Why Conservatives May Never Win Another Election

We have the right ideas.  Even our worst guy (aka Mittens the Friendly GOP Ghost) should have walked away with the election given record unemployment, a crappy economy and an Executive who is, verifiably, a forger and Marxist.  It’s true Romney didn’t MAKE an issue of the things that would have made this a clear cut choice for the people.  As I’ve pointed out a zillion times, UCLA Professor Lynn Vavrick says that BIG IDEAS statistically trounce opponents in close elections.  (Aren’t you sorry you dumped on Newty now?)

Anywho, we have 2 fundamental problems BEYOND the candidate we choose to run or in allowing ourselves to be pitted against one another.  I’m not talking TACTICS here about how to reverse the election immediately.  Some have suggested the idea of utilizing Article 2 and the 12th Amendment where 1/3 of the Electoral College states simply withhold their participation throwing the election to the House of Representatives.  The other popular idea is to utilize the tools in our Declaration and Bill of Rights to simply secede from the Federal Government, in order to reform THE SAME GOVERNMENT according to these founding documents. Both are fine ideas but run up against the SAME fundamental problems of which I speak.  They simply CAN’T work because of these two superseding issues in my opinion:

They are the mechanics of media (which in turn shapes opinion and drives motivation for people to get to the polls), and, the voting process itself.

How did Nixon resign?  It wasn’t the crime or even cover-up, contrary to collective commentary.  It was the PRESSURE that came from his own party and financial supporters that appealed to him.  And that PRESSURE only came after REPTITION of the “cover up” story by EVERY major news outlet for weeks.  And that REPTITION, followed a (presumed) CREDIBLE SOURCE {aka The New York Times), writing a series of easy to understand contradictions and hypocritical actions (or statements) from someone that claimed to be for honesty and moral values even if just political.

Here’s the thing.  The break in, and it’s ensuing coverage did nothing to move Nixon from office.  Bill Clinton learned from this – lied as long as he could, played upon the American’s people sense of forgiveness (and gullibility) and survived.  Had 2 or 3 other credible news organizations carried the Juanita Broderick story, Clinton would not only have been unable to be reelected (and likely convicted of his impeachment), he would have been so disgraced even the Bushes wouldn’t have returned his fund raising call about Haiti.

in other words – it is about PERCEPTION (read this excellent article by Political Outcast by the way).  But not JUST perception, but perception brought about by a momentum of media brainwashing.

Reagan cracked through it by virtue of debates where the American people didn’t have to fight the liberal filter to come to their own conclusions.  (THIS is why, by the way, Carter led in the election for most of the campaign.  Not because of totally inaccurate polls.)

Gingrich did the same thing in the South Carolina primary. Not only did he score a knock out in the debate, his performance fortuitously was delivered on the eve of the debate – not allowing any time for the paid or unpaid media to counter his message to voters.  Romney buried him in Florida under $22 Million in negative ads and a little help from the liberal media who only detested Romney less than Gingrich.

THIS MEDIA MECHANIATION is almost an insurmountable problem unless we find a way to buy enough major media sources that will reach the non-politically interested American who is mostly interested in stupid (or sleazy) entertainment that appeals to their baser instincts.  MTV has won the morals of America, and appeal to integrity, freedom, liberty and responsibility simply don’t play very well even if you COULD package a message to them through some distribution channel.  Andrew Klavan expresses this in glorious articulation in a recent essay.

The only OTHER answer I have for this problem is Psalms 20.  If God was willing to save Sodom and Gomorrah if he found 10 righteous men, perhaps He’d be willing to save America with 10% crying out

2 Chronicles 7:14 in unity and faith in the Almighty.

Of the two ideas, only the latter has a certainty of succeeding in my opinion.

The Voting Process

However, the OTHER fundamental problem is the voting process itself.  Even our (only?) Patriot warrior Allen West, could not fight the systemic voting corruption in the system.

I won’t rehash all the reasons why so many of us are statistically convinced that Romney won the election, but what happened in Palm Beach and St. Lucie counties is a peak at how impossible it is to ever win a close election where Democrats control even a minority of counties or precincts.

The REAL story of what happened in St. Lucie reads like a political intrigue novel.  (This play by play recount of the recount is ALSO jaw dropping.) But we can summarize:

• The state does not have serious Voter ID.  A student ID (not guaranteeing citizenship) or pubic assistance ID is sufficient.
• If you don’t have a photo you can still vote with a provisional ballot which will be judged by the Canvassing Board.
• The Canvassing Board was complicit with the Supervisor of Elections in stopping the election prior to counting ALL the ballots.  Also an unelected proxy was brought in to replace a member who was mysteriously vacationing in Haiti although it was the most important election for Florida since 2000.
• The Democrat Supervisor of Elections became mysteriously (and conveniently) ill, after double counting votes, misplacing others and refusing to recount ALL the ballots as she originally had pledged.  (We also found out she wouldn’t allow a referendum on the ballot that would negatively impact her brother in law.)
• St. Lucie county somehow counted 247,713 votes for Obama although there were only 175,574 registered eligible voters a 140% turnout.
• Precinct 93 had only 7 (SEVEN) registered voters but cast 900 votes.
• The Supervisor and Canvassing Board made an excuse that the security system was going and halted the recount, thus guaranteeing that Allen West’s opponent who was currently in the lead would be certified by the certification deadline the next day.

This isn’t terribly different from what we’ve seen in the Al Franken election where 1,000 felons were solicited to vote giving Franken a 318 margin of victory.  Franken was originally behind, but the Democratic precincts and counties kept miraculously discovering uncounted ballots during that recount.  The moment he had the lead – the GOP called it quits.

THIS IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE 

DEMOCRATIC VOTE FRAUD AND POWER. 

(Watch former Obama Co-Chairman Artur Davis describe how Dems do it...by massive fraud.)

THIS is the M.O. of the Democrat machine.  And because of certification deadlines THERE IS NO ANSWER to illegally cast ballots certified by corrupt precincts or counties in time to meet certification laws.  They overwhelm with the system with fake registrations (A newspaper claims 1/5th of all Ohio registrations were phony), absentee ballots and allow illegitimate voters to vote in jurisdictions they control – KNOWING that there simply isn’t enough time to sort it all out by the time the person is actually in office.  How does Al Franken remain in office when it’s been proven that 1,000 felons voted for him and his margin of victory was 318 votes?

