moderation or compromise), that they could not face, and thus diminishing self worth even more. A person who psychologically inside is being driven by a need to prove to their parents they were right, or successful, or deserved love, even knowing the matter will never be resolved as they wish, or that it will not make a difference, or that it is a pointless trail, or that their so-called “leaders”are incapable of response.
Now who do we know in popular culture that would serve as an example?
My SF Area friends think I’m a crazy facist. My SOCAL friends what few there are seem to think I’m a crazy hippy. They all agree on the crazy part but attributer the pathology differently.
The Declaration of Independence was crazy. What were they thinking! A sane person would never challenge The Crown. I, for one, am with the RINOs. We just need a bigger hot tub in DC.
Yay! Abusive psychobabble is my favorite!
I will agree with you that there are people whose inability to deal with the real world makes them hostile. And, as you illustrate, they exhibit that irrational hostility in various juvenile, even sophomoric ways.
Take, for instance, the long term trends of the government printing phony money and inventing absurd statistical measures to justify exponentially expanding deficits. All rational adults realize that such government debt expansion serves primarily to favor its cronies and increase its control through expansion of untenable military empires internationally and stifling victim worship empires internally. That same rational majority of American adults also realizes that the whole charade is enforced primarily by IRS poverty traps, normative propaganda, control of the supply and distribution of fiat money, and an increasingly fluid definition of “terrorism”.
Now, how would one recognize someone that irrationally supported such things? Well, for sure, we know such people would deride Reagan since he was a self-proclaimed libertarian. And we also know that those same hostile ideologs would boldly declare that there can be no such thing as Reagan Democrats, the battle lines of the war of ideas being all too clearly drawn.
Reagan was clearly a social conservative, and was attacked by Ron Paul. I couldn’t imagine him questioning the drug laws, at least then. (Note: Drug use went down under Reagan/Bush, and went up uinder Clinton; example probably helped.) So even if he called himself a libertarian, it’s those who mix up what they call libertarian with what Reagan was.
Regarding the Reagan Democrats, 100%. If you are all at the side of the Reagan Democrats, you get called a “neocon”, whatever that is.
My definition of a RINO has changed somewhat these past few months. A RINO is someone who when sent to replace Obama might well eliminate Obamacare – he might even slow the spending craze down a notch or two, but will do little or nothing to investigate what 30 some Czars have been messing around with ‘under the hood’ of our bureaucracies they’ve been (illegally IMO) charged with ‘overseeing’. I don’t trust any of these Czars. Is it any accident that the term ‘Czar’ (or Tsar if you wish) is a term connected to pre Lenin Russia? I see the before and after as another Animal Farm. The people certainly didn’t benefit from either system.
This isn’t the election cycle where we can afford to pick and chose candidates based on their social issues stance. We must pick someone that understands the changes Obama and his Czars have made with the goal of eliminating those changes. I’m quite sure they’ve been up to no good. Just look at the changes in Justice and the EPA that are visible.
I don’t hear any candidates talking about these Czars.
I have no idea what these Czars have been up to but you can bet its not been anything that will benefit We The People.
“I don’t hear any candidates talking about these Czars.”
In his speech to CPAC, Gingrich specifically said that one of the first things he would do is to remove the Czars by executive order. Every single one.
(I believe he said the first day, but that part of my memory might be wrong.)
In general, I believe these czars are the real face of the American Communist Party. I also believe that the OWS bowel movement of useful idiots is being orchestrated by the comrades working as our government’s czars. A couple of these people have already been exposed because of their flagrant Communist Party pasts. The basic tenant of the American Communist Party is the destruction of private control of the means of production and private ownership of property. A free market system can not work at all if this happens and the result(as always) will be abject poverty for the citizens. This is not my opinion, it is a fact that everywhere Communism has been tried, it fails so miserably that it can’t even provide enough food for its people. So, the American Communist Party are my political enemies. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul are not a problem for me because there are no differences among them that will matter to any of us if we allow the Communists even one more victory at the Presidential level. ABO2012
I agree on all points – except the electibility myth of Romney. “we MUST beat Obama” Yes, Certainly! But – have you noticed that the MSM (the media, not conservative opponents)smeared Bachmann, Cain and did a hatchet job on Newt while barely laying a glove on Romney? Wake up.
Romney is the prototypical country club wall street corporate rich Republican guy – and Bain is his achilles heel. Any polls that show Romney doing well against Obama are waaay before the Obama Destruction MSM machine unleashes on him. They will crush him over tons of things, Bain especially. Study up (link below with a Reagan conservative venture captitalit about Bain)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be
Fact check: main stream media is owned by large corporations, even Fox News.
Hopefully, you’ve noticed that it is the large corporations who are the cronies. Fox is basically the Romney channel.
General Electric, General Motors, Solyndra, and Bank of America come to mind here. Large corporations such as Caterpillar, Apple, Safeway, J C Penney, Kohls, Costco, and Cisco Systems do not. We must try to differentiate between the thousands of large corporations who are trying to compete in the marketplace and the hundreds who try to curry favor with willing politicians instead of compete for their earnings. Large corporation does not equate with bad any more than small business equates with good. These are narratives that the left has been spoon feeding to the pliable masses. What you just wrote is a smear of Romney that the Obama campaign is tirelessly trying to convince you to write. But, don’t worry, any Republican we nominate will get the same treatment, and the same people will buy into it. Look into the actual lives of any of the four remaining candidates and you will see four good men whose lives more resemble each other than they will ever resemble their eventual opponent. You will have to choose which narrative you will buy with your vote. I hope you get that right because, if you don’t, you will pay a price you don’t appear to even comprehend.
I agree Flip Romney is no RINO… he is a democrat.
That was just lame. Where do you get your material, Fantom?
Straight from the ass’s mouth. Flip Romney is a self admitted progressive. I.E. a democrat. Which would explain his deeds as gov’ner.
Emily,
Those misguided conservatives (like myself) whom you criticize for placing the cultural cart before the fiscal horse vis-a-vis the electoral process are a sorry bunch (at least intellectually), to be sure. Our simple minds perceive the whole socio-political forest today not as trees growing upward from a fertile medium, rooted and grounded with core moral values but rather as an inverted hanging garden of moral relativism — with our entire root mass firmly planted in mid air (apologies to Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, for those who might recognize the reference).
