-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Political Hay
The Thelma & Louise Party
When did the GOP go from being merely stupid to downright suicidal?
In the final scene of Thelma & Louise, when Detective Hal Slocumb realizes that the two desperate demoiselles are about to drive off the edge of the Grand Canyon, he runs after them in a futile attempt to stop their senseless suicide. When I first watched that scene, twenty years ago, my primary emotion involved the tragic loss of that ‘66 Thunderbird. Now I think I finally understand the impotent despair the film’s screenwriter, Callie Khouri, was attempting to convey when she sent Slocumb on his hopeless sprint. Witnessing the GOP contests in Iowa and New Hampshire has been much like watching Louise stomp on the accelerator of that beautiful car. It’s so easy to foresee the slow-motion descent into the electoral abyss and so seemingly impossible to prevent what should be an unnecessary tragedy.
Barack Obama should be facing, as he himself phrased it, “a one-term proposition.” His incompetence has reached depths that render the feckless Jimmy Carter positively Washingtonian by comparison, the sheer lawlessness of his administration evokes nostalgia for the merely corrupt Clinton years, and the state of the nation is worse by any objective measure than it was in on the day he took office. The GOP should be well positioned to send the President into retirement. Instead, the party’s nomination process has become a bloody battle in which the candidates are viciously attacking one another rather than Obama, denouncing core conservative principles rather than the failures of big-government, and seems to be on the verge of producing a “winner” who has no prayer of defeating the incumbent.
As to attacking one another, the violations of the Eleventh Commandment that have occurred during the Republican nomination race must have Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave like the crankshaft of that ill-fated Thunderbird. They began in earnest when Rick Perry entered the race. At the time of his announcement, Perry was in many ways the most viable candidate. As Governor of Texas, he had a spectacular record on job creation. On health reform, he wasn’t burdened by an albatross like Romneycare and he had access to the big money required to run a serious presidential campaign. However, by the time Karl Rove, Peggy Noonan, and other GOP establishment types finished savaging him, he was so rattled he could hardly remember his own name during his initial debate performances.
The worst violations of Reagan’s famous maxim, however, have been committed by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. The former largely ignored the latter until Gingrich enjoyed a sudden upsurge in his poll numbers in late November. By mid-December, however, pro-Romney Super PACs went into action. Hitting Gingrich as a money-grubbing Washington insider, they produced a series of ads emphasizing Newt’s highly lucrative ties to Freddie Mac, his unorthodox views on illegal immigration, and for the now-infamous television spot he made with Nancy Pelosi on climate change. Combined with media reports about Gingrich’s other heresies, including his long-standing support for the individual mandate, these ads succeeded in damaging the former Speaker’s support.
Now, in retaliation for these damaging attacks — which were by and large accurate — a pro-Gingrich Super PAC has produced an attack video that portrays Romney as a Wall Street parasite of the worst kind. Titled The King of Bain, it advises us that the former head of Bain Capital was not the sort of capitalist that genuine free market advocates admire. Romney was rather “a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn’t seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what real capitalists consider ethical.” It then describes a horror story of mass layoffs, jobs sent overseas, and middle-class working people losing their homes.
The King of Bain is far worse than a mere violation of the Eleventh Commandment. It is a shocking betrayal of the GOP’s professed commitment to free enterprise. Gingrich knows perfectly well how the Obama campaign will use this stuff. They will focus on words like “predator” and “raider.” They will also use the video to further undermine Romney’s already-shaky credibility on health care reform. One of the companies acquired by Bain Capital was Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), 40 percent of whose revenue is “derived from the two big government healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid.” The King of Bain, in other words, will be used by Axelrod, Plouffe & Co. as the blueprint for Obama’s campaign if the GOP is foolish enough to give Romney its presidential nomination.
Which bring us to the Republican Party’s most suicidal impulse — its apparent inclination to nominate the former Governor of Massachusetts for President. As former DNC Chair Donna Brazile admitted after a recent Republican debate, and Peter Ferrara reiterated on Wednesday, Romney is the weakest GOP candidate in terms of potential performance in the general election. He will not merely be subject to attacks based on opposition research so kindly provided by Newt Gingrich in The King of Bain, he won’t be able to press the President on unemployment without being reminded that Massachusetts ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth during his term as its Governor. Job growth during his single term as Governor of Massachusetts was less than one percent.
And he obviously can’t go after the President on Obamacare. Even if Romney hadn’t provided the prototype for Obamacare while governor of Massachusetts, his company’s acquisition of a for-profit hospital chain whose largest revenue stream comes from the pocket of the American taxpayer makes it impossible for him to attack the President’s big-government approach to health care. Romney can’t even point out that Obamacare’s insurance mandate is unconstitutional without being reminded that it is based on a virtually identical requirement that he signed into law in the Bay State. That the Massachusetts mandate was enacted at the state level, and is therefore constitutional, will be lost on all but a few voters. Thus, Romney can’t criticize ObamaCare’s most offensive feature without looking like a cheap flip-flopper.
Nonetheless, if the nomination process continues on its current path, it’s probable that Romney will be the GOP nominee for President. And, by the time rank-and-file Republican voters notice that their party is accelerating toward the edge of the cliff, it will be too late to do anything but watch helplessly as it hurtles into the void. And the worst President in U.S. history will have been elected to a second term.
David Catron is a health care finance professional who has spent more than twenty years working for and advising hospitals and medical practices. He blogs at Health Care BS.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (196) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/13/the-thelma-louise-party
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 6:15AM
King Of Bain
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/
This Ain't Bean Bag.
Jack in Wi.| 1.13.12 @ 7:51AM
The only electable Republican has always been Ron Paul. He is tied with Obama in several head to head polls. Even though he has been ignored and trashed by the controlled media and the neocons He does better then Obama among independents and attracks large numbers of young people, and disaffected Democrats. He has been right for decades on the issues. And is the only one with a program to get the country out of the mess it is in. It is good that Romney is getting dose of what Obama has in store for him. We all knew that would be Obama's strategy.
Boar Hunter| 1.13.12 @ 9:28AM
You two retards buckle up, it looks like four more years of Obama.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 11:46AM
Who isn't a "money grubbing" big spending politician? The talking idiots on news/commentary programs are not helping.
Occam's Tool| 1.13.12 @ 1:55PM
Mr Hunter: I have been trying to avoid attacking Clint and Jack, as it about as sporting as "kicking a brain damaged quadraplegic in the balls."
But Paul ain't going to win, and cutting one's own candidate savagely is a bit moronic. I want to thank the Ron Paul campaign and Newt for four more years of Obama.
Incidentally, other than Reagan, which Republican Candidate since Eisenhower HASN'T Mitt been better than?
Seek| 1.13.12 @ 3:34PM
I received the Ron Paul Follower treatment not long ago. Any time you even mildly criticize their Messiah, you run the risk of getting a threatening e-mail.
When, by the way, is their beer hall putsch?
Dixie Pixie| 1.13.12 @ 5:28PM
Greetings Occam's Tool.
I have found it useless to use logic and reason on the insane, frantic and / or fanatic.
However positive reinforcement is occasionally useful.
Jack mostly responds, Clint occasionally so.
On a related matter.
Personally, I blame the entire Republican electoral debacle on the McGovern reforms.
Before the reforms the candidates would have to first gather support from the local Republican groups before going on to the state and then national elections.
That way not only local interests were heard but a regional and then national balance of interests could be formed.
A national ticket would be a rough balance between North and South, East and West.
Everyone got something because it was important no one was left out if a candidate wanted to bring enough numbers to the polls to win.
The McGovern reforms were designed to shift electoral control to the North-Eastern socialists, the unions and MSM.
By going to a primary electoral system it looks like everyone has an equal chance of electoral victory.
That is true only if all the candidates compete in every election with equal resources.
McGovern knew only a candidate with a national support organization such as an union could compete nation-wide.
All others would have to drop out early in the races due to lack of resources.
McGovern also designed the Primary System so a candidate would have to be dependent on the MSM to reach potential supporters thus giving MSM control of the candidate's message and issues.
The result was to disenfranchise the majority of voters by confining the choice of candidates selected first by the New York financiers who supplied the monetary resources then the MSM which controlled which issues and messages would be debated and finally a few North-Eastern elections to weed any undesirables out early.
At every point the Socialists control the electoral process.
The “People” no longer matter as the majority has been disenfranchised in favor of small groups of hyper-organized partizan groups like the Paul-Bots, Unions, Activist groups and MSM.
The unintended result was the death of Popular Sovereignty and the rise of Organizational Sovereignty where Political Legitimacy come not from the people but from a set of self-selecting interlocking organizations.
Why the Republican Party Leadership went along with this process is a mystery.
Feel free to explain why to me and the rest of the TAS readership.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 6:54PM
Excellent points, Dixie Pixie.
As for the GOP, since the modern era began (say around Nixon), they've been the gelded party. They accept the MSM's premise that conservatism = bigotry, selfishness, greed, evil capitalism, warmongering, etc., and then they spend their careers either apologizing for it or trying to make the feckless case that they're not as bad as REAL conservatives; so they moderate their positions to be just as "compassionate" and profligate as Democrats - and then spend trillions of dollars throwing sops to liberal causes. Hence everything from the EPA to No Child Left Behind.
The truth is that sanity has been rejected in the marketplace of ideas. There has been nothing but docile compliance on the part of the "silent majority" as our country has sprinted to the left. And no matter how far left we go, liberals consider the status quo to be the de facto right - and thus they continue to sprint ever further leftward.
And not a peep out of the people who ostensibly comprise the "vast" center-right. We have been complicit in the socialist coup, and we are about to get our just desserts - regardless of who stands behind the podium next.
Unprecedented wealth has purchased us a false consciousness - and when delusion meets reality, it's delusion that must ultimately shatter.
Dixie Pixie| 1.13.12 @ 10:05PM
Greetings Grzmlyk
Thank you for your kind words.
I happen to agree with you that the Ruling Class is growing progressively insane.
For example, Obama just made "Gay Rights" the centerpiece of USA Foreign policy.
This is after Obama assisted in the overthrowing of existing secular Middle-Eastern governments in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism.
The insanity is, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism groups consider the only “Right” the Gays should have is to be beheaded.
So the two major pieces of US Foreign policy are in direct nullification and conflict with each other!!!!
In my above post, I hint there may be an underlining reason for the growing madness of the Ruling Class.
Specifically, I suggest that Popular Sovereignty is dying and Organizational Sovereignty is taking its place.
In that light Obama's actions make sense as Gay Rights are a big part of the beliefs of the self-serving interlocking organizations that give Political Legitimacy to Obama and the rest of the Ruling Class.
Under Organizational Sovereignty it does not matter what anyone outside the organizations thinks, only that the members of the interlocking organizations reenforce each other to maintain political control, supremacy and dominance.
