Friday, January 6, 2012

Frankly, Mitt Dear...

Even though the Presidential election is almost a year away, Mitt Romney has magically managed to recapture all of the grass-roots excitement and passion of the 2008 race by winning the endorsement of alleged Republican John McCain.

Addressing a sobbing crowd of conservatives, the feisty Arizona Senator said "I hope you'll hold your nose and vote for Mitt, the way you held your nose to vote for me!"

Okay, he didn't
really say that - but he might as well have. Because frankly Mr. McCain's wretched run for the Whitehouse still carries the kind of stink that can rub off on others - especially those who are already having trouble passing the conservative "sniff test."

Wasting no time, McCain has gone into pit bull mode for Mitt and has attacked Newt Gingrich for pointing out that Romney sometimes misrepresents his own record. Making such an accusation, according to McCain, is crossing the line of "something that we don't do in politics."

Of course, McCain is
also the guy who thought that mentioning Barack Obama's middle name, drug use, nationality, terrorist friends, racist church, nonexistent political record, and devotion to socialism were also things "that we don't do it politics."

Or for that matter,
winning elections - right, John?

In any event, for true conservatives, McCain's endorsement of Romney is as chilling as a cold, clammy breeze coming from the crypt which we
hoped had been permanently sealed when our dreams for 2008 were interred.

Please don't make us get this out of our sock drawer.


sablegsd said...

I held my nose and voted for mclame, because I liked Sarah Palin and had in the back of my mind that if mclame became incapacited, she could take over. Now, I don't mean I was wishing death or anything, just cogitating over an onerous situation.

Now, again, if I am expected to hold back the vomit and vote for romneycare, I refuse to take any blame when president downgrade wins again. Mittens cannot beat him. He's the most electable? Excuse me, but how so? He only one 1 race in his attempted political career.

sablegsd said...


John the Econ said...

< sigh >

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

What's sad is that McCain is still so deluded that he thinks his endorsement carries any weight at all, not just with conservatives, but with Republicans in general. He has be-clowned himself and is doing Romney no favors. That Romney can't see this speaks ill of him as well. Still going after the "moderates", Mitt? Of course I view Romney as merely three degrees off Obama regardless of the (R) after his name. I will not vote for Obama of any skin tone. I held my nose and voted for a really awful Republican in 2008. Won't do it again. You can't make me, no matter how much doom and gloom you prophesy or the guilt trips you try to project. I try to be optimistic, but if we truly can't do better than Romney perhaps we deserve our fate.

Colby said...

AHD - I disagree that McCain's endorsement carries no weight. I think it is going to be like a ball & chain around Romney's leg, unless he can also get some endorsements from a couple of bigtime real conservatives.

I also believe refusing to vote is much the same as voting third party. It's the same as a vote for BO. I am not crazy about Romney either, but he still hands down better than the socialist who will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to retain power. Just wait.... about a month before the election, he will announce his trillion dollar plan to bail everybody's mortgages out. I think his latest bogus "Consumer Czar" appointment is a step towards exactly that.

Get out your clothespins everybody, just in case. BO MUST GO!!

John the Econ said...

@above: Look at it this way. In 2000, many conservatives held their noses and voted for Bush, who was himself an establishment GOP squishy. What did we get out of the gate? "Compassionate Conservatism", snuggles with Ted Kennedy & an expansion of Medicare, embracing the neo-Keynesian resurgence, and out-of-control government growth that made Bill Clinton envious. Without Bush (2 mismanaged wars not-withstanding) there would have been no Barack Obama.

My point is that electing another squishy is little better than re-electing Obama. It's probably worse. Does anyone really believe that the size & scope of government will be relevantly retracted under a Romney administration? They guy's even floating a VAT, which is the monster that has eaten the EU. I think the answer is clearly "no". Romney fashions himself as a "technocrat". Free markets don't need technocrats. We've had enough of that.