This of course is why Eric Holder’s Department of inJustice fought Voter ID laws.  Every state that had Voter ID went for Romney.  They literally CAN NOT WIN if it is a legitimate contest.

Therefore, BEFORE we can attempt to even trust our election outcomes (and waste all the time and energy of attempting to run a fixed race), we have GOT to get control of the voting process.

My submission for PRIORITIES in visiting, emailing and generally, harassing your STATE representatives include:

Voter ID – As mentioned, it is much tougher to stop pimple faced 18 year olds passing as a 42 year old Asian man as this poll watcher observed in Ohio.  Two added benefits for your Congressman, even Democrats support Voter ID and Voter Id INCREASES minority turnout.

Criminal Charges for Election Supervisors – As you can see from St. Lucie, 59 districts in Philly and numerous precincts in Ohio, a Democrat can make up serious ground by stuffing the ballot box in a single area REGARDLESS of the voter registrations.  When the GOP poll watchers were kicked out, the Democrats in charged flooded the machines and ballot boxes with false votes.  St. Lucie had a 13,000% turnout in one precinct.  IT IS TIME TO HOLD THE ELECTION SUPERVISORS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE if they will not ensure that only registered voters vote, and that those registered voters are eligible to vote.  Sure, you can always run fraud charges later, but long after ObamaCare has been passed with the assistance of two Senators who also get lifelong pensions at the expense of the taxpayers they defrauded.

Ban Foreign Voting Machine/Voting Service Participation in US Elections.  This is one area of “free trade” I’m totally against.  Much has been made of the Soros owned SCTYL involvement in military and voting tabulations for individual counties.  NEVER should an American election be subject to a foreign power whether there is proof or not.  It’s just too easy to rig these things as testimony has shown.

Voting Machine Program Code Transparency – A favorite gimmick of the voting machine vendors is to claim their programs are “trade secrets” that give them an competitive edge.  Tough noogies Nestor.  I propose a law that requires physical access to the inside of the voting machine locked, except when opened by the presence of representatives of both parties.  And rig it so we know if it was opened.  Transportation to and from state inventory should secured by Brinks.  And when they arrive back in inventory the compiled and uncompilied programming code should be open to all political parties to inspect and verify PRIOR to certification of the votes where they were used.  YES, I know damn well how expensive it is.  But so is a $10 trillion Trotsky-like Presidential term.

Allowance for the Public to Demand a Recount – I understand their are “automatic” recounts in various states but I’m proposing that if the public suspect fowl play as we do in St. Lucie, this isn’t left up to a few partisan judges in a backroom who can decide whatever they want.  YES. This too is expensive and allows the “other” side to contest and draw out races.  I don’t care.  I want the RIGHT call.  And often drawing these efforts out will give enough time for the grassroots (or God forbid the media would do their job) to bring cockroach hidden activities they thought they could squeak through to be brought to light hopefully resulting BOTH in a correct (and complete) vote count as well as gaining evidence to throw complicit crooks who compromise the vote from a place of public trust behind bars.

Get on it.  And while you’re at it – scream “bloody murder” to every Representative you have that you will NOT stand for another election with obvious vote fraud as this one.

Also – volunteer for the True the Vote ASAP so we have a watchers in EVERY location.

Read More

No Joke: The GOP Can Not Legally Help Stop Vote Fraud

My good friend Alan Vera of True the Vote told me long ago that we have a two party system.  The Corrupt Party and the Stupid Party.  To that fact, during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity.  The answer?

Nothing.  They aren’t legally able to.  (I’m not joking.)

As part of a lawsuit settlement with the Democrat Party, the Gutless Old Party agreed to NOT ENGAGE IN ANY VOTER PROTECTION INITIATIVES.  Two of the clauses read this way:

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

ACORN Whistleblower Anita Moncrief added that when she spoke at the Republican National Convention, she had to submit her speech to make sure NOTHING SHE SAID COULD BE CONSTRUED AS VIOLATING THE ORDER TO NOT ASSIST VOTER INTEGRITY.

I know think the characterization “the Stupid Party” may be too kind.

Engelbrecht said to add insult to injury, the judge who signed the agreement has long since retired, but every single year comes back for the sole purpose of renewing the order for another year.

Moncrief pointed out during her comments tonight that in visiting the Democrat advocacy groups in Ohio, they were organized, motivated and purposeful in getting out their vote as was witnessed by the long line of Somali and Ethiopian voters bussed in to polling places.  When she visited the Romney campaign offices, she said there was utter confusion, many were just sitting around waxing about how the couldn’t wait to Free Willy.  (ORCA was the name of the failed computer program the Romney campaign tried to use to “micro-target” volunteers to get out the vote where it was needed.)

It was down ALL DAY, and finally late in the day people were sent out with printed registration cards to go find people to vote. 

Wasn’t I told by all the non-TEA Party Republicans that Romney was the best chance we had because he ran such great businesses and had the money to compete with Obama?   Just asking.

Moncrief said one other thing of interest.  When she visited random Ohio polling places, there was almost NEVER a GOP poll watcher and ALWAYS a Democratic one.

We wondered why the RNC wasn’t screaming bloody murder over the evidence of voting fraud?  Of course, the RNC petitioned to get it changed this year but the Obama appointee denied it. Surprise, surprise.

Now you know.

And while True the Vote has done amazing things in bringing awareness to the issue of voter integrity, it is clear from the comments made tonight that they are just resigning themselves to the lost election and enormity of the Democratic advantage.  And that’s NOT ok.

Obama only won by 400,000 votes in 4 states.  ALL Of which showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election, but loosing by a substantial margin.  All of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama and had voter registrations that exceeded their population.  ALL of which have public statements of problems with voting machines changing Romney votes to Obama.

It is obviously up to WE THE PEOPLE to do our job and hold the individual Secretary of State in each of these states accountable.  Sacrifice at least reading the next four funny Facebook postings from your Aunt Freda and call/email and or petition these Secretaries here.

Read More

Analysis: Veep Pick Gives Obama 4 to 8 points Back

Alan Vera graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Loyola University with a minor in military science. He served as an Army Airborne Ranger in special operations and lectures nationally on political issues and business strategies.

The selection of Paul Ryan as Vice President

RESULT:  The GOP gives back 4-8 percentage points.

