Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Why boast that your candidate–Gary Johnson–could throw the election to Obama

Libertarian Party eyes spoiler role in 2012 race | Fox News


….”The Libertarian Party is now touting that possibility. An emailed statement from the organization earlier this week carried a rather sensational subject line: “Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson Could Deprive Mitt Romney of 5 battleground states, 74 Electoral Votes, 27% of the Electoral Votes needed to win in 2012.”

Libertarians reasoned Johnson, then, “could determine the winner” of the election.”…

RRD: This is not a new story and I am not suggesting some absurd notion of a collusion between Johnson & Obama, particularly since the former despises the latter,nor do I expect Johnson to drop out, or to try to lose ,or some such nonsense, my point is entirely different.
Whoever wins in 2012 whether Obama or Romney ,Johnson will need to win over many Romney voters for any future campaign, whether as a Libertarian, or as a Republican,if he is to have any chance of actually winning. In either case, why alienate people by making statements that sound essentially spiteful or petulant? Why not simply say: ”Johnson is serious”, or “We think Johnson could win x number of votes”. To talk about “beating Romney” is absurd,it implies that Romney is the enemy,but Obama isn’t. Why,when his staff must know how Obama is despised,and how important many regard this election as being,make it seem as if you are motivated not by the thought of winning,but of effectively helping the Democrat? Purely from a standpoint of self-interest this is self-defeating as it will alienate many of those very Republicans & Conservatives whom he will need in the future. In fairness I do not know whether this is his idea or his staff’s but given that Johnson & Romney supporters will need to work together in the future in any event it would be useful if they did not needlessly antagonize one another.(And yes I have made this comment to Romney supporters as well, urging them not to needlessly antagonize Johnson supporters).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why I will now vote for Romney in the 2012 election (after opposing him, previously) Obamacare must be repealed,a third party will take time to build

I have previously passionately argued  against voting for Mitt Romney ,even if Obama won as a result (though I also doubted that Romney could win). I had considered voting for Gary Johnson, or for skipping the Presidential ballot and just voting for Republicans in the House and Senate.

I have changed my position and will now vote for Romney in 2012 .

My  reasons are as follows:

1. The court betrayed us by upholding Obamacare. The only remaining option for repealing this obscenity is to get Romney into office and a Republican Senate into power .
”But Romney won’t repeal it?”
We were able to prevent any Republican defections on Obamacare in 2009 by means of applying massive political pressure,if we do so again,then there is a slim, but reasonable,chance that we will succeed in pressuring the GOP into repealing Obamacare.
This is not some open ended thing where it does not matter if it is repealed in 2012 or in 2016. Once the ”benefits” kick-in, in 2014 then it will become exponentially more difficult to repeal it.
But to do so will mean that we cannot accept the “lesser of two evils” as a standard,where we will vote for any Republican,even if he supports keeping parts of Obamacare.
Imagine what the result would have been in 2009, had we called the Republicans and told them “You must not pass Obamacare,do you hear! But we’ll vote for you anyway”.

We would have lost all leverage .

This is not “practical”,it does not “buy us time”. It accelerates the decline,since the Democrats will set the standard, and the Republicans will know that we will vote for them irregardless of what they do.

You think I’m mistaken?

You think that the Republicans are ”good fellows, who just need a philosophy?”

But they have a philosophy: it’s a combination of mee-toism/second handedness (”what will the pundits say”), pragmatism (” we have to violate free market principles to save the free market”), & altruism (”people are hurting”)
And as to the claim that Republicans won’t take the voters for granted, let us look at one of the “well meaning but confused folks” who just need to be given a shot of courage;Mike Murphy on Sarah Palin :

“Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told.
She “excites the base.”Phooey. Every presidential election
year brings forth some new nugget of conventional
wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real
picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion
that base voters have somehow become the new swing
voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn’t buy into this fantasy at all.”

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell – Daily News


Or as Mccain snickered: “where will they go”.

No,if we are to actually slow down this monstrosity then we must draw certain red lines:

1. Repeal Obamacare,completely

2. Oppose Cap and Trade.

3. Defend the U.S.

4. Oppose censorship.

If a candidate does not actually do any of these things, then we must be prepared to vote him out of office.

We must also work to have a fallback plan should Republicans betray us. We must look into the Libertarian Party as a possible alternative,or perhaps create a new party to replace the GOP (a “teaparty party” perhaps?) .

“But third parties can’t succeed!”

Google:”the Whigs”.

However neither a third party nor the Libertarian Party can win in 2012.

It will take time to build up a alternative.

I therefore would offer this advice (HT to Stephen Bailey)

Unless you live in a solidly red or blue state, vote for Romney.
If you live in a solidly red or blue state vote for Romney,Johnson,skip the presidential part of the ballot etc ,use your own judgement.

The U.S. has a electoral college system,it DOES NOT matter who gets the most votes. The election is determined by who wins enough electoral votes. If you live in one of the deepest red states, your state will go for Romney whether you vote for Romney,Johnson,Obama, John Galt,or stand on your head or don’t vote in the Presidential election at all. The same holds true for solidly blue states. (But make sure that your state IS actually solidly red or blue,check Realclearpolitics )
If you live in anything less than a solidly red or blue state ,vote
for Romney. And even if you live in a solidly red state ,you should attack Obama online ,and speak with any of your friends in swing states,and present the reasons I’ve given here for why they should vote for Romney . Do not lie,just explain your reasoning .

