Stay Hungry, Honey Boo Boo
And that is not what the Founders envisaged — governments dominated by kings and aristocrats. Andrew Jackson may have been a son of a bitch in real life, dealing sternly with the Indians, but the “Trail of Tears” was a necessary preamble to the westward expansion of the United States, and Jackson — the quintessential Democrat — was perfectly willing to play Realpolitik when it suited the interests of his fledgling nation. If today we disagree with both his methods and aims, that says more about us than about him; political correctness is moral preening vouchsafed only to those Eloi for whom there are never any consequences in the land of no consequences.
Except when you get eaten by Morlocks.
I’ve expressed myself elsewhere on the morality of venture capitalism in general and in particular on Romney’s time as the head of Bain Capital. During the campaign, I thought the knee-jerk defense by some conservatives of corporate vulturism as if it were the highest form and purest expression of capitalism was seriously wrong. True, vultures perform a valuable social service, eliminating carrion and recycling nutritious detritus — but the noble eagle is the American bird, not the avian equivalent of Charon. Further, the notion that the bottom-feeding Willard Mitt was some kind of “job creator” was ludicrous to anyone who’s actually created a job:
Any jobs Romney or Bain “created” were thus incidental to their real function, which was (as Last points out) to maximize shareholder value and goldmine the remaining value of the company so that it might more profitably be used elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t try to sell it as “job creation.”
A “job creator” is the bestselling author (Stephen King, Dan Brown, et al.) whose works help keep his publisher afloat and who indirectly provides employment for editors, copy reader, designers, public relations staff and management. A “job creator” is Eastman or Ford or Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or anyone else who creates industries. A “job creator” is the screenwriter (Robert Rodat) who typed out the words: “EXT. OMAHA BEACH – MORNING,” won Steven Spielberg an Oscar and gave employment to all these people through the force of his own creative imagination.
But to call corporate restructuring “jobs creation” won’t fly. Romney is going to have to come up with a far more persuasive, positive rationale for his candidacy if he hopes to beat Barack Obama in November.
Of course, he never did.
And what the Right never realized, right up to the final call on Nov. 6, was that — to paraphrase Sally Field — “You hate us! You really hate us!” Romney became the poster boy for the animus felt by the electorate against those who’ve (legally) gamed the system and, having arrived at third base, thought they were born with a silver foot in their mouths. And then he went before the voters of the country he actually lives in:
By going on every TV show this side of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and appearing on every magazine cover except Guns and Ammo, Obama acted like he wanted to be president. Mitt Romney, who ran a near-perfectly-invisible campaign, did not. The Romney strategy was predicated on Boston’s belief that he was self-evidently a better man than Barack Obama and that all he had to do was show up and stroll through the door of the White House. The first part of that thesis was and remains true, but the second did not ineluctably follow from it.
Nor should it have. The bloodless Romney campaign — whose only display of passion was atomizing Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary — got what it deserved, and so did the establishment GOP, which not only lost the presidency but lost just about every Senate race it should have won, thanks to the candidate’s turnout-depressing coattails and a couple of disastrous candidates.
So, no mas, Harvard boys. It’s time to find fighters with fire in the belly and the wolf at their door. Men or women who will adopt the Left’s winning motto, “by any means necessary” and get the job done. Republicans keep pining for the next Ronald Reagan but should instead be hunting for their own Andrew Jackson. The Democrats have already forgotten about Barack Obama, who’s of no further electoral use to them, and are avidly searching for the next obscure figure they can recast as the smiling avatar of their redistributionist goals.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the talk already is of…
Jeb and George — forgotten, but not gone.
No wonder they call it the Stupid Party.
In defense of Romney, He spends a lot of time with his very large family. They would need a lot of bedrooms, and if he can afford them, why not?
More power to him for being a rich and successful man; the point is not that this is wrong, but that such a person tends not to run the most effective campaign or be the best presidential candidate.