This assessment is not at all related to my role with True the Vote, a non-partisan, grassroots effort to restore election integrity. This assessment is from my perspective as a magna cum laude graduate in Political Science. It is not about right and wrong. It is not about constitutionality. It is not about whether
or not Paul Ryan is a good man, a fiscal conservative or a real patriot.

This is purely about Political Science as it relates to running campaigns and winning elections.

We have two major political parties in the U.S. We have the “corrupt party” and the “stupid party.” In the last two weeks the Communist Party has furthered its reputation as corrupt with the Obama PAC TV spot accusing Mitt Romney of causing the death of a woman from cancer and the laughable statements from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Deborah Whatshername Schultz.

From the perspective of Political Science, last night and this morning the GOP proved once again why it has earned the title “the stupid party.” Last night in the White House Chief of Staff Valerie Jarrett and DNC Chair Debbie Whatshername Schultz were exchanging high fives over the GOP selection. Joe Biden tried to join in, but kept missing and hitting Debbie on the forehead. Fortunately, Debbie was stoned as usual and didn’t notice.

I look at the same polls that Dick Morris sees. In the swing/battleground states Romney has been ahead and has been gaining momentum. The selection of Paul Ryan will give back to the Commies somewhere between 4-8 percentage points of the popular vote. At this time I can’t tell what impact that has on the electoral vote.

Unbelievably, the GOP has played right into the hands of the CommieCrat narrative that the GOP:

1. Is White.
2. Is Male.
3. Is Wealthy.
4. Cares more about cutting taxes for the rich than helping the poor and elderly with their medical needs.

It doesn’t matter whether any of the above is true or not. It matters that the CommieCrats are EXPERTS at selling this narrative and that the stupid party missed a key chance to eliminate one or two of the key CommieCrat talking points. They will make good use of these fables to re-gain lost ground.

(For perspective, I subscribe under assumed names to the email newsletters of every Commie elected official in East Texas. By 10:00 a.m. CDT this morning each of them had sent out their email blast attacking Paul Ryan and the GOP with the very talking points I’ve summarized above.)

Let’s examine the problem further.

THE GOP STRATEGY

The stupid party has absolutely NO CLUE how to play OFFENSE. It is ALWAYS on the defensive, defending itself against CommieCrat initiatives, always allowing the Commies to play OFFENSE.

The selection of Paul Ryan was a typical GOP defensive move. How?

Ryan does not offend the key base of GOP financial contributors. The GOP believes MONEY is the key to winning any election, so their base of contributors is of highest priority. Picking Ryan defends the financial base.

As a favorite son, Ryan helps the GOP defend its recent gains in the swing state of Wisconsin.

Paul Ryan has NEVER said anything memorable, let alone controversial. So the GOP has defended itself against haunting echoes of any memorable speech.

The GOP has made some gains among fiscally conservative Tea Party types. Paul Ryan is associated with some efforts to slow down government growth (not reverse it), and this helps the GOP defend its gains among conservative activists.

Now the GOP will again find itself defending Paul Ryan’s budget bills against accusations that he was going to “push grandma off the cliff on medical benefits.”

THE VOTER SEGMENT BATTLEGROUND

20% of legally registered voters are avowed Progressive/Communists. They cannot be moved.

40% of legally registered voters identify themselves as “conservative,” and will likely vote with the GOP.

That means that the election battle is for the 40% in the middle.

Half of this middle group (20%) is the “ill informed” segment. Though they claim generally Christian and conservative values, they swallow all the crap that the Commies throw out there. They buy the “social justice” crap through their churches and drink the Kool-Aid on most welfare issues. The GOP is probably incapable of “de-programming this group, and they can easily go with the CommieCrats.

So now it’s 40/40 for the GOP and the Commies. The battle comes down to the remaining 10%. These are the “un-informed.” They don’t care about politics. They don’t do any research for themselves. They think politics is boring. But they watch TV and are, therefore, subject to the lies and distortions broadcast by the state run media. And, they do turn out to vote every so often.

Polls have shown that Obama has lost 10-15 percentage points of his previously strong black voting base. With an all-white ticket on the GOP side, the Commies have a good chance to recover some of that lost ground on purely racial propaganda.

Polls have also shown that enthusiasm among Black voters for Obama has waned and the likely voter turnout will not be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008. Ryan’s selection gives the Commies a chance to re-invigorate and re-energize that base, again purely along the lines of race and a threat to welfare entitlements.

THE GOP HOPE

The GOP will again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory UNLESS it breaks tradition and goes on OFFENSE, quickly adopts and organizes grassroots tactics and spends every penny it has exposing Obama with no holds barred.

In the just-completed Texas GOP primary for U.S. Senate, the RINO Texas Lieutenant Governor played the part of the CommieCrats. He attacked Tea Party Ted Cruz with vicious TV ads very much like what the Commies will use against the GOP ticket between now and November.

Cruz countered with a massive, Tea-Party-led grassroots effort that involved literally thousands of hours of block walking by dedicated conservatives who countered every Dewhurst advertising point in one-on- one discussions on the front porches of voters.

Though out-spent by $29 Million, the Cruz campaign pulled off a 14 percentage point win. Cruz even had campaigners at every single voting location reaching the “un-informed” voters and literally winning votes on the asphalt just outside the voting area. It worked. Grassroots work can overcome mass media every time.

I don’t know whether or not the GOP understands this. I suspect that the establishment of the party will remain the stupid party. If Obama is to be defeated in November, it will not be because the GOP did anything right. It will be because conservative activists across the country get off their asses, out of their homes and into the neighborhoods and community centers to educate the “un-informed voters” (10%) on the truth about the candidates.

CONCLUSION

Does Paul Ryan’s selection improve the GOP’s chances of winning in November? No.

I like Paul Ryan. I’ve read his bills. I think he’s smart. I think he’s a good guy.

I heard him speak at the Texas GOP Convention in Fort Worth in June. He was very informative. He was very knowledgeable. He was very boring.

The stupid party is not capable of beating Hussein Obama. They will try over and over to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Hussein is to be defeated, it will be up to “We the People” to make it happen.

So what else is new?

HOOAH!