I plan to address this at greater length in future posts.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare, Objectivism, Politics

Huckabee vs Rush,I am biting my nails in suspense over who will win #tcot #tlot #teaparty

Riehl World View: Romney Embraces Huckabee And So Begins The GOP’s War On Traditional Conservatism


The American Spectator : Huckabee Stars in RINO Radio


Mike Huckabee opens up on Obama – Dylan Byers and MJ Lee – POLITICO.com


Local News | Maurice Clemmons, man wanted for questioning, has troubling criminal history | Seattle Times Newspaper


Lakewood Police Shooting and Mike Huckabee – Yahoo! Voices Mobile


Dump the Huck – Article – National Review Online


RRD:Frankly while I’m glad Dan Riehl and Jeffrey Lord are giving us the heads up,I think that they are overly concerned.
First Romney appearing on Huckabee means very little,he has appeared on Hannity;appearing on a program does not make you part of a anti-Rush plot.Second,it’s the Dickey brothers company,if they wish to destroy it that’s their business,far be it from me to tell them how to destroy their own company.
Rush will survive them so long as men are free to speak without being censored.And censoring him would provoke a backlash the likes of which media matters cannot even dream of.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Asked how,in a nation of 310 million,the #GOP is set to nominate the one man other than Obama to sign an individual mandate into law,Cuccinelli said… #obamacare

Ken Cuccinelli | Mitt Romney | GOP nomination | The Daily Caller


….”Asked by The Daily Caller how, in a nation of a roughly 310 million people, the Republican Party is set to nominate the only person other than President Barack Obama to sign an individual health insurance mandate into law, Cuccinelli said he was “not quite sure how to answer.”

“He just outlasted everybody else up to this point,” …. ”Santorum’s not out yet, but the math is looking pretty ugly for him.”

“Really, I don’t know if he chose all of it, but he had a wonderful course of divide and conquer,” ….“I mean it was really one person at a time, which turned out to be, by and large, fairly manageable for him.”

“I think the zeal factor goes away with a lot of the activists, though — a lot of the volunteer help you want,” “There will be more of a motivational issue there, but regardless, I think the economy is going to be the No. 1 issue and the president’s performance, or failure of his performance, so while this will be important, it won’t be the top issue like it was in 2010.”…

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare, Politics

Mitt Romney:The Republican Suicide Pact of #2012 #tcot #tpp #tpe #teaparty #tlot

After losses, Santorum sets Penn as do-or-die | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


….”Wisconsinites have spoken!” Rep. Paul Ryan said as he introduced primary winner Mitt Romney at a victory party in Milwaukee Tuesday night. “Republicans are unifying!”….

RRD:The polls do tend to indicate that Wisconsin Republicans are unifying,but contrary to the delusions of Ryan there are a few races that remain before we have a nominee,much less “unify” behind such a nominee.For a example of the kind of wild enthusiasm Romney invokes among Conservatives I thought I would repost the following by Judson Phillips:

A letter to the Republican Establishment – Tea Party Nation


….” You proved you could get Mitt Romney nominated without conservatives. Of course you guys are the one’s who drove the Republican Party to the brink of political extinction in 2006 and 2008. Why should you pay attention to the Tea Party, the group that single handedly saved the Republican Party in 2010?

At this point, you need to buy a clue.

You cannot win the White House without us.

In surveys we have done, 25% of conservatives surveyed said they would not vote for Mitt Romney in the General Election. Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to set records, not only for the amount of money they raise, both legally and illegally, they are also going to set records for the number of dead people voting as well as people voting early and often. After all, it is the Chicago way.

If 25% of the Republican base is checking out, you are not going to win the White House.

So how do you get the conservatives you made a point of ignoring in the primary back into the fold?

First, someone better tell Romney to choose a conservative VP. Chris Christie isn’t a conservative.Neither is Tim Pawlenty. If you want a conservative, think Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.

If you give us another “moderate” or a liberal as the Vice President nominee, we will not be there. ”…..

RRD:I sympathize with Mr.Phillips,but think that he is naive if he expects Romney to care.I am also not sure what surveys he is referring to,my own ad hoc count,based on comments I’ve seen on Facebook and other sites,would be closer to 10-15% who will not vote for Romney in the general election,myself included.
Of those most will not vote for any presidential candidate and about a third are already setting up Gary Johnson 2012 signs on their lawns and placing Gary Johnson bumper stickers on their cars.I know of at least two bloggers(other than myself)who will not support Romney,and a number who will do so,but who will do so bitterly.

But back to why I believe Romney does not care:he lives in a alternate reality.

In Romneyland the way to get independent voters is to make “the conservative case for the Individual Mandate”,a position that puts him to the left of the Independent Voters he is courting.

In Romneyland Romneycare is a asset,not a liability(fn1)

In Romneyland everything that we have heard thus far,about Obamacare,Global Warming etc is simply something to be forgotten about,erased & ignored,once the general election starts.You see it’s like ”an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again ”.(fn2)

In Romneyland elections are not about beliefs and principles,they are about “electability”.(fn3)

It’s true that some believe that Romney will have no choice but to pick a Conservative,but that view is based on two assumptions,neither of which may be true:

1.That a conservative will accept the “honor”.

2.That Romney doesn’t take the base for granted.I believe that Romney’s view is much closer to that of the Republican strategist who once advised him;Mike Murphy.

This is Murphy’s view of both the Republican base & the Democratic base:

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell Mike Murphy – NY Daily News


…..”Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told. She “excites the base.”