The madness of refusing to sense any form of reality would be a normal condition and behavior of an Organizational Sovereignty political structure.
Group Think is what keeps the organizational structure intact.
Any bit of reality which conflicts with the Group Think must be rejected less it damages the self-reenforcing interlocking relationships of the organizational structure.
So Grzmlyk there is a philosophical basis for your observation.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree and that is not a raccoon.
russel| 1.14.12 @ 10:30AM
Grz , your first paragraph has Nixon written all over it . But LBJ bent over to make ' minorities ' happy , and in turn , the media . Now what Bush had in mind when he created the DHS is anyones guess . He wasn't so stupid not to know the media would never care for him no matter what he did . Point being is that so many presidents have contributed to a bigger and bigger government which has that much more power over the people . Zero is just exponentially doing it . The ultimate responsibility lies withe elected official and now that the ' vast silent majority ' ( the Tea Party ) is awake and speaking , I expect these pols to finally start doing our bidding or get kicked out . Their bowing to media will take a backseat or they're gone , and they know it . Many are already jumping ship to avoid that messy embarassment . We shall see come Nov..
MikeG| 1.14.12 @ 1:41PM
Dixie
What is your source or authority for this conspiracy? You make it sound like us Newyorkers are just too smart for regular folk.
Dixie Pixie| 1.15.12 @ 7:09PM
Greetings Mike.
I take it you are less than impressed with my philosophic reasoning.
I was simply trying to find the reason for the recent behavior of the Ruling Class.
Frankly my ideas do not yet rise to the level of an hypothesis as I have not come up a metric to measure the level of Popular Sovereignty nor Organizational Sovereignty.
I was just throwing these ideas out in the hope that someone better than myself could further refine the ideas.
Have you any thoughts on how to measure the level of Popular Sovereignty or Organizational Sovereignty in a society?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree and that is not a raccoon.
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 9:22PM
TheRINO-CINO Israel Firster Smear Bund Eunuch,Tool Job Is The Asashat Who Said He'll Votte For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Dixie Pixie| 1.13.12 @ 10:16PM
Occam's Tool....To answer your question, Mittens can not be better than those who have beaten him in the past, Bush 43 and McCain.
From that, one can postulate that Mittens can never be better than any elected Republican President since Lincoln.
Does that help?
RCV| 1.15.12 @ 1:15AM
Huh? So Ronald Reagan could never be better than Gerald Ford, who beat him in 1976? Impressive logic!
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 1.15.12 @ 9:29AM
I don't bother with silly sanctimonious hypocrisy on being a self-proclaimed lifelong Constitutional scholar, a self-proclaimed lifelong Biblical scholar, and a self-proclaimed arbiter of what real Christian love and compassion are, all while logically supporting the brutal, savage, barbaric, vicious murder of innocent, defenseless, American children of God, even AFTER they've emerged from the womb, to the tune of over fifty four and a half MILLION of these souls, impressively, matters.
RCV| 1.15.12 @ 12:20PM
Zzzzzzzzzzz ....
Dixie Pixie| 1.15.12 @ 7:28PM
RCV....It was merely a postulate of Mittens comparative relationships not a statement of general fact.
Besides what did you do to set off “Reprobate C...V...” like that.
His post came out of nowhere like a truck that just jumped a guardrail.
RCV| 1.15.12 @ 11:44PM
Every now and then he (Skip in real life) wakes up out of a stupor and spouts out the same incoherent free association thoughts. His truck jumped a guardrail a long time ago.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 1.16.12 @ 11:24AM
I don't bother with silly matters of impressive logic on my posts being considered the vomitus of a charlatan reprobate matters:
"I practiced law for 35 years and revere our Constitution"
(RCV @ American Spectator, using impressive logic, on lifelong constitutional scholarship, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"I am a life-long student of Jefferson"
(RCV @ American Spectator, using impressive logic, on lifelong constitutional scholarship, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"I do know a lot about Constitutional Law and Christian history and theology, the former having been my profession for over 35 years, and the latter an academic focus of mine since college"
(RCV @ American Spectator, using impressive logic, on lifelong constitutional and biblical scholarship, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"I have spent much of my life reading and studying the Bible"
(RCV @ American Spectator, using impressive logic, on lifelong biblical scholarship, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"I'm a devout church-going Christian"
(RCV @ American Spectator, using impressive logic, on real Christian love and compassion, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand, an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion. Every policy it espouses is dangerous, damaging and detrimental to our country and it's future"
(RCV @ American Spectator, on real Christian love and compassion, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"At least, Skippie, I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born"
(RCV @ American Spectator, on lifelong constitutional and biblical scholarship, and on real Christian love and compassion, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
"I don't sign silly petitions on scientific matters"
(RCV @ American Spectator, using impressive logic, on the debunking of global warming by 31,487 scientists, at petitionproject.com, sanctimoniously and hypocritically)
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 9:19PM
When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ory_1.html
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Quartermaster| 1.13.12 @ 1:21PM
One author here on AmSpec has stated that Romney is the least electable of the midgets in the GOP field. Yet, that's who the GOP looks like they will nominate.
Gingrinch has done the Dems a favor by doing the Opo research for them. The stuff he brings out is out there lurking, and the Dems would have found it, along with his record as Mass Gov, Axelrod will use it all as a very large heavy club on Romney. Romney will end up being embarrassed again as he was against Kennedy back in the 90s. Alas, this time he'll take the country down with him.
Tex Expatriate| 1.13.12 @ 2:07PM
Nonsense. Paul and Romney both offer Obama his main chance to be re-elected.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 7:19PM
Nonsense Bush41 gave us Clinton and Bush43 gave us Obama. Unless the Republicans make a case for smaller government and a meritocracy we will continue down the road to Utopia. Moderate-left "me-too" Republicans are a fifth column working for Statism.
Hobbes| 1.15.12 @ 1:47PM
I remember when the Spectator wasn't a PR tool for the Republican Party, but was a journal of conservative ideas with no connection to any political hack party.
Dick Nome| 1.13.12 @ 6:33AM
The feckless, clueless, spineless Republican establishment is only interested in control of the top of the party hierarchy. If the means letting crackpots and inflated egos and self-interests to play havoc with the process, so be it. It just makes it tougher for 'We the People ' to get control away from them.
John Daniel| 1.13.12 @ 7:48AM
Ah, Sir, what they really want is someone who will present properly to all the K Street grandees at the Capitol Hill Club....
C Smith| 1.13.12 @ 11:22AM
The Republican Party's suicidal impulse started long before:
A letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott during the Senate impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton:
The Honorable Senator Trent Lott
The Senate of the United States
Washington D.C. 20510
Date. Jan 1, 1999
Dear Sir,
On the first Tuesday in November, 1992, I went to Republican Headquarters. My wife was there making calls on one of many phones. I recognized others too. Surprisingly, every phone was manned by someone from either my church or the Christian school my children attend. Even the woman coordinating the entire affair was a dear friend who worshipped with us. I remember reminiscing as I contemplated what the coming hours would determine: I recalled how my children had in the preceding weeks carried campaign literature door to door. I remember how my wife flawlessly hand addressed literally thousands of letters for local Republican candidates. I wondered what would come of the Saturday after Saturday I had spent with so many others of conviction in platform committee meetings, addressing the spiritual direction of the party. And I remembered the flyers in plastic baggies that I distributed in the rain the night before. Senator Lott, this was typical of the passion and conviction that believers once had for the Republican Party… passion and conviction that has all too often been replaced by feelings of violation, abandonment, and betrayal.
Over the last six years, the Republican Party has proven that conviction and courage are a rare commodity: Republican leadership allowed a pro-abortion governor to deliver the State of the Union response. Republicans failed to oppose the nomination of a Supreme Court justice whose opinions often resemble those of early 20th Century anarchists. The 96 Republican campaign was little more than a "going away party" for a nice old man who reportedly bragged that he had not even read the Republican Platform. I could go on Senator Lott, but I think you can see why I didn’t even bother to go to Republican Headquarters this last election… AND I WASN’T ALONE!
We now stand at the crossroads Senator Lott. The House has HONORABLY determined that it is the rule of law, not public opinion, that must be followed. The house has resolved that there IS to be a trial. And you also have said: "We [the Senate] need to go forward and do our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to hear the evidence.'' (emphasis added) Yet, a day or two later, you proposed the means for terminating the implicit constitutional mandate for a full Senate trial! Senator Lott, how can you take what you have called your "constitutional duty" so lightly, the "constitutional duty" you swore in an oath with your hand upon the Bible? Senator Lott, have you forgotten that it is the "oaths" that we honor or dishonor, that is the substance of the matter that now confronts the Senate?
The Constitution gives the Senate "the sole Power to try" the President. No other authority on earth has that Power and no other individual has greater Power and responsibility in holding this man accountable then you do as Senate Majority Leader. Our President has forgotten his oaths…Senator Lott have you forgotten yours?
Your leadership in this matter will determine the future of the Republican Party. It will determine whether it is the party of conviction or merely the "moral" equivalent of its opposition. If you take a stand for a full Senate trial with witnesses and the admission of all relevant evidence, it will cost you something. Courage and conviction always cost something. The coliseum in Rome is still stained with the blood of those who refused to betray their convictions… and their contemporaries will not betray them now. Your leadership will determine whether those who have made the most significant contributions to the Republican Party will remain part of it or will consider it an abomination. Sadly, if the latter, the Republican Party literally "WON'T HAVE A PRAYER"!
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....?q=senator
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.13.12 @ 6:36AM
This article has Washington insider written all over it.
First. Gingrich is a money grubbing Washington insider.
Second, his attacks on Romney are anti-capitalist and sound like occupy Wall Street put them together.
Lastly, quoting Donna Brazille as a source on any Republican is beyond humorous.
Just another lame hit piece poorly researched and presented.
PaulyD| 1.13.12 @ 8:41AM
Nonsense
PaulC| 1.13.12 @ 9:43AM
Nonsense on stilts. The Romney acolytes are in for a huge surprise when Romney's weakness against Obama becomes screamingly apparent, by which time it will be too late to do anything about it. This has Dole vs. Clinton written all over it.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 7:25PM
Paul C:
Everyone I know had a job in the 1990's before the latest FED bubble burst. Now the Washington DC establishment is trying to re-inflate the bubble. Debt, debt and more debt- who's turn will it be to pay the piper?
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 1:04PM
Donna Brazille just let the mask slip; she inadvertently told the truth (for which she will be punished).
Look, I think the attacks on Romney are despicable because they come from his left. Gingrich is a scorched-earth vengeance seeker and an execrable human being who ought to be exiled to Siberia and never heard from again.
