RRD: There are three words for this, one is,”spin” & the other two are a compound word whose mentionable part is ”bull”. One must ask why Team Obama thinks that Americans will permit them to redefine “recovery” downward to mean increased unemployment,higher poverty rates,& having more Americans on food stamps and welfare. Evidently Americans are supposed to give up their hopes and their dreams so Obama can feel good. After all he wants to be President,isn’t that all that matters. Obama needn’t do anything to merit reelection, his mere presence on tv is his gift to us. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80584.html?hp=l1 ”Asked on NBC’s “Today” show whether Americans were better off, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter was definitive. “Absolutely,” said Cutter, listing statistics about rising unemployment and declining wages in the six months before Obama took office. “By any measure, the country has moved forward over the last four years. It might not be as fast as some people would have hoped, [but] the president agrees with that, he knows we need to do more.” “The answer is we are better off,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the Democratic National Convention, said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “We were losing 800,000 jobs a month, we lost 3.5 million jobs, the mortgage lending crisis was creating a foreclosure problem that we hadn’t seen since probably the Great Depression … We’ve had 29 consecutive months of growth in private-sector jobs… So the answer is yes, we are better off.” RRD: How can one have job growth if Unemployment is higher? Answer words mean whatever we wish them to mean. “Absolutely,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “The truth is, though, is that the American people know, we were literally a plane that was heading, the trajectory was towards the ground when the president took over. He got the stick and pulled us up out of that decline.” RRD: If Obama pulled us out of the decline how is it that he has added trillions to the debt and we now have fewer jobs after his stimulus? These answers differ from Gov. Martin O’Malley’s (D- Md.) response to the same question Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Asked whether Americans were better off, O’Malley replied, “No, but that’s not the question of this election.” RRD: Really? What is the question? Whether Obama wishes to be re-elected or not?
Tag Archives: 2012 elections
In which I Zofia “Sophie” Zawistowski deliver the Missouri Senate seat to Mackaskill #tcot #tlot #teaparty
RRD:For those who missed the allusion,it’s to Sophie’s Choice. Now that the deadline has passed and it would actually cost Akin, well…gosh, gee money,well I guess we will all have to fall in line behind this ass,now won’t we? After all if I and others won’t support Akin (fn1) Macaskill will win and WE will be to blame. We,not Akin,We not the morons who voted for Akin. We and We alone. After all,”Obama will thank us”. Isn’t that the magic spell that is supposed to shut down all debate on the relative merits of the GOP and the Dems? My response to that is to say:”Look at me,and look at Akin etal,and ask yourself if I would ever feel that my moral stature was at the mercy of something that Akin(or Floyd Ferris) did.” There may be legitimate reasons to vote for a Republican;guilt is not one of them. After Mccain self-immolated, Rush Limbaugh said that he was “through carrying other people’s water”. I made a similiar comment. I meant it. Sophie’s Choice | “The Choice” – YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9bht5H2p4 Footnotes: fn1. I am not a Missouri resident, but one can support a candidate(or not) in ways other than voting.
