The Righteous Right-Wing Republican Rant on Florida

- A Not-So-Moderate Message to Moderate Republicans -

The members of the Republican Party and conservatives - often two separate groups - are feeling a widespread range of emotions right now. Some of those emotions include thoughts of hatred, betrayal and incredulity toward each other. You don't need to be Dr. Phil to know that this is not a good thing.

I'm not going to yield to my own emotions right now because I pretend to be a somewhat objective writer and I know that I will support the eventual GOP nominee because, quite frankly, Barack Obama is less qualified to run this country than Patty Murray and Cindy Sheehan are to become chapter presidents of MENSA. I won't knock someone now that I will actively campaign for in November.

So, without attacking any Republican Presidential candidates, I would like to point out a few things.

The Sun Sets in Florida
Image by Odalaigh via Flickr

First, choosing a candidate based upon perceived "electability" is a joke. Do you believe in your principles or not? If you do, then at least give them a chance. "We have to appeal to independents" may be one of the most ignorant, asinine comments uttered by otherwise respectable people. Of course you have to appeal to the independents, but does abandoning your own positions do that? No. What ever happened to reasoning with independents? Whatever happened to forcefully putting forth what you believe to sway other people's opinions?

If you won't stand up for what you believe, then there are one of two things possible. Either you don't understand or believe your own stated opinions or you are a coward. And this is why conservatives become skull-popping outraged with GOP moderates. It's like having the French protect your flank. You're pretty sure they are going to break ranks and run, but you are forced to count on them. And then when they do shriek and scurry away like rats, it will be at the worst possible time - every time.

Analysis of the 2012 Election for Conservatives

Let's step back from this squirming pile of electoral nonsense for just a moment, take a calming breath and quietly look at things. Just you and me. No agendas, no group think, no hidden motivation. If you haven't had a chance to do this, who can blame you? It's been a whirlwind from the beginning and there is no sign that it's going to slow, but it needs to be done.

If you're a conservative or a libertarian, then the current president is doubtless as unacceptable to you as he is to me. Please keep this thought in mind as you read this and then as you choose a Presidential candidate.

The Liberty Bell - Image via Wikipedia

Even the supporters of President Obama cannot deny that his own Congressional Budget Office numbers show a massive increase in debt over the next decade and those numbers assume nearly miraculous job growth with none of the negative symptoms of the "quantitative easing" policy of Obama.

The continued printing of money will destroy the small amount of wealth that the middle class had managed to retain. This is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. The people of the middle class are the glue that holds our nation and our society together. As the size and wealth of the middle class decreases, so do our chances of surviving this economy and this lack of national leadership. 

Why is it that when the Left aims at the wealthy it always shoots the middle class right between the eyes?

Dear Yankee Pundits: I Apologize

Dear Yankee Pundits (And you know who y'all are),

Please accept my humble apologies. I was wrong and so I will make a real apology. A real apology restates the offense without any euphemisms or diminishing comments or excuses. Here is my offense. A mere two days ago, in "Romney's Southern Problem: The "M" Word", I wrote this:

I can see Romney winning Iowa or at least finishing second in Iowa. He should win his neighboring state of New Hampshire; anything else would be a major upset. As for South Carolina - listen to me, well-meaning Yankee pundits - it's not going to happen. It's the "M" word.

Cobb County, GA Courthouse - Image via Wikipedia

What? "Mormon"? No, get real; you guys are far too quick to project your prejudices on others. There are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints all through the South and while they may not be ultra-active in politics, they are viewed as being good people and good neighbors. They are walking examples of the "family values" that the Republican Party endorses so heartily. Mitt Romney's "M" word problem is Massachusetts.

Romney's Southern Problem: The "M" Word

- It's Not What You Might Think -

For all of the pundits who are putting a spit-polish shine on Mitt Romney's coronation-ready, GOP crown; slow down. The fat lady is still in the wings running through her scales.

I'm actually seeing predictions that Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina. I would rate those projections as obviously possible, almost certain and simply not going to happen.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
Image via Wikipedia

I can see Romney winning Iowa or at least finishing second in Iowa. He should win his neighboring state of New Hampshire; anything else would be a major upset. As for South Carolina - listen to me, well-meaning Yankee pundits - it's not going to happen. It's the "M" word.

What? "Mormon"? No, get real; you guys are far too quick to project your prejudices on others. There are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints all through the South and while they may not be ultra-active in politics, they are viewed as being good people and good neighbors. They are walking examples of the "family values" that the Republican Party endorses so heartily. Mitt Romney's "M" word problem is Massachusetts.

