We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, December 29. 2011
He's the Repub candidate, OK?
Nobody is perfect. Was Obama a perfect candidate? As far as rabid celeb enthusiasm goes, that's more appropriate for Hollywood than for governance. That's kid stuff.
I've been around the block enough times to learn that you will never have perfect political candidates, and that Messiahs are not for this world. Mostly, the best people avoid the toilet of politics. Obama's Messiah shtick was boob bait (but it worked as a trick).
Romneycare? Yes, wrong move - but Newt loved it. There will never be a Conservative Utopia just as there will never be a Socialist Utopia. Freedom and politics are messy, and depend on who can collect votes and cash. Obama will be flush with automatic union, blue state, and ethnic votes - and with automatic Wall St., union, and California cash.
People forget that, last go-round, Romney was considered too Conservative. Hence "moderate, maverick McCain." Go ahead if you want and beat me up about it, but the time for dating is over.
Dog donut, I cannot embed this important, relevant video.
(I am speaking only for myself, of course, and not for the Maggie's crew.)
Addendum: Why Ann Coulter supports Mitt (thanks, reader. I saw this but didn't link it.)
Tracked: Dec 30, 16:04
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Romney thinks that the mandate to buy health insurance is a conservative position. As long as it's done by the state.
If you want a figurehead who agrees with you about everything, run for Prez yourself!
The point is that the Prez is just the figurehead for thousands of party people. It matters, and he has to do what they want.
I agree that Romneycare was an error.
Here is my problem with the GOP candidates. Most or all of them would not do those things we must do to prevent or mitigate our economic and social collapse. Romney for example, would be a Obama light. He probably would not actively try to repeal Obama care and would probably continue to bail out failing banks/industries and borrow and print money. He would probably not touch the union problem with a 10 foot pole. He would not do anything to secure our borders or rid this country of the illegal aliens that are draining our coffers and destroying our health care system. What he and the rest of the candidates would do from day one is begin running for re-election. The result of a Romney or Gingrich would be more of the same, perhaps at a modestly slower speed but still downhill towards the destruction of our constitutional republic.
If, on the other hand, Obama is re-elected he will continue to loot the treasury, borrow us into irreversible bankruptcy, destroy our military and put the nail in the coffin of our constitutional government. This "might" wake up the vast majority of Americans who have tuned out politics and never learned anything in high school history or civics classes and "maybe" create a revolution that would bring us back to the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Much like with a crack addict attempts at intervention are always unsuccessful until they hit rock bottom. Think about it; a solid 43% or so of Americans when polled, like Obama and want four more years! How could that be? Simple, they are Democrats/liberals and believe they will get some of the "Obama dollars" and want the party to roll on "Laissez les bons temps rouler". These are the crack heads (and arguably the 20% or so who call themselves independents) who must hit rock bottom before they will wake up. Sadly we are all on the same roller coaster and will all take the same ride.
But the choice as I see it is either a generation or two or three generations of slow/fast decline with no hope of a turn around anytime soon until we go the way of the Romans: Or a national version of tough love where the left/liberal philosophy is tried and fails dramatically followed by a French style revolution where politicians are jailed/guillotined until they are all gone and we start again with the original intent of our constitution.
I am aware of the risks but I argue that any belief that the status quo is not riskier proves that we are in denial.
Let me give you a simple and succinct proof of the senseless and incomprehensible risk we face with the status quo: Our congress is about to vote to give BILLION$ to unemployment payments. Certainly everyone reading this knows someone or has a brother-in-law etc. who is unemployed, has been for a year or two and has no intent of working as long as the government continues to send him checks. At the same time the same congress is going to cut national defense. I'm not just saying to stop spending on wars in foreign countries (which makes sense) but to cut the muscle and bone of our defense to do what??? To pay people to not work in unemployment, food stamps, section 8, welfare, Medicaid, etc., etc. There is no end of the trillions they will spend to buy votes but they will cut national defense!!! Do you still believe the status quo is a good idea?
It's December, the nominee isn't selected until next August.
I don't have to accept Romney today, I don't accept Romney today, and I will be happy to support any other candidate that seems to me will be a better more conservative candidate between now and August.
More and more I am coming to believe that the changes we can effect in the House and the Senate will be more important than the selection of the president. Since it is quite obvious that the national media will work tirelessly to ensure that the GOP candidate will be the weakest candidate possible.
Media will attempt to destroy any Repub candidate.
You are right - House and Senate are perhaps more important. Prez is figurehead.
Uh... excuse me, but the primary season has not yet begun. Can we at least wait until Iowa, NH and SC have voted before we proclaim the winner?
In any event, it isn't going to matter. The die is cast. Between 0bamacare, Medicare and Social Security, the nation will go broke. The dems won't consider any spending cuts and the Republicans quiver with fear at the thought of being labelled as villains if they cut any program in the slightest.
The only course of action will be to tax and borrow and until until the financial house of cards collapses.
Yeah. Romney. A rich, egotistical plutocrat in the Bloomberg mold who knows what is best for those feeble minded proles, who are unable to figure out a way to provide for their own healthcare and thus require his all-knowing supervision.
Boy, I can hardly wait to vote for him.
I am not a fan of Romney - in fact I have commented here before that for me it was anybody but Romney in the primary and anybody but Obummer in the election. However, I read Ann Coulter's reasoning for supporting him and I have to say I think there is merit in her position (http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/12/28/only_one_candidate_is_right_on_the_two_most_important_issues). He is certainly not the candidate I would prefer, but I think it will be easier voting for him than I thought.
but the time for dating is over.
Thank god polygamy is an option.
I don't believe that BD was supporting the polygamy option. He's supporting the Ann Coulter option, I think.
Romney...not a chance...he's a wussy...IMO.
Time will out in the end. True... the GOP has a problem of image but so does the Obomination. Keep focussed people!! If the Zero gets in again.....
I predict he will deliver a concession speech so swell as to border on keen.
He is not hip. He is running as the grown-up in the room, For better or worse. That's who he is.
If Romney is the nominee, he will defeat Obama, turn our economy around, yet leave in place most of a century's worth of progressive muck written into the machinery of our state. Romney's presidency will be an upward blip, but when he leaves office, the muck will still be forcing our nation into a slow, leftward decline.
If Gingrich is the nominee, he will defeat Obama, turn our economy around, and attack the progressive muck with glee. He will get about 80% of it right, and put our nation on a new trajectory. In this, I agree with Thomas Sowell. These are not normal times, and the only one of these candidates that comes close to rising to the issues presented is Newt.
I think Coulter now supports Romney because she is a Christie fan, and Christie has softened his position on accepting a VP slot.
Newt continues to be my first choice, but we all know the MSM will go after the Repub candidate like a rabid possum, no matter who the candidate is.
In the final analysis, I'm ABO. In fact, I'll vote for Bird Dog's bird dog before I pull the lever for Obama.
For myself, I don't think any of them, candidates, amount to a hill of beans.
Matter of fact I'm coming around to the thought that I'd like to see the Dem's get Obama re-elected, hold control of the Senate and take back the House.
Let'em go full bore, balls to the wall.
Then, in 2014, we'll see if there are enough of different thought to change our head long ride to hell.
And if not, at least then we will know where we stand and what the future holds.
XRay, you must be a engineer. e.g. this old joke.
A lawyer, a pastor, and an engineer get in a car on top of a steep hill and start down. The car goes faster and faster until the engineer, who is driving, announces that the brakes aren’t working. The car continues down the hill to the bottom only just managing to stay on the road. It finally comes to a stop and the three men get out.
The lawyer says, “I'm going to sue the last repair shop that worked on this car, they were obviously negligent”.
The Pastor says, “ I must say a prayer thanking the Lord for sparing our lives!”.
The Engineer says, “ Lets go back to the top of the hill, and try coming down again to see if it does the same thing.”
choke, choke, choke, gag, spew
(lots of engineers in the family...needed that tale last week)
Tea Party - if Romney is the GOP Candidate, there will be a third party - if not this election for sure 2014. Looking more and more like the institutional Repubs are just too wedded to their perks and position and completely unable to adjust to change. There are a startling number of people who believe this is an existential test for the Republic. Failing the test fails the trust that people have invested in their representatives.
Okay folks, here is what I want to see happen in the next election: Republican in White House, House and Senate in Republican hands. Think about these things: Possible supreme court appointments, NLRB, EPA, etc. The future of the country is riding on all these factors. Seeing that half the country wants the socialist reelected is a dangerous sign. We are close to oblivion. We are close to waking up in a foreign country. No third party. The French Revolution didn't work out too well, nothing like ours. If the repubs have all that power and don't change things then we must water the tree of liberty with another revolution.
I agree, he is likely to be the nominee.
If he is, I'd support him.
In fact, I believe that most Republicans will hold their nose and do it. Since that is exactly what I did with Christie, and I'm not terribly offended by my vote (actually I feel pretty damn good now), I'm hoping lightning will strike twice.
I don't see Romney turning anything around. It's not the president's job to do that (which is one reason I don't like Obama and a reason I was so disappointed with Bush). The only thing politicians can do is get in the way. Oh sure, some people will benefit from political payouts, and the press will make the most of it, but the real job of the president is to conduct foreign policy and make sure the other branches don't tread all over the Constitution or bankrupt the county - both of which have been going on for far too long now.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are no truly 'good' candidates. Those that are, are 'unelectable'. The 'electable' ones are milquetoast or offensive.
Christie, when he ran, was considered fairly dirty, and many thought he was bought and sold. He may be both. But he does a good job of presenting himself as his own man, and that counts for quite a bit.
I could see Mitt being like that. But he ain't there yet. Still, if it's between him and Obama, I'll go for the least objectionable alternative.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are no truly 'good' candidates. Those that are, are 'unelectable'. The 'electable' ones are milquetoast or offensive.
When I am in the voting booth, I have long voted for the least bad candidate. No one candidate can please all the people on all issues.
That being said, if a yellow dog were against Obama next year, I would probably vote for the yellow dog. ABO.
Back in the 1900s author GK Chesterton devised a game called "Cheat the Prophet." In Chesterton's original formulation what people did was listen carefully to everything a pundit had to say about the coming world, and then, once the pundit had expired, went and did exactly the opposite.
These days we're not so courteous as people in Chesterton's day, for we go and do the opposite while the pundit is still alive.
We haven't even started and the course of events is not yet laid out. Most anybody could win the Republican nomination, and most anybody probably will. Just remember that Clinton was not the leader in 1992 until a few caucases and primaries were done. And where was John McCain at this stage in 2008?
Another game of Cheat the Prophet is now underway, and how it turns out is anybody's guess.
There's still plenty of track left in the race. The media and the Republican party are trying get a quick selection so that Americans can go back to sleep.
Romney is the favored Republican because he is the same type of stooge that Obama is and he will continue to ruin America just like the present administration.
If Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him. I just have a hard time getting excited about someone who's official campaign slogan is "tell me what you want to hear, that's my position." Is there any significant issue he hasn't been on both sides of?
People forget that, last go-round, Romney was considered too Conservative. Hence "moderate, maverick McCain."
People forget that last time, the media wanted McCain as the nominee. So they supported McCain and hammered all the other candidates, one after another, right up to the day that McCain clinched the nomination. At which point they turned around and did their best to destroy him. Just as they're doing now with Romney.
People also forget the stories at the time (which were, and are, entirely believable) of Democrat voters crossing the line and voting for McCain in Republican primaries because they believed he would be a weak and easily beaten candidate.
Romney is also a weak and easily-beatable candidate. In fact, all the current Republican candidates are weak and easily beaten. Most of them stand convicted of either moonbattery or liberalism - or both - out of their own mouths.
To those who think Romney - or anyone - can fix what Barry Lackwit has done, I have a question. I've asked it several times on several different blogs and other sites over the last few months, and still haven't gotten an answer. Here it is:
Why do you believe that Romney/Gingrich/Bachmann/Paul/anyone can fix things now?
For three years, forty percent of the federal budget has been red ink. The national debt is now over $16,000,000,000,000. To balance the budget and start paying off the debt, you'd have to either double federal tax revenue or cut federal spending in half. Or some combination thereof. What makes you think [your candidate] could accomplish that without completely trashing what little is left of the US economy? What makes you think [your candidate] could convince Congress to do that?
I want to believe it's possible. So far I don't. Still waiting for an answer......
Mitt Romney is not named "Barack H. Obama." That's the only relevant piece of information. He will get my vote, he will get some money (as much as I can spare), he may even get some of my time during October 2012.
What a Republican candidate wants to do, or can do, is completely irrelevant. What's at stake in this election is what Barack Obama will be prevented from doing in his second term.
I simply cannot understand the reasoning of people who would not support a Republican because he's a RINO -- and thereby hand the election over to Obama.
The same clowns who call Romney a "rino", would call Reagan a leftist if he was running today.
Romney and Gingrich are progressives just like Obama. The republican party ruling class will not like the outcome of conservatives like myself voting for a third party. But they seem to prefer party suicide to actual conservative candidates. I will support conservative congressmen but NOT Lugar. I will no longer eat the dog food they put out, I'll eat table scraps at the "neighbors".