Maybe the author just wanted to point out that Romney “did not build it” all by himself. But what about Bush then? I didn’t understand that. I still wonder if Gingrich would have won because he looks more like somebody who can roll up his sleeves. Romney is a decent man, but maybe a maker would have been more impressive in times of hardship. There are many controversial theories. I wonder if a straightforward conservative like Gingrich might have gotten the missing Rebublican voters out of their beds on election-Tuesday. I don’t think, like others it’s the minority issue. I rather think that the economical issue plus possible solutions didn’t beat the human rights issue, and maybe this happened because of Bains Capital. Wouldn’t disturb me, but I am conservative. I know lots of people here in Europe who think of Romney primarily as a hedgefund manager which for uninformed and media-biased folks, say the stupid, is the same as a carnivorous cricket.
Fox News keeps pushing the extremely obese heart-attack/stroke candidate C. Christie, but will he still be around for next time? And will Americans vote for a tub of lard?
Maybe if he’d pulled a Gov. Blanco with Obama after Sandy, instead of hanging on him like a slobbering drunk, Obama might not have got his 11th hour political bump from his photo op on the Jersey shore. Christie lost any political aspirations right there for me.
Christie sucking up to Obama so hard and giving him that last minute boost has hopefully ended any aspirations within the party. I wouldn’t vote for the guy as town dog catcher, much less president. If a major Dem party political figure had snubbed Obama days before the election and had a love fest with Romney, do you think they’d seriously be considering him as a contender for anything? Of course not. Traitors belong in the 8th circle of Dante’s hell, not political office.
Same with Christie’s pal Ann Coulter. Some people just can’t be trusted.
Christie’s love and support for the Muslim enemy long ago dug his own grave in my eyes. Tongue-bathing the punk in the WH after Sandy was just pulling the dirt in after him.
Four Islamists on Chris Christie’s Muslim outreach committee
What the HELL was he doing even HAVING a Muslim outreach committee?
The Republican campaigns have been like the U.S. approach to war since joining the U.N. Too busy trying to win hearts and minds to beat the enemy.
The strategy for both should be fight to win or stay home.
In war, the winner is the one that destroys the other sides will to keep fighting. In politics, the dems use the same approach, where the Republicans use the “Win the Hearts and Minds” approach. And that rarely works in war or elections.
In fairness, the GOP has shown a great propensity to be ruthless–when going after Caucasian Democrat opponents. Going after BLACK Democrats is a whole other problem.
In the 1990s, the GOP certainly went after Clinton in a big way, pursuing numerous scandals like Whitewater and ultimately with an impeachment vote.
In 2004, the GOP went after Kerry ruthlessly, successfully painting him as an out-of-touch gigolo who married into wealth.
In 2012 during the primary season, Romney certainly went after Gingrich and Perry ruthlessly.
The problem with going after Obama, of course, is that Obama is BLACK.
The optics of an 89% white GOP (whose Presidential candidates have always been white) attempting to attack the character of The First Black President ™ are bad; they open the GOP up to charges of racism. (Just as is happening now with the GOP’s criticisms of Susan Rice.)
Let me explain this concisely:
** In today’s politically correct America, a bunch of white guys cannot use ruthless character attacks against a black person. **
So in 2008, McCain was stymied.
And in 2012, Romney was stymied.
That’s the reality we have to deal with.
How refreshing it is to see someone else articulate what I have been saying throughout Obama’s campaigns, both in ’08 & ’12. Because of the principles of affirmative action that even Republicans embrace, of course McCain & Romney could not go after O like they should have.
Again, I hope voters think twice the next time they are faced with an AA presidential candidate.
The Democrats, especially the AA’s and hangers-on, certainly had no qualms about destroying Alan West and Mia Love. But I grant that the Republican white guys could not do the same to Obama.
That’s why the Democratic Party and the media dealt with Herman Cain first. He was their biggest enemy. Condoleezza Rice could have done the job. If a black woman critisizes a black man, no problem. Imagine Susan Rice ran 1916 – God beware. Then the GOP would need Condi. Rice vs. Rice. And definitely, one Rice is more attractive – guess who.