Most of us So-Cons realize the reality of our cognitive dissonance and political backwardness, but as such we are more or less incapable of self-rectification to the extent that we are able to reorder our priorities to match those of our political superiors (i.e. Republican, right or wrong). We apologize for our willful ignorance and ask your forgiveness until we evolve to the point where we can pull our feeble minds up by our own headstraps. If you can be patient with us while we do, we will continue to examine the evidence as it appears and, Lord willing, reach our next level of intellectual ascendancy before the aliens come and kill us all.
While I assume your intent was sarcasm, what your wrote is a pretty good description of the self righteous, “let’s use government to make others in our image” so cons are.
No better than the leftist in fact, except for the added hypocrisy of claiming to value smaller government and liberty.
Actually, Al, we would agree with you — at least on the “No better than the leftist” (oh, and the hypocrisy stuff too). Thanks for noticing.
So-Cons are leftists. They want to use the federal government in unconstitutional ways to advance their social agenda. The agenda is different from the Democrats, the methods and results (too much intrusive government) are the same.
Meanwhile they show complete disinterest in fiscal restraint. How else to explain Rick Santorum of all people?
Guilty, as charged. We are the evil oneS. WE are the problem. WE MUST BE DEFEATED! If only “real” conservatives could teach us that simple truth, then there will be utopia.
So-cons are leftists? Really? No. Not true. Some social conservatives are compassionate conservatives, and these are statists, not leftists. Leftists are social liberals, so how could social conservatives be leftists?
Please explain what a social liberal and a social conservative actually are. Every one of us have our own political leanings and there is as many political flavors as there are people. Learned social values are extremely important to the building of a framework for a culture that includes multitudes of people. Our instinctive values don’t serve us very well for living in larger groups than clans. For instance: It is an instinctive behavior to kill or enslave people outside of our own extended families. It is a learned behavior that we should not kill or enslave other people, so that we can thrive in the same diverse economy with them and prosper for it. So, we have to support people who support our most beneficial learned behaviors and in that respect, we should all be, as you say, so cons. Because of these moral pillars of our culture, which support free markets and personal property rights, being pathways for civil human interaction and division of labor, a generalized prosperity is provided. As for beating the Democrat in November, we should focus only on those so con issues that can pass such a litmus, or we will be wasting our time in the political arena.
Actually, the real issue is that they are not social “conservatives”, but social statists.
Just because the particular social values they advocate are not libertine does not make them conservative.
And to be clear, basic Marxist social morality is highly reserved as well. It does not approve of libertine attitudes either, as they divert from productivity.
Modified Marxist morality is pseudo-reserved in that it opposes anything that could detract from loyalty to the state. As such it is not anti-family and anti-marriage out of a libertine sense. If they could turn all reproduction into an anonymous, asexual, process they would. In the absence of that they will tolerate “conventional” monogamy. Likewise until they have creches and barracks available for all children they will tolerate “home child rearing”, but they will never love it.
It is nice if social statists are also fiscal conservatives, but as long as they want to use the state to control social values and determine the culture they will never actually be social conservatives, and there is no reason to let them claim to be something they are not.
Sam,
You’ve made a very astute point. Thank you.
I do wonder, though, if you may have confused libertine and libertarian. A libertine is “one who acts without moral restraint”. Libertines see themselves as disconnected from the complex fabric of humanity and thus free of responsibilities within it.
In contrast, the foundation of libertarian philosophy is a requirement of just and moral behavior, of living by the Golden Rule. As Jim Baker eloquently put it above, “Because of these moral pillars of our culture, which support free markets and personal property rights, being pathways for civil human interaction and division of labor, a generalized prosperity is provided.”
Because of this fundamental belief in, and requirement for acting out of, innate morality, the rights of individuals are inalienable and those of the state subordinate. From that, it can be government’s only valid role to decisively punish those who would, through fraud or violence, impose their unjust will on you, be they individuals or other nations.
And yeah, we like really big sticks. We just find it immoral to break into our neighbor’s place to wield them.
Bravo, NI! Welcome to the moralist club. That’s the term they use around here to describe those who would put principle above finance. A 16 tril debt of phony money is far more pressing than 42 million dead babies, they say. Don’t talk social issues, you’ll scare the libertines, they will say. This is not the year to upset the apple cart with family values because if Obama wins, we’re doomed. It might win an election, but I still think we’re doomed.
Clearly, Scott, we both need serious help. Join me in seeking it, won’t you? Let us walk out of darkness and into the light with our mental mentors. The truth, they tell us, will set us free!
Scott H,
Should you be confused by the meaning of “libertine” then I encourage you to read my response to Sam above.
Regardless, I agree with you that loss of human life is more worthy of our attention than your blind and stubborn descent into sardonic serfdom. Still, I am curious, given your belief in moral absolutes, how you decide which lost lives are sanctified and which are not?
Where, for instance, is your moral outrage over the lost lives of our military in endless undeclared wars? Over the civilian casualties resulting from same?
And where is your moral outrage over the murderous despots whose reigns are maintained and fortified by our foreign aid? Over UN carbon credit murders?
What is it in your pious view that makes “the least of these” insignificant? And how can your morality absolve you of the stain of your complicity in those deaths, a stain measured by your share of our national debt?
What appeals to Independants does not always appeal to Conservatives or Liberals and before everything else you MUST shore up your base first then focus on wildcards.
It’s unfortunate that we don’t have a strong conservative running in this race who isn’t vulnerable on social issues.
We’ve got Gingrich, who made many public statements decrying same-sex marriage as detrimental to traditional marriage–while he himself committed serial adultery and reportedly considered an open marriage.
And we’ve got Santorum, who the Dems are going to clobber with his statement that birth control “harms our society.” Guess which topic would be Number One at any debate between Santorum and Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo
Independent female voters won’t vote for either one of these guys–perhaps the biggest gender gap ever–and Obama will win. (A recent poll had Obama favored over Gingrich by female voters 2 to 1.)
I have no illusions about Romney. He’s center-right, not right-wing. But he’s the only one of the three candidates who doesn’t come off as either hypocritical beyond belief or a religious crusader who yearns for America’s past.
Romney is the only one who comes of as an extruded-plastic android in a checked shirt mouthing empty slogans that nobody can believe—which is a blueprint for defeat. Nobody wants to vote for him, even—especially—the people whom he wants to nominate him. And he knows it. His hatred for the people he’s soliciting for votes radiates from his every performance.