But if you think Romney is the answer, then I shudder to think what the hell the question is. It certainly isn't, "which Republican should we select as our nominee who, if elected, will provide conservative leadership in order to give us a prayer of staving off utter collapse?" Cuz the answer to that question ain't Romney.
Even if Romney were to be elected - and you know the media/political complex is ramping up a phony "recovery" in order to elevate Obama back to the stratosphere just in time for election day even as DNC operatives are newly-minting democrat voters from cemetaries all over - he would do nothing but kick the can down the road, fall for the old "reach across the aisle" canard every single time, accede to Democrat demands for bigger government across the board and embrace every nanny-state boondoggle that comes down the pike.
Newt is a sleazeball without an ideological compass. Romney is a high-class snake-oil salesman without an ideological compass.
I once said I'd vote for David Hasselhoff over Obama. Now I'm thinking we ought to draft him.
Then again, does it really matter at this point?
W| 1.13.12 @ 3:28PM
Mr G
"Romney is a high-class snake-oil salesman without an ideological compass."
What more can you ask?
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 3:35PM
Grzmlyk,
"Romney is a high-class snake-oil salesman without an ideological compass."
That is his best asset. If the wind blows right, he'll blow right. Our work is in the House and Senate.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 3:52PM
I disagree. What we need is someone with a rudder who won't be buffetted every which way by political exigencies, but will instead have enough cajones, conservative bona fides and powers of persuasion to help to influence Americans to wean themselves off of the government teat.
The truth is, the wind in Washington ALWAYS blows left, and ALWAYS pushes a Republican president leftward. Just look at every GOP president since Eisenhower. Every one of them - Reagan included - had to tack to the left.
If you say Romney's best asset is that he will act like a Democrat, then why elect a Republican in the first place?
As for the House and Senate, one could argue that the conservative moment arrived in 2010 with the Tea Party; yet it is business as usual in Washington, with Democrats wanting government to continue to grow, and Republicans arguing NOT that we must cure the cancer, but rather the rate at which we should allow the cancer to metastasize. And our feckless leaders are losing THAT battle.
That's why I say if Romney's elected, it really won't make a damn bit of difference. Ditto Gingrich, a statist fool if ever there was one. Paul would find his knees cut out from under him before he finished the oath of office, and Santorum would be excoriated in the press so mercilessly that he'd be toast within a month. Who else is there?
I'd really like to know why you think a snake oil salesman without an ideological compass is a good thing.
I sure hope I'm never shipwrecked with you!
Meanwhile, I'm writing in "David Hasselhoff" on my ballot.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 4:36PM
Grzmlyk,
Please! I said it was his best asset. I didn't say I liked him. At least he isn't an ideologue like the buffoon we have in there.
I stand by my opinion of where the work is and hope Santorum will sign what it put it front of him. If Santorum doesn't, I hope Romney will. The President doesn't write the laws.
I'll be just as pleased not to be shipwrecked at all, which is precisely what will happen if the buffoon is re-elected. But it seems you have already packed your beach wear.
On the other hand Hasselhoff couldn't be a bigger boob.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 4:43PM
I see your point. Maybe we could be shipwreck buddies.
But, really, the job of every single congressman/senator is to hand out goodies. End of story.
Once in DC, Republicans have far more in common with Democrats than they do the people who sent them to Washington. I have NO faith on Congress whatsoever.
And here's something to ponder: Surely, even if we do have a Republican House and Senate in 2012 (a BIG "if"), no GOP president is going to be able to even slow our slide for the first two years - and you know what that means - A Democrat congress ushered in in 2014, followed by a Democrat in 2016.
Also, congress people don't write the laws, either: lobbyists, lawyers, regulators, bureaucrats and staffers write the laws. And they are all part of the kleptocracy.
No, nothing is going to change until it all collapses.
In addition, Romney probably can't pull through as many Republicans if he's at the head of the ticket than Santorum could.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 5:16PM
Grzmlyk,
I'm not running for the life boats yet, but the reason we are here today is because of the Old Guard REpublicans who for the last forty years have acted like Democrat-lite. Much as it would be nice, one mid-term isn't going to replace them all. The Tea Party work must continue. Almost by definition that is in the House and Senate races, not the race for President were the party holds the greatest influence.
If the Tea Party goes back to sleep, I'll see you in the lifeboat.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 5:35PM
Grzmlyk,
PS: In the "It's all ill wind which blows no good" category and as much as I would never vote for Paul as C-in-C, if he manages, through his delegates, to get some of his saner thoughts on the budget and Federalism into the platform he will have accomplished some real good.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 7:11PM
Well, you are much more optimistic about Congress than I am. I believe the Tea Party has already peaked and is on the downside in terms of mind share.
The only thing that will mitigate against that is the debauching of the currency - which is happening now (they're now floating yet another quantitative easing, which is nothing but printing money). But until we start seeing the repercussions of our loose fiscal policy, our profligacy will only accelerate. We are in a death spiral - but like JFK Jr. in his plane, we haven't figured that out yet.
The mainstream media has completely marginalized the Tea Party. It was a story in 2010; it's ancient history now.
I know my position is bleak but, come on - how has DC changed since the Tea Party arrived? Not one iota. We are still moving in the WRONG DIRECTION when it comes to spending.
The name of the game in Washington is throwing ever-larger sums of money at constituents and influencers. The corruption of the system is complete. The Wisconsin example did not give me hope that we can escape the death grip - particularly since what replaced it is the craven Occupy movement. The crooks outnumber us. The Tea Party stalwarts do not stand a chance - until it all falls apart.
Until then, any fiscal reformer in DC is simply a bug on the windshield of the Leviathan.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 7:14PM
BTW, I would vote for Paul if he were the GOP nominee. But he's a man without a country; he has no friends in Washington. Washington is now the most expensive zip code in the country - thousands and thousands and thousands of people get big, fat, paychecks and live large off of the back of the taxpayer. Ron Paul would be one guy staring the Leviathan down. I actually like some of his fiscal positions. But, again, he'd be a bug on the windshield.
He'd be neutralized before he knew what hit him.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 8:40PM
Grzmlyk,
I hope you're wrong but I'm not convinced myself. This republic is long in the tooth historically. The single experiment in history is which the people were sovereign (at least since the Jews were delivered into the promised land and immediately clamoured for a king) is showing its age. Its survival is, by no means, guaranteed. Your assessment of Congress is mine, as well. I just don't think the efforts of 80 out of 435 should be dismissed so simply. If the ship of state turned so easily we would already be shipwrecked.
However, it does me no good to assume the dismal outcome or to assume we are all, indeed, puppets of the media. I still see energized people who never gave a thought to politics engaged. Many support Paul.
Perhaps I overstated when I said I could never vote for Paul. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him over this catastrophe, but I believe in my heart that the war he doesn't want will come to us. I've lived in the Middle East and when I say those people do not think like we do, I'm called a bigot. So be it, but I'll happily discuss the fatalism and fundamentalism of the sons of Ishael with anyone. I don't buy into Paul's argument that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. From the Battle or Tours, to the Siege of Vienna and the Battle of Lepanto they have not and I don't expect it now. Paul's isolationism will, by my reckoning, bring the war to us. I also think his views on the Fed are not fully baked.
I remember the last worst President in history; he gave us the Dept. of Education and Energy. As a President he was ineffective, but he really didn't become the anti-American he is until he left office. It was bleak then, too.
skip| 1.15.12 @ 10:09AM
Re: Paul
There is general consensus that on domestic policy Paul is both conservative and constitutional, at least much more so than either Romney and Gingrich, no?
There is general consensus that on foreign policy Paul is delusional to the point of unelectability, yes?
Didn't G. W. Bush run in '00 on a foreign policy that was mind-our-own-business borderline isolationist, then essentially perform a dramatic 180 degree u-turn after 9/11?
Didn't Obama run in '08 on a foreign policy that guaranteed the illegality of and imminent cease of gitmo, and of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, then essentially perform a dramatic 180 degree u-turn?
Wouldn't it be reasonable based on experience to anticipate that Paul would likewise be forced by reality to similarly essentially perform a 180 u-turn as well?
Isn't Paul nowhere near as unintelligent and dishonest as Obama?
Isn't Paul much more likely to stand firm against the entrenched beltway culture than either Romney or Gingrich, both proven big government spenders?
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 7:29PM
Romney reminds me of Nixon & the RNC reminds me of Nixon's Party not the Party of Lincoln and Reagan.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 8:02PM
That sounds about right to me.
Steve| 1.13.12 @ 7:07AM
Romney will be shredded by the Left. The esoteric beliefs of Mormonism will be mercilessly savaged, private equity and capital formation in America skewered, Romney's personal finances crucified. Like the establishment he represents he is weak, moderate and pitiful, and he will be left as roadkill by Axelrod, et. al. The GOP is dead. Long live whatever replaces it.
W| 1.13.12 @ 8:32AM
Steve
Ready to cut and run because the Left will attack our guys. Have you ever thought of fighting back?
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:00AM
Mormonism, other than Romney's failure to have double digit wives and double dozen children, won't become an issue with Obama. he will make it a strong point.
"Mr Romney's family heritage and choice of religion are his freedoms under the Constitution and I support him in his faith. Next question."
That brands EVERY other Republican except Huntsman a religious zealot! he will however trot out ALL the anecdotal evidence that not only are all the other RED party members racists to the core!!! He will do it with their own words (I said 'blaaaa' ring a bell?) filmed live before an audience.
Obama won't even have to hire a production company. All he has to do is sit at the Oval office desk and say, "Folks, I am sick and tired of pundit rhetoric, innuendo, unfounded accusations and blatent deception being what you use to decide upon your next president. Here, on the internet, in his own words from his own mouth, in public, recorded for all posterity, is the truth about how Mitt Romney (or Gingrich if he can manage to mention the Federal bailout Romney stole $million of before the party can shut him up) feels about YOU!."
One commercial script, and 30 versions of the same lot, 200 billion dollars worth in three months and you squabbling idiots are DEAD as a political entity.
W| 1.13.12 @ 11:19AM
Try writing in English.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 11:37AM
W:
I suspect that this sheepherder is another moniker for a long time poster here. It's obscene, ignore him.
W| 1.13.12 @ 12:56PM
Al Adab,
Ok. Natural inclination as a Steeler fan is to retaliate, but will follow your sound advice.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 2:07PM
W:
Since Pitt is out, can we get your prediction for this weekend?
I understand that you, like I, favor whatever team beats your team. "If my guy can't win then I hope the guy who beat him takes it all" Who do you think will make it through.
W| 1.13.12 @ 3:30PM
Al Adab
I think the best teams are SanFran, Pats, and Houston. But Tebow is on a roll, if the Broncs beat the Pats, the it is Tebow all the way.
Just came in, snowing and freezing up here, need to move south
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:20PM
Grow out of "English as a second Language" English!