I believe we are at or past the point of no-return. The only way to save America is to reverse the trend of the last 50 years. Merely slowing it is pointless, and just prolongs the misery.

I unfortunately agree with @AHD. Perhaps it's going to take another 4 years of Obama to really wake America up, and to finally flush the GOP of the squishies they've been trying to foist upon us since Goldwater.

Earl said...

Maybe it's time for Perry to back out and throw his endorsement to Newt or Rick. These primaries need to pit a real conservative against Romney. As things stand, conservatives are splitting their votes. Can't wait for Saturday's debates. I will don clothes pin if needed to prevent a second term for Obama. But the primaries aren't over and a strong conservative presence in debates and votes could make Romney a better candidate if he in fact gets the nomination. He acts like he's walking on eggshells or my favorite recent line from Jonah Goldberg regarding Romney's lack of passion, "He sounds like Spock reading a love poem."

Pete(Detroit) said...

Romney, who couldn't beat McCain, getting an endorsement from McCain, who wouldn't beat Obama.
Actually, I think he COULD have taken McCain last time, if the huckster hadn't been in there messing things up. I suspect deal was cut at that time w/ the GOP PTB that if he steped down, he'd be the nom next itme. Too bad they didn' tcount on people not likeing him at all...
Newt? Sure, he's had his moments, but he's not Romney.
Santorum? Sure he's a bible thumping gay hater, but he's not Romney
Mitt? Look quick, this week he's not Romney...

CenTexTim said...

I'm with Colby. Any port in a storm. While Port Romney may not be my first choice, it's better than being sunk by Hurricane obama.

For those who think no vote, or a third party protest vote, is preferable to voting for obama lite, just remember two words - Supreme Court. As Stilt pointed out a little while ago, reelecting obama (or sitting back and letting him get reelected) gives him the opportunity to appoint more 'wise fill-in-the-blanks.'

Chief Justice Eric Holder, anyone?

If you're serious about fundamentally changing the government (and I am) start at the bottom and work your way up. Look at the effect the newly elected 2010 conservative representatives had. They achieved gridlock, which is a step in the right direction. If we put more of them in office in 2012, along with a few truly conservative senators, then we can live with Romney (or whoever) as prez.

And don't forget your local races. Here in Texas the state legislature is responsible for redistricting and voting legislation (we passed a voter ID law). Both of these have been challenged in federal court, where presidentially appointed judges are hearing the cases. Yet another reason to do everything we can to boot out obama.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I feel very passionately that another four years under obama, Holder, Napolitano et al. would truly doom this country.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

All I can say is remember 1992. Third party votes only seem to affect the Republican candidate, and one in the upcoming election would clearly be intended to affect the Republican candidate. Tossing out your vote or voting third party is a vote for Øbama. Don't like what you currently have? Do something about it. If you sit in the corner and put like the petulent child we have in the oval office currently because you don't like the offering, then you'll get what you deserve. But the rest of us will get it, too. Like Øbama said: sometimes you just have to eat your peas.

Looking around, I would have expected a sweeping victory for ANYONE opposing Øbama, but even lifetime Democrats I had convinced to vote him out this time are now hedging because "the Republican offerings certainly don't amount to much". Thanks, RNC. Thanks for obviating the efforts of the grassroots...

Emmentaler Limburger said...


Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- CenTexTim (immediately above) pretty much beat me to the punch on everything I was going to say. If Obama wins again, he packs the Supreme Court and continues to do damage for decades (or the end of our republic, which would probably happen first) and guarantees that NO administration or supermajority in the future could save the country. So come election day, I am voting against Obama.

Additionally, local and state races are very important and so we shouldn't let our disappointment over who's heading the ticket carry over into the other contests.

Like Earl says, I'd like to see Perry drop out and throw his support to another candidate. Perry isn't a bad guy, but in a debate with Obama he'd look like he'd gone through a woodchipper. No, we need fewer and clearer choices in the primaries, and some of the also-rans need to start bailing out instead of dividing the vote.