Demented #GOP Rep.says something called “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy #womensrights #tcot #tlot
RRD:The Republican candidate for one of Missouri’s Senate seats, Rep.Akin believes that something that he calls “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancies.Presumably by ” legitimate” he meant ” actual” or ”real” but even if we grant that, that merely moves him from being a advocate of Raping women to ”just” being a buffoon. Akin on “Legitimate Rape” – YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc&feature=youtu.be “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” he said.” RRD: The genius did not specify what ”ways” he was referring to:Magic?Telepathic signals from the uterus to The Stork telling it not to bring the baby,perhaps? ”Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment. But the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child,” he said.” Controversial Akin comment on rape sparks firestorm – The Hill’s Video http://thehill.com/video/campaign/244295-controversial-akin-comments-on-rape-concern-gop RRD:Translation:women who are raped must be forced to give birth. The results of this buffoon’s statement were predictable: “Moderate” Republicans and the Romney campaign denounce him(fn1),while some Republicans(Erick Erickson fn2),try to explain away and downplay his statement,while Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tries to tie this creature to Romney.(fn3) This last is particularly ironic given the fact that there is someone much closer to herself (than Akin is to Romney) that has made outlandish & inexcusable comments:one of her aides(fn4)yet Wasserman-Schultz believes that that person should be forgiven & would look askance at anyone who suggested that she(DWS) was to blame for her aide’s comment.(fn5) In any event Akin must step down. National GOP pulls funding from Todd Akin’s Missouri race – The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics The Todd Akin Fiasco « Commentary Magazine http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/20/the-todd-akin-fiasco/ Footnotes: fn1. Fellow Republican Rehberg calls Akin ‘legitimate rape’ comments ‘reprehensible’ – The Hill’s Ballot Box http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/244305-fellow-republican-rehberg-unloads-on-akin-following-legitimate-rape-comments Sen. Brown calls for Akin to step down as GOP Senate nominee – The Hill’s Ballot Box http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/244353-brown-calls-for-akins-resignation-from-gop-nomination fn2. Todd Akin’s Dumb Comment vs. Obama’s Support of Infanticide | RedState http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/08/20/todd-akins-dumb-comment-vs-obamas-support-of-infanticide/ fn3. Dem Party chief: Akin and Republicans want women in ‘the Dark Ages’ – The Hill’s Healthwatch http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/244343-dnc-chair-akin-gop-want-women-in-the-dark-ages- fn4 Democratic staffer puts on Jewish version of a minstrel show. – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/democratic-staffer-puts-on-jewish-version-of fn5. Wasserman Schultz says “jewbag” aide should be forgiven,while DNC communications director says she is being “smeared” #jcot #2012 – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/wasserman-schultz-says-jewbag-aide-should-be
Don’t let it go unheard #objectivist ( #aynrand )podcast:DOD bans criticism of Islam while Egytian pres. wants to conquer Jerusalem #tcot #jcot
Don’t Let It Go Unheard 06/24 by amypeikoff | Blog Talk Radio
….”PLANNED TOPICS: Just as a Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins the Egyptian Presidency, and his supporters call for a renewed drive to establish an Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital, here in the U.S. our Department of Defense suspends a military instructor for including, in a course, material that crticizes Islam. Why you should vote for me (or yourself) instead of Gary Johnson. Disturbing evidence of Obama’s desperation to win. And more.”….
Disclaimer:Reposting does not imply agreement.(Nor does it constitute a political endorsement of Mitt Romney).
Jeb Bush: Reagan ‘would have a hard time’ in today’s GOP – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room
…“Ronald Reagan would have,based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said at the headquarters of Bloomberg LP in Manhattan, according to remarks reported by Buzzfeed.
…”According to Buzzfeed, Bush said he thought the rigid and highly charged political atmosphere was “disturbing” but “temporary.”
“Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport,” he said, adding that Reagan “would be criticized” for reaching across the aisle today.
…”The former Florida governor also said Monday that the deficit deal his father helped craft more than two decades ago helped spur economic growth, even though his father lost his bid for a second term after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.”…
RRD:Sure,Jeb,a man who spoke of America’s greatness(& meant it),cut taxes,rebuilt the “Hollow Military”,made deals with Democrats but regretted them,denounced the idea of detente,someone who left the Democratic Party “because it left him”,someone who spent years on the lecture circuit & coined some of the most oft repeated expressions of conservative thought would have a hard time getting the nomination.
This is said at a time when the standard bearer of the GOP is the man who created the prototype for Obamacare.
In fact Jeb a New Reagan is something Conservatives have been seeking desperately,everywhere,
in everyone from your father–who betrayed Reagan–to your brother G.W.Bush to Palin to Scott Brown to Allen West to Marco Rubio to you.
It is like pursuing a mirage of a Oasis that disappears as soon as it is in your grasp.
Of those listed only Rubio,and perhaps West,come close.
No,Jeb Reagan would be welcomed by Conservatives,but he would be scorned by your father,and Murkowski,& other RINOS and CINOS.
Just as he was scorned by Gerald Ford and your father.
You do remember that Ford called Reagan a “extremist”,don’t you Jeb.
Google does remember Jeb(fn1)
It took a great deal of time and effort to find that story.
I went to Google,typed the keywords “Reagan” “Gerald Ford” and “extremist” and Behold! the past comes back to life!