PaulC| 1.13.12 @ 12:20PM
He's not my guy, so why should I come to his defense? He's an insipid candidate, who will be an equally insipid nominee, inspiring nothing but ennui among vast swaths of the electorate.
Occam's Tool| 1.13.12 @ 1:59PM
Me, I kinda think that a movie showing a cop being killed by a bomb with exploding staples shown in gory detail in slo-mo followed by Obama shaking the hand of the killer shown over and over again would do the troick. The killer is Bernadine Dorhn.
It's time to go with the filthy filthy truth on Obama.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 3:37PM
Occam's Tool,
I like it. If you can't beat 'em... beat 'em some more.
RCV| 1.15.12 @ 12:23PM
Occam, I hope the GOP runs with your idea - that's the kind of campaign that will get me a steak dinner!
Boar Hunter| 1.13.12 @ 9:30AM
How can Romney be shredded by the left?
Romney is the left.
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 10:10AM
Perry and Gingrich are the anti-capitalist left.
loulou| 1.13.12 @ 11:32AM
BINGO. Romney is left. He is presently temporarily right but will return to his proper place once he gets the nomination. Of course that will make him another loser a la Gerald Ford, bobdole and John McCain.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 11:47AM
loulou: this is what is wrong in the Republican Party.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 11:23PM
Steve: Unless there is an actual recovery Obama is toast. The real problem lies in the debts and so-called entitlement programs. All the "Boomers" like myself may commit national fiscal suicide voting to preserve the unsustainable Ponzie schemes.
Not a RINO| 1.13.12 @ 7:16AM
Wall Street Journal
Repeat After Me: Bain Capital Is Not A VC Firm
http://blogs.wsj.com/ventureca.....a-vc-firm/
Washington Post: "Romney's Bain Figures Don't Add Up"
Biggovernment.com; "How did Romney's 10,000 jobs become 100,000?"
Forbes.com:
"So, Did Romney Create 100,000 jobs, Or Not?:
"...three recent reports by the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and by Fact Check.org...say that the Romney campaign has yet to offer convincing proof to back up the claim [net-net 100,000 jobs]...Bain often made money,by laying off workers, getting gov't subsidies..."
Riehl World View
Bains SC Company Took Gov Incentives, Went Belly Up, But Took Huge ProfitS
http://www.riehlworldview.com/.....ofits.html
The aforementioned is the way of the RINO.
Corporate welfare is not free enterprise, free-market-capitalism. Free enterprise, free market capitalists do not seek gov't handouts, corporate welfare, subsidies or bailouts.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 8:48AM
See what you can learn if you actually CHOOSE to look for the truth in the details instead of justgulping down the rhetoric flavored Koolaid? Even from biased agenda driven publications ith famous names like the WSJ and LAT.
Not a RINO| 1.13.12 @ 10:17AM
You attacked the messenger (LA Times and WSJ), not the message. Doesn't work that way.
EPIC FAIL on your part.
Thanks for playing, though.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:28PM
BEcause I agree with the message, but who owns and controls WSJ these days? Dow Jones, with a vested interest in Red party policy. And you will find that they just mimick RED party dogma when they can and in a case like this, did they mention that the FBI has conficated records and is investigating Bain Capital for tax evasion and fraud? NO! So it has vestd interests too. Just like most of the Right wing biased mega media mills that just can't afford to piss of the RED party advertisers.
Frank Drackman| 1.13.12 @ 7:31AM
OK I'm not sure what the first 2 Mrs. Gingrich's looked like.
BUT HIS CURRENT WIFE LOOKS LIKE........................
I was gonna say a friggin Jack-O-Lantern, but that wouldn't be fair to the Jack-O-Lanterns...
Seriously, he was Speaker of the House and couldn't do better than that?
and when he was sworn in as Speaker he said, "Finally a Speaker with a Southern Accent" which was inaccurate on 2 points, Newt doesn't have a Southern Accent, and Sam WHO HAS A FRIGGIN OFFICE BUILDING NAMED AFTER HIM EVEN THOUGH HE VOTED AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Rayburn did.
Which is how I would have said it, if I'D been Speaker.
Frank
Willis| 1.13.12 @ 8:31AM
There is some bile in this post, but I like it. Gingrich has shown himself to be a loathsome and nasty little bugger who operates entirely from venal self interest. Money grubbing insider is, perhaps, too kind.
As to Mrs. G, I see the jack-o-lantern likeness but hadn't considered it as such. My wife thinks that hair is a helmet Calista (don't even like the name) puts on each morning. To be fair to Mrs. G, Newt is not exactly the second coming of Paul Newman.
Frank Drackman | 1.13.12 @ 8:39AM
OK, yeah I'm replying to myself, more correctly, Correcting myself.
Sam Rayburn DIDN'T vote against "The" Civil Rights Act of 1965.
Probably because he died in 1961.
And I couldn't findout if he voted for the earlier Civil Rights acts, cause Wikipedia doesn't have anything about them.
Your Welcome,
Frank
Pimarily Exhausted| 1.13.12 @ 7:44AM
So who in all of the contenders for the GOP nonimation was strong? If the GOP establishment rallied around Newt the way they have with Mitt, we would be feeling better about the prospects. And the 11th commandment suddenly became important when Gingrich started hitting back. I'm sitting this out because we are looking at a very RINO going against the established liberal.
And don't think for a second the country, right leaning as it is said to be, does not operate on a liberal fiscal slant but conservative social bent. We have a true liberal going against a crony capitalist liberal disguised as a Republican. Mitt doesn't even pretend to be a conservative.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 8:42AM
I don't think the country is leaning more right>>> I think the Republicans hired (funded) the TEA party to redraw the lines PAiNTING a centrist Obama as left leaning.
Most of the country wanted financial reform before healthcare, but Obama took on the easier, but less important disaster first. His main misstep was not using the resolution option in the Senate. He could have accomplished the correction of a criminal economy in three years and had no plausible opposition candidates because they would have known they were another Stephenson in Presidential history.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 8:45AM
Then, with a 60 vote Senate (a product of ebullient joy amongst voters) he could have made fine tunings in a very permanent way. If only Pelosi and REid could have been found smoking crack together in a Vegas hotel room....
Riff Raff| 1.13.12 @ 10:01AM
Go back to your sheep.
VonMisesJr| 1.13.12 @ 3:12PM
When his sheep see him coming they bleep "Naaaaaahhhh"
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:32PM
I am herding Republicans!!!! My dogs watch them in the pasture.
VonMisesJr| 1.14.12 @ 8:17AM
You haven't heard anything. Your eyes, ears and mind are closed. I have had several dogs that were actually smarter than you.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 2:22PM
Hey fckewe:
Fckov.
When you were a kid, did you want to be a useful idiot when you grew up, or are you the product of of our indoctin - - I mean, "education" system?
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:31PM
No, I got a Poli Sci degree from American University and an MBA from Stanford. I traded commodities before they were cool and did a series of straddles shorting the Euro from 1.60 to 1.30 and killed!
Sorry your RED party losers have no rebuttal except epithets and cheesy old 5th grade jokes, but I bet you 9-1 that's because you are NOT ,even as a group, smarter than a 5th grader. To Quote Mitt, $10K?
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 10:55PM
So you ARE a product of our indoctrin - I mean, "education" system.
Spoken like a true hypocrite. And liar, but then on the Internet, everyone's a winner, am I right?
With your writing ability, all I can say is Stanford's gone downhill along with the rest of 'em. Oh, I'm sorry. I was talking about Stanford in Palo Alto. Not Stanford Community College located where the old Bon Bon's used to be at the Glendale Galleria.
Not that they're not both shitbrain factories.
So you are not only a useful idiot, you're a lying useful idiot.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 11:26PM
Not very useful at that G.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 9:32AM
I agree, Exhausted. All this caterwauling about Newt seems so convenient now. Where was the outrage over Romney's vicious ads against Newt in Iowa? Where was Catron's outraged article about the damage Romney did to the Republican party? I didn't see it. Now that Catron's candidate Romney is getting some of his own medicine, now it's oh so naughty of Newt. Give me a break.
Mimi| 1.13.12 @ 7:52AM
This IS certainly a Conservative/RINO fight...Why can't the establishment for once let the 71% Conservatives have a crack at the nomination....They are the ones who seem to demand their way or the HIGHWAY...To be frank the HIGHWAY is looking pretty good.
Just when will they realize they can't win elections without us and NOW the country is in dire need of a change in the Whitehouse if they can't go along with the Conservative large block they MOST CERTAINLY will HURT the NATION! We are getting madder by the HOUR, as they well know our Conservative number is on the RISE !
Liberty and Tryanny began this increase...Ameritopia will seal the deal!....
(NOTE: when I called Barnes and Noble about my PRE-RELEASE order I asked..."I'm Curious how are the pe-sales going?....She paused to hit the computer and then started...Oh my God...WOW...HOLY-COW! I won't give the figures away but they were astounding!!!!!)
AMERITOPIA
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 8:36AM
This is actually an uncommitted neurotics against escaped psychotics match where the spectator and the referee get assainated. The reporting on this last decade of events has become a game of whopper in a fishing boat. This garbage journalism has spawned an epoch of extremism of opinion dressed as fact that has no value and like 9 year olds in a school yard arguing over who kissed Sally (arguing of course that they "DID NOT!" DID TOO!"), no one will win this game until someone decides they would rather play ball than "three little bitches" in a schoolyard.
I'll consider a RED party candidate again, if one ever shows he's mature enough to get a prom date.
Grzmlyk| 1.13.12 @ 2:25PM
I'm not sure if you should go to a rhetoric class or a doctor to get your brain unscrambled.
But your callow, herky-jerky vomitus is unreadable.
PaulC| 1.13.12 @ 12:02PM
Yes, the highway is looking pretty good at this point. Let the Republican establishment have their nominee, and then let them get their butts kicked in November. Maybe it would cure them once and for all of their unfortunate habit of giving the back of their hands to the party's conservative base. We've tried to warn them, but they can't seem to take a hint.
martin j smith| 1.13.12 @ 8:14AM
If you examine the Bushes and the behavior of the Republican Party there and also the Republicans under Clinton and you examine Nixon and I can name others as well you will see that the hands across the aisle and Socialism light has eroded the moral compass. Time to re-assess.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 8:20AM
So, simply put... one Republican told the truth about another, who in a three year old tantrum kind of way exposed the other for what he is at his core. In the process, exposing the 35 year old fraud that is the core of Reaganomics: unregulated speculation, manipulating loopholes in the system, then lying to cover it all up. The blaming the opposition with relentless propaganda styled as news came later, like the bride and groom on the cake that Romney ate and Gingrich got fat on too!