Read More

The Strategy for the Sixty Percent that Don’t Want and Won’t Stop Romney

UPDATE: How silly am I?  Pretty damn silly.  I’m actually updating a post I haven’t posted yet.  A PolitiJim reader named Georgia (AllToJesus) sent me a link to a wonderful post by writer Ted Lacksonen at the Country Thinker.  It fits EXACTLY into a post I almost put up yesterday – and am glad I didn’t.  So you actually get 2 posts in one in this one.  Lucky you.

Thinker lays out a case that we should not vote for Romney because:

• Mitt will do nothing to improve the country (I agree)
• The GOP can not be “taken over” (I disagree)
• The GOP is corrupt beyond repair. (I agree and disagree).

Lacksonen’s ultimate solution is to join Libertarian Gary Johnson as President who I understand is selecting a pro-marijuana VP. (sarcasm alert ahead) Undoubtedly this will attract every last Santorum supporter that just split the conservative movement over supposed religiosity.  Of course, Johnson’s platform isn’t all bad, but like the Santorum supporters who think people would suddenly be attracted to a shrill religionist who couldn’t even win his own state, Libertarian party people need to think this through a bit more.  No matter how much someone likes Fresca, it will NEVER overtake 7-up, right?  My response to Ted quickly followed by the MECHANICS of a long term strategy I think could be employed.

Ted, I appreciate your thoughts and passion very much.  I can't say that I can't identify with all of them because I do.

Your points are so well made, I'm holding up a post on the same object to address and "flesh out" more of the thinking around your points.

I have a question for you.  Let's say you are realize that professional basketball has bastardized the game that the founding father of basketball – Naismith  -envisioned.  Get rid of the shot clock, 20 fouls a game and 4 step dribbling without a call.  (For the record I'm probably more of a progressive in the NBA sense).

Even if you had Lebron James and the entire Charlotte Bobcat team, do you think breaking away from the NBA and starting your own league would "change" the game?   Or that you could possibly get people to quit watching the NBA?

Of course not.  But many have changed the game from within by exemplifying unregulated changes in their own clubs or creating pressure from the talent the "establishment" needs.  They don't have total control, but the players union in football (finally) won some reforms on long term concussion care and even INSTANT REPLAY was eventually adopted by Major League Baseball.  Change is slow from within, but trying to compete for viewers with your own "brand" is ludicrous from almost any angle in politics or professional sports.  Even with an enormous amount of money, a better philosophy for the game (and product) it is extremely unlikely to succeed as is shown by the history of the WNBA, CBA, XFL, WFL and others. 

It actually makes even MORE impressive the accomplishments of Newton Leroy Gingrich to know he battled not only the liberal smears and attacks, but the undercutting of his own party.  In fact, he was allowed to operate because they DIDNT take him seriously.   And yet until the RINO’s revolted, it was Gingrich who set the course for no taxes, welfare reform and a myraid of ideas that were put into law.

Haven't the extreme liberal socialists done the same in the Democratic Party?  Their 2008 Platform is more extreme than Ralph Nadar's GREEN PARTY was 20 years ago.  The Green Party went no where.   But the Marxists co-opted the party.

How do you do it?  You deliver power and money to your slavemaster.  Jacob become WEALTHIER than his nefarious uncle Laban.  The Hebrews were a threat to Egypt BECAUSE they prospered and multiplied INSIDE of the corrupt Egyptian system.

If you can show me some practical mechanism to create a rival VOTING (not rhetorical) force for even 35% of Americans I'm in!  But who is it?  The very asset of the Tea Party was also it's downfall.  Disconnected, non-leadership driven autonomy didn't even work with a Supreme Omniscient and Omnipotent Ruler behind it as those forces quickly demanded a KING! (The Story of the first Hebrew King Saul.)  Modern armies simply aren't effective without Leadership, clearly delineated lines of authority, sustenance and communication. 

The T.E.A. Party agglomerated because of a common (easily identifiable) enemy and a very generalized but powerful concept to stop paying for your neighbor's home, car, student loan, healthcare and union job.  It was quickly explained and quickly accepted as a “call” to years of frustration.  But sociologists can document 5000 years of movements that are short lived being "against" something.

It isn't any of your arguments or analysis that are flawed (in my humble opinion) but the lack of logistical logic to create mass.  Unfortunately there are only a few who have the potential to initially draw that power and build on it.  Either a charismatic personality or media person.  Palin never started and Malkin sold her soul to the devil by falsely worshiping a unprincipled Pennsylvania liar who was the CHIEF architect of insider GOP establishment politics with Tom Delay.

Patience, perseverance, and a patriotic poison just might weaken the establishment IF we can become invaluable (and remain principled) to the GOP.  Certainly a bold and charismatic leader could jump start that movement as well.  My fantasies of Gingrich and Palin coalescing to do what Palin did in Alaska would have not only galvanized the constitutionalists I imagine, but also attracted a fair number of Independents sick of feeling like they were selling out to one party or the other.

Don't forget Palin took a moderate Republican/RINO state and maintained an EIGHTY PERCENT approval rating nearly 3 years into her Governorship.  And this is while she was under assault from some liberal media and principals in her own party.  She was "safe" for both sides because she was clearly un-owned by either.   Funny how Levin and Limbaugh are oddly silent about HER attack of “big oil” but totally misrepresented Gingrich’s righteous questions on BAIN.

I fear how much MORE sovereignty can be given away in 4 more Barry years.  I cringe at how much more debt or dollar dilution can continue by an overheated Federal Reserve printing press in another Obama cycle.  We certainly know it will be quantitatively more difficult to overcome or dismantle even further entrenched bureaucracies, institutional local, state and Federal corruption with the power of the police state behind them.

I despise Romney.  I don't think he will be any more effective than George H W Bush and will likely set up a Democratic resurgence in 4 years if he’s elected.  But unless someone with more money, influence or balls steps up to the plate to set a strong conservative crusade in place, I'll bide my time under RINO occupation for a later insurrection and avoid a worse tyrannical takeover. 