And then there’s this:
The American Spectator : Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps
…. ”Ford went on at length in this March 1980 Times interview, digging moderate Republicans an even deeper political hole in 1980 than the one they were already in thanks to Dewey and the GOP Establishment. Assured the latest moderate GOP icon of the day:
“Every place I go and everything I hear, there is growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election…. I hear more and more often that we don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964 [the Goldwater defeat by LBJ].”
The Times reporter wrote the rest of the Ford interview story this way:
Asked if he shared the view that Mr. Reagan could not win, Mr. Ford said “it would be an impossible situation” because Mr. Reagan is “perceived as a most conservative Republican.”
“A very conservative Republican,” he said, “can’t win in a national election.”
Meaning [asked the reporter] that Mr. Reagan can’t win?
“That’s right,” replied Mr. Ford. ”….
And Jeb what of your daddy(don’t you remember him Jeb?).
Didn’t he call the center-piece of Reagan’s economic platform ”Voodoo Economics”
…”It just isn’t going to work, and it’s very interesting that the man who invented this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy…
George Herbert Walker Bush.
Speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980)”
But let us set aside Jeb’s imaginary Reagan whose goal was ”finding accommodation”& “finding some degree of common ground”
& returning to our timeline–the one where the Earth revolves aound the Sun,and where the South lost the Civil War–let us parse the meaning of this shibboleth “working with others to find bipartisan solutions”.
When Jeb Bush speaks of “finding accommodation” & “finding some degree of common ground” what he means is that the Republicans should collaborate with the Democrats(again) to spend us into bankruptcy,placing our descendents into debt,all to bribe short sighted voters into voting for them,and then later to declare that since “we have so much debt it’s just gosh darn irresponsible not to raise taxes”
But what of ”spending cuts”?
What Jeb Bush(& politicians in general) mean by ”spending cuts” is very different from what sane,honest people mean by
term.Sane,honest people think of someone who spends $100 on something,and then spends $80 on it,thereby cutting
the amount they spend by $20.This is not how our wise leaders think.
They think that when they add less to the debt then they had originally wanted to add to the debt that that constitutes a “savings” “cutting spending”. (ala Dicken’s Richard Carstone in Bleak House ) (fn2)
(Indeed,it constitutes”real cuts”, “massive,painful cuts”,”cuts on the backs of the poor” etc )
To grasp the absurdity of our situation imagine the following:
Imagine you were left your family’s restaurant by your parents,(As you were the “responsible one”).
Imagine that your brother had behaved foolishly with his life & insulted you in the past,but committed no major sin(he never stole)
Imagine that you accepted your brother’s apologies,and accepted his claim to have matured.
Imagine that you decide to entrust your brother with a job,and then one day with the task of taking the money of the family restaurant to the bank,(since you must attend to a emergency).
Imagine that instead of taking it to the bank,he absconds with the money to Las Vegas & spends it on drugs,prostitutes,and roulette.
Imagine that he then comes up with a brillant idea:he will forge your signature and put the family deli up as collateral to a loan shark,and then use that money to make up the money he lost gambling and make millions more to boot,by
gambling some more.
After signing your property over to a Chinese gangster named Mr.Gòngchǎn Zhōngguó
He then tries to figure out why he lost at roulette.He figures out what the problem is.He’s unlucky!To solve this problem he decides to buy a lucky rabbit’s foot,whose magic powers will enable him to win at roulette.
Imagine that the roulette wheel is unmoved by the rabbit’s foot powers of persuasion.
Imagine that He then comes to you and tells you the following:
1.”It doesn’t matter who is to blame for this situation,there is no point in pointing fingers,or in assigning blame.”
2.”Life isn’t fair to me.”
3.”You must work with the mobsters to give them a cut of our business.I say our business since we’re all in this together,and since you and mom and dad cheated me out of my share of the family business by refusing to leave it equally to both of us.”
4.”If you don’t work with the mobsters and share,YOU will be to blame for what happens to me.”
4.He then quotes Cain from the Bible:”Cain said ‘I am not my brother’s keeper’,do you wish to be like a murderer like Cain?What’s more,not only does the Bible say it, but(even more importantly!) President Obama says that “we are our brother’s keeper’ too!”