Phooey. Every presidential election year brings forth some new nugget of conventional wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion that base voters have somehow become the new swing voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.

Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.”….

And if Mr.Murphy is correct,(and this is the mindset of many of those advising Romney),if the base will vote for “a bag of cement if it has an R….attached to it” then why shouldn’t Romney follow the advice Murphy offered John Mccain:pick someone like Tom Ridge to show how “independent” you are.

Indeed,Jonah “try a little Pinochet(fn4)” Goldberg,(perhaps competing for the “most unprincipled and short-sighted conservative columnist award”) ,recently offered this gem of a column,in which he explains that Romney’s hypocrisy is irrelevant,since Obama is also a hypocrite,and that Romneycare will actually help Romney with some nano-segment of the population who mindlessly accept whatever the Today Show tells them about everything except for Obamacare and Romney:

Obamacare Will Be Romney’s Savior – Jonah Goldberg – Townhall Conservative Columnist


….” Indeed, throughout the debate season,Santorum and others constantly insisted that Romney can’t attack Obamacare.

The funny thing is: Even as they were saying he can’t attack Obamacare, Romney was — you guessed it — attacking Obamacare. Romney has been attacking Obamacare since its inception. “I’ll stop it in its tracks on day one!” he promises constantly on the stump.

… Yes, Romney might be inconsistent to attack Obamacare, at least on the mandate, but there’s no basis in reality to say he “can’t” attack it nonetheless.

Obama opposed the mandate vociferously when running against Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that didn’t stop him from fighting to make it the law of the land.”…..

RRD:Santorum made his best statement when he said:

…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”….(fn5)

And no I am not endorsing him(fn6)
But Goldberg is equivocating when he says that Romney’s critics are wrong to say that he can’t attack Obamacare,what they clearly mean is that Romney cannot make a fundamental,political-moral argument against it without being hypocritical or rejecting his previous position.
And as to the claim that Romney’s
hypocrisy is irrelevant since Obama is also a hypocrite;so the GOP should seek to emulate a hypocritical Democrat,with the main distinction that Obama will have a overwhelming advantage in having the press point out Romney’s hypocrisy while ignoring Obama’s?


….”Moreover, the broader bipartisan assumption that Romney will be hurt by Romneycare in the general election is deeply flawed.

First of all, Obamacare is unpopular (a fact a lot of political coverage conveniently overlooks). That’s why Democrats don’t talk about it on the stump, and neither did Obama for a very long time — until the Supreme Court forced him to re-acquire political ownership. If the court upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama is not going to want to remind voters of his responsibility for an unpopular piece of legislation. If the court throws it out, Obama is not going to want to remind voters that his signature accomplishment — which distracted him from a bad economy and cost the Democrats the House — was so flawed that the court had to reject it. Either way, Obama will not be racing to talk about health care. But Romney will.”

RRD:To paraphrase Goldberg ”the funny thing is: Even as Goldberg is saying Obama won’t trumpet Obamacare, Obama
is–you guessed it trumpeting Obamacare”.Indeed,if Goldberg emerged from his pragmatist cave long enough to look at the world he would see that Obama has beamed with pride when speaking of something,which he does,in fact,regard as his “signature accomplishment”,and yes he has been doing so since before the case came up before the Court.The most notable recent case was in a 60 Minutes interview in which he boasted that he had achieved more in his first two years than any President had with the ”possible exceptions” of LBJ,FDR and Lincoln.
Obama is neither a pragmatist nor a fool.He will not make the election a referendum on Obamacare,but he will confidently defend it.Indeed,I would not rule out the possibility that if the law is thrown out,Obama would declare his intention to pass it again!Goldberg like many who have helped give “the stupid party” its name,does not seem to grasp that while he and others are focused on “beating Obama” Obama is quite serious when he says that he would rather be a “successful” one term president,than a “unsuccessful” two-term president.While the Republicans are dutifully playing their role of inspecting a centimeter of the bark of a particular tree,the left is laying multi-decade plans for cutting down the forest.

….”It’s often said that Obama will respond to Romney’s attacks by saying the mandate was based on Romneycare. Romney will respond, “Well, you did it wrong” and promise to repeal and replace the law. ”

RRD:Did what wrong?Force people to buy health insurance the wrong way?What is the right way to destroy liberty?On a state by state level?Did Obama institute Socialized Medicine the wrong way?What is the right way?
Will Romney explain to Obama the correct,conservative way to institute socialized medicine?

“Besides, Romney will have plenty of other lines of attack: the raid on Medicare, the rationing board, the tax hikes, the religious liberty issues, the creation of a vast new entitlement when the existing ones are crushing us with debt, etc.”

RRD:So Romney will argue that Medicare should not be cut when the existing entitlement programs are crushing us with debt?He will defend ”religious liberty” & defend the state government’s right to force people to buy health insurance & the state government’s right to force Catholic Hospitals to provide the Morning After Pill?
You didn’t know about that last?


FLASHBACK: Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill | LifeSiteNews.com


….”Meanwhile, the independents and moderates who dislike Obamacare, but who are not libertarians, will most likely see Romneycare as evidence that Romney is not one of the right-wing crazies the “Today” show keeps warning them about.”….