Remember - that's how we got stuck with McCain last time: a line-up of conservatives split the vote (with none getting a plurality) while Squish McCain got virtually the entire moderate vote. In virtually every race, the overall conservative vote was much higher than the moderate vote - but because of the fractured allocation of conservative votes, McCain ended up being the last (and arguably worst) man standing.

That seems to be happening again, and I don't like it. But all of that being said, I will support the eventual nominee who runs against Obama.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Emmentaler- Looks like we posted at the same time. You make a great point when you say that withholding your vote or going third party is a vote for Obama. Seriously, does anyone here want to do that? A lifetime is a long time to avoid looking at yourself in the mirror (grin).

One other hugely important point that I want to make: the president is not the government. Maybe a squish won't enthusiastically push the reforms we need, but he might also be unable to push back against a strong enough conservative House and Senate (especially if he knows that his re-electability is hanging by a thread). When it comes to who's in the Whitehouse, I'd rather we face a low speed bump rather than a brick wall.

Anonymous said...

Colby is right. You have to vote. You cannot just sit back and say I quit and will not hold my nose for Romney. It is our duty and our mission and if you don't vote becasue you don't like him, then you are a traitor to the cause. Look at the bigger picture. We are voting out not just ODIPWAD but all of his communist czars as well. Pelosi and Reid will probably not stick around becasue they will have no furor to guide them. Please, look at eh bigger picture. If we get rid oof the usurping scumbag, all his appointed communist czars go with him.

Colby said...

@Earl - I think Rick Perry was about to do exactly what you said, but decided to wait just a bit longer. You know he isn't going to do worth a crap in NH, and I'd bet he drops out after South Carolina if his numbers suck again. He will throw his support behind either Newt or Santorum because they are the most conservative of the bunch. It will also be curious to see who Bachmann throws in with. Is Herman Cain witholding his support because he knows he would drag down whoever he chose? If so, he is an American first and a politician second and I admire that.

I had a great idea last night. Well, at least I think it's a great idea; it might actually suck. Why doesn't the RNC (or DNC for that matter) require candidates pick a running mate BEFORE the primaries? Or at least make them provide a list of two or three they would prefer?... I know I would have a lot fewer reservations voting for Romney if he said he would pick a Marco Rubio or a Jim DeMint.

And, finally (then I'll shut up!). maybe Romney wasn't so stupid getting McCain to throw in with him. There are a LOT of people in this country (including myself) that would give just about anything to have McCain right now instead of Dope and Strange. I would even venture to guess there are a shitload of folks who voted for BO that now wish they had voted for McCain. Maybe it's a good move to be associated with McCain, even if he IS a giant RINO.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Anonymous- Excellent points. The worst of the Democrats (and granted, that's a fine distinction) will not want to sit around when they're not in power. So MUCH GOOD can be accomplished even if we get a squish at the top but some courage and conviction in the house and senate. Plus, I'll personally buy a drink for anyone who votes against Obama. I'm not trying to coerce any votes, mind you - I'd just like to celebrate your good judgment!

@Colby- Since the eventual running mate will probably come out of the pack, I can't see how your pairing system could be made to work - but I think it's a GREAT idea. Romney/Rubio? Fine - I'm in. Santorum/Jindall? Okay - See you at the polls! Seriously...things like that could be a total game changer.

Per your final point, I've got to admit that McCain looks GREAT compared to Obama at this point. In all seriousness, I've found myself wishing that HILLARY had won over Obama - and if that doesn't show desperation, I don't know what does!

Mike Porter said...

Back in September of 2009, Glenn Beck was interviewed by Katie Couric, and threw her for a loop when he said that he would rather see Obama elected than McCain. His reasoning was simple: McCain is a RINO, and would continue to quietly ramp up the ongoing progressive policies that are ruining this country. And as with previous 'moderate' administrations, Americans wouldn't notice as they slumbered on and let it happen. Obama, however, would be like ice water in the face, and true conservatives would be absolutely shocked into action. Folks who had never rallied and organized would rise up to become a formidable force in the American political landscape. Talk about prophetic.

