GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/21/whither-the-post-obama-democrats/trackback/

  1. [Greenwald] Americans continue to have a crush on Barack Obama even after his universally panned first term. No longer quite head over heels, they’re at the “I know he’s no good for me, but I can change him” phase.

    No, I think it’s more like guilt. The “I know He’s bad for me, but my teacher said I’m supposed to like black people because they’ve been historically oppressed, even if this one is a drug-dealing narcissist” phase.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2012 @ 9:44 am - November 21, 2012

  2. Anybody who talks about Obama’s “universally panned first term” is still trapped in the conservative bubble, the same bubble that led to defeat in the election. Now you might think Obama’s first term should have been universally panned, but the fact is: it wasn’t.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 21, 2012 @ 10:03 am - November 21, 2012

  3. It accomplished what? (This oughta be good.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2012 @ 10:50 am - November 21, 2012

  4. I see your point: Maybe it should have been universally panned… but it just wasn’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - November 21, 2012

  5. Of course, ILC.

    Remember, you and I and the vast majority of conservatives are operating under these thoughts:

    1) Unemployment is bad

    2) Since taxes pull money out of the economy, they should be used sparingly at best and then only for essential services

    3) People deserve to keep the money they earn

    4) Work should be rewarded more than idleness

    Contrast that with Barack Obama supporters like Mike R, who want idleness rewarded identically to work, insist that all money earned should be confiscated and redistributed, see taxes as the best method of accomplishing said confiscation and redistribution, and think employment is for saps.

    By their standards, Obama has done spectacularly. He’s raised unemployment, removed laws tying welfare eligibility to work and citizenship, imposed new taxes to punish those who make more and force them to fund those who won’t work. and makes it clear that unemployment and welfare are better in every respect than jobs and earning.

    Mike R only cares about two things: his effort-free government check and punishing those he hates. Obama is the perfect President; he gives Mike R his handout and uses the law to punish Christians, conservatives, working people, businesses, and “the rich”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - November 21, 2012

  6. That prompts me to search MR’s comments briefly and see if he is an Obama supporter. Looks like you’re right, he is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2012 @ 2:29 pm - November 21, 2012

  7. We need to get rid of a few myths flying around, first. One of them is that Romney got a lot less votes than McCain did in 2008. That is not true. People saying that were comparing Romney’s election night total with McCain’s FINAL total. Absentee and provisional ballots are still being tallied in many states and final certified results have not yet been published in many of them. As of today, Romney is being McCain’s 2008 total by only 4,000 (four thousand) votes. Obama is down 5.5 MILLION votes from his 2008 total. That is not a huge groundswell of support for Obama.

    Our messaging needs to be clearer: We don’t want to take away benefits, we want to make a country where your children aren’t going to NEED them.

    2012 was the first election after redistricting. Blues states got bluer, red states got redder. Republicans did well in states like West Virginia which still has a Democrat legislature but Republicans picked up 11 seats in the lower house and need only 5 more to “flip” it red. Alabama and Arkansas have Republican legislatures for the first time since the 1880′s. We lost 10 US House districts in CA and IL. We lost one House district because of a libertarian candidate. Mia Love lost by a final tally of under 300 votes but the libertarian candidate in UT-04 got over 5,000 votes. What’s WRONG with you guys out there? Fine, even if you are libertarian leaning, the greatest threat to libertarian ideals right now is the Democrats. Voting for Libertarian Party candidates (who are often crypto-Democrats simply trying to split the Republican vote) only gets Democrats elected to office. Lets get the Democrats out, then work on straightening out the GOP. The greater threat to our country first.

    How has Democrat rule worked out over the past decades in Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Miami? Why won’t Democrats let their kids go to better schools? Look at a welfare mother with the father of her children in jail stuck in a low paying job with various government subsidies. Chances are, she couldn’t take a better job if she were offered one. If she gets a $5,000 a year raise, she loses a $10,000 a year housing subsidy. We want to be the party that provides a path OUT of these situations by making it always pay to improve your own situation. We need to get rid of these benefit “cliffs” that trap people in welfare for generations and make them gradually taper off as people move up until they no longer need them.

    We need to be the party of the optimistic future and we need to get rid of this abandonment of urban areas we have seen by Republicans. We need to start getting into those areas and start showing people how we can actually improve the their lives and the lives of their kids and it all starts with getting in there and TALKING to them and not ignoring them.

    Most of all, it starts LOCALLY. Get involved with your local county, region, or state GOP committee. Become a member. Attend functions. INFLUENCE people. Reach out to local small business owners when local elections are coming up. Talk to them, get people to vote in these small local off-year elections. Even in areas where Republicans are the minority, these elections often see very light turnout and an under the radar “whisper” campaign that turns people out for these elections can remove those socialists from our school boards, town councils, planning commissions, and judge seats. We can do this but we need to do it from the bottom up and we need to think STRATEGICALLY. Devote that energy you have been expending with your tea party or property rights or taxpayers association group to the local GOP committee. Influence it. People register Republican and then sit on the couch complaining about the GOP while they spend not one ounce of energy influencing that GOP. It starts in your local town or county. Have an influence in who your party officers are. THOSE people elect the state committee who in turn have an influence on the national committee.

    It starts from the bottom up, people.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 21, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - November 21, 2012

  8. Crosspatch
    Excellent post.
    What the GOP must do is reach out to the minorities and talk about how smaller government makes their life better. Abstract talk on limited government does nothing. Clear examples of how less government is a good thing are needed. Also we need to drop losers who claim the age of the earth is up for debate or losers who talk about rape. Those social conservatives who want to legislate their religion need to be marginalized.

    Comment by mike — November 21, 2012 @ 5:43 pm - November 21, 2012

  9. Also we need to drop losers who claim the age of the earth is up for debate or losers who talk about rape. Those social conservatives who want to legislate their religion need to be marginalized.

    I would approach questions like that differently by making the one asking the question look like a callous idiot. If I were running for national office and someone were to ask me how old the Earth was, I would remind them that we have millions of families suffering right now in this country and that my first responsibility is to give the people of my constituency a brighter future if I can. My opinion on the age of the Earth is meaningless in that context and a total waste of time. I would ask the person to please try to stick to questions that are actually pertinent to governance and building a better future and not try to turn the interview into some version of the Jerry Springer show.

    In short, you simply say that there are much bigger fish to fry at the moment and there is a lot at stake for a lot of people in this country, many of them young and unable to fend for themselves, who are suffering because of ill-guided government policies and someone’s opinion on the age of the Earth makes a mockery of the problems facing us right now. So you make the interviewer look like a thoughtless boob.

    The two biggest changes we can make and that we SHOULD be talking to urban poor about are benefit cliffs/gaps and school choice. School choice works particularly well with Hispanics in California. Vouchers would be extremely popular with parents who want to send their children to Catholic school but can’t afford it. We see how popular school choice is in places like Washington, DC. Where it is tried, it works.

    Most important are the benefit cliffs and gaps. The Democrats have figured out how to turn self-interest around and use it against the very people they depend on for votes. In many cases, large benefits like housing subsidies have a very sharp, specific earnings amount where the cut off or step down to a lower amount. What this means is that if you are at the top edge of the level of earnings that qualifies you for a subsidy, getting a rather small increase in pay can cost you a very large loss in benefits. One of my favorite illustrations of this is with real numbers provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare:

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/

    In this case, a single mother making $29,000 a year would effectively LOSE money by taking a job paying $69,000 a year. We need to gradually taper these benefits off rather than having these “cliffs”. It should ALWAYS pay to take a raise or a better job. Take a $5K/year raise and you should see your situation improve. You might not get all $5K of it, but you should get a substantial portion of it. Your situation should improve. We have to come across as not wanting to take anything away from them other than the barriers the Democrats have put in place to them being able to help themselves.