RRD:Mr.Goldberg who are these “independents and moderates who dislike Obamacare,but who are not libertarians”?I have heard of this exotic species,indeed Romney’s staff speaks of them to Politico(fn8),but I have yet to encounter them.Why do they dislike Obamacare,and is their dislike sufficient to vote for a man whom the Today Show will tell them day in and day out,is a heartless,ruthless,sociopath,who destroyed jobs for profit at Bain Capital,and who wants to kill them and drag them into a unneccessary war with Iran,while the children of the poor die from lack of health care?
I would submit to Mr.Goldberg that one cannot simultaneously be the kind of person who forms their opinions based on what the Today Show tells them,& yet oppose Obamacare & vote for Romney.
“This will kill that”
What’s more,given the reality(which does not seem to have sunk in with ideological con men like Goldberg and Fehrnstrom),that a politicians statements live on forever,and that the only issue is whether they will get wide coverage,they are just as likely to beleive that Romney is a deceitful hypocrite.

I will conclude by noting that many decades ago,Ayn Rand correctly identified many of the problems in the Conservative Movement in a article entitled “Conservatism:A Obituary”:

“Conservatives” — Ayn Rand Lexicon


…..”If the “conservatives” do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible”….

…..”What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen”…..



Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com


…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”

….”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace.

More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.”


…”Host: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?

Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”….

Mitt Romney: The Consummate Etch A Sketch | RedState



Not a parody:Romney Surrogate: Electability Should Trump ‘Beliefs & Principles’ #aynrand #2012 – fightingstatism



Try a little Pinochet – Sun Sentinel



see Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com



Why Santorum Must Be Defeated – fightingstatism



Obama: I’ll put my record up against any president


”PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’re not done yet. I’ve got five more years of stuff to do. But not only saving this country from a great depression. Not only saving the auto industry. But putting in place a system in which we’re gonna start lowering health care costs and you’re never gonna go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick. Making sure that we have reformed the financial system, so we never again have taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the system is more stable and secure. Making sure that we’ve got millions of kids out here who are able to go to college because we’ve expanded student loans and made college more affordable. Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Decimating al Qaeda, including Bin Laden being taken off the field. Restoring America’s respect around the world.

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do. And we’re gonna keep on at it.”…..


Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com


Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics

Perhaps not,I explain why/Who will Romney pick as veep? A conservative. – WashPo #2012 #GOP

Who will Mitt Romney pick as vice president? A conservative. – The Washington Post


RRD:Of course notwithstanding the delusions of some Romney supporters,Romney is not,in fact the nominee.
But he is the most likely nominee,and speculation on who he would nominate is legitimate.

Cillizza floats the standard three candidates:Jindal,Christie and Rubio,and he argues,(not without reason) that Romney will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors & pick a ”opposite number” so to speak.

I am not convinced of that.

First picking a Vice Presidential Candidate is not like picking out a shirt or a car,neither the shirt or the car can refuse to be picked,a Vice Presidential Candidate can.

They may not believe that the Presidential Candidate will win,or they may not be ready,or like Mitch Daniels,they have family members who may object.

Second,Romney is a creature of the establishment,& one of the oft repeated claims of Rockefeller Republican Strategists is that Mccain made a blunder in choosing Palin,not simply because she was a unknown,(or a “incompetent” or the Liberal’s version of the Whore of Babylon and Jezebel rolled into one et-al),but that he made a mistake simply by choosing ANY conservative,since Mccain needed to differentiate himself from Bush & demonstrate his ”Maverickyness” (as Palin,or Tina Fey might have put it),by picking someone like…Tom Ridge,or even Joseph Lieberman.
Now of course most Republicans would recoil at the thought of picking a pro-choice Republican for the Vice Presidency,but after all,
they ”would vote for a bag of cement if it had a R after it” &
“where will they go”.

Liberal Republican Strategists have invested heavily in the idea that Conservatism is toxic,and that elections are won “from the center”.

And who do you think is advising Mitt Romney?

But Mccain did pick a Conservative?

Yes and “look what happened”,the Liberal Republican Strategists(LRS?)would say.

If you accept the deluded notion that your base has no choice but to vote for the party’s candidate
,if you accept the premise that morale is irrelevant,& that the base is “locked in”,then why not do whatever you think will win over the independents and pick the most liberal Republican “Modernizer” you can(with the added benefit of poking those ”wingnuts” in eye ,while you’re at it), (fn1)

It is important to remember that Romney includes among his advisors some of the same people who worked for Charlie Crist.(fn2)
And it is also important to recall that Romney,is,well,Romney.

He is a Northeastern,Liberal Republican.

Romney is the type of person who would readily accept the arguments of the LRS’ that the base ”has nowhere to go”.
The man lives in a wholly different world than the,average Republican,much less the average Conservative.

He may pick a Conservative,or a pseudo-Conservative like Christie,or he may pick a Moderate.
Time will tell,if he gets the.nomination.
My guess is that he does not want to ”repeat Mccain’s mistake”.
I wonder if Tom Ridge,or Colin Powell for that matter,is open to being the nominee.



Murphy suggests Tom Ridge as VP.

First Bad Idea From Murphy in A While – National Review Online


To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell Mike Murphy – NY Daily News


”But facts are facts. An inexperienced governor of a small state, she lacked the experience to be President and brought nothing to the ticket except a surefire knack for exciting voters who were already reliably Republican. It was a strategically awful choice, and I said so – both on and off microphone – at the time. Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told. She “excites the base.”

Phooey. Every presidential election year brings forth some new nugget of conventional wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion that base voters have somehow become the new swing voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.

Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.”