Why 2012 is Dangerous to the Republican Party

- And Why the United States Senate Will Be Responsible -

There comes a time when promises must be met with actions. Words and sentiments, even sincere sentiments, are not enough and additional words are nothing but insults to the listener.

For the past three years, the Republican Party has promised to reduce government, reduce taxes and listen more carefully to the wishes of those who pay their salaries. Their excuse has been that the Democrats have controlled the White House and the US Senate. For the first two of those years, Democrats also controlled the US House of Representatives.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Image via Wikipedia

Republicans took control of the US House at the beginning of 2011 and have fought a strong rear-guard action to slow the Obama Administration's assault on the US Constitution. It's slowed the non-stop push from the left, but it has not reversed it. This brings us to the 2012 election.

The Republican Party can satisfy the more reasonable members of its base because it has not had the power to make things better. At this point it appears that the GOP may win both the US Presidency and the majority of the US Senate to complement their US House majority. Then they must deliver.

If I am correct, those victories may be the bane of the Republican party. The reason is a combination of history and expectations.

GOP: White House Or (We All Go) Bust

GOP: White House or We All Go Bust
Image via Wikipedia

The 2012 federal elections will be an extended IQ test for the American voters. If we, as a nation, focus on personalities and political advantage then we absolutely deserve to have an economy that crashes, burns and explodes violently. We are not looking at economic Armageddon in the future, the armies are joined at Mt. Megeddo now and we are losing.

I honestly cannot determine if the left is tabula rasa ignorant, hide bound to the addiction of spending and the power it brings or if they simply do not care if the politics of envy and redistribution destroy the economy. Either way, the left has earned the scorn of, not just the right but also, the reasonable center.

This election will not be solely about the economy, but a powerful combination of high unemployment, looming inflation, energy costs and sickly economic growth are the chief concerns of most Americans. Huge

It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

It appears that that the 2012 US Presidential Election is destined to be about the economy. It's certainly the pressing need, and with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the war on terror will be much less of a concern for many voters. It also appears there will be no standard-bearer for the social conservatives with the ability to make front page news.

Image via Wikipedia

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

The most obvious social conservative candidate was the former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. When Huckabee announced that he would not run, following Mississippi Governor Hayley Barbour's similar announcement, it left a void in the Republican field of candidates.

Barbour had tremendous credentials and was a social conservative without question. Many saw Barbour's announcement that he would not run for the presidency in 2012 as a confirmation that his close friend, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, would run. That has now been disproved with Governor Daniels's announcement that he will not seek the Republican nomination. This leaves former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum as the only remaining candidate with a primarily social conservative message.

I discussed Senator Santorum's problems in the South Carolina debate in "Why Herman Cain Won and Rick Santorum Lost the GOP Debate". Having said that, Santorum is the obvious beneficiary of the decisions of Huckabee, Barbour and Daniels to not seek the GOP Presidential nomination.

Campaign 2012: Learning From the Mistake that was John McCain’s ’08 Nomination

There are a lot of villains to blame in the GOP 2008 Meltdown that was known as the John McCain campaign. Let’s take a look at a few, so that perhaps we can avoid them. It's time to check out the villainous characters that populated the 2008 effort and see if we can avoid them in 2012.

Villain the First: The Republican Party. Yes, we Republicans need look no farther than the mirror for our first candidate. Who in the world says that it’s anyone’s “turn” to be the nominee? Did we forget Bob Dole’s campaign? It was Dole’s “turn,” too. There were other problems, too, with that campaign. Bob Dole: patriot, war veteran, good and decent man; was the nominee only because he had stood in line the longest. No one, and I truly believe this included Bob Dole, thought that he could win back in 1996.

The GOP, which hates non-merit based advancement, practices it on a regular basis with its presidential nominees. John McCain didn't earn the 2008 GOP nomination, it was handed to him on a silver platter of obligation.

Why not nominate the person who is most qualified or who captures the public’s imagination? Or both? John McCain was neither of those things just as he is not a conservative.

Villain the Second: The Media. Yeah, we conservatives have a real hate/hate relationship with the mainstream media. McCain was the absolute darling of the media. They called him “independent” and “a real maverick” in loving, approving voices. Then came the general election and suddenly McCain was “old” and “pandering to the right”. What happened?

In a common phrase, “liberal bias” happened. McCain was the most left-leaning of any GOP candidate who had a chance to win the Republican nomination. When this was the case, McCain was a hero. When he was opposed by the much more liberal Barack Obama, McCain wasn’t just yesterday’s news; he was yesterday’s news used as a fish-wrapper.