My original post centers around our mutual fantasy that all of us that ORIGINALLY knew Romney was dangerous would still act as one.  It begins here:

The “must follow” The Church Report carried an article by J.J. Jackson speculating how grand it would be for the 60% of “real” conservatives to not accept a Romney nomination.  Two quick excerpts include:

Conservatives could certainly opt to attempt to reprogram the scenario the GOP has given us. We could, and I know it sounds radical but bear with me, actually choose a candidate other than Romney or Obama and then actually vote for them. Of course I know the cries that go out at this suggest all too well. Voting “third party”? What are you? Insane? That would certainly lead to another four years of President Obama! Yeah, it might. I will stipulate that. But you must also stipulate that it might not.

and

Yeah, I know, it is just a pipedream. Most conservatives have proven that they are not that principled when push comes to shove and will gladly parade around with blood on their hands as long as they can proclaim that it was not as much blood as if they had accepted the other option that was given. But the reality is that in three months into the Romney Administration, maybe a year or two if we are lucky, those conservatives who fell in line will be staring at their hands in horror screaming, “What have we done!” There will still be big government. There will still be rampant waste. Their will still be widespread fraud. There will still be debt as far as our great grandchildren can see. And the Constitution will still lay in tatters upon the floor. Oh, sure, he might roll back some or even most of the policies of President Obama. But be honest. What we had before Obama was not all that good either.

With the impotence of Romney's 25% ceiling, the energy of a boiling Tea Party and the prospect of what we thought were MANY Conservative Blends, I never in my wildest dreams thought we would end up with a RINO six months ago.

You are right JJ that there ARE more of "us" than them in anti-RINO philosophy.  But it seems there aren't many who are also strong willed independent thinks of conviction.  It is a shock to realize that as tenacious as a Michelle Malkin is on corruption, she is equally fallacious in partisan thinking.  It’s like recruiting a 7’ 2” center for your basketball team only to find out he is more uncoordinated than a 12 year old boy at his first school dance.

You are also correct on both counts that it turns out we have failed to grow “principled” conservatives and this is precisely the reason why a third party won’t work.  If they aren’t principled enough to keep fighting for a conservative when the nomination isn’t set (or to accurately assess who are the real and fake ones) what scenario actually makes them act counter to their programmed 2 party habit they’ve adopted for generations?  Purity isn’t the goal.  Power is.

It’s hard for some to conceive, but there are actually mathematical mechanisms needed to create corresponding results in politics.  For instance, I can create a new, no calorie, vitamin enriched soft drink more refreshing than Coca-Cola, but I need people to know about it before I can make any money from selling it.  Even if USA Today runs a feature story extolling it’s virtues, I still may have not convinced many to actually TRY it.  Those that were convinced could not find it at their local grocers yet. Worse, without repeated press or ads, the desire and knowledge would fade after a few days.   Marketing studies of consumer behavior show that even if it was in every store in America, cheaper the competition, a better tasting and healthier alternative  EVEN THEN it would be lucky get a fraction of the market share of Coca-Cola over the first year.  People simply take a lot of time to ACT in accordance with a new belief and change a habit.  Like voting a straight party ticket.

The Tea Party could also be explained by math.  If confined to the audience of CNBC, Rick Santelli’s rant would have temporarily excited a few thousand people of the tens of thousands that were watching but it soon would have been forgotten like the American Idol runners-up of years past.  It was the repetition and amplification of the Rick Rant that seen by hundreds of thousands on YouTube, millions on Rush and then repeated that made it become a surrogate outlet for ALL OF THE FRUSTRATIONS with the Obama administration.  Others said, “I’ll be there” giving it credibility and removing the fear of isolation for slow adopters.  Newt Gingrich actually bought ads to get people to join.  Skeptical analysts were quite correct that at the time, there WERE no real new taxes in place different from the Bush days when even conservatives merely grumbled at the excessive spending.  The Santelli rant in the middle of the Bush second term would have gone nowhere because the DESIRE for change wasn’t there.  Enough people had to be extremely frustrated or angry in large enough numbers to show up in response to multiple media and conservative leaders.

This is what Gingrich commented upon to Paul Weyrich when Reagan was elected in 1980.  People liked Reagan personally, but not only was there no REAL massive switch in thinking to the acceptance of pure conservative values, there was no media to significant media to amplify it or representatives to help pass it.  We now know that Reagan himself would have imploded and given in to the Bob Dole RINO’s if it weren’t for Gingrich.  We also know that HillaryCare would already been in place if not for the 14 years spent after Reagan’s first election to protect conservative ideals with elected conservatives and with a substantial money raising and education network Gingrich engineered through GOPAC.

It’s shocking that the Limbaugh’s, Malkin’s, Coulter’s and even George Will didn’t amplify EVERY DAY that it was Gingrich who paid for ads for people to JOIN THE TEA PARTY movement, much less embrace him AT LEAST as a senior fellow conservative soldier.  (Instead, Malkin’s HotAir proves to be worse than just bad breath with Allahpundit and Erika Johnson allowing lies like this to continue to be spread.)  What Gingrich knew is that AWARENESS is different from RESOLUTION and is way different from ACTION much less MAINTAINABLE ACTION.  (I go into this extensively in one of my first PolitiJim articles How Political Ideas Become Reality.) 

And with BOTH Limbaugh and Gingrich (who at the time were considered by everyone as co-leaders of the conservative movement according to Gallup) it gave CREDIBILTY and COMMUNITY for people to not feel alone in adopting a NEW action.  It’s why you wouldn’t see very many women lifting up their shirts at Mardi Gras if they were alone in front of one dirty old bum in the street.  It’s only “fun” (for the depraved mind) if everyone is doing it and it is acknowledged as being so by peers.  Truly righteous actions like those of Terry Lakin are all the more profound when the potential result is the loss of one’s career and freedom instead of the promise of a cheap thrill.  To me the indictment of the GOP primary is not the eventual domination by RINOey, but the exposure of how “unprincipled,” “undisciplined,” and “uneducated” conservatives really are.

The only saving grace is that the liberals are worse.

But I have to keep reminding myself that only 30% of the American republic supported the FIRST American revolution in 1776.  Like fair weather sports fan who suddenly fill the stadiums when their team is good (as opposed to valiant Cubs fans who remain faithful from year to stinking year), the rest of the country suddenly became “patriots” when the vanquishing of King George’s armies seemed likely or inevitable.  The bible teaches us to not chastise those for being late to the party but I must admit, I struggle with it.

But I must encourage Mr. J.J. in his lament.  Although terribly unlikely in this cycle, it could still happen.  And I guarantee there are enough patriots left like Patriotic Nurse, Gulagbound, Libertarian Neocon, Justin.FM, Krisxx, and Katrina Pierson to ensure it most definitely will happen in the long term.  We will never yield to tyranny whether in this country or in the GOP.