The Soviet Union fell apart fro the EXACT same reasons the RED party here will too. Blind allegiance to the party doctrine no matter the systemic distruction, violation of it's own principles or damage to it's must important assets, the people whose support is the whole point of their existence.
I mean if a Republican has no people to hoodwink and boondoggle, what use is he?
WL| 1.13.12 @ 9:56AM
The Soviet Union fell apart precisely BECAUSE of Reaganomics you imbecile. When Reagan decided to beat the Soviets at the game of arms buildup, your people said it would end US, but instead their Command economy could not keep up with a system (OURS) that uses a person's self interest (or as you say, Greed) and promotes production. Your ideal system is to steal from the productive...because YOU are the real Greedy one. YOU want not only what you create, but what I create too. Face it...if self-interest was so bad...you wouldn't be so concerned with your own now would you...you brainless idiot?
Now, let's examine WHY you are so against Reaganomics. a few possibilities include:
1. You are a union thug who doesn't want to get what you earn...but rather get what you and your mob can get yourselves "entitled" to.
2. You don't even work and want the biggest "check" you can vote yourself entitled to.
etc etc etc...
But the real answer is probably this:
You have never really accomplished anything, so you have no confidence that you can. However, you see what others have, and know you want it. Deep down you know that spending less on your vacations, boats, rims, music, cable, satellite, smokes, beer, wine, sports merchandise, restaurant eat outs, etc etc etc will allow you to save and accumulate wealth TOO, but you are too weak minded for that, so your little brain tells you that someone cheated you...and ran over you...the glorious "little guy." and you lie to yourself over and over and over...and your Socialist heros lie to you over and over...and still there you sit.
Doing Nothing.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 10:28AM
WL:
Thank you for saving the rest of us the time and effort of responding to our sheep lover. You are correct that free markets defeat central planned/command economies every time. What is sad is that so many of our own citizens seem to prefer the security of slavery and government pottage via Ceasar to the opportunity free markets provide.
canuckistani| 1.13.12 @ 1:20PM
The reasons for the Soviet collapse are far more complex than simply attributing Reaganomics to it. It requires one to discount any US and allied policy towards it for the preceding 40 years.
The folly of Afghanistan drained its coffers faster than any arms buildup, and the rot at the bureaucratic level was showing signs as early as the late sixties. The task of managing empire was beyond their grasp and that led to a tilting of power towards regional governors - and it was their lack of intestinal fortitude that enabled opposition groups to evolve rapidly.
To suggest the Pope and Walesa and even Gorbachev were not as instrumental as Reagan is an oversimplification.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:39PM
YOur guess about me is as good as amy RED party guess about National Success. Reaganomic militarism was unecessary as the other REDs mismanaged their resources and production beyond bankruptcy. They finally realized that military waste was not profitable, a lesson the current RED party of America has yet to learn, even after Vietnam AND Iraq!
The Soviet system failed because the 'Party' refused to consider alternative ideas on anything, spent it's entire energy being 'ANTI American' the way Republicans are "ANTI anything not TeaParty" now. Look at your line up for the clown college convention in August.
Oh BTW, No, I got a Poli Sci degree from American University and an MBA from Stanford. I traded commodities before they were cool and did a series of straddles shorting the Euro from 1.60 to 1.30 and killed!
Sorry your RED party losers have no rebuttal except epithets and cheesy old 5th grade jokes, but I bet you 9-1 that's because you are NOT ,even as a group, smarter than a 5th grader. To Quote Mitt, $10K?
I made more money in 4 months than you have earned in the last 200 months. All because I am open to being a venture vulture, but I didn't kill any jobs AND I don't have to LIE about it to stay out of jail.
Bob K.| 1.13.12 @ 10:48PM
You are both wrong. There is no comparison
that can be taken from the Soviet Union's demise and our problems that is useful. History is not a clock as John Lucas the historian observed. It does not repeat itself.
The U.S.S.R. fell apart because no one there believed in Communism any more. It is really that simple. The system hadn't worked for decades.
fckewetewe| 1.13.12 @ 10:29AM
Fck ewe, fckewe.
Frank Drackman | 1.13.12 @ 10:52AM
If your gonna say Fuck You, say Fuck You,
You Pussy
Frank Fuck-You Drackman
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:43PM
he can READ! Sorry you don't have an intelligent rebuttal, but since you are a dedicated koolaid sipper of the Limbaugh genus, I must applaud your minimal abilities. Too bad you can't be honest enough to admit that you HAVE no rebuttal BECAUSE your mealymouthed response is the only way you can support your case.
I will take that as a tacit admission of defeat, and a confirmation that I am correct. Bon appetit` on the mealyworms in you mouth.
Mimi| 1.14.12 @ 2:17PM
WE all knew you were a PAID TROLL by your CRAZY language abilities!!!
Your name is repulsive...quite unbecoming...we ignore !!
Brian Mc| 1.13.12 @ 8:26AM
After four years, I was skeptical of any Republican undoing the damage wrought. With the prospect of that four becoming eight, will that be enough damage for the country to finally wake up to the danger to this Republic? And, will that awakening be too late?
The childish mud slinging during this fiasco borders on treasonous and I'm beginning to wonder if any of them deserve to represent us in the battles ahead. It is tragic when you consider the slingers fail to realize that this is bigger than their petty foolishness. My confidence falters since their utterances fail to grasp acknowledgement of what is truly at stake here. They continue to sling while the government continues to grow in scope outside the limitations set down in the Constitution. Treasonous.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:45PM
HERE HERE! We needed that 60 vote Democratic majority to clean house with impeachments.
Mike Hawk| 1.15.12 @ 2:21PM
You are dumber than you seem already.
Louis Jenkins| 1.13.12 @ 9:06AM
Right now the dear Republican leader looks pretty bad. And Newt doesn't look very good either. So what's going to happen? We need someone who will address the issues, and I don't hear a lot out of either one of their mouths. We can discount Newt. Newt is finished. And Romney is Obama redux. So, which way will the non-established Republicans go? I think SC will be an awakening call.
Mimi| 1.13.12 @ 9:42AM
The present mess will end with the Santorum/Romney match-up. Expect Santorum to surprise us...He's better than he's has been able to show us....Now ....It looks like his chance to take the stage...of the 3 con's left...and just maybe he can survive the Romney take-down!
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 3:11PM
God, I hope so.
canuckistani| 1.13.12 @ 1:26PM
Answer: out the door.
The GOP scorched earthers for the last 30 years have done their best to strangle the levers of government so much that it is in a vegetative state. They have starved the beast as demanded during Reagan 1, and now have to deal with the aftermath. As typical with conservatives, they cut and run leaving the opposition to clean up the mess.
There is no winning conservative agenda any longer. The people have woken up to this fact - you should too.
martin j smith| 1.13.12 @ 9:10AM
The Republican Leadershit must see that we know what is going on--we see thru their bull crap. Eventually enough people who believe in our nation will make this truth more and more obvious. Maybe then we can move forward.
canuckistani| 1.13.12 @ 1:28PM
Forward to where?
The entire planet is a mixed economy, and you want to devolve?
Pure fantasy.
9thID| 1.13.12 @ 9:33AM
Anyone but Obummer, RINO twins Romney/Newt, Obama Jr. Huntsman, and especially Liberal-tarian RuPaul...
canuckistani| 1.13.12 @ 1:31PM
Then who?
Even Demint is making the rounds clinging to ambiguity. It makes him look as small and irrelevant as he and his cabal ever were.
When you see TBagger Haley jumping Willard's bones and Demint sitting this one out, you really have to pay attention to the fact that SC takes in $1.35 for every $1 of federal taxes paid.
Curious if Haley has been drinking the Kool-aid from the government teet and she likes it.
VonMisesJr| 1.13.12 @ 9:35AM
Or Romney is the clean-up batter.
WL| 1.13.12 @ 9:42AM
Mr. Catron..
You are right about what is going on...However, you are definitely blurring the obvious...
Romney is POISON.
Romney's people have been behind the destruction of every single one of the horrible backstabbings inflicted on the others...starting with the Cain business.
His vile and that of the establishment has taken this primary process through the sewer.
I think it's interesting how you put him and Newt together (insinuating that they are equal in fault), but Newt is definitely on a mission to destroy Romney BECAUSE of what Romney has done to everyone else (primarily Newt). I hope he is successful in keeping Romney out of the presidency...because Romney is a phony AND at some point we have to quit letting the establishment's dirty deeds yield them the prize...
In 2016, when we have a fresh slate (if Obama will leave after his second term)...they may think twice before trying it again...
I say "may" because at this point, I don't even know that they care about the country any more than the Democrats.
Mimi| 1.13.12 @ 9:45AM
Boy you pinned down the truth...The best POST!!!
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 7:33PM
WL more reasons why I will be voting for Ron Paul.
Minuteman78| 1.13.12 @ 10:04AM
Settle down, folks, put away the whiskey and the bottle of seconal...you have to recall three major factors in play in 2008: (a) Big bunches of Moderates & Independents tired of 8 years of "Bush" faux-conservatism. (b) Otherwise right-leaning folks sitting out the election due to Captain blandness 'getting his turn' (c) Radical leftists not normally inclined to vote (e.g. meatheaded college kids) fired up about what radical marxist America-hating Obama and his hope and change crap. Those result in (a) Switches from R to D votes, (b) shortage of R votes, (c) surplus of D votes. All vectors helped Obummer and hurt McCodger. Net: 9,500,000 or so. Swing 1/8 of that: 1,200,000 (1% of total votes!) back the other way in the 8 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, NH, NC, OH, VA) where Obummer won by less than 10%, and (I'll even do this math for you as well) that's a net pickup of 115 E.V.s, Romney wins 284 to 254. Sure, it's not a Reagan landslide, but Romney ain't Reagan. You really think there aren't 1,200,000 people in America who are both kicking themselves and now wouldn't crawl over broken glass to get this fascist, destructive S.O.B. out of office? Seriously!
WL| 1.13.12 @ 10:11AM
Nice post, but you failed to consider this:
(a) Romney is a "faux-conservative TOO...so no net votes.
(b) After the way RomneyMcCain are handling themselves...right leaners will sit out again...so no net votes.
(c)If you think this administration has played all of it's cards in the quest to getting their idiodic base fired up...Think again....if you can imagine it...or read it in a book....or fear that they might...they will this year.
PolishKnight| 1.13.12 @ 10:07AM
I'm going to say something controversial: Sometimes Reagan is wrong. Let's keep in mind that Reagan chose GWB as his VP who had referred to his economic plan as "voodoo economics", then we got stuck with 12 years of a Bush dynasty, Bill Clinton, and now Obama. I just got a letter from the Reagan foundation begging me for money to help them preserve the economic legacy of RR and stop liberals from taking it away. I laughed. It was taken away by his VP and sons and the illegals that Reagan granted amnesty to. There aren't enough guys like me to shore it all up.
