Coming to Grips With Grim Reality


My thoughts on the grim reality of the 2012 elections, as initiated in an online discussion:
Yes, we're in trouble. When we elected Obama, I almost gave up hope. That Obama's approval numbers still aren't in the low teens concerns me greatly.  And I get no comfort from the current state of the GOP.  The Republican party is unprincipled and rotten to the core.

Republicans haven't learned the hard lessons of 2006 and 2008 because they don't want to learn them.  They LOVE watered-down statism. And they present themselves as little more than a semi-competent alternative to the socialist buffoonery of the Democrat party.

I don't know what the current crop of Republicans will do for us...except maybe they'll slow down the rate of destruction just a little bit.

So here we are, probably stuck with Mitt, Perry, Cain or Newt.

As far as I'm concerned, Mitt's a moderate Democrat. Where I live, Democrats are often more conservative than he is.  What's the point in replacing a Dem with a Dem?

Same analysis for Al Gore's old buddy, Rick Perry. He'd make a fine Democrat governor in my state.  With hair so pretty, Rick Perry is simply a poor man's Mitt Romney with W's southern drawl.

What about the Hermanator?

Cain is Cain. WYSIWYG. His heart seems to be in the right place most of the time. But I'm no longer willing to try to believe that he's "in it to win it," as he so often tells himself.

I'm convinced that Cain is as at least as intelligent and competent as Barack Obama -- and he can communicate at least as well off tele-prompter -- but unless he develops the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan and a mastery of the issues comparable to that of Newt Gingrich, there's no way the Obama MSM won't annihilate him on the way to the White House.  There's just too much at stake.  If the Democrat party stands to lose even 25% of the black vote, Whig-esque oblivion will be just around the corner.

That brings us to Gingrich, the "not Romney" du jour.

Gingrich is a big-government moderate with some conservative tendencies.  He can be an idiot, but at least he always knows what he's talking about. And I think a conservative Republican congress could keep him in check.  That might not be easy, but it's probably doable.

My biggest worry with Newt is that he seems to yearn for approval from the wrong people.  So he'll be too easily influenced by the Journolist MSM.  But I've been slightly reassured by his willingness to attack the media lately.  We'll see how long that lasts.

Anyway, I think the smart money is on Romney or Newt at this point. My apologies to anyone who has their heart set on other candidates, but I don't think any of them will make it.  I'll eat my hat if they do. Mark my words. 

Having said all that, and having gone on record as being adamantly opposed to Mitt the centrist socialist, I'm beginning to lean to Newt at this point.  Yes, he sucks lemons -- and he's only modestly better than Romney -- but I'll take what I can get. Mike Pence and Nikki Haley aren't running this year.
What do you think?

48 comments:

  1. "What do you think?"

    I think too many people on the right would rather lose the country and feel good about themselves than face the fact that politics is about what getting what you're able. Brakabama has lost 20% of his support. His only chance of reelection is driving half the country onto government assistance in the next 12 months and then campaigning to keep the checks coming. To acquiesce to the filthy little bastard this far out is to act as his accomplice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Chuck

    I've yet to see a compelling argument that Mitt Romney is the candidate most capable of beating Barack Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sad that Obama's opposition (other than Paul) is at the very least the lesser or two evils.

    Sad indeed. But that is what the country gets when its principles become muddled and the only thing that is important is wining the "The Ring" so to speak, of course in reference to LOTR.

    And Nick referring to the President as "the filthy little bastard" does ABSOLUTELY ZERO to help make your case. It does indicate the character of the people who use such derogatory language to refer to the duly elected President of the United States. Just an observation, do with it what you will...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Funny there's no mention of the "Elephant" in the room... Just like the MSM hoping that by not mentioning his name, maybe he'll just go away...
    Well just in case you haven't looked, he's at 19%!
    I think the TEA party has had a bigger impact than we realize!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ron Paul is a lunatic. He's never won a damn thing and he never will. To pretend that somehow he is the standard by which a republican candidate should be judged is is simply insane. If he had any balls, he'd be running as a libertarian, but he knows he doesn't live in a libertarian country so he leeches off the republican party for the sake of his personal vanity project.

    "I've yet to see a compelling argument that Mitt Romney is the candidate most capable of beating Barack Obama. " Other than the fact he's the most popular? Do you people really think these poll results are created by leftist reporters? Holy shit, dude. At some point, you need to either take off the blinders or find another hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Principle matters. Ron Paul is consistent and he is the man that is consistently principled. Whether or not you like his positions on the issues.