    Benefit gaps are another problem. For example in California we have a program for poor families where they can get medical insurance free for their kids. We also have a program for people who make a little more that isn’t free but carries a substantial subsidy so the cost of the insurance is greatly reduced. But in between those two programs is a gap where a family can make too much for the free insurance coverage but not make enough to fall under the subsidized care. Someone in the free program would need to get a large enough raise to “jump the gap” between the two which is often hard to do. Democrats have erected these barriers that keep people locked into these programs. They then penalize marriage with things like the marriage tax penalty, and prevent parents sending kids to better schools and so lock people into these programs for generations.

    We need to expose this to the people trapped in these programs. We need to explain how they have been conned and taken advantage of. We need to show them how they are being held down by the very people who claim to be helping them. But we can not do that by conventional means. You can’t show up with a bunch of charts and graphs. 50% of the population of Detroit can’t even read now let alone understand a graph or chart. This is also by design. Once the Democrats have people locked in to this situation, they work hard to ensure the population never receives enough education to figure out how they have been robbed of their future. They use “education spending” to line the pockets of the teachers while not actually improving education at all. They work to prevent parents from sending kids to better schools through school choice program. They work to prevent spending being tied to actual performance. It is a giant con game but what they are stealing is these people’s futures. We need to be able to package that message in a way those people can understand.

    I am willing to help in any way I can if other folks want to join in.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 21, 2012 @ 6:48 pm - November 21, 2012

  10. mike,

    What the GOP must do …….

    is to fully understand that you and your Demonizing-crats are dedicated to controlling the narrative and that you have shown yourselves to be very, very successful with the drooling classes who demand bread and circuses. You sluts and whores deliver, which is what sluts and whores must do in order to earn their titles. You are ideologues, emotionalists, idealizers, dilettantes, theorists, idolators, and junkies.

    What you have no ability at or even stomach for is pragmatism, realism, rational thinking, or authenticity.

    In a world where figures don’t lie (facts) you prefer the role of liars who can figure (fiction) and that is your game plan for controlling the narrative. Scare grandma, shift the topic to the point you want to demagogue, ignore the facts and promote the fiction, and always, always brand, label and name-call.

    Now, here is the deal: 30% of the Democrats in the House come from New York and California. Your party is joined at the hip in the House with states that are fiscal basket cases. Michigan, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York. These are states that depend on taxing ever more heavily while promising the moon on the backs of future taxpayers who they assume will just line up for the bloodletting. Normally, these states are led by the very rich or machine professional pols or old fashioned demagogues.

    Obama is history. Where are your young candidates? Hillary? Biden? Schumer? Jerry Brown? Al Sharpton? Maxine Waters? Al Franken? Gloria Allred? Michael Moore? Jon Lebowitz? Anthony Wiener? Rahm Emanuel? Moochelle Obama? Valerie Jarrett?, Timmy Geithner? Kathleen Sebelius? Chelsea Clinton? Chris Matthews? Debbie PMS Schultz?

    “You people” have no gratitude to anything other than government. Well, I have a case of FiJi water to suck down when I am parched after raking leaves. Thanks to wealth, infrastructure and disposable income, I can keep such a case of water around. Is that because Obama and government made it possible? NOPE!!!!! Now, show me how tremendously invasive government as you find in China makes the same true for its citizens.

    Capitalism with minimal restraint takes people out of poverty with a far greater degree of success than socialism, communism or pure dictatorship.

    But, a$$holes like you don’t have the basic courage or guts to admit it. Your are the freeloaders who can not stand the idea of failure and risk.

    I was on a tropic isle where a wise man told me that there were natives who would starve to death because when fruit fell to the ground next to them, they starved because nobody arranged for someone to pick up the fruit and feed it to them.

    Meanwhile, the union bakers dug their heels in and Hostess went belly up. Did you know that “Twinkies” could not be delivered in the same trucks that delivered Wonder Bread? Not matter what, you have to protect those Wonder Bread or Twinkies drivers.

    Thanks, mike, but you ideologues are like STD’s. You are the “gift” that keeps on giving until you poison the well and everything that remotely resemble common sense. You dare not actually think.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 21, 2012 @ 7:05 pm - November 21, 2012

  11. Helio –
    Did you read my post? It’s clear I fully agree with you on the benefits of smaller gov.

    However I would have to take issue with the tone of your post. Your name calling and fearful projection does nothing to further the advance of the conservative cause. Its the tone that turns off a moderate voter and is the same type of crap that I’m sure can be found on a daily kos message board.

    Crosspatch you are outlining exactly what the GOP should do and the tone conservatives should take

    Comment by mike — November 21, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - November 21, 2012

  12. By the way, folks, as of today, Mitt Romney’s 2012 vote count has now surpassed McCain’s 2008 count by 18,211 votes with more yet to be tallied.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 21, 2012 @ 10:23 pm - November 21, 2012

  13. The Democrats are stagnant because its a reflection of their own Communism; likewise, instead of kicking Nancy Pelosi to curb, the House Democrats & more likely, President Obama, urged her to stay since he cannot lead without Valerie Jarrett’s constant, disastrous advice.

    Political fault lines are being scored with the GOP controlling more state legislatures; we picked up 30 new GOP governors in 2012 as well. This will be the wellspring–along with the Tea Party Republicans–to recharge the party. The establishment GOP just has to tap into the Tea Party.

    The Democrats are lost with no new ideas save more onerous taxes, but where can they go since ObamaCare is the largest tax increase in America’s history? Furthermore, ObamaCare is running into problems since more & more GOP governors are refusing to set up state exchanges leaving the Feds high & dry.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — November 22, 2012 @ 9:34 am - November 22, 2012

  14. mike,

    Yeah, I read this:

    What the GOP must do is reach out to the minorities and talk about how smaller government makes their life better. Abstract talk on limited government does nothing. Clear examples of how less government is a good thing are needed. Also we need to drop losers who claim the age of the earth is up for debate or losers who talk about rape. Those social conservatives who want to legislate their religion need to be marginalized.

    and now I read this:

    However I would have to take issue with the tone of your post. Your name calling and fearful projection does nothing to further the advance of the conservative cause.

    Maybe you can tell me what “reach out” means. (As in: “reach out to minorities.”) Just like Al Gore claims to have sung Look For the Union Label as a kid, when I hear “reach out” I look for the Birkenstocks and daisies and butterflies and bongs.

    The Demoninzing-crats “reach out” to put the touch on someone or to stir them up or to drop some bennies on them all to promote the Demonizing-crats.

    We conservatives care far more about preserving the United States where the people are the masters of their destinies than going Demonizing-crat lite and doing a government gifts feel good campaign just for being a minority with underlying victimization miseries stirred up by our “reaching out.”

    There is zero room in the Demonizing-crats party because the Demonizing-crats have marginalized conservatives as losers.

    You make the distinction of conservatives who are “social” conservatives. But that is not a distinction, whatsoever. It is reported that 23 million voters are religious people who concern themselves with issues of rape, abortion, and the Bible.

    You want to marginalize these people when it comes to what you brand as “legislating their religion.” But, that is a red herring at best and a bald lie on the face of reality.