Exactly. And that’s why I think Herman Cain is the best or one of the best options for 2016. He already took his baptism of fire.
Cain or Condi. Apologies: Wrote 1916 instead of 2016. I’d say if the Donkeys chose a black woman the GOP would need one as well.
Having gone to college in San Diego, I can attest to its attractiveness as a place to live. But after reading the quotes in that NYT story from some of what would be my neighbors, that house would be back on the market by the end of the week. Who would want to live around such a-holes?
– you don’t want to live in sick California.
I don’t care one whit about a potential president’s wealth or lack thereof.
Only whether or not he/she has the true interests of the country at heart.
Despite your allusion to Romney and his vulturism, I could only choose him for what I gauged to be better economic acumen and an individual less driven by personal ideological agenda than his opponent.
((for the record, most of those guys we call “the founders” weren’t exactly from the lower strata of society)
No. They weren’t from the lower strata of society but they were willing to risk it like they were from the lower strata and Washington by accepting generalship took the greatest risk of all. They were radicalized not by their politics but in the belief of what they were willing to risk for the cause. In that perspective Romney comes out behind Obama. Scummy Chicago politicos will fight till their very last breath to maintain their position. Normally we shouldn’t stoop to that but we don’t have any choice. When we have a candidate that makes it clear that once he loses the election he will still push the cause we’ll win or at the very least neutralize their victory. That is the point.
So scummy Chicago thug politics won because they were determined ?
Because Axelrod and the whole gang were such accomplished and relentless liars?
I don’t think of the founders as radicalized but as learned individuals who’d seen the monarchies/hierarchies of Europe and were hellbent on constructing another way for citizens to interact with a very limited federal power, one in which all that power rested with the people.
I agree with your point that a guy who truly believes should push on and not just retire to a comfortable life. I was never a great Romney enthusiast, but he was orders of magnitude preferable to the other guy.
Of course you don’t think of them as radicalized but they went to war with the very nation they thought of themselves belonging to culturally and actually committed treason towards their own monarch (and yes King George III was their monarch). It was a colossal break with the past and with a mother nation that was not that long before quite popular with the colonists. They also might not have been able to do so if Britain really was tyrannical. There is not a lot of literature about British atrocity in the colonies. For most of what we consider the war of Independence the goal was reunification on just terms. The actual break took time to even be considered as it was too great a leap to be embraced right away. Britain should have been able to assuage the colonies if it wasn’t so corrupt it couldn’t recognize its own interests. When John Adams adopted the outlook of his cousin Sam (who hated Britain and wanted Independence all along) he was radicalized. Pure and simple.
Republicans need a young, non-white candidate for President who will fight like the devil for his principals.
principals
principles
And to hell with superficialities like skin color and (even) age, although at some point you’re too old to be president.
I agree that superficialities like skin color and age should not matter, but unfortunately they do. Americans vote like they’re voting for the winner of American idol, not president.
The best thing about it though would be that it would be a fine moment to observe the left’s racist vitriol on full display. The most viciously attacked people in the country are women or minorities who stray off the Democratic reservation. Notice how black Republicans are called “house n*ggers” by the left? Or how about when they called Sarah Palin a “dumb c*nt” with impunity? How would those same enlightened individuals react to a Condoleeza Rice running for president on the Republican ticket?
It would just be so SO delicious for Republicans to accuse all the Democrat’s vile toadies in the media of being sexist and racist every time they tried to criticize her. Without the race and gender card the left has nothing, this would leave their heads spinning when they were forced to swallow a dose of their own medicine. Watching the clowns on MSNBC trying to call her a racist against her own people for not having a (D) after her name would be priceless. Even if she lost it would almost be worth it because it would cripple the media narrative of the Republican party being only for old white men.
Even if she lost it would almost be worth it because it would cripple the media narrative of the Republican party being only for old white men.