Santorum is running wholly on social conservatism, with a sprinkling of chopped financial conservatism on top to fool the rubes. To the extent he damages Romney the Robot, more power to him—but he, like Romney, is a guaranteed loser.
Gingrich can slap down the sex accusations against him, and make Obama cry or explode on national TV. Nobody cares about his Gingrichard the Loin-Heated past except people who are scrabbling desperately for a reason to vote against him.
Dr. Paul is the most fiscally conservative candidate by far: He’ll cut $1T the first year, including education, commerce, energy, interior, and HUD. He’s pro life, got zero personal baggage and there’s nothing new that the LSM can throw at him. He won’t take your guns, raise your taxes, or regulate your business. He’s popular with the troops and the only veteran in the race. His foreign policy stance is similar to Reagan’s (another libertarian) and to what GWB initially ran on. He’s popular with twenty somethings, with Democrats who feel betrayed by “the puppet”, and with blue dogs. Who else can you say all those things about?
Excellent article, it is about time that someone said that Conservatism is what it is not narrow one issue items deemed by small groups. I also, think it was wrong to eliminate Go Proud. I may not agree with their lifestyle nor gay marriage but on the other issues they come under the Conservative umbrella unless it has become so tiny that only a few can call themselves by that name without being called a RINO. Most of these ardent people aren’t even conservatives they sound more like the old Birchers crossed with Evagelical populists. We must not allow them to take over the Republican Party or we will have no Party and go the way of the Whigs.
Romney is not electable. He doesn’t appeal to the base. And he doesn’t elicit excitement among Republicans. That means low turn out on election day. How come political analysts doesn’t know this? This is politics 101. Maybe as much as 10% republican voters might stay home if the candidate doesn’t excite them. And that means Romney will lose to Obama, just like McCain did for exactly the same reason.
And for the umpteenth time. Moderates and independents are not the same group of voters. Moderates are roughly 5-10%. Moderates are smack in the middle on the political spectrum. Independents is another group entirely, totally different from moderates. Independents are maybe 20-30% of the voters and they are APOLITICAL. Independents are NOT politically in the middle, they are all over the place. They agree with politicians both left and right. They chose candidate by charisma, persuasion and political views on a case by case basis.
You says.
Polls say. Why do you think his results will improve? Do you really think “infighting” has anything to do with it?
Independents, by definition, have no affinity to either party: They don’t trust either of them to just leave them alone and let them lead their own lives.
You state that Obama is a complete ideologue. One presumes you mean he is an ardent leftist.
You then state that we must nominate a candidate who will appeal to independents. One presumes you think that Conservatism scares independents.
So because the Democrats will nominate a Communist we Conservatives must nominate a Socialist?
What are you afraid of? Sure, you hide behind the “don’t scare the independents” shield but you’re clearly determined to not have an actual Conservative as a candidate. Why are you afraid to have ideologically contrasting candidates? Oh, right, then we would have a RINO hunt. BTW, how’s that “moderate” deficit reduction deal working… has the debt topped $18 trillion yet?
The $15 trillion is a major issue. Romney came up in the financial world and his campaign is currently backed by elements of the financial industry. When EU socialism fails and our financial titans are yet again faced with bankruptcy, some of believe that Romney will ignore the outcry and bail them out yet again. Imagine the debt after that! This is one reason many of us will not vote for him.
I think Emily is right on in her commentary.
#10 ChrisS “but you’re clearly determined to not have an actual Conservative as a candidate…..” Anyone who has signed the Personhood document is not a conservative, in my view. Romney is the only remaining candidate of the four who did not sign.
I think it’s funny how people now try to present Santorum as a conservative. He’s a borrow & spend liberal (hints: cast votes for bridge to nowhere and the still unfunded (except by Chinese bankers) prescription drug benefit). On the so-called social issues, he’s somewhere around the range of the Spanish Inquisition, without the torture rack & burning at the stake.
If Santorum gets nominated, then yes, there will be ideologically contrasting candidates. I won’t vote for Obama, but also won’t vote for Santorum.
Steve, Steve, Steve, re-read the article and substitute “gay marriage” with “pro-life” and Emily is talking about you. You can’t possibly agree with the article and yet say “Anyone who has signed the Personhood document is not a conservative, in my view. Romney is the only remaining candidate of the four who did not sign.”.
C’mon bud, Emily is talking about you, if you’re a single-issue pro-life voter then how can you possibly ignore RomneyCare? Or, are you saying that RomneyCare is simply an effort to maximize the Medicare reimbursements for Massachusetts, which means using other States to subsidize their health care, is thus Conservative?
I’m not supporting any candidate… I’m supporting the Palin Initiative… extend the nominating process until one candidate actually commits to being a Conservative. Let me clue you in: if Romney were running as a Conservative he would have already sown up the nomination. Why do you think he’s still running as Jon Huntsman? C’mon Steve! Don’t be a Moderate!!
No disrespect intended, Chris. But I don’t think you would recognize a true conservative if Reagan, or Goldwater, or William F. Buckley, came knocking on your door. Now, those were true conservatives.
Mitt Romney is too liberal for the conservative base, too Mormon for the evangelical base—which means that he is continually running to try and persuade half of his own electoral base to vote for him.
He is too conservative for much of the Democrat/”independent” base, and too religious for the secular base—which means that at least half of the electoral base he must pick up will not want to vote for him either.
His rhetoric is dreary and uninspiring, and at his most at-ease he radiates stiffness and discomfort. He also managed to lose, last time around, to the guy who lost to the guy he’s going to have to beat.
Tell me, somebody—anybody—why this man is deemed “electable.”
he’s rich which gives him lots of money to smear everybody (except, of course, obama, who is untouchable) and Ann Coulter decided that we need a center left liberal to defeat a marxist.
Well, at least you are finally breaking it down to your real objection to Romney. He is rich.
Not for me. More power too him. I mean, just look at the ME caucus.
I notice that every time I lay out Romney’s glaring, blaring negatives and politely request some Romney backer to explain why they do not render him utterly, completely, obviously, and forever unelectable, I am met with total radio silence.
That silence speaks volumes, don’t it?
I also agree with Emily. I am a fiscal and social conservative.