SC said...

My candidate of choice is ABO (Anybody But Obama)
My winter drink is Bailey’s, my summer drink is rum n coke; if Obama loses then, it’s champagne for everyone! Thanks Stilt On second thought - we should be buying you the drinks.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Mike Porter- Glenn Beck is a very sharp guy, and he made a great and valid point. But for the reasons outlined above, there's no way that I could vote in ANY way that would favor Obama, even if I thought it might help "wake up" America.

@SC- ABO gets my vote, plus the vote of anyone else whose ID I can get my hands on (joking! joking!). Regarding the serious matter of alcohol, I've never been a big Bailey's man, but have never been disappointed in a rum n' coke (dark rum, por favor). And champagne when Obama loses? Oh yes- THAT I promise you!

pryorguy said...

YES! As already mentioned, the running mate could make a huuuge difference and help squelch the stench as Sarah Palin did last time! There are QUALITY candidates for that position and I'm anxious to see who that person will be!

Several DEM congressmen already realize they are toast so they are checking out.That will help a lot, so get some good GOP people up there to replace them and get a majority back in the senate!

Right now....ABO!!!

pryorguy said...

One of my favorite pundits, Bruce Walker, wrote this in American Thinker today...I feel many would agree with this assessment...

On January 2, Alan Colmes on Fox News mocked presidential hopeful Rick Santorum and Santorum's wife for bringing their critically ill newborn son, Gabriel, into the world and then bringing him home.

The left wonders when Sarah Palin brings Trig, a child with Down Syndrome, into the world, and he is cherished and loved, the left spins its head -- why not just waste the kid before he was born?

The left's heart of darkness is so dreadful that appalling bile seems normal to its minions until normal, moral people object.

Less noticed in the Fox News interview is Colmes's statement that Santorum is crazy also because he thinks that consensual sex between unmarried people is wrong. What offends Colmes and the left seems to be adherence to the traditional moral values of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and most of the world's historic metaphysical value systems.

Do its disciples not grasp the horrors of the sexual revolution -- the millions of abortions, huge subsets of America's babies born out of wedlock, a huge rise in sexually transmitted diseases, and the general collapse of the nuclear family?

Is it not clear that we can't go on like this? All we love, all we cherish, all we hope for is spiraling down a long, snaky drain into the leftist heart of darkness. The planned economy, the planned social life built upon the precepts of scientific materialism, the Brave New World of people like Alan Colmes -- all fit together in a single awful theme: we -- the left, that is -- have supplanted God and all the outdated values He prescribed at Sinai, in Galilee, and throughout the Judeo-Christian world. Instead of making Heaven, we have opened new doors of Hell.

Conservatives sometimes get too distracted by dollars and deficits and debt. These matter, of course -- they matter a great deal in political life. But the deconstruction of the American economy is a consequence, not a cause, of our fundamental problem, which is moral.
The road back requires first of all that politicians who are asked to cure social problems be allowed to tell the truth about why these problems exist. The values given us from above are beyond the reach of leftist pygmies, and the laws prescribed for us by God have definite and absolute consequences which ripple throughout our lives and the lives we touch.

Good time to pray for our nation!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pryorguy- That's an excellent piece! As I've mentioned here before, I'm not a religious believer - but I'm a huge believer in moral values, right and wrong, and the critical importance of individual responsibility. There is no mystery about the unfolding tragedy in this nation - and most of it comes from the decline of (and Leftwing assault on) morality. And for most people, morality and faith are inextricably and somewhat wonderfully linked. So by all means pray to give strength to everyone who wants to do the right thing.

And by the way, you can tell Alan Colmes that I would gladly vote for Trig Palin over Barack Obama for president anyday.