I catch your drift, but, guaranteed, “the media” would find some way to trash a Condi Rice, plantation negro, raised by 2 parents who gave a sh!t, the whole nine yards.
Along the same lines, some say we should just let Barack and democrats have their way on debt and spending, that the trip into insolvency will finally show the Left for what it is.
I don’t buy that, either. It will be republicans’ fault. The so called MSM today is evil.
(As for the meme constantly trotted out about “white guilt over racism”, that can’t be real when you consider the absolute trashing of conservative blacks that goes on in this culture.)
Start by changing the name from Republican to ________________. I mean an Edsel is an Edsel – until Pontiac brought nearly the same care out later, right down to the toilet seat on the front grille, and swept the market for a decade. Get a new identity, and find a guy like Rubio who holds his events at Motel 6 – then you win. Big. Good on you, Walsh, the short armed cigar smoking fatties need the heave-ho. Now.
Let’s stick with facts, shall we? Pontiac NEVER, EVER produced a car with anything remotely resembling the fabled grille of the Edsel. I’ve been kickin’ around for lotsa decades, and your comment is TWO firsts for me. It’s the first time I’ve ever read about the Edsel’s grille resembling a toilet seat — the almost-universal comparison is with a horse collar. And its the first time I’ve ever read a claim that any other carmaker followed Edsel’s lead… much less that said carmaker succeeded.
Well you need to look again. The toilet seat sobriquet was a standard joke in and out of the industry at the time and many of the marketing,design and engineering people from Ford ultimately went to work at the Pontiac Division, and very much reintroduced the toilet seat in a very stylized version (BMW has done this also), partly because Henry Ford II fired almost all of them and also because they were determined to make it work. George DeLorean et al agreed and the Pontiac Gran Prix was born, followed by the GTO in a few years. My father was head of Sales Promotion at Edsel and we heard it all for 25 years.
Automobile history aside, I get your point. But I dislike your cartoonist description of wealthy people. Actually, you will find a far higher percentage of short armed fat guys among the dependent groups who, more accurate statistics would show, tend also to vote for Communists like Obama. Do your own research on this, judge error, and you will soon agree. My point is that your entire argument rings pretty hollow when you mock people instead of revealing your actual grievances with them. But I don’t go so far as to argue that, because of my obviously superior research, we need to run a short armed fat guy with no money for President. It is time to stop blaming the Republicans for our problems, and get on with the fight against our true enemies, says I.
Here is what a wide man would do:
“Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that House Republicans should stop negotiating with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on the fiscal cliff, saying that by doing so, they give Obama all of the leverage in the talks.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/29/gingrich-house-republicans-should-stop-negotiating-with-president-obama/
Sorry, a wise man not wide man…))
How about a wise, wide man.
Please tell me why the Republican candidate can win a vicious primary by relentlessly attacking their opponents, then operate as a wuss in the general election? And what’s up with the non-debate debate on foreign policy? The me-too strategy clearly didn’t work and it was very, very strange. I know the marxist media is biased, but you already know that, so deal with it. Hit them over the head like Newt does, then smile. And don’t back down.
What’s their stategy for getting their voters to the polls. Looks like the community organizer out did the famed manager. How’s that? Don’t these people study the opposition and learn how they do it. And try to out do them? Or are they just throwing around a bunch of money for little result ala karl Rove?
…Republican candidate can win a vicious primary by relentlessly attacking their opponents, then operate as a wuss in the general election? And what’s up with the non-debate debate on foreign policy?
Both very negative elements of the Romney campaign.
Romney crowd used dirty pool in the primary, then tried to present as Mr. Clean in the general. I would guess it was one of those “strategy” decisions, like the one McCain made in ’08 that he’d leave the Reverend Wright topic alone.
When Cairo riots happened just before Benghazi, “the press” made hash out of Romney’s remarks (His observations happened to be true, but that didn’t matter for the feeding frenzy.)
The only reason I can think of why he didn’t pronounce on and push on Benghazi, especially when the opportunity presented itself in 2nd & 3rd debates.