McCain was stunned by this turn of events, but not as stunned as Hillary Clinton was when it happened to her. Clinton had been the media’s favorite person for a decade – and she continued to be in the ’08 Presidential campaign - until the media decided that the more liberal Obama had an opportunity to win. When that happened, the media was not only “not friendly” to Mrs. Clinton, they were downright unfriendly.

There isn’t anything we’ll be able to do about the media in ’12, but we can at least recognize it for what it is. If the media is favorable toward a GOP candidate in the primary, do not assume it will continue – and certainly do not favor a candidate because the media does so.

Villain the Third: The States. McCain managed to pick up a lot of momentum – and quite a few delegates – in states that do not require voter registration by party. This allowed a lot of independents and moderate Democrats to vote in the GOP Presidential Preference primaries. Each of their votes counts exactly the same as a dyed-in-the-wool Republican that works hard to promote Republican ideals every year. It’s time to end open primaries.

Villain the Fourth: Back to the mirror, folks. It’s time to nominate a small-government, principled conservative. I’m not to the point where I would even begin throwing out names, but there are a few of them. We know what we believe. Now is the time to nominate a person who can articulate those beliefs because he or she understands them – not because some guy in a suit said, “Here, try this line and see if it works.”

We can do this, but it will take some planning and more than that, it will require us to be honest with ourselves and do what’s right, not what a “political expert” on television says we should do.

Elena Who and Obama's Sleight-of-Hand

Elena who? If you’re wondering that then you’re with the rest of us. Elena Kagan’s biggest plus for President Obama may be her lack of experience and, as importantly, her lack of a paper trail. Is she the best possible nominee? No, she’s not, and honest liberals would have to agree.

The other positive she offers to liberals is that she just turned 50 years old. Fifty is very young for a member of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Figure on seeing Elena Kagan for at least three decades.

The down and dirty on Kagan is that she has never been a sitting judge. TV’s Harry Anderson character from “Night Court” has more experience on the bench than Elena Kagan. As far as can be determined, she’s never even been a judge in traffic court.

I’ll let other conservatives discuss her ties with Goldman-Sachs and the blatant hypocrisy of liberals. I’ll also let them point out that she had not argued a case before the SCOTUS until she became Obama’s Solicitor General just 17 months ago. Her hostility to the military is on record, not just in her words but in her deeds, so I won’t go there either. So where am I going? Hang in with me a little longer.

Anyone who would justify approving Kagan based on her comparison to the others on Obama’s short list is short-sighted. There may be a group of Republican US Senators who would justify their vote for Kagan based on a comparison to those Obama has waiting in the wings. This would be a mistake. Are you listening Lindsey Graham and John McCain? How about you Maine senators?

I will never forget the Hell that Clarence Thomas was forced to suffer for his nomination and eventual confirmation. I don’t think the GOP has the stomach for that kind of attack on Kagan and it would prove fruitless. The soulless Democrats have always been better at lying and making personal attacks than Republicans. I don’t think I want us to go there anyway.

Elena Kagan is technically qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Technically. She has a reputation for brilliance and as Dean of the Harvard Law School even hired some conservative law professors. She is more acceptable, at least on paper, than the others on Obama’s short list of nominees. So, is she the best we can do under Obama? Maybe, and perhaps that’s the problem.

The GOP cannot prevent Kagan from becoming a US Supreme Court Justice. Republicans do not have the numbers in the US Senate. Her alleged lesbianism will not be an issue in this day and time, but her lack of experience and the fact that her political views are outside the mainstream must be addressed.

Kagan is important because she lowers the bar and because she makes “the unacceptable” more acceptable to the public. She will be to the left of Justice Stevens and if the GOP swallows her without complaint then the shifting of the court to the left will begin to take a sharp left turn. Count on it.

Obama and his fellow Democrats do not anticipate losing their majority in the US Senate. They will count on gutless Republicans to accept whomever Obama nominates and Democrats will not hesitate to point to Kagan as the prime example of what Republicans find acceptable. Know this: failure to oppose Kagan ensures an even more liberal nominee in the future.

Republicans must fight and vote against Kagan to maintain the viability of an argument against any future nominations by Obama or future Democrat presidents. There are many arguments against Kagan that are legitimate and should be used to expose the fact that Obama’s ideological bent takes precedence over what is best for this country. To do this, Senate Republicans must be both brave and honest and they just can’t seem to do both at the same time. It is time they learned.

The question for the GOP members of the US Senate is this: Which do you love more: your country or the vapid, temporal praise of a liberal press? Before you answer, do allow Bob Bennett’s fate influence you. May it influence you down to your marrow and know that Utah will not be an exception if you fail in your duty. A filibuster will not work; but this is a case in which the “loyal opposition” needs to be loyal to its country and be in opposition to a nominee that would cause it harm.