A 2012 elimination before June would likely require a significant INDEFENSIBLE scandal by Romney which isn’t likely to happen.  If the likes of Ann Coulter would defend RomneyCare (which we would have THOUGHT indefensible six months ago), it is too much to expect most to grow balls or brain to throw him overboard.  Even if Obama starts trouncing Romney in the head to head polls, most conservatives would think changing horses as too risky.

If the most significant conservative INFLUENCERS like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity and others decided to be truly courageous and press the issue to the convention, it could happen.  But all have clearly telegraphed their cowardly resignation to the GOP establishment and it would take a Damascus experience for them to suddenly see their own complicity in conservative failure.

To my dismay, Palin and Gingrich will not attack the GOP establishment this year seemingly fearing that if they lost, they would ensure Obama’s reelection.  As I’ve said from the beginning, a war against Obama on his corruption, forgeries and current/past indiscretions would likely see an immediate new front runner by nearly anyone including Donald Trump who would be fearless enough to take it on.

Instead, the goal IS to stop Obama and the certain give away of US sovereignty and freedom that would happen if he were re-elected.  Like J.J., I am convinced by his past governance, the crowd around him, the spineless and duplicitous leadership of his past that Romney’s election will still leave us on the road to Grecian-like ruin, but it will give us more time to carry on the battle.

George Washington knew this by simply avoiding capture of his rag tag army for months on end.  I love it that the British thought by capturing Philadelphia the colonists would have to surrender and instead we just moved the “capitol” to the nearest Holiday Inn Express.

Our strategy should be similar.  Avoid capture.  Make it through the political winter of 1776 when we can rebuild our forces and resources.  Figure out who are REAL allies are and build around a core that will not yield.

While sitting at the True the Vote National Summit I realized that our strategy will require a much longer and drawn out effort than what I first imagined. 

1. Retake the electoral system.  I’m talking about BOTH the state by state election laws of Voter ID and registration verification as well as the individual precincts and GOP party controls on a local level.  If we see a LEGITMATE mathematically plausible avenue for a third party – we take our network with us leaving the GOP bankrupt of real soldiers.  Do you realize we could absolutely control the entire GOP from the ground up with a FRACTION of those that attended the Tea Party rallies?  It requires time, patience and recruiting or stepping up to take those roles – but we can no longer leave this up to them.  We MUST take it over.
   
2. Take back a clear, unfiltered voice for TRUTH in the media. Limbaugh is unreliable, Coulter and Drudge can not be redeemed but all of them built ACCESS to millions of eyeballs and eardrums to gain agreement on issues to coordinate.  It takes talent, money and time to create a “network” that reaches millions, but whether it is the next “Rush” or funding the purchase of CBS, we can not win this war without coordinated communication.
   
3. Continue to create and educate on REAL American values.  Gingrich knew this in 1980.  Even Rick Santorum admitted he learned HOW to achieve power in the conservative brand through material Gingrich created through GOPAC.  True the Vote is doing this on the general election issues of #1 in a phenomenal way.  PJTV has been wonderful at pioneering information in a MTV brainwashed world and these efforts must continue at a local level on up.  But it must be based in – and committed to - OBJECTIVE TRUTH and not personality or petty biases as was glaringly evident by the George Will’s of the world, or even (shockingly) the social conservatives willing to sell out their Christian values for politics.   The education has FIRST got to be our own, and then worry about the “independents” who still have open minds
   
4. Create FUNDING of “true” conservatives like Toomey, Ryan, Walker and Demint.  We aren’t going ANYWHERE without money and qualified conservative candidates who can IMPLEMENT change at a legislative level from local offices on up.  Start identifying and exhorting these people.  Raise money for them.  Budget part of your OWN income on a consistent basis like you would your church tithe or monthly cable bill.  We can make money talk and Boehner walk.
   
5. Take back America not just for our children, but for those who NEED the inspiration of what she stands for around the world.  Lech Walesa said Poland would not be free if not Ronald Regan.  He’s only partially right.  If it wasn’t for the “idea” of America – neither would South Korea, Vietnam and even the economic democracy in communist China.  But right now our OWN elections are less fair and free than even some new democracies.  Once we’ve re-established the principles of blind justice, responsible freedom, libertarian economics and non-gerrymandered representative democracy by people who adhere to fundamental Judeo-Christian values – not only will be a beacon to others, our own results will shine strong enough to send the cockroaches who crimped REAL conservative values into permanent exile.

Find your local tea party.  Vet them.  Determine how much time and/or money you can give, and start showing the example of consistent, responsible diligence to your children and grandchildren born or unborn.  Only YOU can save this Republic for which it stands.

Read More

A Militant Reason to Support Rick Santorum

I came across this great article today regarding Rick Santorum, entitled "Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?" The article is a great review over the election results after Gingrich lost to Romney in Florida,but also explains why Santorum is a more logical candidate than both Romney&Newt. Here is a summary:

After watching Newt Gingrich lose two debates and suffer a steep reversal of fortunes in Florida, some look to Rick Santorum, such as Andrew Malcolm...

It’s not just the numbers, either.  The debates in Florida last week showed that Gingrich’s claim to mastery of the format simply don’t hold up.  He lost both of those debates, and spent the rest of the week attacking Romney on religious freedom and proposing a lunar base that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in an era where Republicans are arguing for reduced spending.  If Gingrich was actually making the conservative case against Romney, I could see Sarah Palin’s point, but he’s not.  He’s making a case for “big ideas” that involve a huge amount of spending, attacking Romney on any basis that happens to be handy, and he’s attacking the media.

The candidate actually making the conservative case on the campaign trail is Rick Santorum.  Santorum scored points off of Romney in both Florida debates, especially the last one, because Santorum hasn’t ever backed an individual mandate as a health-care solution and doesn’t have to defend that position.  He’s never backed  TARP, either.  That doesn’t make Santorum a perfect conservative candidate, but he seems to be the only one who’s focusing on the actual conservative agenda.  Even if the motivation is to back a conservative alternative to Romney to “sharpen his steel” and force him to follow the conservative agenda, it’s Santorum who is most effective at making that the agenda.

Plus, there is one more thing to consider, and that is the quality of leadership.  Both of the frontrunners and their allies have engaged in disappointing attacks on free market enterprise in an attempt to exploit each others’ weaknesses, but Santorum has refrained from doing so, even though he has specifically targeted blue-collar voters who might respond to those attacks.  Santorum has maintained a high level of integrity in his campaigning, and that’s something to consider when choosing the man who will represent the party in the 2012 elections.

While the commentary made by Ed Morissey of Hot Air&Andrew Malcolm of Investors.com makes a strong case for supporting Santorum, the following remarks in the comments section are what really impressed me. Someone by the username of 'FeFe' summed up several reasons why Santorum is the logical choice for President, while comparing Newt, Romney and Paul.
And again, as we all know,nobody is going to be the perfect candidate but Santorum is the one standing up for the principles of our founders, along with the values of the majority of conservatives,thus his rise in the polls. Santorum supports the opportunity to pursue happiness and live free of government entitlements and over-regulation. These are the things that allow us to have access to opportunity and to live in a free society where we are free to live, succeed or fail, but what we put into it depends ultimately on us. Take a look and consider what 'FeFe' has to say:

“Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?”

Yes. It’s elementary, my dear, Watson. Observe how raaaaacist it clearly is to choose a thin-skinned Obama or one of the three fair-skinned opponents over an Italian.

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 4:52 AM 

[Little Bytes News:I thought this was funny so I included it here, but the rest of what 'FeFe' has to say makes a lot of sense as well,regardless of who you support, I think you can agree these are some strong reasons to consider Santorum&not fear a Santorum Presidency.]

“Newt Gingrich, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of grandiose type, but with the air of an elite professor who attacks success. Clearly an entrenched congressman then whose post-speaker career was largely public-policy profiteering. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is as dark as his mood, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and scandals as his forced grinning face says clearly. His girth has been expanding. Where in the tropics could a ham Ameritopian mastermind afraid of his own product catalog have seen much nostalgia hardship in the sun and got his ego wounded? Clearly in Florida.” -Sherlock Holmes

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:03 AM

“Ron Paul, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of diminishing stature, but with the air of a rebel without a cause. Clearly an entrenched congressmanthen who repudiates American Exceptionalism. He has just come from the desert, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and aging as his haggard face says clearly. His dowager’s hump bends him as injured. Where in the desert could a self-applauding lone wolf congressman have seen much sunlight upon his revisionist history and bigoted newsletters and got his weasel earmarks record wounded? Clearly in Nevada.” -Sherlock Holmes

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:08 AM

“Mitt Romney, I perceive. Here is a gentleman born of generational presidential single purpose, but with the air of a tribal businessman. Clearly a leapfrogging politician then who sees voters as the product, not the consumer. He has just come from the tanning bed, for his face is evenly dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone no hardships or sickness as his rehearsed face says clearly. His financial security or social status has never been injured. Where in the poseur, rock star tour bus could a shorter shape-shifter have seen much record rationalizing in the spray tan booth of managed decline and got his conservative pose wounded? Clearly outside of Massachusetts.” -Sherlock Holmes

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:11 AM

“Rick Santorum, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of wonkish type, but with the air of a clarion call, constitutional conservative. Clearly a whistle-blower congressman then who attained higher office and party leadership. He has just come from the heartland, for his face is bright, beyond the natural tint of his olive skin, for our Founders’ God Given Rights vision is reawakening. He has undergone hardships and held fast with our military in the field as his Lincoln face says clearly. His principled leadership, unafraid to take political risks, remains intact. Where from tilled soil to Made in USA shop floors could a grandson of an Italian immigrant coal miner hold aloft the Reagan-model beacon of melding social, fiscal and national defense conservatives into a winning coalition from articulating the conservative cause; the interrelation of limited government and the economy, morality and liberty — have seen much hardship to ensure America’s cultural inheritance with Justices Alito and Roberts win in the political marketplace? Clearly with patriots demanding no truce to decline but a bold vision for more principled conservative, enduring public policy.” -Sherlock Holmes

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:15 AM

The depth of the hatred toward Santorum is not over social positions Obama himself holds but knowing this monstrous centralization of power in Obamacare will not stand. The “inevitability” the opposition craves is not in Mitt Romney as the nominee but enshrining health care as a “right.” Can the Romney enacted Mass. Cap & Trade be far behind? “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” no sooner spoken than forgotten by another moderate leader assuming office, Julia Gillard. “Iron clad” election promise on an EU referendum from Tory David Cameron and no less promised by the LiberalDems and Labour parties too only to meet casual disregard once in office. Mr Romneycare will repeal Obamacare? More fool us.

You think Newt, in his Wilsonian authority born of long banquets and long Beltway summits, will repeal Obamacare? As with nearly all of his Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) influence (Obamacare as late as spring 2009, Freddie Mac, Medicare Part-D, ethanol, Cap and Trade), Newt is for the concept of government doing something — often finding a problem where conservative principles dictate none — and in the end, he is firmly in his Ameritopia position of free market interference, shielded by opposition to the bill in its final form. “Consider” “his support for Government-Sponsored Enterprises. Gingrich’s post-speaker career was largely about finding ways for his clients to profit from an increased government role in the economy. ObamaCare was a golden opportunity for such public-policy profiteering.”

Santorum is right, Newt and Mitt wont exhaust all administrative remedies, let alone lead congress, to repeal Obamacare.

The TEA Party is told we must submit to working within the Republican party to gain influence. By the same reasoning, if we can’t have influence, surely we must stop submitting to their rules. “Don’t look at the polls. . . Don’t pay attention to what the national media are saying, what the pundits are saying. Listen to your heart. Lead. Don’t follow.” –Rick Santorum

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 5:58 AM

There’s been a healthy focus on political legacies, the big picture while we too look forward in need of a statesman to lead the nation safely from enemies foreign and domestic. I happen to believe that no one person holds the Reagan torch; it is in all of us throughout the world. Sorry, Newt. All men are fallen but I don’t want your Redemption Tour and constant pleas for pity are beneath the Office of the President. I respect Newt’s legacy for the conservative cause but what are its Remains of the Day? I know he claims welfare reform regardless of the fact Rick Santorum co-authored and worked it in the House and then the Senate floor but allowances must be made for Uncle Newtie, right? Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One, but as Jack Benny once quipped, “When you take a joke away from Milton Berle, it’s not stealing, it’s repossessing.” Sure, Newt’s Mr. Contract With America, and if we had a Conservatives Hall of Fame, he would no doubt be one of the first people inducted, but repeated aping of Santorum’s “clear contrast” and Bachmann’s Frank-Dodd lines among others are not inspiring confidence in your vision or statesmanship. Does America really need a kinescope Uncle Newtie in Groundhog Day?

As Mark Levin said 16 years ago, how does trickle-down-government help the poor? Let Ann Coulter count the ways in her “Three Cheers for Romneycare” column. How prescient of her to point out the “Democrats 2009 Stimulus bill dismantled the welfare reform passed in the 1990s.” (The Welfare Reform Act of 1996.) Who didn’t see that old scab getting picked off with a Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House? (The entrenched political class is for more than dieing in office, they define “status quo.”) Ms. Coulter may continue to sneer at Rick Santorum’s “boasted” entitlement reform but as the only one to date, no matter how short-lived, it stands as the standard bearer. For all Newt’s influence, paid and otherwise, in D.C., did he see it coming or have a hand in these dependence induced changes?

I’m not talking about Newt’s product catalog. We all know he could turn around and pull from the shelves any number of books, videos, DVDs, white papers, glossy brochures, coloring books, etc. and find either side of a position past to parse. Therefore, the question remains, what specific conservative (so Endangered Species Act doesn’t count) legislation may Newt claim as his very own “big idea” still going strong?

And what has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the conservative cause? He quit his reelection campaign as governor to splash his personal cash about to the tune of $35 million to run for president in the 2008 cycle as if Romneycare was a big enough down-payment to the Liberal Lion of the Senate Teddy Kennedy to leapfrog over the conservative cause and into the Oval Office. Of course, now Romney is the next in line heir splashing Wall Street, financial status quo cash about — “At that speed, they could run right over my daughter’s stereo and not hear it.” — and appearing in two shows a night with the new Liberal Lion of the Senate 2.0 John McCain. Dear voter, the Romney campaign has had six years to paryroll-up every political consultant and donate to every political operative or politician of note nationwide — “They’re pinging away with their active sonar like they’re looking for something but nobody’s listening” to you; voters are the product, not the consumer — the Facebook-model just like the Democrats 2008 playbook. Also, aping Donald Trump on China does not a foreign policy legacy make. Next.

Ron Paul has no legislative accomplishments save “one” I heard mention but it must be of such diminished stature, not unlike himself, that no one bothers to tout what it was. Paul did say (Fox News Center Seat segment) if elected president he would not shut down the Fed for it wouldn’t be prudent, and his choice for Fed chairman was Jim Grant. Great. Thanks for that most gracious concession on your campaign sloganeering, but it seems none of your supporters know it as you build a better volunteer mouse trap with your “legalize drugs” college campus money bombs (leading to wasted human capital). Covet your hipster son as Kentucky’s senator to lend seriousness of purpose to your legacy, Paul, for now.

As far as legacies go, Rick Santorum’s got several Aces. There’s the standard bearer of entitlement reform mentioned above, HSAs and he’s a Risk alumni, to name but a few.

I’ve learned a lot from watching 19 debates, and most illuminating was how the sausage that is legislation gets made. One example, watch Rick’s
Oct. 1994 C-Span video of his senate seat debate where he kills HillaryCare and mandates in the first 5 minutes. Further along, he stresses “You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” without fundamentally changing America. Talk about being consistent. Rick’s push for “Medisave” is what became today’s Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and the vouchers are today’s Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare competing private sector “premium support” health plan subsidies in the Ryan/Wyden Plan.

A bottom-up free market approach to health care still going strong.HSA accounts surpass $12.4 billion in 2011:

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) surpassed $12.4 billion in assets in almost 6.8 million accounts by year-end 2011, a year over year increase of almost 20% for accounts and a 26% increase in assets for the period from December 31st, 2010 to December 31st, 2011.

Outside of any market use or benefit, for families with chronically ill or disabled members HSAs are a blessing. While it has become fashionable to denounce the very notion of a “compassionate conservative,” some steps were taken in the right direction for future limited government reform while focusing on individual relief or protection from deadpan corporatists or unions within the Great Society behemoth we all currently navigate. Something that gets lost in the shallow, ideology purity test for government reform today, it is no mistake that the millions who have availed themselves of any “big” government legislation like HSAs, NCLB, IDEA, etc., are best informed on the centralized power drag on our economy. In between swapping prescription drug nightmares with Mark Steyn, don’t you find, Ed? You’re primed and ready to kill this 4th estate behemoth of regulation. A positive built-in, conservative building block for future limited government social cohesion. Now we need to elect Rick Santorum to lead the congress on reform. However, on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society, I thank you for HSAs.

On the USS Yorktown in Charleston harbor, South Carolina native, war hero and CAIR antagonizer, three-star General Jerry Boykin endorsed Rick Santorum for president. A natural fit for both men are outspoken against radical jihad as Santorum has called for a change to the Rules of Engagement and Gen. Boykin, as a Christian evangelist, was pressured by the Obama administration led U.S. Military Academy at West Point to withdraw recently from their prayer breakfast after opposition surfaced from Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR). With eight years on the Senate Armed Services committee, Rick Santorum’s historical foreign policy experience overlaps well with Gen. Boykin’s in battle as part of America’s most elite fighting force; then rising to command those troops as a general, and also served in the CIA and Pentagon on the strategic planning and management side of counter-insurgency. If, a Delta Force hero who has served as the tip of the spear at the highest ranks (commander memorialized in the movie “Black Hawk Down”), who is also a man of profoundly deep faith, sees his patriotism mirrored by endorsing Rick Santorum for Commander In Chief, then who are we to disagree? The phone would go dead and there would be no survivors.

Rick Santorum’s servant’s heart legacy is as the proven consistent conservative holding fast against political winds for individual sovereignty when the loyal opposition calls — no individual mandate, no carbon dioxide tax, no Wall Street bailouts socializing losses and privatizing profits — unlike Mitt and Newton. “Judgment matters. When the winds are blowing what we’ve seen is Romney and Gingrich, they put their sails up and go.” -Rick Santorum

FeFe on February 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Read More

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.

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?

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.

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).

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. 

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:

Even 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.

 

Read More