Dereliction of duty and not high points for his campaign.
A big help might be to re-do the primary structure such that the states likely to actually vote for the candidates have the biggest say. I’m sorry, but why should California and New York have a say in who wins the Republican primary when as a state they will never vote Republican in a million years?
You Are Correct, Michael Walsh: Mitt Romney did not campaign as if losing the election would be unpleasant for him OR if losing would be horrible for the nation. Mitt proceeded as if offering a better man for president (himself, but don’t act unseemly about it) was sufficient to win the election.
I remember the expressions on Mitt’s and Ann’s faces, on their children’s faces, on Paul and Janna Ryan’s faces, the dismal night of the concession speech. They hurt bad. Mitt though this wouldn’t happen to them.
If Mitt had incorporated some of his new-found wisdom from Losing Night into his campaign then he could have done what it took to win. I can’t imagine there has ever been a more crucial, critical, crisis election in American history than this one. Was there ever an election more important not to lose? Lyndon Johnson’s maybe, but LBJ and Woodrow Wilson were harbingers and Obama’s reelection may well be the coup de grace.
Romney didn’t have his skin in the game. Didn’t think he needed to use it to win. Didn’t use his own money to run counter ads before the convention to protect his own name. Didn’t think he needed a team effort from other involved conservatives. Didn’t need Paul and the libertarians, Mitt didn’t need evangelicals and Catholics and so-cons campaigning for freedom and conscience, he didn’t need Santorum out campaigning against Obamacare, Mitt didn’t need Gingrich out campaigning for Energy/Prosperity For All, he didn’t need Paul Ryan out campaigning against fiscal cliffs, government debt, and saving Social Security, in other words Mitt didn’t need us. Mitt didn’t want us. The establishment pro’s thought we were unnecessary and a distraction from independent/undecided voters. Ah Mitt, you only get them when regular people get them for you.
Mitt Romney ran for himself to serve us after the election but he didn’t include us in the campaign. The damage is on us bad, but not bad for him. Mitt, the LDS prophecy of the Constitution-saving knight was not a self-fulfilling win-win prophecy for you, it was a win-lose situation for America’s people. You didn’t take it seriously enough.
In two years we, the people, have an opportunity to empty and re-fill the House of Representatives. So few of them make fire-brand speeches of dire warnings to their states that my opinion is: Vote Against Every One Of Them. Primary all of them. If a good Rep is jobless the next two years it will only make them a better worker for us later. If they want to prove themselves valuable then exposing voter fraud is a great route to redemption.
In 2016 we need a presidential candidate from the people, perhaps like Scott Walker or Mike Lee, who will create a Team Campaign of many leaders out attacking against Statist Democrats in every part of life.
A Team Campaign lead by a president from We The People is the only chance to avoid loss in 2016.
For 2016, I vote for Scott Walker. He’s got more guts than most Republicans and withstood the union barrage. By the way, Senators make terrible Presidents.
PattyMor, how cool. For the same reasons, Scott Walker is my first choice. No one else has been in fire to match the heat of Scott Walker’s kitchen. Mike Lee just struck me as more Constitutionally driven than the others. Best scenario is President Walker places Mike Lee as Chief Justice.
And Was4R&R, yep. The international statist marxist plutocracy is agin us always. Yet one Constitutional America has about ten times the heft of the rest of the world combines. Americanism, it it is held tightly at home, will defeat all opponents in wartime and by infection of ideas defeat them in peace. Without even hardly trying!
The needs only to hold to its Americanism of loving God and a limited constitutional government dedicated to protecting the God-givien rights of men, and America will win. The rest of the world must defeat America in battle or change her by subterfuge. It is possible for America to lose.
Obama is not doing the biding of an international plutocracy?
In the first debate and the rallies that followed, I saw Romney as a man who wanted the presidency more than Obama did, and I felt that Ann wanted it more than Michelle. When Ann was completely herself, she was brilliant.