All of the candidates are weak on illegal immigration but Perry is one of the softest. He deserved to go under.
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 10:13AM
Yep - I was pulling hard for Pete DuPont in '88. We went full Rino instead.
de reichenbach| 1.13.12 @ 11:30AM
Where is Govenor Perry soft on illegal immigration?
PolishKnight| 1.13.12 @ 12:53PM
Governor Perry is opposed to E-verify and called conservatives "heartless" for not wanting to subsidize the in-state tuitions for illegal immigrants. He suggests building a fence, but that's a huge red-herring (we all know it will never really get built and even then, it does nothing about the existing illegals seeking amnesty). So by the time this Great Wall gets built, the illegals and their anchor babies have been here for decades and demand amnesty and say "My BayBee needs it! You wouldn't want to hurt my BayBee would you?" and Perry would melt.
Heck, it's unlikely Romney will be much better. Fact is, the car in this analogy is probably already teetering on the cliff and all the current Republican candidates just want to maybe lessen up on the gas a bit.
de reichenbach| 1.13.12 @ 2:17PM
No. Govenor Perry is not opposed to e-verify. Here is his view in his own words.
"E-Verify is a federal government created and run program, and as a result there have been a number of problems with it so far. The Department of Homeland Security estimated the system could fail to identify more than half of all illegal immigrants.
But just because it has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification out. It means we should make it work. Employee verification needs to be accurate so American citizens aren’t denied jobs based on bad data and undocumented immigrants don’t slip through the system. And it needs to be less cumbersome for employers to use, so it’s not costing them money they could be using to create jobs.
So as president, I’d work to put in place an E-Verify system that’s more accurate, less burdensome and really delivers the results we need it to."
His position on the border fence is that it is an incomplete approach that would only work in targeted areas and that technology and manpwer need to be used to better advantage on the border.
And you are simply wrong on the"subsidizing illegal immigrants"
No other presidential candidate either Republican or Democrat has the political will to tackle the border issue. Perry will.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 11:44AM
Yes, as much as it pains me to say it, the Gipper was wrong on two things, possibly three.
canuckistani| 1.13.12 @ 1:36PM
Reagan was softer than BHO on immigration. Deal with it.
Reagan ballooned the debt and stewarded the highest interest rates the country had ever seen in the late 80's, destroying people's chances for mortgage investment and enabling the investment bankers to capture enormous shares of the national equity base. You want to examine the genesis of the current debacle? Start during Reagan 1 and stop during Reagan 2. The rest is marginal scavenging at best.
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 10:08AM
"When did the GOP go from being merely stupid to downright suicidal?"
Answer: March 29, 1991. The day Lee Atwater died. Since that day the Republican Party has had absolutely no one with the intelligence AND the guts to take on the corruptions of the Democrat Party and beat them. Lee Atwater was a politcal Pit Bull in a Party of Bichon Frises.
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 10:13AM
By the way, that was MY first reaction to the "Thelma and Louise" cliff jumper finale as well. That T-Bird was a tragic loss.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 11:42AM
G/C:
It dates back further than that to the days when Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, william Scranton and others so strongly opposed the emergence of the Conservative Movement. What if Nixon had appointed Goldwater VP instead of Ford (decent man though he was) or what if Ford had named Goldwater VP instead of Rockefeller? The accomodationist GOP simply proposes to manage Leviathan better not to "reduce its size".
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 3:21PM
True enough, but the real problem the GOP has today is they have NO ONE who will go toe-to-toe in a heated campaign. The last Republican who had the nerve to do it and win was Atwater. Imagine had Atwater survivied and had run the 1992 campaign. Atwater would have made mincemeat of Clinton. No Clinton, and most of the lunatics in government today, plus some very bad Supreme Oourt appointments, who came out of the Clinton Administration. Plus, Clinton sold US strategic technologies to China in exchange for campaign contributions (this is treason, by the way) which is being used by China to build the largest military in history, as we disarm. The world would be a different (and better) place had Atwater lived and Clinton lost in 1992.
W| 1.13.12 @ 6:44PM
GC
What do you think of Rove.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 6:58PM
W:
Rove, a very smart man, is still analyizing and playing by the old rules. As yet, we have not defined what the new rules are. To date only Newt seems to understand that the rules have changed, but he is mismanaging not clearly seeing what they are. I do not know them either, but they will become clear.
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 8:04PM
Not much. He didn't go after either AlGore or John Kerry, two of the most dishonest people in Washington, with track records of deceit and incompetence a mile long. Rove is a Bushite, not a conservative.
W| 1.13.12 @ 8:30PM
Al Adab and GC
Atwater would have used the Rev Wright, Ayers, and Dohrn like he used Willie Horton and and Dukakis' ACLU membership. But Bush41 authorized Atwater to do it.
Rove must have had something to do with the Swift boat ads, and McCain claims Rove spread rumors in the 2000 SC primarythat he had a black illegitimate daughter, when in fact it was an adopted daughter.
fckewe| 1.13.12 @ 9:47PM
WHO's idea was it to SwiftBoat Kerry with soundbite ads and questionable funding ? KR.
Ground Control| 1.14.12 @ 10:54AM
Note: The "Swift Boat" stories about Kerry are true. Kerry is a fraud.
W| 1.14.12 @ 1:45PM
GC
The book "Unfit to Command" is a good source for the Kerry story. Just because an ad is negative does not mean it is false.
Stormy| 1.13.12 @ 10:16AM
At his worst, any Republican nominee would make a superior president to Barack Obama. This nation will not resemble its former self after four more years of hopelessness and loose change.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 11:44AM
True as far as it goes Stormy. However a slow motion collapse of America under Old Line republicans as opposed to a rapid collapse under Obama is a collapse nonetheless. Does not History deserve to know what policies really are at fault?
Dave | 1.13.12 @ 10:27AM
If this primary battle were a book in progress, I'd call the publisher and run a new title by him: "Shots From The Cave"
Introduction:
"Centuries ago in a not too distant past, who among the peaceful Eloi would have ever imagined having to choose a leader to defend the community from the evil Morlock Obama from among a tiny group of volunteers who seemed to be losing their inner civility, and acting more like Morlock hordes as they are observed mimicking the hideous practice of ... "eating their own?"
Meanwhile, deeper inside the caves, the fretful citizens grow restless, some worried, while others become resigned to what seems to be laying before them. As designated Eloi speak-out in an attempt to calm the children and elders, the small community's village idiot slowly begins his daily babble: GO THIRD PARTY, RON!"
Epilogue: In the end, the village idiot may ultimately have his babbles breach the light of day, but the Eloi and their masses knew in their hearts that such a breach would cause the final collapse of the community, while assuring the tyrannic oppression of Morlock Obama and his plundering hordes.
The End?
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 11:50AM
Love it. Very creative, but H G Wells was a Fabian Socialist... or was that part of the point?
Citizen Jerry| 1.13.12 @ 10:29AM
Just wondering, and I pray I'm wrong ... but what will happen to the GOP after they force Willard Romney on us and he loses to the real Democrat? Besides another four years of this curse, maybe there will be open rebellion. The squishy moderates could become Democrats, because they already have a lot in common.
Ohiolad| 1.13.12 @ 11:30AM
The GOP will never embrace a conservative candidate, believing in their own propaganda that a conservative is unelectable because he would turn off moderate and independent voters. But if the GOP establishment once again manages to force their faux conservative candidate on us and Romney loses to Obama for all the reasons mentioned in the article, then this will mark the end of the Republican party. There will be no reason for conservatives to stay with the GOP and not to form their own political party that better represents them. Without conservatives there is no underlying philosophical reason for the GOP to exist other than to perpetuate big government statism, and we already have a Democratic party for that.
Brubaker| 1.13.12 @ 10:37AM
"And the worst President in U.S. history will have been elected to a second term."
And he may become the last Presidident in U.S. history.
Citizen Jerry| 1.13.12 @ 1:33PM
That's also my concern. Large numbers of the American public believe we can't afford another four years of the man who would be God. So I 'll take the viewpoint of our founders and wonder what our nation will look like in 2016.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 3:15PM
Yes, for he will surely become Emperor, Caesar or perhaps Chairman Obama. Doesn't that have a nice ring to it?
Thak God I'm old.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 10:37AM
What republicans do best and have since the emergence of the Conservative Movement is kill themselves off. The inter-party battle for free markets, opportunity and Liberty has been ongoing for decades.
The old school, establishment, east coast, accomodationist republican party has opposed Conservatives all along. The GOP factions spend so much money time and energy battling one another that they fail to keep their focus on the real enemy. Even so, it is only when Conservatives prevail that the GOP has enjoyed success over say the last fifty years. The Conservative movement is the font of ideas and energy the old GOP needs so badly.
Now we have a designated nominee from the old line. Remember George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller who fought against the emergence of Conservatism? How many times have we followed these people to defeat? Are we really about to once again reward them for their failures? If so then we truely are determined to join the Whigs in the dustbin of history. Sadly, by doing so, the GOP will take Liberty with it.
W| 1.13.12 @ 11:54AM
Al Adab
I agree with much of what you said. The Dems used to have similar problems by trying to serve different groups, such as the northern big-city ethnic groups, labor unions, southern segregationists, liberals. far left anti war, gay-lesbian, etc.
Now it seems the differences have blurred, and it has moved at the national level to a left/far left party. The Republicans got the Dems who believed in a strong defense and activist foreign policy, now called the neo-cons, and some of the ethnic groutps/private industry labor union members as Reagan Democrats.
Republicans have social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, libertarians, strong national defense, and we always have this tension you describe. But we were always united in support of a free market, free enterprise system. Now Newt and Perry, are adopting the language of the left with their attacks on Romney. Whether you like Romney or not, Newt and Perry have forced us to support Romney to defend the free market system. If we adopt the Newt/Perry criticism of capitalism under their guise of "fairness, vulture capitalists, earning too much money," then there is not much left to distinguish Republicans from Democrats except for the social issue of abortion . And abortion can only be outlawed by a constitutional amendment, so what difference will it make to vote for a Dem or Rep?
Newt and Perry, in their hatred of Romney, and their sole desire to win or destroy Romney, are destroying a major part of the Republican party.
The lefty bloggers here agree with the Newt/Perry attacks, and the RonPaul supporters here agree with anything that helps Paul.
de reichenbach| 1.13.12 @ 11:06AM
Great article! I do wish Rove, Noonan, the NRO staff, Fox news, and the rest of the Establishment Repubs that are driving the GOP car over the cliff would take notice. Sadly- they are not about to relinquish the wheel...