    The “religious right” has a strong belief system which they wish to defend. Their “Genesis Theory” is as reasonable to them as the “Darwin Evolution Theory” and they do not want their children to be taught that Darwin trumps Genesis when neither can be proved and both are articles of different faiths and belief systems. The “religious right” has 10 Commandments view of rape, not a feminist all sex is rape view. The “religious right” belief system says that what happens at conception is that a human life is created. The “religious right” says the human life at conception is essentially separate and equal to the life of the woman whose womb is home to the developing human life. Now using your words, these are the losers who talk about rape and must be marginalized for doing so.

    You clearly promote censorship by shunning, so I can only imagine that you favor censorship. You apparently do not favor the free exchange of ideas.

    What harm comes to the general population from having a church with a cross on its steeple with is viewable by a Jew in his convertible while his radio is playing “Silent Knight” and he is passing a Salvation Army bell ringer? What is the compelling state interest to protect this poor Jew from all this Christian assault?

    And, why should an atheist have to fumble through all the Chanukah stuff to buy his pagan ice cycle lights to mark the Winter Holidays? And then, insult on injury, the atheist drops a penny in the Salvation Army kettle and the creep lays “God Bless You” on him just to spite him.

    Someone is being annoyingly sensitive over tiny stuff and is also Hell bent on micromanaging society to meed his sensitive needs. That whole “legislating” agnosticism needs to be “marginalized” because agnosticism is not superior to a religious culture. I know that, because liberals loudly proclaim that all cultures are equally unexceptional. Like child molesters are no better or worse than those who practice clitoral mutilation of those who build houses for Habitat for Humanity.

    Your taking “issue with the tone” and “name-calling” and “fearful projection” of my comments is yet another feeble attempt at censorship.

    You don’t, apparently, have the guts to have a real discussion. The product of conception is not a subject you have the gonads to take on. That is because, it is a conundrum. There is no bumper-sticker solution. When you abort it, you kill it. That is too simple and too complete to demagogue, so you have to pretend it is some other argument entirely.

    Enough, already. Your credentials for how conservatives should manage and manipulate their belief system in order to “reach out” to moral midgets is meaningless. Especially when the moral midgets have no intent to talk to losers who need to be marginalized. That is your tone, not mine.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 22, 2012 @ 11:43 am - November 22, 2012

  15. “Intellectual Energy” doesn’t mean squat when elections are decided by social parasites who vote for free contraception and low-information voters who believe Republicans want to outlaw tampons.

    Comment by Average Democrat — November 22, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - November 22, 2012

  16. Another problem we have is this idiotic “RINO” hunt that is costing us seats in government and electing Democrats. This has already cost us FOUR Senate seats. If you look at voting patterns in Congress, and Ace had a graph of this on his website within the past year, you will notice that crossing over and voting with the other party only happens when the person doing the crossing over is a member of the minority party. When Democrats are the minority, they cross over and vote with Republicans and the opposite is true, too.

    We have had several elections where we have driven the “establishment RINO” out of office or not allowed them to win the primary. Examples would be Mike Castle vs. O’Donnell in Delaware, Lugar vs Mourdock on Indiana, Lowden vs Angle in Nevada, Norton vs. Buck in Colorado. We lost all four of those Senate races where either the incumbent or the “establishment” candidate was greatly favored to win. Most so-called RINOs will vote with you 85-95% of the time and 5% to 15% vote against you. A Democrat in the majority will vote against you 100% of the time. In order to not elect four “establishment RINOs”, we elected four Democrats. The “Tea Party” is the best friend the Democrats have!

    Let me make an analogy based on recent news events. Lets say you have two missiles flying at you. One is an “enemy” missile that has a 100% chance of hitting you and doing considerable damage. The other is an errant “friendly” missile that has only a 5%-15% chance of hitting you. You have one anti-missile missile you can fire to protect yourself. So rather than risk the political embarrassment in the 15% chance you get hit with the “friendly” missile, you choose to shoot that one down allowing the enemy missile with a 100% probability to get through and cause considerable damage to your people. That is what the “Tea Party” has been doing. If you want to stop the crossing over, first elect a majority. That STOPS that behavior every single time. Then AFTER you get a majority, THEN you can cull out those you think are of the weaker political ideology.

    I am not judging those candidates as individuals on their ideology. I am simply looking at things in a strategic sense. Right now libertarians, independents, and Republicans should be working to get the candidate most likely to defeat the Democrat onto the ballot and not the most “pure” candidate. We can look are re-arranging things later, it is a matter of priorities. And as much as I absolutely love his books, people like Mark Levin make this problem worse. I don’t (or at least I HOPE he doesn’t) think he understands how much of a boon he has been to the Democrats by whipping up Republican support for losing candidates against candidates who could have easily won the election. We need to stop that.

    In 2014 we need to support the candidates that can win. Harry Reid WANTED Sharon Angle to win because he knew he could beat her. He couldn’t have beaten Sue Lowden. In Missouri, Aiken was the weakest candidate in the field. ANY of the other Republican candidates were polling ahead of McCaskill.

    We have to stop being stupid.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - November 22, 2012

  17. crosspatch,

    We are not engaged in dodge ball where mistakes get patched with band-aids.

    Liberals, moderates and RINO’s are all engaged in Clement Atlee style appeasement chatter instead of facing the reality that unfunded and underfunded entitlements and borrowing 40% of what the government spends and the looming heavy taxation of Obamacare and coming breakaway inflation as the GPD is stalled at anemic. In short, most of you people are doing tea as the Titanic rips into the iceberg.

    I fully expect you people to win at the national level and then be totally baffled when all Hell breaks loose. You see, politics is a profession for most players and the game is to survive the present and pass the trash down the road while placing blame on the first available chump.

    For whatever reason, you people are not particularly impressed with the depth of our financial crisis nor are you particularly interested in the radical surgery that is required to address the crisis before it is too late. You simply write such words of warning off as hysteria. But, then, you calmly, patiently and methodically recommend that the future belongs to political correctness and marginalizing Christian freaks who cause all manner of havoc over Genesis, abortion, rape, welfare, guilt, sin, pointing out defects and making people annoyed by chatting up responsibility and other mean-spirited and divisive things.

    You have a tremendous inner drive to control the narrative so we can find a way for us to just get along.

    Here is my prediction: The tipping point has been reached and the national government is now, officially in the state control socialism business. The Republicans are dead at the White House level where bread and circuses can, have and will continue to win. The Republicans can control the House until the next round of Gerrymandering in 2020 and after that as well, if the current trends strengthen. The Senate is a teeter-totter.

    Republican governors will lead thirty of the fifty states in 2013. Republicans control 27 state legislatures and hold one house in three other states.

    So, as the RINO, moderate, liberal, progressive milquetoasts and pander bears attempt to rain mandates down upon the states, they will be largely met by recalcitrance, objection and refusal.

    You might be interested to know that the states were given until November 16, 2012 to come up their programs for insurance exchanges and that HSS did not finish and send out the mandates for what had to be covered in these exchanges until after the November 16 deadline had passed and the deadline was extended. It was extended to give the states just one day to read, absorb and create the exchanges. Many of the states are proposing to not set up exchanges at all in lieu of a national exchange to be created by the national government and imposed on the states. They are doing this because it will cost over $50 million per state to set up and maintain the exchanges. They also know that Obamacare is written to streamline the creation of a single-payer system and eliminate health insurance entirely. Along with the 52,000 doctor shortage in the immediate pipeline, the states are cutting their loses as the national government piles its losses higher and higher. In 2014 the true costs of Obamacare begin to crash down on the economy.