All those who won in the 2010 election ran as a fiscal conservative.
Each of them voted to defund Planned Parenthood, NPR,etc.
If a social conservative does not vote in the general election because
their guy did not win the nomination, then they will give the election
to Obama. He will be able to continue to fund Planned Parenthood and send our tax
dollars to other countries to fund abortion.
Stick to the fiscal issues where everyone agrees.
We need a Congress that will defeat most any President… ‘Bama, Romney, other. And turn the lobbyists out.
Like thats ever gonna happen.
Yeah… I had to come to grips with my own devils – being a libertarian minded person I haven’t had the luxury of voting for anyone since Ronald Reagan… since then it’s been one degree of compromise after another.
…but the lady has a point… this is not the time for muddying the water with some esoteric high minded epiphanies or worse… climb back up on the cross of staying home this election- (an act I find as cowardly as suicide)- we simply have the reincarnation of Benito Hitler himself in the White House hell bent on the total destruction of this nation from within..
Mitt Romney who I consider as a real poodle in the duck blind is probably the less offensive of any of the RINO’s we have to choose from. Ron Paul got my primary vote, but I am not going to give my general election vote to evil incarnate…
We are at war folks and we may not win it.. in the time of war you have to make sacrifices- first win the battle then tend the wounded..
There is nothing wrong with having a RINO hunt in fact it’s past time. What good does winning the Senate do if then the RINOs say we dont have a large enough majority to lead so we will share power. What good is it if the conservative position is constantly under cut by people like Graham, Snowe, McCain or McConnell going out of their way to be bipartisan ( in other words caving to socialists). I tell you here and now that is the purpose of primaries to decide what your organization is going to stand for. How much did the Republicans gain by Bush and Santorum working to beat Pat Tomey in the primary against Arlen Sphincter.
Winning has to come first. I don’t like Romney because he is a Progressive, but a competent, pro-American, Republican, Progressive is better than an incompetent, God Damn America, Democrat, Communist/Environmentalist any day.
Whatever your Conservative issue is, it will be treated worse in your eyes under Obama than Romney.
I wish someone else was the candidate too, but it ain’t gonna happen, the fix is in.
Romney or Obama, that is the choice we actually have.
Do you really have to think about that?
No – but it does give me something to bitch about…
Progressives are basically communists. If you think communism is pro-American, then so be it.
No, Communists are not progressives, they are regressive. They only call themselves progressives so you will think they are smart and forward thinking. They want to take you back to the economies of tribalism. That is regressive. Just a middling point, I know, but don’t give the bastards an inch and don’t let them get away with labeling themselves. If we do, they will start calling themselves Santa Claus’ elves.
I don’t get this electability myth in the least.
McMitt doesn’t appeal to the conservative base…lifelong liberal. His Bain Capital career will be savaged as the very thing that brought on the 2008 economic crisis (a lie of course, but that’s what will happen), and he is from a religion that is perceived as a cult by millions of people who would normally vote for the Republican. That’s electability????
Santorum isn’t that bad, but he would be painted as a social idealogue. Maybe he can overcome that. If he can, he will be smeared with his lack of executive experience, his checkered big government voting record, and the fact that he he’s a loser who was crushed in his last election. That’s a tough row to hoe.
Gingrich has plenty of negatives, but they aren’t ones the voters in the middle will care much about: like 97% of the public who have divorces in their immediate family; he took pocket change from Fannie Mae, an agency that normal people know little about and if they do know, approve of because it helps people get mortgages; and he has ideas that the Romney smear merchants have convinced their sychophants to hate, but which normal people will find interesting…i.e., space, jobs for kids, tax cuts, etc.
And oh yes, Gingrich balanced the budget, cut spending, lowered taxes, and reformed welfare in MAJOR ways, all things normal people will find a lot more appealing than designing obamacare or hinting that contraception is a bad thing for society.
If you take away the Romney smear machine, Newt would have already raised the first 100 million for his successful election campaign.
As a Conservative first and a Republican second, if we end up with another RINO for a candidate I’ll have to hold my nose and vote again. The last RINO candidate we had campaigned harder for Obama then he did for himself and that is what makes Romney look scary. McLoser has even endorsed him, seems like RINOs attract RINOs. Every presidential election, we hear the same thing. We have to cater to the Independents and the Moderates, has it dawned on anybody that they caused the problem we have today.
LOL. Ok, face it: There are social RINOS and fiscal RINOS.
The problem with Mitt and Santorum is that both are fiscally RINO, with Mitt being also a social RINO. Therefore, Mitt is actually a Democrat.
The reason myself and so many others don’t like Romney and lean Santorum has nothing to do with social issues. I’m sure for some it does, but in my case Romney is both unlikable and politically unpalatable. He could have vetoed Romney care. He could have denounced it. Instead he has embraced it. That’s really not acceptable. Also, for someone that has every advantage he isn’t very good at winning elections. A good candidate who knows what conservatism is about would never say something like not being concerned about the very poor because they rely on a “safety net”. He has destroyed himself with independents. I think it is quite a stretch even to make the nebulous “electability” argument at this point. Adding to Romney’s lack of personal likability is the fact that 1. He has nothing positive to say about his record so his strategy is overwhelmingly negative 2. He has surrogates that act as mouthpieces to do his dirty work for him and 3. He just doesn’t seem like a guy I can relate to. Imagine sitting down for a drink (non-alcoholic in his case) with Romney. I can’t imagine it being anything other than awkward. Same with Gingrich.
I suspect number three was your most personal reason. I would also feel awkward with any of these candidates, but I would feel nothing but hostility towards Obama. I doubt if I really want a President to shoot the shit with anyway.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh145.htm
Gee whiz Brent, you just can’t trust a man who doesn’t drink and get soused and maybe because of it, he can’t be blackmailed, or get himself in a situation that could cause problems. And maybe just maybe the congressional pages might do their jobs and not be threatened and intimidated into having sex by the President. No, we don’t want that!
So what if 55 million innocent human lives have been brutally killed? Big deal. We got bigger things to worry about.
OK, fine, you’re not a RINO.
But then again, those who do care about killing babies and the destruction of the family don’t necessarily have to stay in your damned Big Tent, do we?
We can just abort you. And I’m sure you’ll be fine with that since there are more important things than social issues.