RRD:Set aside for a moment what you think of Palin,note instead that Murphy believes that the party base ”will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it”;that is,that they do not care about who the candidate is,or what the candidate does,they are robots without political beliefs,without convictions,without ideals,without values,they are just useful idiots to be mocked,ignored,& betrayed with impunity & yet still be expected to go door to door,day after day,week after week,knocking on thousands of doors,making phone call after phone call,since they ”will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R …attached to it”.

I am reminded of the lines from Atlas Shrugged “Oh,you’ll always produce…”,& ”you’ll do something Mr.Rearden…”.
It also reminds me of the painting Ayn Rand mentioned in “The Money-Making Personality”,a monk,a missonary,returns from preaching the Gospel to the people,to speak with high ranking officials of the Catholic Church.His hands are bloody,cut,he has suffered tremendously for his beliefs.
He tells them of his struggle,and the results.
They are living in luxurious surroundings.
One of the Cardinals is asleep.
One of the Cardinals plays with a dog.
The third looks at the monk with a expression of bewildered contempt,as if to say “why spend your time on hard work,when you can have relax and have fun like we do”.


See below:

Romney Campaign Run by Charlie Crist’s Political Aides


RRD:For a contrary view see:

Romney’s Crist people aren’t really Crist people | Saint Petersblog


RRD:Rubio also came to Romney’s defense,rather oddly calling the man who gave us Romneycare, a “conservative”,(perhaps because Romney endorsed him?)

Rubio: “Mitt Romney Is No Charlie Crist” | The Weekly Standard


RRD:My view?
Yes,Romney has many advisors,including those who have worked on the campaigns of Crist AND Rubio,and yes the fact that these people are among his advisors, doesn’t mean that he will take their advice.
However they are,nonetheless,his advisors,and they did,in fact ,advise Crist,and while taken in isolation, the fact that he has ex-Crist advisors is not that damning in and of itself,we are talking about Mitt Romney;someone who is known for pandering to liberals,and for reversing himself,someone whose senoir campaign advisor made the infamous Etch-a-Sketch comment,and someone whose aides reportedly told Politico that they believe that Romneycare would help Romney in the general election.


Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com


Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Politics

If Romney runs a ”civilized” campaign he will be practicing unilateral disarmament #2012 #tcot

Mitt Romney’s women problem – The Washington Post


…..”Nicolle Wallace, a Republican strategist, said Romney has the potential to make up his current deficit with women.

“Romney’s dip among women can be temporary if he stays focused on the economy and on running a smart, civilized campaign against Obama — something Romney is uniquely qualified to do much better than any of the other republicans still lingering,” said Wallace”…..

RRD:This fool knows nothing of the actual history of politics.
I actually lived through a number of campaigns in which Republicans actually won in the real world,I’m not sure which alternate timeline this woman comes from but negative campaigns do,in fact,work in our universe.

Reagan made no bones about tearing Carter and Mondale to shreds,either directly or through surrogates.

George H.W. Bush had his Willie Horton campaign,which was not something that the “smart people” thought was civilized.

It worked.

George W.Bush had Rove start a whisper campaign about Mccain’s adopted children,and he had no qualms about tearing Kerry to shreds.

Guess who won?

And the Democrats have had a run few negative campaigns here and there(sardonic understatement).

I seem to recall a girl plucking petals from a flower, & then a voice said :”These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die”

Fortunately LBJ took us to a world in which we all loved one another,and in which the the milk of human kindness flowed through the Mekong.

But I digress.

There are candidates who have accepted the objectively false claim that negative ads drive people to vote for your opponent.(Yes,people say they don’t like negative ads,but they still work)

Dole was one.
Mccain was another.

Meanwhile while Romney is running a stupidly “civilized” campaign,someone else will be practicing politics “the Chicago Way”,and planning to “punish his enemies and reward his friends”.
If you wish to see how effective this kind of unilateral suicide pact is, watch a video of the Democratic National Convention,when Mccain was gleefully savaged again and again,particularly by his ”friend” & fellow Veteran ,John Kerry.

No,I really don’t think Obama has much to fear.
Ms.Wallace is of a piece with Mr.Etch-a-Sketch’s advisors.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Gingrich “Every county I carried had an increase in turnout over last time,” “Every county Romney carried had a decrease in turnout over last time.”

….”But Gingrich on Sunday put the low turnout squarely on Romney’s shoulders.

“Every county that I carried had an increase in turnout over last time,” Gingrich said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Every county that Gov. Romney carried had a decrease in turnout over last time.”

NBC News later verified that Gingrich’s assessment of the turnout situation was accurate.”…

Sununu: Low turnout means GOP satisfied – The Hill’s Ballot Box


RRD:Also Sununu believes low primary turnout is good.He isn’t alone in promoting this type of “everything is good for Romney” fantasy.See below:

AFP: Long primary battle could help Romney build support


…..”A drawn-out fight for the Republican nomination could work to frontrunner Mitt Romney’s advantage if he uses it to develop his campaign structure in swing states key to beating President Barack Obama in November.

That’s what happened in 2008, when Obama built a formidable organization that registered hundreds of thousands of new voters and signed up an army of volunteers during his own long primary battle with Hillary Clinton.”..

RRD:You see,Romney’s inability to “seal the deal” will help him,because it will make him create a grassroots….