    You may not know that HHS has a four model insurance plan to impose on you and yours. The bronze level will cost you the least, but still plenty for the insurance and pay 40% of your medical claims. The more you pay in insurance, the more it pays for your claims. The Supreme Court declared this insurance mandate to be a legitimate federal tax you must pay and it will be collected by the IRS. Your cheapest tax will be the bronze tax and on top of that, you will pay 60% of your treatment out-of-pocket. That treatment cost will absorb the costs that people get for “free.”

    So, lets just worry about contraception, the supposed age of the earth, evolution, rape and abortion. Those are the really, really, really important issues of our times.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 22, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - November 22, 2012

  18. So, crosspatch, are you saying we should support nice loyal GOP moderates like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords?

    Also, FWIW, a big reason Dick Lugar lost is because he hasn’t actually lived in Indiana for thirty years. And after he lost, he acted like a sore loser, did not support Mourdock, and actively undermined him within the Indiana GOP.

    Yet, we are supposed to support these out-of-touch sore losers who care more about their egos than the good of the country. Lugar, Crist, and Specter are no better than Todd Akin on that score. Screw them and screw the GOP establishment.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - November 22, 2012

  19. Exactly, V the K and heliotrope.

    People like crosspatch are more than willing to put into office people who will hike taxes, increase pointless regulations, and expand the ever-bloating Federal government as long as they have the “right” pro-abortion and anti-religion views.

    And concern trolls like mike are more than willing to manipulate them with coos of “bipartisanship” and promises of media adulation as long as they continue to bash social conservatives and the Tea Party.

    You hit the nail on the head. People like mike and crosspatch are unwilling and unable to acknowledge financial reality. They are like the Roman Senators who, as the Vandals were battering down the gates of Rome, were likely forming a blue-ribbon commission to suggest nominations for a panel of geographically-diverse members to summon delegates to a convention to discuss the election process for people wishing to serve on a select subcommittee in charge of wall reinforcement.

    Concern-troll mike is mentally and ideologically unable to acknowledge the concept that someone has to pay for his free sh*t. Crosspatch acknowledges the problem, but thinks that the first priority is to complete the purge of non-hip ideas from the GOP and bring ostensible “Republicans” like David Brooks, Meghan McCain, and Andrew Sullivan back into the fold.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2012 @ 4:39 pm - November 22, 2012

  20. First priority is getting a majority. That stops the crossing over. Then we can “weed out” after. We are putting the cart before the horse and handing seats to the Democrats making the problem worse.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - November 22, 2012

  21. NDT,

    You have piqued my curiosity.

    What would Andrew Sullivan and Meghan McCain do together if tightly tucked into the fold with one another? And would David Brooks approve or disapprove or run off and iron a sharp crease into his pants leg?

    I am trying to grasp just what Andrew Sullivan, Meghan McCain and David Brooks bring to the table or under it or whatever.

    Perhaps Passing Gas will waft by and leave a clue.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 22, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - November 22, 2012

  22. And voting out someone who goes against you 15% of the time in exchange for someone who votes against you 100% of the time is, in the technical vernacular, “stupid”.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 4:55 pm - November 22, 2012

  23. It wasn’t the socons who ditches McCain in 2008, it was the mods like David Frum, David Brooks, and Kate Parker who turned traitor. And yet the social cons are the ones who are supposed to be punished? That makes no frakkin’ sense.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 5:04 pm - November 22, 2012

  24. If moderate liberal Republicans are such guaranteed winners, why is Scott Brown packing up his office?

    The GOP cannot become a majority by becoming Democrat-lite. Which is exactly why concern troll mike is pushing for them to do so. The GOP is better off dead than becoming a party of Susan Collinses and Arlen Spectres.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 5:11 pm - November 22, 2012

  25. Nice straw man you have there. Nobody ever said anything about being a “guaranteed winner”. I said when you have an “establishment” candidate who would easily beat the Democrat, tossing them under the bus for the more “ideologically pure” loser is stupid.

    Brown lost because in Massachusetts, party loyalty trumps ethics. I don’t know what more we could have done. She lied about her heritage to gain professional and academic advantage and she got caught practicing law without a license. Those things right there would have caused any ethical person to vote against her. But there are simply too many partisan hacks in MA for that to work. We are talking about an 85-15 electorate in favor of the Democrats. It takes a lot to overcome that.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - November 22, 2012

  26. In other words, running a candidate in MA to the right of Brown would have been an extremely stupid move in a state with only 15% Republicans. You have to run a candidate in MA that Democrats will vote for. We did. But in this case having the R after his name was enough to defeat him.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 5:20 pm - November 22, 2012

  27. Gee, crosspatch, it almost sounds like you’re admitting concern trolls like mike will still vote for a lousy Democrat over the kind of Republican they claim they could support.

    So, the point of appeasing these people is what, exactly?

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - November 22, 2012

  28. The establishment GOP candidates for senate in Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida also lost… By the way.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - November 22, 2012

  29. In Florida Mack beat Weldon, his closest competition by nearly 40 points in the primary. If Mack lost in the general it was because no decent candidates of any sort were run. Nelson was the incumbent and won by 13 points. It wasn’t even close. I don’t see anything here to show me that any of the other primary candidates would have done better.

    Virginia was pretty much the same story. Allen won 65% of the Republican vote in the primary, nobody else was even close. That wasn’t a tight primary. There just wasn’t anyone else in the race that anyone cared much for. Allen lost by 5 points, a fairly close race. I don’t have anything that shows me that one of the candidates that was less popular with Republicans in the primary by double digits would have been more popular with Virginians overall.

    Not really familiar with the other races but assuming the “if we ran a really hard line conservative they would win by a landslide” is fairly much bunk. You can do that in really hard line conservative states but in states where the culture is different, you can’t. That’s the same argument liberals use. They think if you run someone way far left they will win by a landslide, too.

    Brown and Allen were the best candidates we fielded for the job.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - November 22, 2012

  30. Gosh, so maybe it isn’t the fault of the Tea Party that the GOP loses elections. Maybe the Establishment fails just as badly when their anointed candidates run without tea-party alternatives.

    I do note one thing about tea party candidates; when they lose in primaries, they don’t turn into sore losers who sabotage the campaigns of those who beat them; like Lugar, Castle, and Crist did.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 8:27 pm - November 22, 2012

  31. If moderate liberal Republicans are such guaranteed winners, why is Scott Brown packing up his office?

    Especially when the moderate republican with integrity gets beaten by a lying, most likely illegally practicing elitist fake native american.

    Comment by Just Me — November 22, 2012 @ 8:57 pm - November 22, 2012

  32. The other thing to note here is that the ENTIRE Republican GOTV effort failed on election day. You CAN get your turnout up 5 points by just calling people on the phone, stating that you noticed they haven’t voted yet, and ask them if they need some assistance getting to the polling place. That didn’t happen this year. There was no backup system It is quite possible that a working GOTV effort COULD have made the difference in the election.