With your attitude, Obama will be able to continue to
fund aborting babies worldwide.
Even those who are not socially conservative do not want
to pay for someone else’s abortion.
My ideal president will work within a constitutional framework and wont have the legal standing or the time frankly to worry about social issues.
Save the economy. Go to church. Give honest thanks to God by all means but we have a hell of a country and part of it is freedom and freedom to quote Dick Cheney is for everyone.
Chuck Norris on: Why I chose Newt over Santorum
Check out this story. Obama wants to cut our nuclear deterent to 1950′s level. Maybe in return for Chinese cash. 2012 will not be a good election to lose.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Just this small takeaway from the article. Why do gay groups, in this case GOProud, want to attend a political event carrying the banner of their sexual preference? Why not simply show up as fellow human beings and stick to the subject at hand which in this case is political preference? Who gives a damn about their sexual bearing? Possibly they were denied participation because they seemed to make it obvious that their agenda was misplaced. It would seem just as silly if small people wanted to participate as MidgetPride. The agenda at this meeting was about conservative politics not gay-pride, midget-pride, or any other so-called “pride”. The conference had one well-known agenda and the “pride” group seemed to have another. No wonder they were excluded.
In the past we have accepted the RINOs and held our noses and voted for them.
Where did that get us again?
Oh yeah, we heard the words ‘Read My Lips’ at the convention and never again.
H. Ross Perot would have been a Blip Asterisk in the history books had George H. W. Bush said those very words ‘Read My Lips’ to George Mitchell. But he didn’t. He did what every RINO has ever done, he made a deal for the sole purpose of Making A Deal, and it cost the boat building industry their jobs.
Emily, I’ve got news for you, we have the lessons of Jim Jeffords, and Arlin Spectre behind us. We know well what RINOs bring forth. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are applauding the Contraceptive Compromise, isn’t that wonderful.
In the dictionary, under Distinctions Without A Difference, it says; ‘See Obama’s Contraception Compromise.’
When you’re going South and you want to go North, getting someone who will take you South South East isn’t going to get you where you want to go.
Any Idiot knows when you are negotiating with someone who doesn’t want you to have what you want, you have to ask for MORE than you want in order to comrpomise into the teritory you are seeking.
So WHY, when Boehner was seeking $100 billion in cuts did he propose to the opposition $60 Billion in cuts with some giberish about Pro Rated?
Now he goes on and on about ‘the best deal we could get,’ when in fact it wasn’t the best deal he could get, it was the best deal he tried for. And we know it.
Going over the cliff at 60 mph instead of 100 mph is STILL going over the cliff!
Figure it out Emily!
Obama + MM + MSM control strategy:
1) Set the narrative: Make a moronic and crazy proposition (throw out the bait); 2) Wait for someone to take the bait: creating a reactionary explosion.
3) Repeat the narrative while Agitating and causing even more chaos.
4) Steer the narrative towards its intended target (anyone that disagrees with Obama) having morphed the narrative into something like “contraception” instead of “abortion” for deflection purposes.
4) Divide and Conquer.
QED
Repeat often in order to suppress truth, free speech and produce fear.
Well, there were those who touted themselves as “conservatives” while voting for Big Government by Christians Gov. Mike Huckabee who have no business calling Romney and his supporters “RINO”.
Far too many “conservatives” are just fine with big government spending as long as the dude doing the spending is anti-abortion or anti-Gay Marriage.
A good portion of the TEA Party is NOT of the social conservative bent, nor are they supportive of SoCon issues.
Ronald Reagan said the beating heart of Conservatism is libertarianism. Rick Santorum smears and dismisses libertarians. Tell me again how Santorum is so purely conservative, while slurping up earmarks and proposing excess profits taxes and gas taxes? Oh he’s anti-abortion and anti-gay? So what?
I’ve held my nose for decades and voted for the SoCon over the Socialists, as there are MANY issues I have with Republican Authoritarianism as espoused by the Christian wing of the party, but the GOP is overall better than the DNC. The “Christian Purity Uber Alles” crowd is going to give Obama 4 more years by staying home? Well, thanks for nothing.
Get with the times SGT. Huckabee endorsed Romney.
Your call for unity loses all credibility when you begin defending GOProud.
GOProud engaged in the divisive tactics that you now bemoan. Over the past several years, they have systematically attack fellow conservatives including The Heritage Foundation, Senator Jim Demint, Liberty University, and countless others.
Anyone who does not bow to their gay agenda is attacked in their press releases and their interaction with the MSM.
They have even attacked fellow gays who do not tow the line espoused by GOProud. Just a few months ago they outted a gay pollster who worked for the Perry campaign because he worked for the Perry campaign. Mr. Breitbart resigned from the GOProud board because of their actions. Mr. Roger L. Simons obviously does not have the courage to take a stand on the issue of outting gays.
We don’t need another lecture about how the conservative movement should be more accepting of those in its midst whose sole purpose is to cause division and promote the careers of Mr. Barron and Mr. LaSalvia.
Jim DeMint supports banning gays from teaching jobs. Of course he’s going to be criticized. Not much can be said to you snakes. You (so-cons) slithered into the Republican Party from the Democrats. Of course you behave like them and hold the party hostage to your demands.
Supporting perversion and moral sickness has never been a conservative position.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand any of this talk. What “big government so-con” program has Santorum proposed? On his campaign web site, as far as social issues, he talks about enforcing already-existing laws against pornography. He talks about defending traditional marriage, and being pro-life. None of these is a “big government” program. Those positions are simply standing for traditional judeo-Christian values. There’s nothing in there that I can see where he proposes a “Department of Moral Virtues” or anything like that. If Rick Santorum is elected president, you will still be able to do whatever it is that floats your boat now.
If you disagree with and want to throw traditional values away, then just man up and say so. Write a column extolling the virtues of pornography, abortion, adultry, recreational drug use, fornication, and the like. Write your column and persuade people to come over to your side. Don’t try to mask your insecurity about your personal lifestyle choices as concern for the “electiblity” of someone who lives a different lifestyle than you. Don’t accuse him of being some kind of staff-weilding moral policeman. You So-Libs are a strange lot. So very insecure and neurotic.
You So-Libs are a strange lot. So very insecure and neurotic.
We have *real and pressing* problems with money and energy and foreign policy, and Santorum (and you) are wasting bandwidth on culture warrior crap. As a “so-lib” what I want is merely for the GOP candidates to at least *pretend* like they have their eye on the ball, the ball being the real and pressing problems mentioned above. Concentrating on anything other than related to energy, security and economics is a waste of time that appeals only to the “so-con” statists.
Iran has nukes. A pressing problem. Meanwhile you’re paying attention to whether or not family values are supported.
And you call US neurotic? We’re not the ones wasting the bandwidth and assuring the world that Obama gets elected again.
Your “real and pressing” (and I happen to agree that they are HUGE) problems are all addressed one by one in Santorum’s literature and speeches, so don’t try to tell me that Santorum doesn’t have his eye on that ball.
Now I don’t hear and read everything that every candidate puts out, but the only time I’ve heard Santorum even talk about the culture stuff is when he’s asked about it by some neurotic (yeah, I said it again) So-Lib, who assumes that just because he lives a traditional lifestyle, that he’s going to mount some moral crusade to ban whatever proclivity that guy happens to have. That’s the grand lie you So-Libs swallow hook, line, and sinker. You have zero understanding of traditional religious life, so you simply swallow what Hollywood tells you it is.
You hate Rick Santorum because he happens to be socially conservative. In the mean time Romney, whom many of you seem to prefer is a liberal in EVERY way. He built the model for Obamacare – which if it is fully implemented will be the final nail in our country’s economic coffin. Yeah, he claims he’ll repeal it, but at the same time, he refuses to denounce Romneycare. Why is that? He believes in all the global warming, climate change clap-trap, the “remedy” to which is job killing EPA regulation of EVERY damned industry in this country. Tell me, how you can look at Romney’s record and conclude that he will fix the “real and pressing” issues. Contrary to what you are being told, we Santorum supporters don’t dislike Romney because he’s a So-Lib. He’s just a lib period.
Gingrich is as big government as Obama is. Just in the other direction. He claims to personally have the solution to every single problem that ails everyone in America. No thanks.
Lastly, you So-Libs just seem assume that anyone who supports Santorum is on some religious crusade. I can speak for myself, and tell you that before his rise to prominence, I didn’t know much about him. I’ve just been an anyone but Romney guy from day one. I’ve supported anyone who I think can beat Romney (except Ron Paul). Santorum just happens to be the last one standing. Frankly, as a fiscal conservative he’s no where near as good as I’d like him to be. I just happen to think he’s light years ahead of Romney, who’s a died in the wool, blue blood lib. I can support Santorum because I’m not a narrow minded anti-Christian bigot. Can you say the same?
The problem with Santorum is that the MSM is all too happy to get him to comment on non-pressing problems, and even if he’s all over doing something about the important stuff he’s too stupid to grasp that the MSM baiting alone paints him as a bible thumping looneytune. Which by the way, he IS. He has no real clue re economics and jobs. Doesn’t care. No clue about Iran. Doesn’t really care. He worries about “family values” and idiocy like that. That’s it. If he was worried about the other stuff he wouldn’t waste web site bandwidth on culture war crap.
The problem with the GOP encouraging the voice of the culture warriors is that the overall message is that the GOP is about culture wars and not interested in the pressing stuff that matters. The GOP has already yielded vast tracts of voting interests — blacks, gays, teachers, scientists, union members, and more, all due to idiotic narrow minded focus on stuff that really does not matter.
What matters is gas being unaffordable. What does NOT matter — not in the least — is whether or not gays get married. This is such a non-issue that the national GOP and the candidates ought to have no opinion whatsoever.
For instance you’re crapping on what you call “romneycare.” Does it occur to you that the constitution encourages states to do this stuff? It’s heinous to have *national* health care, but the states… that’s why we have a constitution that tries to keep the fed out of everything. Romney helping a movement in the state he was governor of is right and proper, not a harbinger of impending socialist doom.
How do you think Obama got elected?!?
What can get elected is a GOP candidate who knows his ass from fracking and knows how to get jobs going and knows energy and knows how to deal with the growing threat of nuclear proliferation (e.g. Iran.) Such a candidate would be so busy concentrating on the stuff that matters that an MSM-bait question re gays would result in a “I have no opinion on this AT ALL other than we need the vote of everyone” answer.
The GOP problem is and has been the pre-eminence of the culture warrior opinion, and the GOP will forever beholden to the leftists bidding so long as it remains in such thrall.
Do you understand the concept of bandwidth?
randomengineer, as a guy whose job it is to keep the internet working for people – uh, yeah. I understand a thing or two about bandwidth, both literally and figuratively. What about you?
Hey, on Romneycare, yeah. If the folks in MA want to destroy their own economy, that’s just dandy. You couldn’t pay me enough to move my family there anyway. But the fact that Romney can’t see it as the disaster that it is, scares me!
And how do I think Obama got elected?? Glad you asked. It’s because the soft and squishy GOP establishment rammed a cranky old liberal named McCain down our throats, trying to appeal to the moderates and independents. Case closed.
You claim that Santorum absolutely cannot win because of his views on social issues. Well when was the last time a social conservative even ran for national office? Let’s see…. Bush was supposedly one, and last time I checked he won twice. He was a disaster fiscally, just like Mitt would be, but he sure didn’t lose a presidential election. Seriously, name me the prominent social conservative presidential candidate who has been defeated in a general election because Americans rose up against his values.
MARK — It’s because the soft and squishy GOP establishment rammed a cranky old liberal named McCain down our throats, trying to appeal to the moderates and independents. Case closed.
That’s absurdity on stilts. It’s because the culture warriors fouled up the bandwidth inventing a social issue (gay marriage) that obfuscated the *real* GOP platform and ceded the stuff that matters (jobs, emergy, etc.) to Obama.
Obama promised green jobs. He was full of crap, but, 90% of the voting public doesn’t know this. What they heard was Obama = JOBS, McCain = caving in to gay marriage stupidity. Get it? What the public heard, right or wrong, was that Obama was going to deliver good paying jobs. And what the public *also* heard, right or wrong, was that the republicans were more interested in whether gays got hitched.
That’s how even obviously incompetent stooges like Obama yet elected — people just like you making them seem eminently reasonable.
That you see this completely upside down is unsurprising. Idealogues like you always do. It’s almost a genetic ailment.