1.If I were Cain you would be dead in the ground.Cain’s sin was envy and murder.
2.I am not your servant because of a offhand comment made by a ancient murderer.
3.Be thankful that I don’t have you arrested for theft and fraud.I won’t.But never want to see you again.
4.I will call the police when the mobsters arrive,since the debt has no legal standing,there’s nothing they can do to us.
Your brother is concerned:”You can’t do that!You’ll ruin my street cred with the other gamblers!I need to stay on good terms with them so I can borrow more money for….stuff.
“We’re brothers!I’m your brother!It’s your duty to help me!
Haven’t you read the Parable of the Prodigal Son!
You:”We’re Jewish.Besides wasn’t that a metaphor for welcoming a repentant sinner,not serving the vices of a unrepentant one?”
Your brother:”Vice!Sin!Evil!Repentance!What kind of morality is that!Morality is brother love!Oh!And NOW you care about the bible!”
You respond:”You brought it up!”
Your Brother:”That’s no excuse for your callousness!”Don’t make excuses for your actions”
You throw up your hands and refuse.
“You,you,souless beast …you monstrous heartless fiend,you think of no one but himself!You’re a bloodthirsty vampire who preys upon the innocent and profits off of the suffering and of the goodwill of others.You are a parasite who is willing to milk the human kindness of others for your own petty gain and then toss them aside!You worship Gold!
Why don’t you sacrifice me to your Golden Calf!
You!You exploited me!
You made me take the money!
It was part of your PLOT!
You knew that I was weak.
You deliberately baited me with that money to tempt me!
You are S-A-T-A-N!!
You respond to this by saying:have you heard of the psychological concept of projection?
If you think that what I wrote above is “over-the-top”,well.. it is ,but then so is our world.
On to Jeb’s “purity”.
I would say to Jeb,define purity?
Is a whorehouse too pure for you,Jeb?
Because the GOP is far less pure than a whorehouse.
Yes,I am being unfair;to prostitutes.
Placing prostitutes on par with Congress is unjust to the former,since a significant percentage of women and girls who work as prostitutes are runaways,or drug addicts,or victims of abuse.Some are young children.
We should stop using the word “whorehouse” to refer to ”a kind of moral sewer” & replace it with the word ”Congress”.
No,Jeb,the problem really is not a surfeit of “ideological purity”,or a unwillingness to ”work across the aisle” to get your ”stuff” done.
No,the problem is neither “ideological purity” ,or for that matter “ideological impurity” (since we would not be better off if we had a “pure” totalitarian regime)
There is not A single problem;there are several related problems.
One problem is that both parties believe and act upon the belief that men exist to serve other men,whether they wish to or not.They believe that they have the right to force those who disagree with them to serve whatever the statists wish to yoke us to at any given time:whether it be the poor,the trees,the owls,the earth,the worms or the weeds,or whatever wishes their deity or deities of choice allgedly communicate to them ..”Jesus was a Occupier!…No,a Republican!” etc)
They believe either that Individual Rights do not exist,or that they may be swept aside for whatever “good” intention pops into their skulls.(Which is to say one and the same thing)
But that is only one political problem.
Why are these thugs in power?
Who elected them?
I could say that “we did” but since I didn’t(with one or two exceptions) I would be lying.
But many Americans did vote to empower this Ship of Fools, which is destroying our rights,and leading our country into national bankruptcy and down the path to third world status.
Some voted for the fools because they lied to us about their intentions,and we either believed them or feared that the alternative would be worse (as I did on the occasions I alluded to above) .
Others,however,voted to send them to Washington to spend us further into debt,or they voted to send them to Washington because “they liked them”,or because “their parents were of the same political party” or some other such rubbish like that.
One wonders if these Congressmen & Senators(of both parties) who constantly speak of doing such and such “for the children” ever think of the future generations of American children who will be buying a carton of milk with baskets of cash?(as they did in Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe)
That is if they can find one.
Times Daily – Google News Archive Search
Toledo Blade – Google News Archive Search
Bleak House – Charles Dickens – Google Books
”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don’t think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.
The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.
“My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?” he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.
“I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses’ business.”
“How was that ?” said I.
“Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don’t deny that ?”
“No,” said I.
“Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—”
“The same ten pounds,” I hinted.
“That has nothing to do with it!” returned Richard. “I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular.”
In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it.
“Let me see!” he would say.
“I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker’s affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it’s a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!”
Obama’s Absurd Claim About Judaism « Commentary Magazine
”Apparently, Barack Obama told a visiting contingent of Conservative Jewish rabbis that he probably knows more about Judaism than any other president—on the same day that he referred to “Polish death camps.” For that last remark he apologized, but the one about Judaism is far more telling. In the first place, the claim is transparently absurd. We can quickly pass over the fact that John Adams and James Madison, among the most educated men in the world at the time, knew Hebrew as well as Latin and Greek and just say that the president is, to put it mildly, punching above his weight here. So let’s move on to the fact that every president until the modern era knew more about Judaism than Barack Obama because the Bible was the one book every literate person knew, and the Bible includes the books Christians call the “Old Testament,” and a working knowledge of the Old Testament certainly is the best introduction to “Judaism” there is.
Earlier presidents did not learn the Talmud, of course, but if Barack Obama ever has, that would come as news to me.”…
RRD:Why did Obama stop at claiming to know more about Judaism than any previous President?Why not more than Maimonides?Or more than Hillel?Or more than Akiva?Why not more than Solomon?
For that matter,why not more than Moses?
Or..perhaps….could it be…that Obama wrote The Torah himself!
For some reason whenever I hear Obama praise himself :praise his own alleged wisdom,& his imaginary accomplishments I think of this scene from Good Will Hunting:
[Great Movie Scenes] Good Will Hunting – Bar Scene – YouTube
Karl Rove’s first 2012 electoral map: Including “leaners,” Obama 284, Romney 172, toss-up 82 « Hot Air
RRD:Karl ”the Architect” Rove continues to become more detached from reality every day.The man who once fantasized about forging a Fifty year Republican Reign(made up of a coalition of big spending Republicans,deficit hawks,Mexican-Americans and opponents of illegal immigration no less)
now predicts that the “inevitable” Mitt Romney–allegedly the sole Republican who could beat Obama–may move South Carolina into the toss-up column.
Much as I hate Romney this is too much even for me.
The last time South Carolina went for a Democrat was Carter vs Ford.
Could it happen?
Obama “could” win in a Reagan vs Mondale type landslide.
Or Romney could.
“Could” in the sense that these things would not violate the laws of nature
But is there any reason to believe that the state that went for Mccain in 2008 will suddenly go for Obama?
Not that I can see.
“But Rove is infalliable….”
The infalliable Rove predicted victory in 2006 in defiance of all polls.
Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. Now what? – The Washington Post
….”Find somewhere to break with conservatives: Romney will not lose this election because the base isn’t excited about him. (They aren’t but they dislike President Obama so much it should make up for any doubts they retain about Romney.) He will lose the election because voters in the political center viewed him as too much a creature of the ideological right for them to vote for. (In a recent Gallup/USA Today poll of 12 swing states, Romney trailed Obama by nine points among independents .)
What Romney needs to change that dynamic is a public break from the far ideological right of his party, a, for lack of a better description, “Sister Souljah” moment. He needs to prove to independents that he is not in the pocket of the tea party wing of the GOP, which, while it clearly helped Republicans win back the House in 2010, appears to be turning into something of a net negative in 2012.
Romney’s best (recent) opportunity to do just that came in the furor set off by Rush Limbaugh’s comments about a female Georgetown Law School student named Sandra Fluke . He passed on that chance — likely due to concerns about inflaming the conservative base right at the moment when the nomination seemed won (or close to it).
Now that Romney is the close-to -unquestioned nominee, he needs to find something to put a bit of distance between himself and the party’s right. And the sooner the better.”….
RRD:So Romney needs to denounce the very people whom he will need to win in 2012,since they will support him no matter what he says or does.Or as Mike Murphy once put it:the base will vote for a bag of cement so long as it has a R or D after it.The fact that most of the base of the GOP has frantically tried to find someone,almost anyone,other than Mitt Romney to be their candidate,is all the more reason to alienate and enrage these people,since the more feces you throw at them the more energized they will be to fight for you.