    As it stands right now, with NO GOTV effort at all that amounts to anything, Romney is ahead of McCain’s 2008 vote count by 59,863 votes. Romney lost by 3 points. A working GOTV effort could have made 3 points of difference. Obama lost 5.5 million votes from 2008.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 9:05 pm - November 22, 2012

  33. Also, that lack of a GOTV effort impacts all the down-ticket races in the various states and counties. Particularly in the swing states, a working GOTV effort might well have made a difference. Mia Love lost by less than 400 votes out of over 200,000 cast. Calling 10,000 people who hadn’t voted might have got 1,000 of them to the poll and made a difference in that district.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 9:12 pm - November 22, 2012

  34. I think the bigger problem is a GOP establishment that is hopelessly out of touch with voters.

    Imagine if Mitt Romney, after losing in 2008, had bought a house somewhere in Ohio, limited himself to a salary of say $60,000 and spent two years living like a middle class American before running again. He would have understood the electorate a lot better.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 9:27 pm - November 22, 2012

  35. I think the bigger problem is a GOP establishment that is hopelessly out of touch with voters.

    I think the “republican establishment” is more in touch with the voters than some of the far right whack jobs I see running around. An example might be Mark Levin who I see as a MAJOR part of the problem and not part of the solution. Practically every candidate he gets behind loses.

    Again, I don’t believe Romney’s problem was “not understanding the electorate”. Romney’s problem was lack of GOTV on election day. That would have made the difference, I think. Look at how slim the margins were. Less than 70,000 in FL where you have a lot of elderly who might have needed assistance getting to the polls.

    Around 100,000 in OH. It was completely doable and even with a McCain style shoestring GOTV effort, it could well have made the difference.

    Romney was not the problem. Democrats had NO problem voting for Pelosi or Feinstein or Kerry. Those people are richer than the Romneys. Romney isn’t all THAT rich. He didn’t even make the top 50 richest in the city of Boston in 2006.

    The Kerrys have five times the money of the Romneys. Feinstein and her husband are twice as rich as the Romneys. Pelosi and husband about the same.

    Romney is NOT out of touch. When was the last time YOU went and raked leaves or chopped wood for your neighbor or member of your church?

    That excuse is a part of the problem. This election was not about Romney’s wealth.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 9:44 pm - November 22, 2012

  36. Actually, had Romney been running against a white guy, he would have won rather easily. There is no way the Democrats would have got nearly 100% turnout and 100% for Obama if Obama had been some old white dude. That turnout in those parts of Philadelphia, Ohio, and Florida were racially motivated. Sure, the Democrat would have got the vast majority of the vote, but they wouldn’t have seen turnout like that.

    Had this election be Romney against a Kerry or even Hillary as an incumbent, he would have won.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 10:35 pm - November 22, 2012

  37. When was the last time YOU went and raked leaves or chopped wood for your neighbor or member of your church?

    Last Saturday.

    And if the GOP could nominate candidates people were actually enthusiastic about voting for, they wouldn’t have to drag people to the polls on Election Day.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 10:36 pm - November 22, 2012

  38. First, to deal with the lying concern troll mike.

    Did you read my post? It’s clear I fully agree with you on the benefits of smaller gov.

    Which is why over on this thread, you were shrieking and claiming that smaller government equals anarchy and destruction.

    Incoherent drivel will not work here. You are dealing with intelligent people, concern-troll mike, not typical Obama voters like Obamaphone Lady who will believe whatever you say as long as it’s pro-Obama and anti-Republican. You can’t change your story and have it hold up; we are both intellectually and ideologically capable of calling you on it.

    And that leads us to this:

    However I would have to take issue with the tone of your post. Your name calling and fearful projection does nothing to further the advance of the conservative cause. Its the tone that turns off a moderate voter and is the same type of crap that I’m sure can be found on a daily kos message board.

    Comment by mike — November 21, 2012 @ 7:48 pm – November 21, 2012

    That is, the “moderate voters” like yourself who believed every word out of DailyKos and voted for Barack Obama, whose every campaign statement was straight out of DailyKos, accusing Mitt Romney of rape, murder, tax cheating, and everything else that DailyKos and the other Obama Party mouthpieces could dream up.

    The funny part is, mike, that you delude yourself into thinking that we believe your lies. We saw what you and your fellow Obama supporters said about Mitt Romney and his family. We saw the ads where you claimed that Paul Ryan wanted to murder the elderly. We saw your endless repeating of DailyKos statements, such as “Romney wants to ban tampons”, “Romney wants to put gays in concentration camps”, etc.

    You and your kind are beautifully described in motivation by this:

    There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.

    Conservatives represent TRUE good governance and equality — which is to you like sunlight is to a vampire. You are too lazy and indolent to work or actually earn a living, and you are jealous and envious of those who do; hence, your only motivation is to use government to punish those other people and confiscate their earnings for your own use. Period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2012 @ 10:49 pm - November 22, 2012

  39. Ok, fine, but MOST Americans don’t do that on a regular basis. Romney did it has a matter of his normal living. It isn’t unusual for him to do that. For 99.5% of Americans, it is very unusual.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 22, 2012 @ 10:50 pm - November 22, 2012

  40. A big part of Sarah Palin’s appeal was that she came across as someone who had pumped her own gas and seen the inside of a Wal-Mart. Maybe if Republicans spent less time at the country club and less time paying consultants to tell them what real Americans were like… and actually spent some time living among the peasants… they might learn how to connect conservative ideas to the challenges faced by the dwindling number of middle class Americans in a meaningful way.

    A crazy idea, I know, but learning to relate to real voters would give the GOP a lot more benefit than trying to become copycat Democrats on social issues; Scott Brown proved that doesn’t work.

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 11:23 pm - November 22, 2012

  41. Crosspatch, you actually have done a rather remarkable job of introducing useful data points for the equation.

    How has Democrat rule worked out over the past decades in Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Miami? Why won’t Democrats let their kids go to better schools? Look at a welfare mother with the father of her children in jail stuck in a low paying job with various government subsidies. Chances are, she couldn’t take a better job if she were offered one. If she gets a $5,000 a year raise, she loses a $10,000 a year housing subsidy…..

    Once the Democrats have people locked in to this situation, they work hard to ensure the population never receives enough education to figure out how they have been robbed of their future. They use “education spending” to line the pockets of the teachers while not actually improving education at all. They work to prevent parents from sending kids to better schools through school choice program. They work to prevent spending being tied to actual performance.

    Brown lost because in Massachusetts, party loyalty trumps ethics. I don’t know what more we could have done. She lied about her heritage to gain professional and academic advantage and she got caught practicing law without a license. Those things right there would have caused any ethical person to vote against her.

    Romney was not the problem. Democrats had NO problem voting for Pelosi or Feinstein or Kerry. Those people are richer than the Romneys. Romney isn’t all THAT rich. He didn’t even make the top 50 richest in the city of Boston in 2006.

    Actually, had Romney been running against a white guy, he would have won rather easily. There is no way the Democrats would have got nearly 100% turnout and 100% for Obama if Obama had been some old white dude. That turnout in those parts of Philadelphia, Ohio, and Florida were racially motivated.

    Where I have an issue with you is in your mathematics of resolving them.

    You insist that the magic formula is somewhere in chasing these data points and aligning the party with them.

    My answer is simpler. There is nothing that can be done for these individuals because they are acting out of either a) willful malice or b) stupidity.

    You have described the b) group beautifully. Minority academic achievement in this country, and that includes women, has gone through the floor. Half of Detroit is functionally illiterate, and my suspicion is that Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, and Washington DC are not far behind. Illegitimacy rates approach 70% and poverty, which is inextricably tied to single parenthood, is right behind.

    Why? Because the a) group, which includes Levi, Evan, concern-troll mike, Mike R, and all the other liberal trolls that we have running around here, want it that way.

    In the olden days they enslaved minorities to generate wealth for them by working in the cotton fields and kept them poor, illegitimate, and uneducated to control them.