Wait,isn’t the fact that Romney can’t “close the deal”(he lost overwhelmingly in South Carolina,)due to the fact that he is hated by the very people he needs for grassroots turnout in 2012?How then will their hatred of him help him to mobilize them on his behalf?And couldn’t he just turn his attention to building a grass roots operation earlier if he won the nomination earlier?
And the same was true of Obama.Obama did not benefit from having to fight Clinton.He was not harmed because of his overwhelming,(cult like)support among Democrats,but he did NOT benefit.
On a related point:If Romney gets the nomination,he will be the first to do so who DID NOT win S.Carolina in 30 some years.To put that in perspective it would be the first time that happened in my lifetime.
Of course many things have happened for the first time in my lifetime.But it would still be unusual.

But don’t worry,the anti-romney base may not THINK they will vote,&/or be energized,but what do they know.

….”Things will likely change in November, when conservatives who have rallied around calls to make Obama a one-term president have a chance to vote him out of office, said Larry Jacobs, a politics professor at the University of Minnesota.

“I don’t think you’re going to need Newt Gingrich to turn out those people,” he told AFP.

“They’re so antagonized by the Obama presidency that they’re guaranteed to turn out.”….

RRD:Yeah like in 2008,as Mccain snickered “Where will they go”.
I remember 2008 very clearly.
Most people I knew on the right argued and believed that we could not survive FOUR years of Obama,much less 8.
The problem?
It is very difficult to campaign for a ”Morale Vampire”(i.e. John Mccain and Romney).
Mccain spent much of the end of the campaign telling us how wonderful Obama was.
He was a ”good man”,”we had nothing to fear from him” etc.
And when he lost,he told us that Obama was his “leader”(& by extension ours).

How many times will Rockefeller Republicans spit in our face before November,having made themselves smugly ”secure” by the “Where will they go” chant?

If Romney is nominated it will be their opportunity to drop their veneer of conservatism and finally let us know what they really think of us.
We already see this in the gratuitous insults:

Coulter believes people who oppose Romney are not ”normal” – fightingstatism


And in the gleefully sadistic condescension directed against Conservatives:

PJ Media » Resigning Yourself to Romney: A Guide for the Disgruntled


This is not the writing of someone who supports someone (e.g. Romney)because they believe he is the lesser of two evils.
This is the triumphant sneer of the passive aggressive con artist who relishes giving his victim the finger, while putting on a “all innocent” expression.
It is the sneering triumph of a enemy over a humiliated foe.

If someone wished to endorse–or support Romney–there is a very simple way for a honest person to do so:

“Romney is horrendous,but I don’t think we can survive another Obama term”

Full Stop.
One does not need to spit in the face of Romney’s opponents by telling us that Romneycare was a ”triumph” for free market medicine,as that lying hypocrite Coulter did.

Three Cheers for Romneycare:


Nor does one need to sneer triumphantly as has this Belladona Rogers creature does.
No there is something else going on here.
And it ain’t pretty.
We are winnowing the wheat from the chaff.
By this I don’t mean that all Romney supporters are “chaff”,but disingenous supporters are.Romney shills are.
There are good people who support Romney as the ”lesser of two evils”.
But they are honest & upfront.
Coulter isn’t.
Rodgers isn’t.
They are liars & frauds.

This has indeed been a very revealing year.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events

#CNNdebate transcript for #scprimary #Romney #Newt & #Santorum on #Obamacare

South Carolina GOP CNN debate, Jan. 19, 2012. Transcript – Lynn Sweet


….”Number two,we have to go after a complete repeal. (Cheers, applause.) And that’s going to have to have to happen — that — that’s going to have to happen with — with a House and a Senate, hopefully that are Republican. If we don’t have a Republican majority, I think we’re going to be able to convince some Democrats that when the American people stand up loud and clear and say, we do not want “Obamacare,” we do not want the higher taxes, we do not want a $500 billion cut in Medicare to pay for “Obamacare,” I think you’re going to see the American people stand with our president and say, let’s get rid of “Obamacare.”

But we’ll replace it. And I’ve — and I’ve laid out what I’ll replace it with. First, it’s a bill that does care for people that have pre-existing conditions. If they’ve got a pre-existing condition and they’ve been previously insured, they won’t be denied insurance going forward.

Secondly, I’ll allow people to own their own insurance rather than just be able to get it from their employer. I want people to be able to take their insurance with them if they go from job to job. (Applause.) So — so we’ll make it work in the way that’s designed to have health care act like a market, a consumer market, as opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the Post Office. That’s what’s at risk — (applause) — at stake here.

Do we — we go back to this. Ours is the party of free enterprise, freedom, markets, consumer choice. Theirs is the party of government knowledge, government domination, where Barack Obama believes that he knows better for the American people what’s best for them. He’s wrong. We’re right. That’s why we’re going to win. (Applause.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, you heard the skepticism. It’s a Southern Republican voter. But he’s skeptical, and he knows how Washington works.

MR. GINGRICH: Well, sure.

MR. KING: He’s watched Washington work. He’s asked: Can it be reversed in its entirety. You — you were the speaker of the House. You understand how this works. How? How can it be repealed in this current political environment?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, if you’ve watched Washington and you’re not skeptical, you haven’t learned anything. (Laughter, applause.) I mean, this — this system is a total mess right now.

Second, can you get it repealed in total? Sure. You have to elect a House, a Senate and a president committed to that. It has to be a major part of the fall campaign. And I think that, frankly, on our side with any of us, it’s going to be a major part of the fall campaign. The American people are frightened of bureaucratic centralized medicine, they deeply distrust Washington, and the pressure will be to repeal it.