Just so that we are clear:the path to victory for Republicans is this:
1.Nominate someone hated by the base.
2.Take positions to the LEFT of the independents you are wooing.
3.Spit in the faces of the people whom you will need to go door to door for you,so as to get the votes of those undecideds who may never even decide who to vote for.(Who will put up your signs?Blank out.How can you motivate people to support a candidate who spits on your values?”You’ll do something Mr.Rearden”)
4.At one and the same time that you are spitting on your supporters to get the votes of those who aren’t your supporters,you must also abstain from attacking your enemies,lest the independents dislike you.Do this even as you are smeared day in and day out,since the Independents hate it when Republicans(but never Democrats) run negative campaigns.Indeed,praise your opponent,denounce those who criticize him justly,say,(like Mccain),that he is “a good man”,and that “we have nothing to fear from his presidency”.
When “they pull a knife”,instead of “pulling a gun”,pull a flower and give it to your enemies,and a knife to stab your supporters in the back.
In short “loveth your enemies and hateth your friends”.
Aren’t you glad we have such intellectual titans advising the Republicans.Of course the Post writer knows that this is a path to suicide,that is why he is encouraging Romney to pursue this course.
The question is will Romney listen?
Perhaps not to the Post,but will he listen to his own moronic advisers?
Republicans do not win by spitting on their base,they win by energizing their base.
Democrats win by pretending to be centrists or Conservatives.Republicans win by running on Conservative Positions,by promising to cut taxes,& by attacking their opponents as tax & spend liberals who are weak on defense(which they are).
No Republican since Reagan has ever won by alienating his base and following the G.H.W.Bush-Dole-Mccain path to defeat.
But Robert could Romney win if he promised to dismantle the welfare state?
No,but he needn’t ”distance himself” from the Teaparty either.The Teaparty is a loose-nit group of fiscal conservatives & Obamacare opponents.
Rather than attack and alienate the Teaparty,if he is intelligent, he should say something along the lines of the folowing:
“I don’t endorse or agree with everything said by anyone and everyone in the Teaparty,and of course there are evil people in every group,but the Individuals who make up the Teaparty,by and large,are our husbands and wives,sisters & brothers,fathers and sons,and mothers and daughters.
The animating ideas & principles of the Tea Party are:a love of the Constitution,concern with out of control spending,fear of higher taxes,and opposition to having the government tell us how to live our lives through laws such as Obamacare.
Now if the Teaparty stands for these things,(and it does),what then do their opponents stand for?
Do they hate the Constitution?We know that Newsweek published a picture of the Constitution being put through a paper shredder.Are they tax and spend liberals?Do they support having the Government micro-manage our lives?The answer to the latter two questions has been given to us by this administration over the past four years.No,I am not running against the teaparty,I AM running against Barack Obama.”
This is what any sane Republican would say.
But of course Romney will not say any of these things.The reason he will not say these things is not because they will not work,it is because the Rockefeller Republican Strategists,who are advising Romney DO NOT WANT IT TO WORK.
They want to win on their own terms,or not at all.
In saying that I do not mean to imply that they are unwilling to win by saying things that they do not believe in,or that they are unwilling to win by supporting politicians that they don’t agree with.
That would be admirable.
But they have already been deceptive when they claim that they ”just want to win”.
Were they interested in winning,really winning,they would study Reagan’s campaign,& they would study G.W.Bush’s campaign.
Yet instead they pretend that history consists of ”extremists” like Goldwater & Mcgovern losing to ”centrists” like LBJ & Nixon.
When educated men and women continue to ignore reality,when they continue to ignore the fact that their strategy has been tried and has failed with G.H.W.Bush,with Bob Dole and with John Mccain,then it is reasonable to conclude that they really are not “just interested in winning”.
They are interested in winning in a manner that will let them still be loved by liberals.
They are interested in winning in a manner that will let them keep their liberal friends.They are interested in winning in a manner that will garner them praise from the MSM for being “kindler,gentler,Republicans”.
They wish to eat their cake and still have it remain after they eat it.