    The only thing that has changed is the crop. Obama Party plantation owners like our board trolls no longer grow for product; instead, they grow for votes, votes which they then use to crush those who disagree with them, confiscate the wealth that others earn at gunpoint, and feast on their private airliners and White House soirees while they toss a few food-stamp scraps to their slaves.

    That is what you have to realize. Concern-troll mike, Levi, and the other liberal trolls have no interest in fixing the problem. To do so would destroy their livelihood and their entire way of life. To them, ignorant, poor, and dependent minorities are the key to their ability to live well at taxpayer expense. If they empower minorities and make them taxpayers, they potentially lose their vote.

    Abortion and whatnot are sideshows. We are talking about a difference between a party that embraces slavery as a concept and a party that embraces freedom.

    You are talking about encouraging a slave revolt. Nice to try, but unlikely to succeed. What we need instead are conservatives who recognize the evil that enslavement by government represents and will stand against it as staunchly as did a Lincoln or others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2012 @ 11:39 pm - November 22, 2012

  42. You have described the b) group beautifully. Minority academic achievement in this country, and that includes women, has gone through the floor. Half of Detroit is functionally illiterate, and my suspicion is that Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, and Washington DC are not far behind. Illegitimacy rates approach 70% and poverty, which is inextricably tied to single parenthood, is right behind.

    Exactly.

    Did you think it was by accident that the Democrat left destroyed both the public education system and the traditional family structure?

    Comment by V the K — November 22, 2012 @ 11:43 pm - November 22, 2012

  43. Not at all, V the K.

    A child with a mother and father is much less likely to be poor, and thus much less likely to be dependent on the government.

    And people who can do math are much less easily controlled than those who cannot.

    The forbears of our concern trolls did their best to break up slave families and destroy any type of oral or other tradition being passed down through the generations. They wanted malleable, helpless dependents who would stay and work because there was no other choice.

    Levi and concern-troll mike are simply carrying on their party’s proud tradition of enslavement.

    Furthermore, the Left’s creative means of sidestepping the fact that they would prefer history not be taught at all is exemplified by our bigot Evan on the other thread about Thanksgiving, in that they simply teach that everything that happened prior to you was wrong and evil and racist, and that your only hope of being a good person is to subordinate yourself completely to the Barack Obama Party and the fascist State that it seeks to create.

    It is the same reason that the Nazis spent more time teaching the fiction of history than they did the actuality. The point was not to educate the child and to allow them to draw their own conclusions; it was to propagandize them and teach them to hate that which the State needed them to hate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2012 @ 11:51 pm - November 22, 2012

  44. It is the same reason that the Nazis spent more time teaching the fiction of history than they did the actuality. The point was not to educate the child and to allow them to draw their own conclusions; it was to propagandize them and teach them to hate that which the State needed them to hate.

    In other words, they taught a ‘Narrative’ that benefited their political agenda.

    Sound familiar?

    Comment by V the K — November 23, 2012 @ 12:04 am - November 23, 2012

  45. You insist that the magic formula is somewhere in chasing these data points and aligning the party with them.

    Uhm, neither of those is what I was trying to say.

    My answer is simpler. There is nothing that can be done for these individuals because they are acting out of either a) willful malice or b) stupidity.

    I disagree. In places such as Washington DC where school choice was provided, it was very popular with the people. This shows that maybe these people are resigned to their fate but they do NOT want the same for their children. I also know from actually talking to people that these benefit cliffs ARE a major deal. For example a young family with two kids (just had a third). Husband was in school full time and working part time. Wife was doing some work raising animals for sale and working on a local share farm. They were in the category of qualifying for the free care for their children. Husband was offered a better job working part time in a law library but the salary would put them in the “gap” between the free and subsidized insurance coverage so they turned down the job because they could not afford to pay their medical insurance and eat.

    If we get rid of these benefit cliffs, or greatly reduce them by making graduate step brackets, people no longer need to worry about that. If they find a better job, they can take it and not worry about it and know they will be better off. Losing the benefit no longer becomes a worry or an impediment for moving up. They can gradually work their way out or at least to a greatly reduced need for as much of a benefit which reduces costs for everyone.

    This isn’t a proposed end-all, be-all solution but is meant as something that can be done to open the path out of dependence. If one must go from 29K to 62K just to break even, that is one hell of a jump and completely unrealistic.

    That is what you have to realize. Concern-troll mike, Levi, and the other liberal trolls have no interest in fixing the problem.

    They never do. They have no interest in actually FIXING any problem. Working on the problem in perpetuity is the goal. We have had “peace keepers” in Congo forever. Nothing ever gets solved. It is simply managed in perpetuity and in the end that behavior actually kills MORE people than would be killed in a month or two of all out war that finally decided the issue once and for all. Rather than see 10,000 people killed at once and the issue decided, they would rather see 1,000 killed per year for 20 years. Rather than see an end to poverty, they would rather provide impoverished people with some resources to make it bearable and then use that dependence on those resources for their own political ends.

    But there is another aspect of all of this that I apparently didn’t make clear enough. If you can talk to these people and show them how they have actually be used, kept down, taken advantage of, and conned, it can go a long way to fixing the problem and those are only half the issue.

    The Democratic Party that isn’t dependend on welfare consists of three basic groups. First you have what I call the “old school” Democrats who are very loyal to party. These are dying off, though, or leaving the party. These would be the Clinton Democrats these days but are more likely JFK/Truman Democrats.

    Then you have the “bleeding heart” class that actually wants to believe they are “helping people”. They so want to believe this that they will stick their fingers in their ears and go “la la la la” whenever you attempt to point out the opposite is true. These are the rank and file “progressives” and their beliefs seem to be rooted in self-loathing. Many of these are “guilty rich white” trust-fund babies who feel guilty that they had so much while others had little. These people are against anything that is for the old establishment. Anyone who is against America is good because America is bad. Anyone who hates whites is good because whites are bad. Anyone who hates Christians or Jews are good because Christians and Jews are bad. All of the evil of the world is because of them so anything that is against any aspect of them is good because they themselves and everything about them is very, very bad.

    Finally you have a small elite cadre of very rich, very cynical, very powerful who have managed to manipulate the message to give all of the other groups what they want to hear and in most cases to exactly the opposite of their rhetoric. They might decry the disparity of the richest and the poorest while they destroy the middle class and make that disparity worse. They claim to despise the big corporations while destroying small business and making the big corporations even bigger. They hate the big Wall St. banks while destroying small banks and make the big ones bigger. They complain about the health care system but implement regulations that make care even worse for the “unwashed masses”.

    But the group they depend on the post are those who most depend on them and I believe if we can start chipping away at those. Show them how they are being used. Show them how their men are being incarcerated, their women made dependent on welfare, how regulations discourage the formation of family units that tend to prevent poverty. How they are given substandard education, using economic and education segregation to keep them out of the mainstream instead of physical segregation. How they are offered free contraceptives and abortion in order that they will slowly and gladly exterminate themselves … until the only ones left with any REAL education are that rich, white, ruling elite who now have nice homes in the country with airstrips because they have driven all the riffraff off the land and into the cities and gradually exterminated them with bad health care, birth control, incarceration, lack of education, and abortion. That is where this is headed if those pesky middle class Republicans don’t put a stop to it.