OLDRAY| 1.13.12 @ 11:21AM
This article is exactly right on target. To repeat what I've said for months..."Sarah Palin and Rubio is a sure winner for the GOP.." Real ability, fight and true popular conservatives. But they do not fit the purposes of the Republican "elite". So over the cliff we are going.
loulou| 1.13.12 @ 11:38AM
FYI Rubio is not a "natural born" citizen due to the fact that neither of his parents were Us citizens at the time of his birth.
I like Rubio but he can not be our president according to our Constitution.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 11:46AM
Was Rubio born in US? If so then he is citizen. regardless of parental status.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 11:48AM
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida to naturalized parents. At least read Wikipedia before posting please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio
W| 1.13.12 @ 12:30PM
Rubio was born in the USA. He is eligible.
If you want to interpret it that his parents had to be USA citizens, then most of the presidents from Washington to Polk would have been not eligible for the simple reason that one could not be a citizen of the USA because the USA did not exist until 1789.
How could their parents have been US citizens before 1789? Do you think the Founders, or any politician, would write a requirement that could possibly disqualify themselves from running for office.
I have not seen any court decision or statute that defines natural born citizen to require that the parents must be US citizens when the child is born in the USA.
This is just an argument used about Obama, and it is without merit whether to Obama or Rubio.
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 12:57PM
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (Excerpt from US Constitution Art.II, Sec.1.) The authors of the Supreme Law of the Land put in an exception for their generation for obvious and practical reasons. This has no bearing on today, since no one alive today was a Citizen of the UNited States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.
W| 1.13.12 @ 3:58PM
GC
How did one become a citizen of the United States in 1789, at the time of adoption of the Consitution?
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 4:22PM
By living here. Anyone who chose to remain a subject of the Crown could move to England. Except Indians not taxed, of course. No offense intended, but the Constitution is a pretty easy-to-understand document, and it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Such questions as you pose are readily answered by reading it.
W| 1.13.12 @ 4:50PM
No offense taken, but it is not as easy as you suggest. For example, blacks were living in the states, and Indians as you said, and women. The 14 th amendment further clarified the meaning of a citizen.
If anyone born outside the US but "living" here in 1789 automatically became a citizen and eligible to run as President then that would have been an exception for Hamilton.
I haven't looked at this for some time but that phrase has raised questions about the eligibility of McCain, Gore, Obama, Goldwater, etc.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 1:01PM
Cuban immigrants to America were refugees and thus were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they arrived. (Refer to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act.) No anchor baby problem for Rubio.
"The Cuban Refugee Program provided more than $1.3 billion of direct financial assistance. They also were eligible for public assistance, Medicare, free English courses, scholarships, and low-interest college loans. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_American
loulou| 1.13.12 @ 7:45PM
I don't go by wikipedia. Wikipedia is a leftist site similar to snopes and factcheck.org. Rubio is a native born citizen not a "natural born" citizen. Rubio's parents were naturalized AFTER his birth. He was not born to US citizens.
Consult a lawyer, why don't you? Or an expert on the Constitution.
Vern Crisler | 1.13.12 @ 9:42PM
Doesn't matter. Rubio was born here and because his parents were Cuban refugees, he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That meets the Constitutional test.
Louis Jenkins| 1.13.12 @ 12:36PM
And Obama is?
Dick Nome| 1.13.12 @ 3:06PM
1. Marco Rubio's parents were legal residents and thus being born in Maiami he is a Natural Born US Citizen per US Code title 8 Section 1401.
2. Leave Marco Rubio in the Senate to take the Reins as Majority Leader. Do not kill his career by parking him in the VP slot dead end.
OLDRAY| 1.13.12 @ 11:30AM
More. John McCain gave Obama the Presidency .Now Romney will be handing Obama a second term. God help the USA.
loulou| 1.13.12 @ 11:41AM
Lefties, progs and socialists have infiltrated our governments at the lowest levels--school boards, local government, etc. and they built from there. They have been at is for decades.
Conservatives have to take time from their jobs and get more involved in local affairs to undo the damage done by the lefties. It will take years.
Ken (Old Texican| 1.13.12 @ 12:07PM
Well Catron,
like Thelma said on the way down..."so far so good".
Folks, buy wheat, beans, and .22 shells.
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 3:23PM
.22?
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 3:38PM
Cheap and good for squirrel stew. And just about good enough to Reagan.
Ground Control| 1.13.12 @ 4:24PM
I'm afraid my culinary experiences have not extended to "squirrel stew" as of yet. Hassenpfeffer, yes. But not squirrel stew.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 4:37PM
Hasenpfeffer's good!
Who Knows?| 1.13.12 @ 12:22PM
Everybody has an opinion. They’re entitled.
And, INFORMED opinions, especially those people’s opinions backed by money, who’ve usually been correct in the past, are the ones to pay attention to.
I advise everyone to become as INFORMED as possible, and the first and simplest regular way to do so is to follow the INTRADE betting. As far as I know, the odds are 85% that Romney will be the GOP nominee.
With about ten months to go until the election in November, presently INTRADE has it at 45% that a Republican will win.
In MY OPINION, I find that hard to believe---but, not surprising. If the majority of voters can’t wake up to the disaster four more years of Obama will be, well---
Who knows?
My guess is that after Romney becomes the nominee, enough of the “hot heads”, who currently claim they’ll never vote for him, when facing the choice between Obama and Romney, will be rational and vote for Mitt. If not, can you say they’re being petulantly SUICIDAL, themselves?
I write all this as one who was totally sure that Romney could never become the GOP nominee, due to Romneycare. Boy, was I wrong! As a charter member of the Manichean Club, I made the cardinal mistake of forgetting that politics is the art of the possible, which means it’s all about the---
GRAY areas, not about black verses white, ONLY.
Pray for enough “rain” of truth, to wake up the majority of voters!
obeara| 1.13.12 @ 1:57PM
Ron Paul has the the only real ideas to save the US from becoming socialist and a failure. I will vote Paul in the FL primary. But if another conservative were to win the nomination, I would vote for that candidate. I will NOT vote for liberal Romney. I voted for liberal McCain in 2008, and I won't do that again. If the GOP still goes the liberal route, it will go without my vote. Romney or Obama both are a road to socialism one is just faster and more obvious than the other, but both end up being something that is not what our Constitution describes. They are both liberals and going towards socialism, statism. Not with my vote!
Who Knows?| 1.13.12 @ 2:42PM
With all due respect---how can you believe Romney is a liberal?
What is a liberal, and given your definition of this word, what proof do you have that Romney is a liberal?
He may not be a hard right conservative, but he's surely NOT a liberal.
I sadly was forced, along with lots of voters, to hold my nose and vote for George W. Bush over algore, and McCain over obama. W certainly disappointed, but he WAS better that gore would have been. And, McCain IMHO would have been superior to obama.
My perhaps naive present take is that Romney would be even better than W or McCain, and a huge improvement on obama.
However, there may just be enough suicidal fools like you, who don't vote for the GOP nominee, and we get four more years for obama INDEED ruin America beyond repair.
If you are a young person, YOU will rue the day.
David| 1.13.12 @ 2:50PM
Santorum isn the only standing above the fray. One would think that if he WAS the a big labor union man that many of you claim he is, that he would have been the first to bash Romney - but he hasn't done so. Stop sitting on the fence and endorse Santorum. That is to you Rubio, Palin, Jindal, and DeMint.
This is information on Santorum from RedState. It was published on January 6, 2012.
I keep telling everyone to get behind Santorum now - support him with five bucks. Forget Perry and Huntsman and Gingrich and Paul. Santorum can win - and win as a conservative.
The following is From RedState.
Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:
American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%
Now remember, this is Santorum’s House ratings, in a DEMOCRAT district. How many Republicans in Democrat areas vote this conservative? Kirk? Snowe? That’s conviction! Santorum is NOT a ‘big government conservative’ but an across-the-board mainstream conservative with a solidly conservative voting record, albeit marred with the support for earmarks and some spending bills that many Republicans in Bush eara fell prey to.
Yet another source that looks at Santorum’s record is Jen Rubin, who likewise absolves Santorum of the phony claim that he is a big-government conservative:
“While in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to begin a line of attack on Rick Santorum claiming that the former Pennsylvania senator is a big-government conservative. That attack seems poorly thought through (shocking, I know from such a meticulous campaign) for several reasons.
First, Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration.
Indeed, Santorum’s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn’t repeal it.”
“And finally, Santorum has put together an aggressive spending reduction plan. He’s for the balanced-budget amendment. He’s embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. He’s in favor of Social Security reform, against energy subsidies, for privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and in favor of repealing Obamacare. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.”
Where Santorum deviated from the conservative line, like his vote on NAFTA and his support for earmarks, he was doing the exceptional thing, and those deviations were in most cases catering to his constituents. But UNLIKE most Northeast Republicans, that ‘catering’ did not extend to abandoning conservative principles again and again. They’ve been the exception to the rule that Congressman and Senator Rick Santorum held. With his support for lower taxes, prolife and profamily policies, conservative Judges, for balanced budgets and entitlement reform, against McCain-Feingold, for school choice, against TARP and Frank-Dodd. Rick Santorum has had a solid and mostly consistent conservative voting record.
Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.
While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record. Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending. Only Gingrich or Santorum will wage a campaign that fully challenges Obama’s whole agenda and actually works to repeal it. Newt has pegged Mitt Romney rightly as a Massachusetts moderate, but Newt is not without flys in his ointment either, from global warming to embracing Hillary, Pelosi and Al Sharpton (!) at various times in attempts to ‘reach across’ bipartisanly.
The bottom line is that between Newt, Santorum, and Romney .. Santorum is the one who is most fiscally conservative and who will have the most fiscally conservative administration as President.
Both Newt and Santorum are conservative. Just not perfect conservatives. For those who say that Santorum is not a ‘true conservative’, I would argue simply that if an 85% ACU rating and leadership on conservative issues in Congress for almost 2 decades is not enough, you will NEVER find a ‘true conservative’ in the Presidential field.
For the rest of us without that fine a filter, yes, Rick Santorum is a ‘true conservative’. Conservatives will be happy with his SCOTUS picks, his support of our military, his support for life, his tax reform and entitlement reforms, his pro-energy policies, his economic growth agenda, his fiscally responsible budgets, and his appeal to get America working again.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 3:20PM
David, Thanks for the info about Santorum. He's my last hope before voting for anyone but Obama. And contrary to some posting here, I would almost vote for the devil himself before Obama. (Almost.)
Stu| 1.13.12 @ 8:15PM
Bless you for this. Go Rick!
Neat he is giving out sweater vests...can even laugh at himself.
Pat| 1.13.12 @ 4:08PM
After the Fat Lady sings, we will know where the country is going the next four years – over the edge or still teetering on the brink. But until that large lady breaks into song, it’s personalities, past lies, reputed future intentions and which candidate tipped over Farmer McDonald’s cow during his college years. And that’s one way to pass the time until election day. However, our economy is going through an anemic recovery, the slowest since the Great Depression. With the Republicans in control of Congress’s unruly half, nothing is getting done which is a solid comfort to many of us. Obama hasn’t bailed anyone out recently, taken over another private company or managed to pass Stimulus 5 – the Revenge of the Morons.
It’s the Independent voters who will decide this election. For staunch Republicans and wild eyed Democrats, just get over it – you have the emotion but the Independents have the swing votes. Therefore it’s obvious who we need to convince although, given Obama’s track record, our Independent brothers and sisters shouldn’t be a hard sell. For those hard core zealots among us, it’s always Thunderdome-Redux – “two go in, one comes out”. But for the less excitable, the Independents truly hold the keys to the kingdom. Either more creeping economic recovery, and a mandate for re-elected Obama to launch Stimulus 6 – the Final Apocalypse - or a chance to slow down, but not reverse, our government’s steady march toward collapse. So, if you see an old Independent lady trying to cross the street, for gosh sakes take her arm and help her across.
Sick Of The GOP Establishment| 1.13.12 @ 6:31PM
Mr. Catron, if you were going to use a movie moment to describe The Stupid Party's coming crash over the cliff I believe Steven Spielberg's "Duel" would better suffice. With the car driven by Dennis Weaver representing conservative ideals & principles & the huge, out of control tanker truck with a totally deranged & insane lunatic driving it representing The Stupid Party Establishment & RINOs (yeah, I know it's redundant) the climax of that movie does a much better job of describing the coming destruction of The Stupid Party once RINO Romney is trounced by President Obysmal next November. You can't fix stupid & that's a fact. RIP Stupid Party.
Benjamin| 1.13.12 @ 7:36PM
We get the government that we deserved.
Stu| 1.13.12 @ 8:10PM
Oh please get behind Santorum. Why not? Coupla 3 less than pure votes? Guessing the other side will convince enough undecideds that he is extreme for backing the obvious, ie that the Family is the foundation of American Exceptionalism? This is the Reagan conservative in the race.
obadiah| 1.13.12 @ 8:17PM
Speaking as a bystander in the political wars (the last President of whom I approve was named Eisenhower, but he had the good fortune to reign at the height of the empire), I might have preferred that the Republican Party was performing better. Unfortunately, at its present stage of devolution, I cannot wish it well. Its worst characteristics I trace to Limbaugh et. al., with the dittohead theme and the constant streams of insults and abuse. Romney is a satisfactory presidential candidate, there is no other actually qualified adult for the Republicans to nominate (Huntsman is not going to be nominated), and what the country is observing is a so-called political party that is less competent and intelligent than the present occupants of the office, however defective they may be.
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 8:40PM
Eisenhower was not a Republican until he decided to run for President in 1952. Earl Warren stabbed Bob Taft in the back to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Jennie| 1.13.12 @ 8:34PM
Fu^K
POST American| 1.13.12 @ 8:36PM
---Since WHEN?
Try 1972, when Rich-hard Nick's ON,
at the behest of the deadly sinister
Acheson -Harriman -Rockefeller cabals,
sat down and intiated the deliberate
transfer of the entire American economy
into the Globalist created RED China.
See, it's the 4 decades on, now finishing off,
Globalist RED China set up, sellout and
TREASON OP.
--------------------------------IT REALLY WAS
IT REALLY IS
REALLY
---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------
rhoetus| 1.13.12 @ 8:37PM
Who is a "real" Conservative and what does he/she believe?
Mike M| 1.13.12 @ 9:30PM
Yes, the entire movie "Thelma and Louise" is a microcosm of the US under Obama.
The end is the same - for the US that is - if we can't push Romney over the finish line on election day.
Some Hollywood script, Huh?
Red in Denver| 1.14.12 @ 11:25AM
So, if not Romney, who does the author think has the best chance of beating Obama?
Newt's baggage is legendary and he's appeared a bit unhinged at times; not to mention the conservative Republicans he's turned off with his attacks on capitalism . Santorum doesn't seem to be able to capture even the Republican vote consistently. Perry has shown the inability to 'think on his feet' over and over again. Ron Paul could not capture the Republican vote because of his stance on national security. Huntsman, I won't even bother to talk about.
THE AUTHOR DESCRIBES ALL THE PROBLEMS; BUT PROVIDES NOT A HINT OF A SOLUTION. So, who is it he thinks should be nominated?
Jabber3| 1.14.12 @ 11:50AM
Exactly my thoughts as well.
CBH| 1.14.12 @ 12:56PM
Right on point. The non-Romney candidates all have serious deficiencies which show in the head-to-head national polls with Obama while Romney is in a virtual tie in those polls with Obama. The strong conservatives who can't stomach Romney and say they will sit out the general election are acting like the spoiled child who, in a emotional outburst, refuses the play a game with other children because they will not agree to all of the rules he wants for the game.
Jabber3| 1.14.12 @ 11:48AM
From reading some of the posts here it seems that if you don't support the poster's candidate of choice then you are single handedly going to be responsible for Obama's re-election. Really? Also some believe that Obama and his campaign, given his large war chest, are going to obliterate any Republican opponent with attacks that will convince the electorate that the only good choice is Obama. Oh you of little faith in the American people calm yourself Obama will be vanquished.
Clint| 1.14.12 @ 12:16PM
Barky Obama & Mittens Romney Are Bobbsey Twin Crony Capitaliism Poster Boys.
" In its recent look at Romney's record with in 77 companies he worked with at Bain, the Wall Street Journal said that 22% of them filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed up shop within eight years of the fund's initial investment. "
Romney Is A Job Gravedigger.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
PattyMor| 1.14.12 @ 3:49PM
All the candidates have flaws because they're human. They work in an imperfect world. Mitt's Bain Capital workings weren't all capitalism; some was croneyism. But what turns me off about Romney is that he really is a liberal trying to masquerade as a conservative. Its not convincing. And Romney started the "campaign wars" pounding Newt, along with Ron Paul in Iowa.
Santorum has taken many votes during his tenure in the Senate and he voted for most of Bush's "big government" programs/expansions. But, like Bush he's conservative on social issues. With the babies found in the freezer, late term abortions are probably going to outlawed anyway.
Ron Paul has a rabid following, but Ron Paul's newsletters would crucify him in a general election campaign. And, he attracting mostly democrat and indy votes. He's just not electable.
Rick Perry shot himself with his poor debate performances and his general inepitude on the campaign trail.
So that leaves Newt Gingrich as the most "electable" I'm not Romney. Sure he has said some stupid things: global warming and the individual mandate. And he took the Freddie Mac Loot. But the difference is that he was not in an elected position and he didn't vote any of this stuff in.
Newt is the only one who has really done anything over the last years to advance anything remotely conservative: he took over the House and balanced the budget. And the "establishment" doesn't want him. He has just enough irascabiltiy to push linguini spined Bonehead and McMumbles into cutting programs.
Mike Hawk| 1.15.12 @ 1:49PM
Ron Paul's newsletters show him to be the crackpot he is. A 76 yr old crackpot.
Chris| 1.15.12 @ 9:20AM
This is for the present GOP Field.
RINO-Re-Pubic-Hair-ians,
[G]ang [O]f [P]ussy's,
Crispy Cream Puff Politicans,
All Hat No Cattle,
Code Pink High Heeled Squeaker Of The House.
And they think they can win against Professional Chicago Bomb Throwers, like the Daley's machine, including every Mobbed-Up Union, when they Can't even drag out the "Judical Notice" record which supports this undenialable "Material Fact"?
Good Luck Wisconsin Governor Walker and the GOP as a whole. You are as dumb as a bag of Hammers and you get what you deserve for being weaklings in the game of PC and too scared to shoot back with the Union's own Mobbed-Up record. Call it; "When The Olive Oil Turns"!
Sissy's don't win, if they are afraid of Blood, Fat Lips and Black Eyes you dummies, while your failing and refusing to expose the MAFIA's "Domination & Control" over the Unions, thus, gutting the labor rights for all Rank & File Members while sucking their Union Dues from the pay-checks. See; USA vs. International Brotherhood Of Teamsers/ La Cosa Nostra [NYC 2nd Circuit]
The Rank & File are the real Foooooooools.
What has the NLRB ever done about the existence of the MOB in these unions [40 years or more, RFK vs. Hoffa Sr. 1960's], while dismissing many/most unfair labor practice[s] charges filed against said Union[s] by an agrieved rank & file member who got sold out by these Union[s] & Thugs?
The Answer! NOTHING!
Now there's somthing to ask Obama, don't you think?
How about re-opening ALL of these cases including all dismissed federal court cases for the entire length of time the feds compitulated to the MOB/Union's by and through the NLRB/DOL et al.
That should start some sh*t, besides how many of those who filed were even aware of the Mafa's Stranglehold over their contractual/statutory rights when said filings occured over the last four-five decades at the NLRB?
florin| 1.15.12 @ 8:30PM
So what do you suggest? Gingrich is a mean-spirited, self-bloviating, self-absorbed elitist who whines that he isn't on the Virginia ballot-he says rules apply only to the little people and he's an emperor-a god. Santorum has no chance, neither has Ron Paul or any of the other so unless a real conservative with good character, intelligence and good family values steps up to the plate, we're in trouble. I hope that when some of these, like John Thune or Mitch Daniels will step in to save the situation or is it already too late? If so, then we have handed Obama and his comrade a second term...sad, really.
jagscl| 1.15.12 @ 10:42PM
Republicans never seem to be able to come together to win, but are really able to attack each other with zeal. Romney, like McCain, is being pushed on the Party as inevitable. He is only inevitable if we voters in the large states that follow allow him to be
Controse| 1.15.12 @ 11:28PM
How in the name of common sense can a guy with 12 convention votes locked up be considered the probable nominee? Isn't there something like 1300 more votes needed to win? For heaven sakes what are all those other states, chopped liver. Me thinks pundits pontificate too much.
JFGalt| 1.16.12 @ 12:49PM
Why is anyone surprised? This was already decided quite a while ago. The GOP would let OBAMA ! have his second term by fielding a candidate that was hopeless and if by some far stretch of the imagination would win then he would just continue OBAMA!'s policies. You didn't think it would be any different did you. OBAMA! cannot be seen to lose. The cry of racism would split the country. 4 more years folks.
video converter ultimate | 1.17.12 @ 1:34AM
Video Converter Ultimate,
Burn AVI to DVD Format,
Drifter| 1.19.12 @ 2:07PM
I agree! The Republicans seem to be trying as hard as they can, to transform an election they should win in a landslide into a suicide leap into the abyss! The salient point is that they are taking the rest of us and our freedom along for the ride.
They have inflicted more damage on themselves than any progressive Democrat could dream of.
A shameful fail--so-far...