And a lot of what Governor Romney has said I think is actually pretty good, sound stuff for part of the replacement. I would always repeal all of it, because I so deeply distrust the congressional staffs that I would not want them to be able to pick and choose which things they kept.

But let me make one observation. You raised a good example. Why is President Obama for young people being allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26? Because he can’t get any jobs for them to go out and buy their own insurance. (Cheers, applause.)

I mean, I — I have an — I have an offer — I have an offer to the parents of America: Elect us, and your kids will be able to move out, because they’ll have work. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: (Laughs.) Let’s — (inaudible) — Senator Santorum, you heard Governor Romney and you heard Speaker Gingrich. Do you trust them, if one of them is the Republican Party’s nominee, and potentially the next president of the United States, to repeal this law?

MR. SANTORUM: The biggest — the biggest thing we have to do is elect a president. I think Newt’s right. The problem is that two of the people up here would be very difficult to elect on, I think, the most important issue that this country is dealing with right now, which is the robbing of our freedom because of “Obamacare.”

Governor Romney tells a very nice story about what his plan is now. It wasn’t his plan when he was in a position to do a plan. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he put forth “Romneycare,” which was not a bottom-up, free-market system. It was a government-run health care system that was the basis of “Obamacare.” And it has been an abject failure, and he has stood by it.

He’s stood by the fact that it’s $8 billion more expensive — (applause) — than under the current law. He’s stood by the fact that Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums of any state in the country; it is 27 percent more expensive than the average state in the country. Doctors — if you’re in the Massachusetts health care system, over 50 percent of the doctors now are not seeing new patients — primary care doctors are not seeing new patients. Those who do get to see a patient are waiting 44 days, on average, for the care.

It is an abject disaster.

He’s standing by it, and he’s going to have to have to run against a president — he’s going to have to run against a president who’s going to say, well, look, look at what you did for Massachusetts, and you’re the one criticizing me for what I’ve done? I used your model for it.

And then — (cheers, applause) — then we have Speaker Gingrich, who has been for an individual mandate, not back in the time that just was — Heritage was floating around in the ’90s, but as late as — comments (since/in ?) 2008, just a few years ago, he stood up and said that we should have an individual mandate or post a $150,000 bond. How many $150,000 bondholders do we have here who can post a bond for their health insurance?

These are two folks who don’t present the clear contrast that I do, who was the author of health savings accounts, which is the primary basis of every single — (cheers, applause) — conservative reform of health care. I was the author of it back in 1991 and ’92, 20 years ago. I’ve been fighting for health reform, private-sector, bottom-up, the way America works best, for 20 years, while these two guys were playing footsies with the left. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: I want to bring Congressman Paul — I’ll bring him into the discussion in just a moment, but Senator Santorum directly challenged the governor and then the speaker. Governor, you first.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, so much of what the senator said was wrong. Let me mention a few of the things.

First of all, the system in my state is not a government-run system. Ninety-eight — 92 percent of the people had their own insurance before the system was put in place, and nothing changed for them. They still had the same private insurance. And the 8 percent of the uninsured, they bought private insurance, not government insurance. And the people in the state still favor the plan three to one.

And it certainly doesn’t work perfectly. Massachusetts, by the way, had the highest insurance costs before the plan was put in place and after, but fortunately, the rate of growth has slowed down a little less than the overall nation. And one of the things I was proud of is that individuals who wanted to buy their own insurance saw their rates –when they were not part of a big group — saw their rates drop by some 40 percent with our plan.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But I do believe that having been there, having been on the front lines, showing that I have compassion for people that don’t have insurance but that the Obama plan is a 2,700-page, massive tax increase, Medicare-cutting monster, I know how to cut it. I’ll eliminate it. I will repeal is and I’ll return the — I’ll return the power to the states, where the power for caring for the uninsured ought to reside constitutionally. Thank you.

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah, I’d like —

MR. KING: Senator Santorum, he says your facts are wrong.

MR. SANTORUM: Well, they’re simply not wrong. The fact is that, yes, you’re right, Governor Romney, 92 percent of people did have health insurance in Massachusetts, but that wasn’t private-sector health insurance. A lot of those people were, as you know, on Medicare and Medicaid, so they’re already on government insurance, and you just expanded it, in fact. Over half the people who came on the rolls since you put “Romneycare” into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts, and a lot of those are on the Medicaid program. So the idea that you have created this marketplace and — and — with this government-run health care system where you have very prescriptive programs about reimbursement rates, you have a very prescriptive program just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here, you’re arguing for a plan — you’re defending a plan that is top-down. It is not a free-market health care system. It is not bottom-up. It is prescriptive in government. It was the basis for “Obamacare.” And we do not draw a distinction that it’s going to be effective for us just because it was the state level, not the federal level. (Applause.)

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.)

MR. KING: If you want, Governor, quickly.

MR. ROMNEY: Sure, absolutely.

First of all, as you probably know, Medicaid is not a state program. All right?

MR. SANTORUM: Of course it is. It’s a state and federal program.

MR. ROMNEY: Medicaid is as demanded by the federal government, and it is — it’s — it is a mandate —

MR. SANTORUM: (Off mic.)

MR. ROMNEY: — it’s a mandate by the federal government and it’s shared 50/50 state and federal. The people of Massachusetts who are on Medicaid, I would like to end that program at the federal level, take the Medicaid dollars and return them to the states, and allow states — states to craft their own plans.