CenTexTim said...

Trig would be an upgrade.

John the Econ said...

@pryorguy, although on moral grounds I agree with you, the reality remains that as long as the GOP remains to be sidetracked by social issues, it will lose. The left will use it to portray the GOP as wishing to impose some sort of right-wing caliphate upon America. (And I am an evangelical Christian, btw; I don't want to live under any caliphate, left or right) And, unfortunately, they will be right. Like I said above, looks like another 4 years of Obama. Get ready.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Thanks, John, for saying so succinctly what I have had vaguely worrying my for ages.
Is it not possible to promote the nuclear family as the best state (assuming it's a non-abusive situation) w/o denigrating other options? How the hell is it 'family values' if I have to disown my gay cousin, whom I happen to value? I just don't get some things...

Whenever I get 'nervous' about the times we live in, I check my stock of 'precious metals' - brass and lead, in various calibers.

God forbid I should need to 'spend' any of it, but better to have and not need than need and not have, I think...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Like you, I wish the social issues could be set aside for this election, because they divide us at a critical time. Are such issues important? Sure - but they can certainly be prioritized to the back of the line while we focus on other things like, oh, not having the country go bankrupt. Sadly, another 4 years of Obama would be the worst of all worlds: greater insolvency and greater division and polarization on social issues.

@Pete(Detroit)- I absolutely believe that the nuclear family is what's best (in its ideal form) for the individuals involved, the community, and society in general. That being said, I can simultaneously embrace the idea of gay couples being a valued part of my community without risk of my head exploding.

There is unavoidably overlap between government policies and morality. But the primary responsibility of government MUST be those pragmatic issues which exist outside the human soul. Let the churches do their jobs, and maybe Washington can finally do something useful.

pryorguy said...

John, you are absolutely right...if the GOP focuses too much on social issues, it will be rough! Unfortunately, that is what most of the electorate wants to hear from them...being a christian, as you and I are, it is crucial to understand and be aware that we live in a post-modern, post-christian age now. The times have really changed since the days of our elders where God's way was revered. To find a people still willing to learn of Him and his ways, you must turn to folks living in a very oppressed society, such as China is, where secretive house churches are the norm. Or, many areas of Africa, where Islamic despots are waging genocide on the people.

Here in this country there is a christian church on every corner, rarely attended. Again, I feel it is a problem with the mindset in many ways of the people who will be casting ballots this year: the entitlement crowd, the unionists, the racists, the uninformed,etc. That is where I think there really needs to be a fundamental change, but do not hold much hope it will happen. Perhaps Glenn Beck was right; someone such as Obama must take us far enough down the slope with its ensuing hardships, for people to wake up and DESIRE a different way of thinking and doing things in this country!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@pryorguy- Unfortunately, I don't think Obama is taking us down a slope, so much as tossing us over a precipice.

pryorguy said...

I still dont believe a lot of people get that at all! thats what is scary! If you are like me in this way, one day I am optimistic, the next I can see the jerk for another 4 years! I guess the suspense is killin me!

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

The consensus here seems to be "anybody but Obama, no matter what". Perhaps I'm not seeing the "big picture" but I believe I'm looking long term. What does it benefit us to vote for anybody but Obama if his replacement will ultimately follow the same path? I know what Romney has "promised" and I have to judge this against his past actions and the type of politician I believe him to be. I have used this analogy before...being tossed into the lion's den and hoping he will eat you last. Am I really required to participate in the slow destruction of my country because I oppose it's quick destruction? Exactly how do I tell my daughter, "Sorry, honey, but I kicked the can down the road for you to deal with. Tough luck."? In the end, it will be me alone in that little curtained cubicle with a pencil and a ballot. The next morning I will still have to look at myself. I will still live in an America that desperately needs saving. What will I have done to help save it?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- Believe me, I hear you (and share your feelings). But I think the choices we have before us are (happily) more significant than quick death or slow death for our country.

To me, the number one reason for "Anyone But Obama" is the Supreme Court. We MUST prevent Obama from packing the court with liberals who can serve for decades. And there's no one competing for the GOP condidacy who would make picks as bad as Obama's.

Next, as I've said before, the presidency is important - but it's not the whole government. The president makes speeches, but laws come from the House and Senate...and there's an excellent chance that we'll control both after this next election cycle. If a significant cost-cutting measure is passed by the House and Senate, even a Republican Squish in the Whitehouse isn't going to veto it and alienate himself from his party and his base. And that means that the ideas of people like Paul Ryan might actually be put into practice.

Finally, I'll tell you (as I tell myself, pretty much every day) not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's easy (and I'm not sure inaccurate) to fall into an "all or nothing" mindset and feel like we've got to fix everything quickly or it will be too late. But changes of that size are unlikely to happen all at once. Rather, I think it's critically important that we start the fixes now, and then grow them.

And "Anyone But Obama" will be a good and meaningful start.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Like I said, I'm not convinced Romney would appoint SCOTUS justices any less ideologically twisted than Obama would. Also, you have a far more generous definition of "good" than I have. You talk about Republicans controlling both houses of Congress after this election. Control with what...the same big-government, greedy, grasping "accomodating" Republicans we've had in the past. You know, the ones looking to be loved by the media? Whoo-hoo! We need L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P. Where is it?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- The president can't operate in a vacuum, and I think he'd have to make Supreme Court choices that wouldn't come under fire from his own side. That's my hope, anyway.

When it comes to Republicans as a body, I've got no love for 'em. It's taken BOTH parties to get us into this mess, and there's plenty of guilt to go around. And we're not going to see sudden heroics from the old guard GOP who are just as bad as the Dems. But the newer Tea Party types are a truly different breed. And even if they're not the majority within the party, I think they (and we) can make it clear that unless they're given power, we Tea Party types WILL withdraw support for Republicans in general and let them fall.

Don't get me wrong, though - I YEARN for the sort of leadership you're talking about, and don't currently see much of it out there. Then again, some people (like Paul Ryan) might serve us best by doing exactly what they're doing - using their brains and expertise to come up with real solutions - than by putting them on the rubber chicken circuit. Of course, those solutions can only be implemented if we take control of the presidency, House, and Senate.

It's not everything (or perhaps even enough) - but it's a start.

SC said...

@Pryorguy: Yes, we do need to pray for our nation. Social values are important, however, absolutely imperative is a country that is viable, sustainable, secure and free.

The road back 1st requires DC to correct it’s over-spending, over-regulating, unintended consequences for their actions & non-actions, size & scope of government, waste, fraud & abuse, corruption, reduce the debt, balance the budget, make spending cuts, reform the tax code, address illegal immigration, etc. Now, if these are considered “morale’ issues then, YES, they have to be addressed immediately.

Banning abortions and gay marriages are not going to solve our most pressing issues of the day. Nor will they bring America back to the Christian morals that the country was founded on or your hope that we return to. If abortions are made illegal, they will still be performed. If there is a ban on gay marriage or civil unions, those folks will continue to live together in a committed relationship.

You cannot legislate morality. And, as it should be, in the end God will be the judge.

And, sorry folks, but, I’m going to whine here…..If you label yourself ‘Pro-Life’ then, you would also believe that under absolutely no circumstances can we ever go to war. People die in wars & if you are ‘Pro-Life’ then, you also have to be 100% anti-war. But, if you think war is OK in certain circumstances, you are no longer ‘Pro-Life’. If you are ‘Pro-Choice’ then, you have to believe that the ‘choice’ a woman makes to keep a baby is acceptable. You become a complete ‘Complete Hypocrite’ if you bash a woman her for deciding (her Choice) to keep her baby. Ie: the Libs that blasted Sara Palin for keeping her son Trig because he has Down Syndrome and Rick Santorum’ situation.