I'm from MA. The fact that out of all the 50 states in this union, romney CHOSE MA as the place to run for office, and actually BE the governor of this state, shows, to me he has a severe lack of common sense, information, sanity. And that he played well with such arch lefties as kennedy and frank, i.e., did what THEY wanted, is a large reason for him to NOT be the republican candidate. Unless, of course, the present day republican party is just the dem-lite party waiting in the wings.
Romney looks like a president oughta look. In fact, he is spectacular looking. This is not going to hurt him going forward.
I'm guessing that Missy is a woman. When I talk to women about the debates they say this: Newt can't win, he is ugly, has a stupid name, and is fat. No issues discussed. About Romney: he is cute, handsome, etc. No issues discussed. It's all cute. That's why they like Obama, he's cute. Women should not be allowed to vote.
I would support Romney if he's the nominee but won't be too excited about it. I see him as a manager rather than a changer like Newt; that's why electing more fiscally conservative senators and representatives has to be the focus in 2012. We would need them to keep prodding Romney to make significant changes in the size and scope of government once he's settled the economy down.
Romney will be running against a jug-eared, bucktoothed Communist with the worst record of any President in the history of the country. The fatalism of the so-called "true conservatives" this go around is the height of stupidity.
I am in a completely different camp than the other commenters here. I deeply believe that Romney and Obama will pursue virtually the same policies, just as Obama and Bush did.
The only candidate who has a prayer of saving this country is Ron Paul. He will actually cut the budget, and the overseas commitments. He will get us out of the UN, which would be an unabashedly good thing. Romney? No way.
Before the rise of communism, which turned Republicans into hawks, there was a strong Republican sense of true conservatism: that we shouldn't have overseas commitments everywhere.
I would like to see a return to the older version of Republicanism. I have no intention of voting for Romney just becuase he's the Republican nominee. I have done that for years (voted a straight Republican ticket). I can no longer do it and live with myself.
Romney: Obama redux.
Alex ... You certainly are conducting political discussions with some very superficial women. You should raise your intellectual sights at least a little, and try starting a rational discussion on possible nominees with someone who at least has a triple digit IQ.
Remember, however, the old saw about "by their words ye shall know them". The more insulting you are about your opposite numbers in a debate or discussion, the more you reveal about yourself.
Marianne, I only recounted what was said to me by capable business women, I did not insult them. Why don't you simply discuss what I said and not attack me or the women I spoke with? No need for hysteria, lol.
Alex, you did insult them. You said, "Women should not be allowed to vote." That is insulting not only to the particular businesswomen you personally spoke with but to all women who vote.
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote...
Neither should men.
L. Sprague De Camp wrote a story once, a kingdom decided who was going to be their ruler every few years by cutting the head off the old guy and tossing the head out into the crowd. Whoever caught it, or got hit by it, was the new King. Until his turn.
That would work.
I have no doubt whatsoever that, if elected, Mitt Romney will pursue the policies that will put this country on the road to recovery. The same can be said for Gingrich, but the guy has a somewhat perverse need to always be thought the most intelligent man in whatever room he is in.
There is something unsettling about that need.
I should also add that I don't think I could take four years of watching Callista Gingrich blink like an alien life-form. That is also troubling.
Romney is the only candidate who can pick off disaffected independents who supported Obama the last go round. That gives the GOP a viable shot at winning the White House. What is more important is to win the Senate and gain seats in the House. With a GOP President and a GOP Congress then we'll see some real hope and change.
It seems all of you have your heads in the sand. Go to Ron Paul's campaign website and see where he stands on the issues. Look at his voting record for the entire time that he's been in office. He's conservative ALL the way.
Romney definitely is NOT! Newt definitely is NOT. They are BOTH nearly as liberal as the big zero we have now.
If you say Ron Paul is not electable, then you've given up already and are willing to accept the status quo for another four years. It's time people stand up on their own two hind legs and do what is right and the best for the country rather than vote only for those they think are electable.
One may as well vote for Obama as to vote for Romney. The American people would rather stay with the status quo than take a chance on someone who has already shown himself to be 'not that much different.' And the true conservative Republicans, like myself, will not be motivated to go out and vote for someone who introduced RomneyCare and who has believed in being pro-abortion. Yeah, nobody is perfect, but we can probably get a Republican candidate next time around that is significantly closer to being both socially and fiscally conservative if we ignore/reject Romney this time around. Let's face it, we don't have a candidate that's really likely to beat Obama anyhow. Do what you want...I'm voting my conscience...and that means it won't be for Romney and definitely not for Obama!