That would make the plan we had in Massachusetts a heck of a lot better. My view is, get the federal government out of Medicaid, get it out of health care, return it to the states. And if you want to go be governor of Massachusetts, fine. But I want to be president, and let states take responsibility for their own plan. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it may seem like a while ago, Mr. Speaker, but Senator Santorum made the point, in his view, you don’t have credibility on this.

MR. GINGRICH: No, what he — what he said, which I found mildly amazing, was that he thought I would have a hard time debating Barack Obama over health care. Now, in fact, I — as Republican whip, I led the charge against “Hillarycare” in the House. As speaker of the House, I helped preside over the conference which wrote into law his idea on health savings accounts. So I was delighted to help him get it to be law. (Applause.) And — and the fact is, I helped found the Center for Health Transformation. I wrote a book called “Saving lives and Saving Money” in 2002. You can go to healthtransformation.net, and you will see hundreds of ideas — none of which resemble Barack Obama’s programs.

So I’d be quite happy to have a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Barack Obama. I’d let him use a teleprompter. I’ll just rely on knowledge. We’ll do fine. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Senator, you’re — I want to bring Congressman Paul in. You’re shaking your head. Quickly.

MR. SANTORUM: The core of “Obamacare” is an individual mandate. It is what is being litigated in the Supreme Court right now. It is government top-down telling every business and every American what kind of health care that you will have. That is the problem with “Obamacare” at the core of it. And the speaker supported it repeatedly for a 10-year period. So when he goes and says, I can, you know, run rings around President Obama in a Lincoln-Douglas debate, you can’t run rings around the fact, Newt, that you supported the primary core basis of what President Obama’s put in place.

MR. GINGRICH: Look, just one — one brief comment. One —

MR. KING: All right, quickly, Mr. Speaker. The Congressman is getting lonely down here. Let’s go.


MR. GINGRICH: Well, one — just one brief comment. Of course you can. I can say, you know, I was wrong, and I figured it out; you were wrong, and you didn’t. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. SANTORUM: You held that — Newt — Newt, you held that position for over 10 years. And, you know, it’s not going to be the most attractive thing to go out there and say, you know, it took me 10 or 12 years to figure out I was wrong, when guys like Rick Santorum knew it was wrong from the beginning. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Congressman Paul, you have the floor. Do you trust these men to repeal “Obamacare”?

REP. PAUL: Thank you! (Laughter, applause.) I thought you were — I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and a doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something. (Cheers, applause.)

No, I want to address the question. The gentleman asked whether he thinks we can repeal “Obamacare.” Theoretically, we can. The likelihood isn’t all that good. We can diminish some of the effect. But I’m more concerned about a bigger picture of what’s happening, and that is government involvement in medicine.

I — I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early ’60s, before we had any government. It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and –and — and it just expanded. But even when we had the chance to cut back on it, when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican president, we — we gave them prescription drug programs. Senator Santorum supported it. (Laughs.) You know, that’s expanding the government! (Cheers, applause.) So — so it’s endless.

And the — and most of them are bankrupt. Prescription drugs, they — they’re not going to be financed; Medicare is not financeable; Medicaid’s in trouble. But nobody talks about where the money’s going to come from.

Now, even in my budget proposal — which is very, very tough, because I’m going to cut a trillion dollars the first year — but I try to really — (cheers, applause) — even though these programs should have never started that a lot of people are dependent on, I want to try to protect the people who are dependent on — on medical care.

Now, where does the money come? My suggestion is, look at some of the overseas spending that we don’t need to be doing. (Cheers, applause.) We have — we have troops in Korea since — since the Korean War, in Japan since World War II, in Germany since World War — those are subsidies to these countries. And we keep fighting these wars that don’t need to be fought, they’re undeclared, they never end. Newt pointed out, you know, World War II was won in less than four years; Afghanistan, we’re there for 10 years. Nobody says, where does the money come?We could work our way out of here and take care of these people on — with these medical needs, but we can’t do it with the current philosophy of the government taking care of everybody forever on medical care, cradle to grave, and being the policeman of the world.

We will get rid of all this government program, unfortunately because we’re going bankrupt and you’re going to have runaway inflation and our checks are going to bounce. And that’s going to be a lot worse problem than we’re facing tonight. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: All right. I’m going to ask all of our candidates to stand by, our audience as well. We have a couple breaks tonight. We’re going to take one of them now.

One candidate on this stage suggested this week that two candidates should get out of the race. One of them listened. We’ll get the reaction from the other coming up.

And also coming up, this is just in: While we’ve been on the air having this debate, Speaker Gingrich has released his tax returns. He’s put them online. We’ll ask him what’s in them when we come back. (Cheers, applause.)….

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events

Is it time for S.Carolina to go rogue & put the breaks on Romney?

RRD:I am not endorsing any of the current GOP candidates.

Absent a dark horse(John Mackey?John Allison?) ,I will skip the Presidential section of the general election ballot,(but I will vote in the Senate and Congressional elections).

I cannot,in good conscience,endorse any of the remaining candidates.

But I can endorse something else:slowing Romney down.

There are two reasons for this:

1.Unlikely as it is,there is a possibility of a dark horse emerging.

(Jindal has been floated fn1)

2.As Palin has noted(fn2);it provides us with time to vet the candidates more throughly.And who knows what might emerge?

So I would encourage the voters of South Carolina to put the breaks on the Romney express.Now.



Late entry dark horses: Bobby Jindal? | RedState




Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism