Wednesday, February 1, 2012

PolitiZo Knows: Forget Mitt, You Capitalists Like Rush Limbaugh Will Lose the Election


You’ve heard what Romney said, what Rush said about what Romney said, and the mass conservative “groupthink” on what this means.  Leave it to a conservative brother AlfonZo Rachel (my aka – PolitiZO) to be “keeping it real up in here.”  Starting with the bashing of the Bain beating – Limbaugh, Levin, Malkin and most conservative bloggers have shown why they keep losing the cutlure war.  To recap:

This from the man who suggested that Newt Gingrich might say something to embarrass the GOP on the campaign trail:

I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

And if that wasn’t enough, 10 seconds later the Quarter Billionaire with Cheese reiterated:

I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.

We will hear from the Democrat (sic) party the plight of the poor and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those who are very poor.

And possibly because ex-Governor Romney missed getting a gift for our beloved President he continued:

You can choose to focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.

Rush points out this isn’t Romney’s first observed symptom of the dreaded “foot in mouth” disease common in political figures like Joseph Biden.  But Rush continues to hit Romney from the stereotypical far right saying:

The ‘safety net’ is one of the biggest cultural problems we’ve got. We had better be worried about it just like we had better get angry over ObamaCare. ObamaCare is worth getting mad about. Mitt said that it wasn’t. …The safety net is contributing to the destruction of their humanity and their futures.

I’m not sure which is worse.  Romney’s CNN clips trying too hard to be a “conservative” or Rush implying that we should now start advocating to get rid of ALL “social nets.”  

I think the Obama team will have a dilemma.  In choosing whether to feature Romney or Rush in their first $100 million ad run.  

It is crazy how some think the idea of completely eliminating every government department, social program and illegal immigrant will merely sail through Congress like a resolution to honor American football.  In addition to being simplistic, they simultaneously quash any constructive debate.

MichelleSmallHeader As I wrote in a rather confrontational piece to the (normally) insightful heroine Michelle Malkin, many don’t even see how hypocritical they’ve become.  Let’s call it Ann Coulter disease, named after the former anti-liberal crusader who argues that the 2nd most liberal initiative of any Governor in US history is a reason to elect the same man she told us couldn’t win a few months ago.  Malkin hopefully only has the 48 hour version.  If you accuse the man who refused to do ANY mudslinging during the first 12 debates (and even defended his co-competitors against attacks from the media), you can’t suddenly call him Saul Alinsky when the candidate your backing has shown zero class in creating divisions from debate number one.

We send so many mixed messages, the American public must think we are the Miley Cyrus fan club.  We talk of how principled we are then tear down our own.  We claim to understand OBJECTIVE FACT and then we take the first piece of propaganda that fits the bias for or against OUR candidate, and we pass it along as fact.  And I blame a lot of the CONSERVATIVE media.  Not just Coulter, but Limbaugh and Levin as well.  It’s great to get paid to flap your gums and flex your oversized personality, but patriotism may not make for great programming.

As we covered here during the Bain debacle:

  1. Gingrich was NOT attacking “capitalism”
  2. As Enron has proven, not all “capitalism” is good.
  3. Our founders built our form of government for those who would use self-discipline. (THEY called “greed” a sin not a campaign slogan.)
  4. Increased regulation exists from abuses of capitalism. (No one needs laws to protect companies from dumping chemicals in Lake Erie if those corporations had been responsible.)

And if you defend Bain and Romney, not only are you teaching people NOTHING about why they should appreciate wealth-creators, you are helping to elect Barack Hussein Obama for a second term.  Has no one been keeping track of the not-too-subtle planned escalation of OWS against “Wall Street” and the Obama surrogates who started the class and race warfare last fall?  You really think DEFENDING Venture Capital is something that will get through to the 30% of the electorate we will need and who will never listen to Hannity or read HotAir?

ReaganBillboard I am NOT saying we conservatives should compromise.  Au Contraire. (That’s French for No Friggin Way.)  But look how Reagan and Laffer sold supply side economics.  They gave data. They sold the hope of every person to be successful and not need help.  And then stood firm while it kicked in.  A 1984 forty nine state landslide didn’t come by a cute campaign slogan.  People SAW that what we predicted came true.  And Reagan was rewarded with another (two) terms – extended by his Vice President.  What are WE teaching America so far?  Given all the headlines of the GOP primaries, here is what the public can ascertain about Republicans:

  • It doesn’t matter how you earn your money.  Gordon Gecko is our new Party Chairman.
  • The former leader of our movement who was responsible for the greatest sweep of conservative legislation in history, is morally deprived crazy man who can’t control his own thoughts.
  • The one potential candidate we had who actually reduced her state government spending by 25%, while reforming corruption, is great to get the “little people” excited.  God forbid we should let her try to do what we need and support and defend her on a national level.
  • We truly respect women, unless they try to like – want to run the country or something.
  • If a candidate falsely accuses another of being a racist, or our campaign staff sends out a memo that women are unfit for office because of their gender, or as bloggers we falsely slander good Christian tea party women running for office – no need to apologize.  We are above all that.
  • We love big bold, economic and tax reform, unless it’s big bold and actually reforms the IRS (or better than the one we propose).
  • We are as courageous as the soldiers behind George Washington at Valley Forge unless our candidate gets falsely accused more than twice.
  • Successfully governing a major state, from a conservative standpoint, is a great resume enhancement unless you need to be judged upon your ability to answer complex questions in a 30 second sound bite in a forum akin to political Jeopardy.
  • We are mostly conservative Christians that believe in the Bible.  But there is absolutely no mercy, grace, love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness or kindness for our fellow Christians who have repented for their past sins like King David (adulterer/murderer), Moses (murderer/God disobeyer), or Peter (flip-flopper/disloyal betrayer). 
  • It is especially important that instead of telling Americans what we would actually DO if in office, we so love our GOP brother or sister that we must broadcast, embarrass and demean them to people who already dislike us.  (See, that helps us later when we run against someone really despicable like Obama.  Who will do the same thing.)
  • We absolutely, under no condition, will never ever never break the contract we have with seniors, because we care and love them so much. But, if you came across the border directly following the country giving amnesty to everyone who was already here, we want to embarrass you as badly as possible and rip you from your children and grandchildren just to show you how damn tough we are. (We aren’t capable of being nuanced.)
  • We are the defenders of truth and integrity (as opposed to those evil liberal Democrats) but are allowed to totally distort any position, policy or vote as long as it smears and ridicules our fellow God fearing Republican running against us.
  • God forbid we should actually acknowledge the good points of other GOP brothers and sisters in the race. (Except for the one person who has been praising his competitors from day one.)
  • We are so concerned with the Marxist-in-Chief getting re-elected that we will vote for anyone unless it is the one GOP candidate we just can’t stand.  In that case, we would rather help our country go to hell so that we can make a political point and then somehow, miraculously, everyone will THEN want OUR candidate who couldn’t win in the normal election process.

It is about time conservatives especially wise up.  More importantly, it is about time for conservatives to grow up.

ContractWithAmerica The brilliance of Ronald Reagan was not his conservative core.  He ran as a populist ESPECIALLY appealing to blue collar workers.  If a pure conservative outlook was all it took, the candidates would be seeking endorsements from former Presidents Goldwater, Kemp, DuPont, or Duncan Hunter.  Santorum may want to second guess the greatest conservative legislative achievement in the past 100 years because Newt didn’t put in any “social” issues like abortion. Gingrich, however, who had been studying and teaching war strategy, made sure the “Contract With America” only included issues that ALREADY had 70% support of the American people.  Therefore, when he pledged to pass it in the first 100 days, as FDR did (nice research Glenn Beck), he didn’t need to worry about extensive electorate education and building support for each initiative.  It’s not just being conservative, it’s understanding how to engineer a majority to enact something the people are READY for.  There is a SKILL and mechanics to IMPLEMENTING a view you hold.  Plus that whole leadership thing.

On things like Medicare and Social Security reform that he and Jack Kemp have been planning since the early 80’s, they’ve been trying to find a way to get enough support to ease people off the statist teat.  So called “true” conservatives who want to cut off 46% of the American public from their government addiction will quickly find the druggie getting violent if they try to change them too fast, too much.

And it might help not to tell someone who has no rational decision making capability that once you take over control you will take away all of the thing they THINK they can’t live without.

(Sorry there is so much hear til we get to the Great ZO, but finally you should be ready to understand where he is coming from)  Watch ZO, and we’ll discuss:

(h/t TheRightScoop)

His quick points:

  • “Capitalism” is a term that has natural negative response in liberals.
  • You are hitting a brick wall by using a term they won’t accept.
  • Capitalism does NOT mean creating wealth. (You can make wealth in socialistic societies too.) 
  • “Capitalism” is not the same as Free Markets.
  • It IS the RIGHT to keep your own money.