But there was a problem… je ne sais que, in the campaign.
I was still getting solicited for money up to a day before election day? They should have used that time testing ORCA. I was also chagrined that I didn’t get a thank you letter-email, after the election. Everyone else I supported was gracious enough to send a letter, whether they won or lost.
Walt at 18 thanks. demand a recount at 16, I think the little things piled up around Mitt unnoticed until he was immobilized, and then frozen like a deer in Obama’s headlights. I never felt stronger for President Romney than when Ann spoke to America’s women at the convention with her eyes blazing fires in the camera, “You Can Depend On This Man. This man will not fail. This Man Will Not Let You Down.” Ann Romney made me into a better man by her example of standing with Mitt. She would have been a powerful force for good in our culture.
I still believe Ann’s man Mitt is one of the best men. I guess one part of what I wrote at 13 above is- Mitt didn’t realize how far he had to go and how hard it is to win this one, didn’t appreciate the consequences if he lost, and he didn’t realize that he had to join with all of us (not us join with him) before ‘we/he’ had a chance of beating the Obama Team. Mitt just coasted after the first debate.
And YES! How about a thank-you note that includes, “I’m deeply sorry for not doing better. You deserved victory.”
‘ . . . didn’t appreciate the consequences if he lost.” Are you kidding me?? What a stupid statement.
Does Mitt Romney have more or less money than John Kerry?
Does Mitt Romney have more or fewer homes/bigger family than Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy did?
Did Mitt Romney earn his money? Did Teddy? Did John?
Didn’t the Kennedys make their money by selling booze during Prohibition?
Did John Francois Kerry marry into it?
Let the democrat who is without sin cast the first freaking stone (or stoner as is the case with the current prez).
Very well said! Thank you, zorro_rides.
Dems don’t cast stones. They have journalists who do that for them.
Finally Michael, a column from you I can agree with.
Would just point out that Algore also came from privilege if not great wealth.
Very interesting factoids on this morning’s news, that Romney won the vote of those with over $50k in household income by about seven percent, while Obama won the vote of those under $30,000 went to Obama by 63%.
Stuart Stevens, Romney’s campaign manager (or something like that) was all over the news this morning, generating headlines like, “… blames everyone but the candidate for the defeat”. Stevens thus exhibiting the same blind and entitled attitude that characterized the campaign. Maybe Romney himself is much more of a jolly fellow, but he let himself be packaged by Stevens (who also completely misunderestimated the low income and ethnic turnouts as well), and there went 2012 and who knows what else.
Steven’s above anyone (other than Mitt) is responsible for the outcome. He was the architect of the “play it safe” strategy. That Mitt retained him as long as he did (for whatever reason) rather than listening to the pros’ entreaties to drop him, was the single biggest error of the campaign, Stevens’ explanations to the contrary notwithstanding.
well, Mr. Walsh nails it again.
As I recall, there was a rather vocal group of commentators who agreed so vociferously with Mr. Walsh’s pov that they were essentially driven from the blogs, as the rinos and rino sychophants took control of the commentary as Romney used his gazillions to obliterate the little people who got in his way…right up to the point where such actions might actually have made a difference for the country. Then he started his ostrich act…exactly as the driven-away commentators predicted.
I’ve never been more right about anything in my life. Romney must have been reading my posts, because he followed the script to a T. I even precisely pointed out that a venture capitalist was the exactly wrong type of business person to nominate for the simple reason that it is the easiest type to demonize. Got a LOT of attacks for that accurate assessment. Of course, I wasn’t alone. Rick Perry was savaged for essentially saying the same thing.
Newt might have lost to Little Lenin as well, but at least we would have had a candidate that fought back. And the public would have received an education about a lot of things, not a few platitudes about jobs, including, importantly, a visceration of the media.
maybe it’s juvenile but I want PJM to put a ‘Like’ button on these posts, a way of saying thank you to the commenters, a way of keeping score without taking p space and time.
Anyway proreason, thanks for everything you do.