On the plus side the “conservative” bible thumper crowd is slowly dying off as churches continue to fail to attract more victims. The last bastion of this type of idiocy is the south and some pockets in the midwest. You and those like you will either be pushed aside in a much needed housecleaning or the GOP will shrink to a “pure” yet regional party, not a national force. One can hope that after Santorum gets nominated and the GOP gets completely pasted in a landslide that the housecleaning will begin. Because a landslide is what will happen. It’s going to be ugly beyond words. And maybe if things pan out for once I can get my party back.
McCain was a culture warrior???? What election were you watching? McCain got his ass kicked because he was an old, crusty codger with no personality. It didn’t help that most of his positions didn’t differ much from Obama’s, so people figured “Hey, I might as well pick the rock star if those are my two choices. All the cool kids are doing it.”
You need to relax a little. You’ve got a vein popping out on your neck. Take a deep breath. It’s kinda funny how religious people scare you so much. You gonna throw us all in an arena with lions and sell tickets? You make me chuckle.
Iran has NO nukes.
read a list of the Santorum voting record here
X, this link points out what I’ve already conceded in terms of Santorum’s fiscal record. And I’ll admit that once Thompson dropped out in 2008 I supported Romney, not because I like him, but because he was the least-liberal man left in the race – and people complain about this year’s field…
Don’t get me wrong. I could hold my nose and vote for Newt if he won, but surely no one can see him actually winning the nomination at this point anyway. His personal life is a train wreck, but I could get over it. He just doesn’t say what I want to hear, which is pretty much “I’ll work to get government out of your way.” His solutions are ALL based on some government program he’s dreamed up. And in the end, I just think he’s done anyway.
There are some things that government can do and some things it can’t. In the former category are national budgets, deficits and debt, and national defense and foreign policy. In the latter category are many, if not most, of the ‘social issues,’ which government has never been able to address adequately, let alone solve, and which are in fact the appropriate sphere of individuals, families, churches, and the institutions of civil society. It is therefore entirely appropriate for those of us who call ourselves conservative to prefer a candidate who will address those areas that are the proper domain of government, and who will leave the others to responsible citizens and to their civic institutions. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that our Constitution specifically mentions revenues, spending, defense and foreign policy; it has nothing to say about abortion or contraception or ‘family values.’
I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the break isn’t really that clean. How about a case where a kid breaks his leg and the parents refuse to take him to the doctor because they’re faith healers? Let’s say the kid dies from shock. I think 99.9% of us would say that those parents are at a minimum, liable for their child’s death. To the faith healers it’s a question of religious freedom. To the rest of us it’s a question of child abuse. Either way, it’s a social issue that very few of us would have a problem with government at some level jumping in.
So in the real world it’s not a question of whether the government should involve itself in social issues. It’s just a question of where the threshold is for that to happen. There are good arguments on all sides about where that threshold should be. I’d be happy to debate that, but it’s irrational to say that government shouldn’t be involved in any way shape or form.
“A RINO is not your fellow Republican who doesn’t happen to agree with you that gay marriage is the most important issue facing our country today.”
I am amazed at the tunnel vision in this statement as it cuts both ways. I keep hearing libertarians threaten to vote for Obama if a social conservative wins – as if allowing 4 more years to the existing thousands upon thousands that gay marriage has not been legal will most certainly bring America to its knees. And the idea that Santorum could or would make contraception illegal strikes me as ridiculous as those Palestinian TV shows claiming Israeli soldiers eat babies.
pot meet kettle.
Emily, you are wise beyond your years. I am old enough to have actually voted for Ronald Reagan, and you are correct; many who are RINO hunting today, would have been hunting Ronald Reagan back in the 70′s. The most important issue facing the Republicans today is to replace President Obama. It’s not to have our candidate pass a somewhat ill defined ideological litmus test (which seems to vary whether your talking to a Ron Paul supporter, or a Rick Santorum supporter). I’m going to support the Republican candidate in November.. Period!
Brad, if ideology and positions on issues don’t matter, then why are we even having a primary? The logical conclusion to your statement above is that you truly don’t care who we put up. If that’s the case, great. Sit back and wait until the convention. Just curious though….
Hi Mark,, I believe that all of the Republican candidates would be better than President Obama, even Ron Paul. The Republican party principals of smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, individual responsibility and freedom are more or less articulated by all the candidates. Do I have a favorite, sure, but we Republicans have to get away from fratricide and focus on the big picture.
Coming from the northeast, I was a Republican of that ilk with absolutely no understanding of or sympathy for the born again bible thumpers of the south. To me religion is a private matter…not to be judged by the masses. Individual responsibility was the important thing. I have volunteered since I was a little kid.
When Goldwater ran, I just didn’t vote since I could not bring myself to vote for Lyndon. I felt almost the same about the so called savior of the party, Reagan and have never extolled his virtues. The Republican party left me when it adopted, what I consider to be, the far right philosophy.
I think government should mind its own business and stay out of such issues as marriage and sex. Gay rights receive far too much publicity and abortion is the equivalent of a four letter word which I am tired of hearing. I want this country to remain the world power it now is with a strong military and a credible economic policy. I think race relations were improving slowly which was probably the best solution to that issue. I think many voters feel as I do and don’t want to be preached at….the ONE attribute at which the far right excells. I have never liked Ann Coulter but do agree with her about defeating OBama. It should be the primary aim of all…Get rid of him. I can understand where Romney is coming from and his flipping on some issues. I thought he could be elected but now I am not so sure. I am hoping for a knight to come galloping in on his steed at the GOP convention. At this point I would vote for anyone who could beat Obama and eliminate the Czars and reghulations put into practice in the past few years. I want him to yank out Holder and, hopefully, smack him into some federal penitentary. And I dream of the day when the Republican party goes back to being the big tent where many philosophies are respected.
Emily presumes that the socially moderate Mitt Romney will win the GOP nod. But what if he doesn’t?
Why is there such the presumption that Santorum can’t win a general election because he’s a stickler for values? Have you read his economic plan that he came out with early on?
I’ll grant that the perception is going to be created by Obama and the media (but I repeat myself) that Rick Santorum is the GOP’s answer to Jim Bakker and America would be a theocracy comparable to Iran if he wins. But the question is whether those who are working now for Mitt because they think he’s “most electable” will brush aside the hurt feelings of losing the nomination and work to combat the narrative sure to come in order to put Rick into office. Regardless of who our nominee is, this will be a much more uphill struggle than one would expect with our crappy economy.