    I sincerely believe that if we actually speak their language and show them how the Democrats are actually getting over on them, they might start to come around. I am already seeing signs of that happening. People are sick of 40 years of Democrat rule and their kids’ situations are no better than their parents’ situations were. The Democrats send them a check in the mail but that’s it. If we can show the people in the cities how they were made poor, are being kept poor, and their children are being made poor as the designation receivers of a large guilty party constituency that needs to “help people” even if it is “helping them” right to death, we might turn things around. But that is the discussion that needs to happen. The Democrats are going to give them a check for the rest of their life and we are going to make it so their kids won’t need a damned government check. THAT’s the difference.

    And I believe there still are enough who care.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 23, 2012 @ 12:56 am - November 23, 2012

  46. Sometimes I *so* wish there was an edit function. :)

    Comment by crosspatch — November 23, 2012 @ 1:01 am - November 23, 2012

  47. Something else I just learned tonight: My local county GOP committee (Santa Clara County, California) gets exactly ZERO financial support from the national party. It all comes from local donations from individuals and businesses. Chances are it is the same story with your local committee. Local committees are focused on the local offices such as county supervisors, city council members, school board members, and local judges. We need to start making a difference locally. I would ask those who are able, please consider a donation to join your local county committee. Mine is $35 for basic membership for a year which is less than I spend to take my kids to a movie.

    Our state committee is hurting, too. They were considering closing the office in our state capital due to lack of funds the last I heard. Please, consider making a donation to your local county and state committees. We need to do this from the bottom up.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 23, 2012 @ 2:54 am - November 23, 2012

  48. You know, crosspatch, I am reluctant to rain on your view of how to “fix” the GOP. So, I will tread lightly.

    But, first, one point of order: The 85% to 15% formula for moderates is not useful. No one knows how a Collins or Chaffee or Specter of Lugar or Brown will break. Furthermore, if 50% of the 15% votes with the “other side” are on the big stuff, what are we really talking about?

    That said, I understand something that you seem not to understand. The demonizing-crats and the MSM lay social conservative traps for our candidates so that they can get the issues on the table to demagogue. Furthermore, if our candidates seem impervious to their demonizing, they will do what they did to Herman Cain. The Demonizing-crats have an endless flow of women who will claim to have been involved in someway with a candidate or send out some gay to claim that sexual liaisons past and present. That is how they operate and all the while they protest to loathe dirty politics. (By the way, did you know Romeny killed a mans wife while strapping his dog to the car roof and trying to have an affair with Paul Ryans mother?)

    The Republicans, should they try such a trick would have the entire MSM scream machine all over them 24/7.

    That is the playing field.

    Have you noticed how Romney is faring since the election? No one wants to see or hear from him. He is yesterday’s news.

    In 2014, it is very likely that Warner will not run for reelection in the Senate in Virginia, but head back to the Governor’s chair. He would be a hard candidate to defeat. So, will Virginia drag out old George Allen for a third try or will Bob McDonnell try for the Senate? Virginia is an interesting state because Northern Virginia is joined at the hip with the national government and the huge Norfolk area is keyed to the military complex.

    As we look around the country, the real battles for the GOP are at the state level where dollars are scarce and the leaders are very sensitive to the costs of unfunded, underfunded and full-blown joke national government mandates.

    You want Republican money from other states to prop up your local Republican party. I understand the concept, buy California is a fiscal disaster zone and as a Virginian, I have zero interest in bailing out a state that californicated itself and keeps coming back for more.

    So, as much as I would love for conservatism to return to California, I know that the best California will do is slight moderation. I prefer to let the Democrats have the epiphany rather than help fund RINO’s to join in amputating a little toe on the gangrenous torso trending toward being a corpse.

    There is not a thing wrong with conservatism and the balancing between liberalism and conservatism that has made this country dynamic.

    Moderation is like the “minimum wage.” If we restrict conservatism to the edge of what you see as “moderate” we will simply drift more leftward until your “moderate” of today is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal conservative and the conservative of today is a radical wing-nut extremist lunatic needing to be caged and sedated.

    Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. There is not a thing wrong with standing firm on principle even if you are demonized for it and you will be by the Demonizing-crats who have no shame and, really, no organized agenda other than mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.

    GQ has already sand-bagged Rubio on the “how old is the Earth” thing and Rubio did a very, very smart answer. But all GQ wanted was the opening to the topic so that they could pistol-whip Rubio and they got it.

    How do you propose to educate Republican candidates to avoiding every conceivable semblance of a trap without making them more cardboard and unappealing than Romney? After all, you do have to energize the base as well and that base includes 23 million or so whole have Christian values that tend to the socially conservative right.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2012 @ 10:09 am - November 23, 2012

  49. I must ask why conservatives are forever obligated to abandon their principles on social issues; but liberals are never EVER pressured to moderate their their positions on taxes, spending, and regulation.

    Comment by V the K — November 23, 2012 @ 11:18 am - November 23, 2012

  50. Actually, VtheK, I prefer to keep the principles parallel. Why should I abandon my principles on social issues and permit liberals to run wild on their social issues?

    What is the compelling state reason to allow people to parade nude in the streets but not in, say, the puplic elementary, middle school and high school cafeterias. And what about a nude cheerleading squad for the old football team? Be sure to include well hung males along with the bouncing breasts. And, I would add, a nude paraplegic might be necessary to satisfy certain fringe tastes since all cultures are equal.

    Why doesn’t the sperm donor have an equal right to his half of the transient resident of the infested womb?

    If the theory of evolution is scientific writ why not lay out the facts of what is proven and what is postulated? And, why not determine what the big bang blew into before the big bang blew? Science is about fact and proof, so lets boldly go there. Ditto man-made global warming.

    I have no fear of science or disdain for it. Let’s have more of it. But let us also have a clear respect and understanding between hypothesis and consensus and fact.

    Atheism, agnosticism and religious belief are all belief systems. Since social liberals tout all cultures as equally important, how come liberals get to define political correctness, elitism and their brand of common sense?

    I prefer to take their sanctimonious bullying and turn it back on them. They are slaves to their conceit and they argue by ridicule. Fine, don’t just call them on it, show them for what they are.

    “Dilettante, convenience murderers of life in the womb” should make them scream and tear their hair.

    “You can’t handle a serious discussion because your bigotry can’t stand the test of reason.’

    “Why must you always censor or marginalize what you can not bring yourself to understand?”

    “OK, lets say the Earth is 88 billion years old and Genesis is all bunk. How does that help your union get more stuff out of the stockholders in a sick and dying economy?” See. Shift the topic, throw in disputable facts and verge on name-calling. That is how the game is played.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - November 23, 2012

  51. But, first, one point of order: The 85% to 15% formula for moderates is not useful. No one knows how a Collins or Chaffee or Specter of Lugar or Brown will break. Furthermore, if 50% of the 15% votes with the “other side” are on the big stuff, what are we really talking about?

    I can tell you one thing with certainty: They only break to the other side when their own party is in the minority. I have seen data that shows it. When Republicans are in the majority, the opposite happens, Dems cross over and vote with the Republicans. Getting the majority stops the crossing over of all of them. If you try kicking them out while in a minority, we see that what happens is the seats are given to Democrats and we start playing whack-a-mole as more begin to cross over.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 23, 2012 @ 2:04 pm - November 23, 2012

  52. Crosspatch,

    You lost me. I was unaware that there are mathematical laws and formulae on all of this. I kind of thought that rogue, maverick and unpredictable meant a bit more bargaining and arm twisting and pressure tactics than some sort of set pattern.

    For instance, I rather doubt that 85%/15% is anything more than a conjecture that changes with the make-up of the body and the theme of the legislation at hand.

    I realize that scientists prefer to measure everything and deal with the numbers, but for the most part our politicians operate on large doses of measuring what is in it for each of them. As a consequence, they can cast some votes without much concern and hold others out for a fair amount of reciprocity. Therefore, the Senate is relatively prone to being held hostage by a gang of five or seven who will screw their own party to get what they want.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - November 23, 2012

  53. I arrived at those SPECIFIC numbers by rectal extraction, the point being to show that Republicans will vote with the party a lot more often than they vote against it while a Democrat votes against it all the time when in the majority. It is actually smaller than 15% of the time but those times DO tend to be on big issues that get a lot of attention. The reason is pretty simple. If a Senator in the minority has a pet issue, say water projects for a Senator from the West, if they want to get traction on THEIR issue, they have to get support and to get support they sometimes need to hold their nose and support something on the other side when they are the minority party.

    The overall point, though, is that gaining the majority STOPS that behavior cold. I am trying to find the data that show it. It was on a graphic posted in the past 12 months, I think, on Ace of Spades blog. It was a graph that showed crossing over of Senators over time. When Republicans are in the majority, the crossing over is from D to R on votes. When Democrats are in the majority the crossing over is in the other direction. Gaining the majority is the first step required in ending the behavior of Republicans voting with Democrats. Once you have a majority of a few seats, then you can select a “weak” Senator for replacement IF you have a strong candidate to replace them with.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 23, 2012 @ 2:46 pm - November 23, 2012

  54. Here is a suggestion for making a real difference and showing the country how Republican policies can make a better life for a lot of people and address one of the Democrats’ selling points at the same time:

    Republicans now control the governor and legislature of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in addition to the ones they have held for a while in Texas and Oklahoma. My suggestion is to create an “alliance” among these states to reduce the cost of health care using Republican principles.

    1. Using Texas’ tort reform as a model, these states align with Texas on caps for “pain and suffering” awards and treatment of lawsuits deemed to be “without merit”. This is the foundation step and must be done before any of the others are taken.

    2. Standardize health care mandates among these states.

    3. These states agree to allow health care providers to operate within the region as if it is one state. No more of this nonsense of each health care provider requiring a separate operating company in each state where they do business. Having each state as a separate business unit creates duplication of effort and prevents any economy of scale. Allow the operators to work within this alliance of states as one business unit.

    4. Create what amounts to private “exchanges” but more like “benefit unions” along the lines of credit unions where small businesses and individuals can band together and get health insurance at lower group rates by allowing them to form larger groups. This basically privatizes the “exchange” idea by creating what are, in effect, private exchanges.

    This does several things. Since Texas underwent their tort reform, they have seen doctors migrating to the state. Particularly interesting was the frivolous lawsuit issue. That is where someone sues you for $10,000 knowing it will cost you $15,000 to defend yourself so you settle to avoid court. In Texas, if the judge rules that the suit is without merit before it goes to trial, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s defense costs. If it goes to trial, that is a different story, but this gets rid of the notion that it is cheaper to settle for frivolous suits. The result has been a dramatic reduction in this behavior. Limits on pain and suffering awards reduces malpractice insurance costs. All of this works together to reduce health care costs for everyone.

    I wish I had a channel of communications to these governors to present such an idea because I think it could provide a concrete example of what Republican policies can do and benefit a lot of people.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 23, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - November 23, 2012

  55. I don’t give a rat’s butt if RINO’s are voting with the party 80% of the time. That just means they are voting with the party on stupid sh-t like “Pineapple Awareness Month” and naming a Rest Stop on the NJ Turnpike after Jim McGreevey.

    Where they split are the votes that matter; like on The Stimulus or Amnesty.

    Comment by V the K — November 23, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - November 23, 2012

  56. They ONLY vote with the other party when we are in the minority. Getting rid of them to replace them with a Democrat only helps the Democrats but I think you know that already.

    I firmly believe there are many crypto-Democrats who troll right-leaning websites pretending to be “staunch” conservatives in order to provide validation for other real conservatives to commit political suicide and vote for candidates in primaries who go on to lose in the general.

    Not saying you are one of those but you could be influenced by them in making your position seem more popular among fellow Republicans than it actually is.

    Electing Democrats to office is NOT better than removing a “RINO” Republican. The Democrat is always worse. We can work on “purifying” after we get a majority. In the meantime we need to concentrate on the greater threat, that is, Democrats.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 24, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - November 24, 2012

  57. crosspatch,

    As a staunch fiscal conservative and a pretty much social conservative, I do not think I can be fooled by “crypto-conservatives” urging me to commit political suicide. Perhaps that is more narcissistic than realistic, but I am fairly quick to smell a rat.

    This whole theme of yours about “moderation” is very confusing to me. Where do you place the “moderates” in a tug of war? The general rules are that you pull the knot to one or the other line on either side of the middle in order to win. So, do you support some sort of system where the middle never changes? Everything is in stasis? Sort of like Singapore or some other benevolent dictatorship?

    What are your “moderate” solutions to taxing the rich? government spending? unfunded entitlements? underfunded entitlements? massive unemployment? fossil fuels? man-made global warming? illegal immigration? absorbing illegal immigrants into the welfare system? controlling borders? regulating business out of producing within the US? regulating business to the point of business going off shore? printing money to service the debt? letting gays marry but holding the line on polygamy? etc?

    I have never met a moderate who was also a success. Just a moderate success. That is to say, the Gauleiter of Yonkers, but never a Reichsleiter. My choice in using stark Nazi terms is because that is how case hardened party machinery operates. The “Progressive” leftists have their Rahm and Axelrod and Alinsky and Ayres and Soros and Podesta and Creamer and Sunstein and Piven and Trumpka and Stern and Wallis and Jarrett and many, many more and you want to send the Saturday Afternoon Croquet Team up against them?

    Barry Goldwater scared the Republicans for generations. His loss was epic. So, Republicans blame the message. Romney was the ideal moderate candidate. He used his “Boston” machine of old reliables who advised him in 1994, 2002, 2008 and they created the message and campaign of 2012.

    Now we are saying Romney blew the election. Not the message, Romney.

    Well, Goldwater was a lousy messenger and Romney had access to a great message which he massaged in order to be a kinder, gentler messenger.

    From the get go, defined him as “100% Wonderbread Boy” who didn’t “care” about the poor, women, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, the middle class, everyday jobs, and on and on.

    Did Romney take the fight to Obama in any substantive way? By that I mean did he respond as a conservative with passion and substance. That is because, he is not a conservative.

    Reagan was a nice guy who did not finish last because his principles were second nature to him and he was good natured about his principles. (Goldwater was an ill natured ideologue.)

    Romney was a nice guy who finished last because he kindly let the steamroller flatten him.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 25, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - November 25, 2012

  58. Every GOP presidential candidate since Reagan has been from the party’s moderate, establishment wing. That strategy does not seem to be working very well.

    Yeah, some tea party conservatives lost in 2012. But what crosspatch won’t admit is that EVEN MORE establishment GOP senate candidates lost in 2012.

    Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin – Establishment Candidate and Loser
    Pete Hoekstra in Michigan – Establishment Candidate and Loser
    Scott Brown in Massachusetts – Socially Moderate Loser
    Connie Mack in Florida – Establishment Candidate and Loser
    George Allen in Virginia – Establishment Candidate and Loser
    Denny Rehberg in Montana – Establishment Candidate and Loser

    He also won’t mention that Ted Cruz and Deb Fischer – Tea party conservatives fought tooth and nail by the establishment, won.

    Comment by V the K — November 25, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - November 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.564 Powered by Wordpress