I think Romney would have been the best President of the bunch, (we’ll never know if his ceiling was high or if he’d go liberal on us) IF Romney had run as leading man of a Campaign Team. Imagine after he clinched the nomination he said “Hey Team, huddle up. Paul, take banking and debt, Santorum go savage on Obamacare, Newt take Energy & Prosperity to the people and make fun of the MSM, Perry talk the future of Social Security , Balkmann focus on terrorism/national security (pound them on Benghazi), Cain raise problems of tax code and regulation, Huntsman go expose discretionary spending, over-regulation and Chinese money. Gary Johnson talk constitution and responsible freedom. Sarah Palin, go after crony capitalism and Obama corruption. Walker and all you midwest governors, get after prevention of voter fraud and advertise punishment after the election. Sandoval and Martinez, make a campaign to Hispanics. Brewer and Arpaio get ready to secure our borders.
Mitt himself sings America the Beautiful. He won’t agree with everything the Team is saying and won’t promise to do all they propose because Mitt is President for everyone, but their ideas are in the core of America’s future prosperity and he is humbled to know such fine people. He and Paul Ryan believe the R-team loves America and they care for you. Mitt will protect your free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to enjoy the fruits of labor. Our social safety nets will be stronger than ever, with better administration and less red tape for the clients. Full employment is the future. The result: Romney wins an earthquake tsunami hurricane firestorm volcano landslide tidalwave victory, and I am glad.
This election could be won, loss was to be fought against desperately. The candidate and the establishment didn’t take it seriously. Let’s vote in a House that fears the people.
I have a pretty good idea which blog(s) drove you away as they are still actively doing that right now. Their whole agenda is the wrong consultants did you wrong now pay us money because we are the right consultants as if they won’t steal and run when they get the chance.
I totally disagree with you about Newt. He has a history of sounding tough, being a lousy organizer and then playing ball with the Democrats and taking a pretty good share of the loot (Newt rhymes with loot. If figures).
We have learned a great lesson in this election. We know that we find out what the Democrats are really about when they win and we find out what the Republicans really are about when they lose. Now we need to know what we are and what we intend to do about it.
There, proreason, did it make you feel better to say, “I told you so?” Now look around and see what you have helped accomplish smart guy. You helped a Communist win re-election in a country that he has already half-broken, and you still want to pine about Newt not getting his big chance. Your choice was real simple. Either get behind the only person on the planet who can possibly defeat the Communist Party of America, or help him lose and hope the Communists will change and even allow another free election in 2016. Sheesh, having read most of your postings for the last several years your current situation, just like mine, really blows.
Funny, isn’t it, how the Monday morning quarterbacks never really put anything on the line until after the contest has been decided.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romeny arrived to kiss the ring of Obama’s black finger. Whose house is this, when all is said and done?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240538/Pictured-Romney-arrives-White-House-private-lunch-President-Obama.html
That’s right, bitches, it’s still Barack Hussein Obama’s house. Gotta Love it ;o)
It is one of the detrimental effects of television, when *looking and sounding* presidential started to matter far more than actual talent, abilities, or moral character. Someone like Lincoln (thin as a rail, not at all good-looking), Taft (fat), Coolidge (“silent Cal” who never made a good speech), and so on would never win today. The intellectual level of the Lincoln-Douglas debate would never occur today — who cares what these two freaks, one an ugly gaunt man, the other practically a midget — say?
So if I understand the point here, rich Black men from the elite ivy league schools are good, rich White men are bad? Or is it that anyone who made money by investing in and saving American companies, creating jobs and sometimes not being able to save a failed company, is much worse than someone who made their wealth from the labor of others, gathered their power and the money to run for president by community agitation and gathering his financial support through means unknown, including foreign nationals…?
Yes, Democrats are more likely to be professional politicians as opposed to productive members of society; perhaps that was the point?