As it so happens, I’m sitting here in Maryland as we fight a battle over gay marriage – a vote which was supposed to happen tonight in our General Assembly was pushed back to tomorrow, presumably so the gay-rights lobby will have another few hours to get the recalcitrant Democrats’ minds right and twist as many arms as necessary to do so. (There is no need for a Republican to vote for it to pass, Democrats have a 98-43 majority in our House of Delegates.) I’ve gotten a lot of crap on my website just for pointing out the electoral ramifications of what could happen if gay marriage is passed and petitioned to referendum (as it most likely would be), let alone simply standing for marriage being between a man and woman.
You know, I understand how Emily feels and there are many younger Republicans who agree with her, I’m sure. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and while I’m in no way advocating Constitutional amendments which state marriage should be between a man and a woman or banning abortion, I see nothing wrong with standing up for traditional values, either. If we don’t stand for them now, just imagine what the situation could be like in four years. The battle over Catholics and contraception will be a walk in the park compared to what we may have to face up to in 2016.
Ms Shrader wonderful article.
I am an oldtimer whom as a young economist in Washington, D.C. actually went to most institutions doing resarch the old fashioned way prior to the explosion of the internet.
I am grateful, therefore, to be able to wade through the clutter of misinformation and misdirection and arrive at the objective heart of policy.
I shake my head in sadness when I observe such shallow acceptance of Republican Presidential Candidates to whom we select at the whim of the latest shift in the wind of negative perceptions.
Arduous on-the-ground scrutiny is mandatory to guage the comprehension and metal requjired to overcome and resolve the tectonic shifts that have befallen our great nation in the last decade.
Never before has today’s middle class, or tea party, been so threatened by the loss of opportunity, rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and intractable threats to our common defense by internal and external actors committed to the destruction of the USA.
When we see practitioners of the law in the Department of Justice and the President of our Country manipulate the law as a tool to be used for narrow parochial gain, rather than as a means of justice for all as guaranteed in the Constitution then, we are truely in peril.
As in Rome, the whims of the mob are being placated by the promise of immediate gains in an all out crusade of class warfare based on race, greed, perceived slights, and unearned entitlements.
I apologize to our allie Israel that we failed to stand by your side while Iran threatened to erase you from the face of the earth. In the blink-of-an-eye we too, will sweat under the nuclear threat of extinction if we dare challenge a nuclear Iran supported by its allies Russia and China.
Only in passing will I mention that Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran consider the US of A their number one ENEMY and point their strategic nuclear weapons directly at our heartland.
I want a president that speaks truth to we the members of the forgotten middle class.
I have lived in 7 countries, worked in 20 countries, analyzed 50 countries world-wide, worked as an economist, Director of Latin American Operations, Desk Officer of Pakistan/Afghanistan, been an author, worked my way through college, and been a unionized blue-collar worker struggling to earn a buck.
I am retired now, and own Yellow Jacket Ranch.
I can honestly say that I have looked into the eye of Mr Gingrich and believe that this man among all the others of the pack is the original lobo from way up the creek.
Does he have baggage” Don’t they all?
I know that one cannot be the leader of the Republican Party in Congress charged with leading the Republican Party for unity-of-action without coralling conservative republican and republican-in-name-only (RINO’s) without a semblance of resentment.
I know that Mr Gingrich has the two essential traits that are vital to the requirements of our next president–those skills are LEADERSHIP and CHARISMA.
To be one issue candidates stuck on jobs and anti-abortion loops ignore the critical need for a proven steward that must have the hands-on experience to get the necessary legislation through the labrynths and corriders of self-serving politicians in Congress.
Whom would you want sitting in the White House guarding your children’s tomorrows when that call comes in at 2 am?
I believe that man is Mr Gingrich.
Who are you to call me conservative? While your bio picture depicts a tween, I suspect you are older than you look and your years of non-profit work suggest. However, it is not very forward thinking to rely on Reagan nostalgia to sell your point. Far be it from me to stop you from your libertarian quest to break-up the union for moderates who appeal to independents such as icons McCain and Dole, and glitter with the “queen elementary education” agenda.
Did you get a refund? How sad no one was there to hold your hand as you navigated uncharted and un-pledged masses. CPAC is not the sorority you are looking for. Ms. Coulter is a brand not a sister. I think you described a richly stimulating and entertaining “particular strain” of street theater experience with political marquee performances but how “disheartening” you are too “narrow-minded” to enjoy it.
I don’t mean to “heckle” you but culture is economics, Snow White. They whistle while going off to work you see and America works (for profit) best with her founding documents as the foundation, as you so graciously acknowledge, but before you graced us with your presence, America’s cultural inheritance and confidence is not the bland soup you crave. What is America’s flavor? Judeo-Christian. Do you taste a rainbow? We cut England adrift so long ago and now they reach out to our lifeboat of liberty from their bankrupt libertarian utopia. Government must stand for something or it will fall for anything shinny from Brussels. A typical standard with tolerance of deviation, not anarchy relativism.
Have you never thought that those who stand for the family, the first economic and civic unit in our society who model fiscal sanity and virtue, are not the very tender institutional thread upon which what little we have preserved in this country of “limited government, strong national defense, and individual freedom and responsibility” stands? Again, how “narrow-minded” of you.
I think Obama is using the gay marrage and the church business to hide something evil he is going to throw at us… I dont trust that vile man in any thing.. he is an obsessed man with revenge on his mind and thats all he cares about is to see how much damage he can do to the USA and hes pushing congress to see just how far he can go and they are to stupid to realize that is what obama is dong them..he is making them all look like fools that have no brains to even think with and I asked the MI senator how she could sit there and let obama treat them like he does…I told her to think of the ppl not her party for once and act on it.. I dont know if she even heard me
Great article, Emily. I totally agree with you on the need to defeat our czar of czars. The debt abyss we’ve created via GW and BO is incomprehensibly high–it takes about 32 thousand years to actually count to one trillion–and we need to see the economy as our priority issue along with staunchly defending the Constitution–something the Obama administration, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg does not see as an imperative. The GOP needs to unite and go after the failed economic policy of BO and his concomitant failed promises. All the political geniuses who have spoken before me should agree with that notion.