While the left is waging a battle to the death for the soul of this country,it is the Rockefeller Republicans who gave us Ford,who lost to Carter,G.H.W.Bush & Dole who both lost to Clinton,and who gave us John Mccain,a war hero,who managed to lose to a student of Saul Alinsky.
Such is the “practicality” of the dogma that elections are “won from the center”.
By Contrast,only one Conservative,Barry Goldwater,ran on Conservatism & lost,and he lost in large part because of his own foolish statements about using Nuclear Weapons in Vietnam,and because the country had not yet seen the effects of LBJ’s so-called “war on poverty”.
But to return to the original question;will Romney follow the path of Reagan-G.W.Bush,or of G.H.W.Bush-Dole-Mccain.
Let me put it this way:
I have a vision that keeps running through my head over & over again:It is a image of a stadium with mostly empty seats,except for a few places scattered here and there.The seats with people are populated mostly by people who are not only physically old,but who LOOK old,spiritually.Old,spent,tired looking people with expressions of bovine indifference.
People who will occasionally hold up a sign for a few seconds & then put it away wearily.The signs tout ”progressivism”,& praise ”green jobs”,and speak about “saving the earth” from Global Warming.
People there speak of the nobility of govenrment service & the evil of money making.
They boast about how their candidate opposed the Bush tax cuts and fought for a cleaner earth.
It was the 2008 Republican Convention.
I suspect that the 2012 Republican Convention will look very similiar to it with some modifications.We will probably hear about “Progressive Federalism”,”responsibility conservatism”,”Environmentalist Conservatism”.etc.
So,no I think that 2012 will be another train wreck.But it won’t be the end of the Republican Establishment.No matter what happens Conservatives will blamed,and the mantra will be that the Republican party is too conservative,too “ideological”,that Romney was,in essence,too good for us.Someday Conservatives may get it into their heads that insanity is defined as committing the same mistake over and over again,supporting RINOS,just this once,just to get through this one election,and then expecting a different result.
You won’t get it.
Cracks emerge in Santorum’s evangelical support | The Raw Story
…“Rick’s a good friend. I like Rick a lot,” Land told CBS “Face the Nation” program on Sunday.
But, Land said, “as his friend I would say to him, ‘you know, you ought to seriously consider leaving the race now.’”…
Democrats’ ‘Jew Cash Money Team’ | Washington Free Beacon
RRD:First let me note–in case the reader is unaware–that I am of Jewish heritage.I used the phrase Jewish Version of a Minstrel Show,because while it may sound harsh,that is exactly what you are doing when you act out a racial or ethnic stereotype,whether out of self-hatred,ignorance,or pandering to bigots.I am reminded of the scene in “A Soldier’s Story” when Master Sergeant Vernon Waters describes how another African-American soldier pretended to be a monkey(fn1).
And if you think that I am overreacting,note that this goes beyond a jewish woman kissing money,she describes both herself,and her compatriots as ”Jewbags”,& the ‘Jew Cash Money Team’ .
But African-American men refer to themselves with racial epithets?
Should a woman refer to herself with sexist curse words?
I am aware of the argument that if a member of a minority does something,then it can’t be racist,but there is a line between using a term,like the N-word,against a racist,(“Yeah,well this N***,ain’t afraid of you brother!”),and playing the bigot’s fool,(or expressing your own bigotry).
This crosses that line.
Will there be any fallout from this?Will there be a apology, or even a response?Who knows.If a Conservative Jewish Woman had done this,we’d never hear the end of it.It would be looped again and again and cited as “proof” that all Jewish Conservatives,or Libertarians are self-hating.
IMDb A Soldier’s Story (1984) – Quotes – IMDb
…”Master Sergeant Vernon Waters: You know the damage one ignorant Negro can do? We were in France in the first war; we’d won decorations. But the white boys had told all them French gals that we had tails. Then they found this ignorant colored soldier, paid him to tie a tail to his ass and run around half-naked, making monkey sounds. Put him on the big round table in the Cafe Napoleon, put a reed in his hand, crown on his head, blanket on his shoulders, and made him eat *bananas* in front of all them Frenchies. Oh, how the white boys danced that night… passed out leaflets with that boy’s picture on it. Called him Moonshine, King of the Monkeys. And when we slit his throat, you know that fool asked us what he had done wrong?“…