Thank you Caestal. I dont know where all this is coming from, both from Mr. Walsh or the commenters. If being a gentleman and trusting the intelligence of the American voter is “bloodless”, or if making honest money in a way that neither Walsh or Obama seems to be able to comprehend (a little dirt Irish jealousy, Mike?)is wrong, then we are lost anyway. The professional Party will be able to out demagogue our own demagogues at every turn.
John, thanks to both you and Caestal for articulating the straw-man argument (one which almost invariably begins, “So if I understand your point here…” or “So what you’re really saying is…”). My criticism of Romney as a candidate qua candidate is entirely unrelated to any imaginary endorsement of Obama. Nor does it have anything to do with being black, white or bog Irish, which I freely admit I am.
I do however question whether the way Romney has amassed a vast fortune is “honest” in a moral sense — and I’m open to argument on the subject — for the reasons I gave both here and in the National Review post cited and linked. And I stand by my assertion that creative people, of whatever stripe, are more effective job creators than Wall Street money manipulators, no matter how noble the latter’s intentions.
I took your point in your article and I believe that you are right that creative people are usually the ones to find new ideas which produce incredible numbers of jobs. But I fail to see your layers of morality argument, based on that idea. Which politicians have ever been creative enough to change the way we do things in our economic life? So why the moral condemnation of him because his resume didn’t resemble that of Bill Gates or Thomas Edison. He did have an understanding of how public policy can either stifle or allow for that kind of creativity. A great quality to have if you are a politician. Mitt Romney’s only problem is that he isn’t that good at politics and he ended up losing to the Communist as a consequence for us all to endure. Our side’s smartest politicians wouldn’t get in the ring, so we had to go with the guy who had the guts to try. But in my opinion, from the low moral angle of a sideline commentator, you are a little harsh about his choices of a productive career
Businessmen do not make good politicians, ESPECIALLY the type of business ol’ Mitt was involved in (private equity, which is essentially a branch of what I like to call the “financial warlock” industry). Why? Because maximizing profits for a company involves a very different set of skills, values and attitudes than serving the people of a nation. What’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for Main Street, and MOST OF ALL, what’s BEST for Main Street is quite often HARMFUL to many Wall Street interests, at least in the economic short-run.
So the Party of Lincoln is now the Party of the Jet Set Jedi?
What Is Money?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF_zbI5j7M&feature=endscreen
Bald eagles eat carrion. They steal food from other bald eagles and smaller birds. You need to examine your premises.
I no longer have any skin in the GOP game. After 6 November I am finished. I will never vote for another Moderate Republican again (8 is enough!). Even my local Republican party candidates have gone wobbly. Newly elected House Republican Jackie Walorski, in her first offical public statement after winning her race, told a local newspaper that her main job was to “reach across the aisle” to fellow Democrats in the House. She wants to be a “solutions provider”. If I wanted to elect an politican to work with Nancy Pelosi, I would have voted for a Democrat.
Even arch-conservative Mike Pence ran for govenor as a solutions provider who is more than willing to work with the Dems (Mike, you don’t need to work with Dems! Your party runs both houses of the legislature!). And let’s not forget Richard Mourdock. His campaign was in serious trouble even before his abortion-rape statement doomed him. For 4 months, he ran as a moderate who only wished to “work with Democrats to solve our problems.” He deserved to lose. Indiana voters gave Mitt a 15 point victory. But, these same voters barely gave fellow Republicans Pence and Walorksi the nod, and told Mourdock no thanks.
I don’t want solution providers. Solution providers are nothing but Demcrats in Republican clothing. I want a B-1 Bob Dornan or a Jim DeMint, or maybe even another Jessie Helms. But those men are gone. And far as the Republican Party is concerned I am gone as well.
The only assurance you will get from your solution to your disappointment with what you call moderate Republicans is that you will continue to be on the losing side until the winning side decides they don’t even need to let you vote for a loser anymore.
There is also the fact that the last two Dem presidents have been sissy-pants mamma’s boy who are dominated by overbearing wives. Maybe today’s America likes guys that remind them of stars in their favorite sit-coms.