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.
The revolution of the left is the stratified revolution of Barack Obamas and Elizabeth Warrens, greedy political activists feeding at the watering hole of government and crying out for more. More power. More laws. More chains. Parse the rhetoric and all you get is the powerful demanding that we give them more power. This revolution of the greedy and corrupt would already be dead if it had not used the momentum of its ideological fervor to embed itself into every institution and seize control of the educational system and the cultural dialogue to program succeeding generations to give it even more power.
The time is ripe for a true cultural and political revolution of the right, but that revolution has been hijacked over and over again by the gatekeepers who warn us that it's time to play nice, that we must think of the long game, that some issues have already been lost and we need to fight only for the core issues that matter to them lest we alienate people. The long march never ends in a last stand, only another tactical withdrawal on issue after issue.
"...but that revolution has been hijacked over and over again by the gatekeepers who warn us that it's time to play nice, that we must think of the long game..."
This is a bit of a contradiction. I think one of the issue with the right is that it hasn't played for the long game. While I agree that there's been institutional RINO type gatekeepers, the problem isn't that we're focusing too much on the long game but rather hardly at all. Some of our problems stem from ideological purists who would rather lose than win with a less than perfect conservative. We have to think long, we have to fight for big wins where and when we can get them and many small incremental wins over time. We have to break up many of these large, monopolistic government institutions and push more control and responsibility out of the Federal government to where it belongs. But just like the left didn't win over night, neither will the right. If Romney is the best we can do this round, than fine, I'll take Romney but hope to keep him honest with conservative control of the House and Senate.
Its been the fight since the 60's. And, every attempt (Goldwater first, then Reagan) that attempted to bring about a return to our roots, what 'works', and highlight what isn't, the same gatekeepers (ala the Agnew's, etc...) throw up the barriers for this discussion, highlighting, and saying "got to get along, to get along..."
No change to our climate is going to happen until:
1) we realize that the leftists ARE fighting a war against EVERYTHING that refuses to bend to their will
2) those antique 'gatekeepers' must be relegated to the history ash-can, as their hindrance fertilizes the leftists actions to fruition
3) No matter how much we bend, the Leftists will NEVER accept our ideas, our concessions (without further concessions...), or our existence - loathe, actually...
4) We must fight it to WIN; all else is a hollow victory and appeasing the continuing malaise...
The GOP primary seems to be leading us inexorably to a smooth, safe, unprovocative candidate who won't upset people or change anything. The mainstream candidates have attracted a lot of "clothespin" supporters, who are in anybody-but-Obama mode but don't really much care for the alternative and are feeling pretty enervated.
The only candidate whose supporters have any passion is Ron Paul. It's going to be awfully interesting to see how delegates behave at the convention; there are reports that the only people motivated to attend the conventions are his supporters, who will be released from duties to their primary candidate after the first ballot.
The barrier to power is psychological, not political, at this point. Until the Right is willing TO HURT OUR ENEMIES, the Right goes nowhere. "Power never concedes anything without a threat. It never has; it never will." For example, how about a new House UnAmerican Activities Committee with subpena power? What will a resurgent, tea-fueled GOP make of these nakedly-subversive university presidents, labor leaders, media moguls? How else can an entire Left social apparatus be countered, by the Right, except by taking on "sweeping powers"?
I'll vote for Romney, if he's the eventual nominee (ABO). A Romney presidency scares me because I think he wants to focus on managing things better and not cutting or eliminating departments and agencies - smaller government. His positive remarks about a VAT scare the beejeebers out of me. I don't want EU lite!
Bob in VA ... I like your post above saying you'll vote for Romney even though he "scares' you. It means, to me, that you are avoiding the big mistake that many folks made in the last presidential election when they decide that some candidate or other is less than perfect, therefore you won't vote, or you'll vote for the opposition [horrors]. To me, this election should be clarified in your mind when you look at both candidates and decide that one of them has proved his malign influence on our precious country over and over again, and that the most important thing is to remove him from office, even if you have to vote for a less than perfect candidate to do so.
I'm not crazy about Romney either. And I feel that Newt is often erratic. But either one is far, far better for our country's future destiny than Mr. Obama, who is the king of the SASS folks [Short Attention Span] guys.
We lost our focus in 2008. Let's not do so again.