It might shock Gingrich grumblers that the "father of capitalist thinking," Adam Smith himself never used the term “capitalism.” He described his own preferred economic system as "the system of natural liberty.  Liberty or personal freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority."  *

And one more fascinating idea to consider:

The word “capitalism” does not appear often in Supreme Court opinions. Further, nearly all the references before 1950 are pejorative, appearing in first amendment cases involving the right to make statements attacking capitalism as an institution. Examples include United States v. Debs (1919), where the defendant attacked capitalism as a cause of war, and Abrams v. United States (1919). In addition, Justice Louis D. Brandeis used the term occasionally in dissenting opinions to speak about the evils of uncontrolled capitalism (Liggett v. Lee, 1933; Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association v. United States, 1925).

theoffice I’ve made the point before that 11% of the US own a business.  Only about 30% ever will in their lifetime.  THAT LEAVES 70% who don’t have a “love” for creating money as a business, but relate to income creation at the discretion (or obligation) of an employer.  TV shows like OFFICE and THIRD ROCK aren’t popular in lampooning managers because there isn’t some sense of resentment or jealousy.  Why do we as Republicans expect these people to suddenly want to embrace an ideal that they don’t believe applies to them?  Is there anyone that didn’t get ripped off by a company they worked for?  We should be AGREEING that all those who lost their retirement at ENRON was wrong, while showing that government take over of companies screwed pensioners even worse.

Evangelicals finally started to learn this about 10 years ago.  They used “church words” like ‘repent’ to try and reach sinners.  Even the word “sin” means nothing to someone who doesn’t have a basic grasp of Christianity or Judiasm.  They were shocked, when they just stated being normal people, building relationships and being ready to help – that suddenly opened another level of acceptance of people to start thinking about the whole “Jesus” thing.  My favorite is the church in Ireland that sends all of its’ congregants to buy the first round at the nearby tavern for those preferring soccer over things spiritual.  Fastest growing church in town.

Instead conservatives (you Republicans join in if you want to), need to hold our core values as a compass, but realize that a huge portion of the American population need to be won over.  Not just with talk and logic – but with faithfulness and integrity. 

BoehnerResponse Remember Boehner’s and company “Pledge for America?” First they were too gutless to ban earmarks.  Second, they reneged on the promise to post bills online for at least 3 days prior to voting. And then there’s that little matter of the promised $100 Billion in cuts that turned out to be $35 Billion in cuts that turned out to be basically nothing at all.*  I’m not so sure I’d trust that statement Boehner made in December that Newt wasn’t as conservative as people think.  Unless of course by “conservative” you mean “two faced spineless liar.”  That description might fit another politician who will go unnamed.

We might need to EARN BACK the trust of the American people like, well, what Gingrich did as Speaker where he passed 9 of the 10 of his campaign promises within 100 days.  You know, back when 60% of the American people trusted Congress instead of the current 11%.

Limbaugh WAS right about one thing today on the Florida exit polls.  They mean nothing when your opponent had 65 political ads on for every one of your own.  And Romney’s money won’t save him against Obama where he will be at a 4:1 disadvantage.

They DO mean something if money will win the day.  But we have examples from 2008, and a myriad of Senate races that money alone can not overcome a sincere message.  Funny thing is against an OWS and class war attack – It is Gingrich and Paul who stand the best chance of beating Obama.  All you have to do is look at Santorum’s yet unvetted congressional afterlife to see that Newt’s Freddie Mac looks like a free Big Mac compared to the lobbying entanglements of Santorum.  But it does no good for people to be completely distorting Rick either as this tweeter did:

SantorumTweetSlamEven Romney, of whom there is ample evidence of severe character issues, deserves respect for most of his business and Olympic experience as well as his ability as a father to raise, what seem to be, well grounded and educated children.  Can’t we point out that he has held numerous positions inconsistent with his actual GOVERNING record, without acting like Bill Maher?  I don’t see how we can deem it “negative campaigning” to simply state that he tries to hide his complicit proactive initiative in introducing gay marriage into Massachusetts and is lying when he says the Supreme Court forced him to do it.  I would even add that that I am convinced he has had an epiphany on abortion.  I just don’t have a track record of legislation or government leadership to verify it.

When George Will calls Gingrich a Marxist, Malkin ignores her guy’s endorsement of a rabid pro-abortion Senator who was the deciding vote on abortion-funding ObamaCare but slams Newt for an eventual “unendorsement,” and Liberal-slayer Ann Coulter not only slanders Newt Gingrich but tries to push RomneyCare as a conservative initiative – something is terribly, terribly wrong.

Why the hell would people want to become like us?

ZO is right.  What we’ve been doing ain’t working.



Great post. I've been saying for many years now that most folks seem to miss that the emphasis of the right "to the pursuit happiness" is a right to personal property. If "capitalism" is bad to 70% of the folks when they think "millonaires" don't deserve what they have earned, why should they still think they have any right to what they themselves have earned? They never want to step out of their own shell, and see if it can't belong to the "other", it can't belong to them either.

It's very discouraging...

I like your post so much ... and i like any blog talking about Business and a lot of things just follow me in Capitalism Facts

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More