    So, assuming these polls are accurate Chuck and not created by leftist reporters then one can only assume Ron Paul is gaining as a result of his message.

    Indeed it is the big "R" republican establishment that fear Paul the most. Because if his message ever catches fire {and it should} both the big "R" and bid "D" statist(s) are toast.

    So Chuck, what are you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "So, assuming these polls are accurate Chuck and not created by leftist reporters then one can only assume Ron Paul is gaining as a result of his message."

    That can only be "assumed" by someone with no understanding of the methodology used in the polling. (and the deceit Paul supporters are renowned for using in every poll they ever participate in.) Paul's actual support has been less than ten percent throughout the process and it will remain there.

    "Ron Paul is consistent" Whoopdee friggen do. So are republican primary voters which is why goofy ol' Ron Paul has never won anything and never will. What's sick is that he knows it. The whole thing is a giant exercise in masturbation for him. Hell, he's already said he won't endorse the eventual republican nominee over a damn Communist hell bent on destroying the country! He's worse than a flake. He's a complete Narcissus locked on his own reflection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So Chuck, "Other than the fact he's the most popular? (Romney)", why is it the polls do not reflect that? Why Has Ron Paul won so many straw polls?
    Maybe you should "take off the blinders or find another hobby."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Because straw polls aren't real polls. They're fund raising events for state party precincts. They measure the intensity of a particular candidate's support, but is in no way an accurate reflection of it's number.

    Are you really this uninformed? Spend a few minutes researching the history of straw poll winners in republican politics and get back to me. Who knows, maybe you could progress to a point where you actually spoke about these matters with some degree of knowledge. Authority even. Everything I've written here is easy to confirm. If the truth doesn't interest you you're of no use to either yourself or your country.

    Ignorance is not a point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This might get confusing, with two Nick's posting, but...

    I'm slightly encouraged by the fact that Ron Paul seems to be climbing a bit in the polls, or at least not fading away as people have hoped. As the lesser of evils go, I'd say he's the least bad of all the candidates, and I'd certainly be willing to live with his points which I find sub-optimal, to get all the good stuff he would bring.

    Sure, he's got an up-hill battle to convince people in his own party that he's a) not crazy, b) electable, and c) the right candidate. Consider this, though: would you prefer a weak mostly-Democrat in a close race against a pure socialist, or a real libertarian as a real option? I think if Ron Paul could just convince his own party that's he's the best option, I think we could have a really interesting presidential contest...

    ReplyDelete
  11. He's running in the wrong party.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's the 2010 California Governor's race all over again. The GOP candidates both sucked and were both destined to lose. Doesn't matter who wins the nomination at this point...the only people in the world who could possibly lose to Barry are all running.

    Sure would be nice if McDonnell or DeMint would man up and run.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neato. A chart about desires.

    I don't deal in fantasy. I deal in what is. It's part of being a grownup.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It will be interesting to watch the Romnobama supporters absolutely lose it if Ron Paul gets the nomination and they have to stay home or decide what to do when they get into the voting both and be confronted with the choice between Obama and freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "the only people in the world who could possibly lose to Barry are all running."

    Why would someone write something that stupid? Does it just feel good to do it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think this demonstrates how much trouble and how screwed our republic is. Though I differ with Cain being equal to Obama on intelligence. Obama is a stupid, evil buffoon while Cain has a math and computer science degree, neither of which you can't earn without having great amount of discipline or intellect. However, Cain has shot himself in the foot, head and gonads the last few days as he didn't think about the validity of his premises on his ideals and has been his own worse enemy. Something, unfortunately as I too am a mathematician, intelligent people tend to do when caught off-guard. If we're going to put our hopes in Obama lites with mittens and Perry, then surrender now. They'll do nothing to stop the destruction that have been put in motion. Newt, a fat, rich, part of the establishment, corrupt white GOPer, Obama wins by at least 20 points as not only will he turn off the moderates, but will not galvanize the conservative base.

    ReplyDelete
  17. IMHO the only one that couldn't beat 0bama would be Jimmy McMillan and of course those not running. But even those not running have a better chance than Jimmy McMillan ... Jus say'n

    ReplyDelete
  18. Golly, Chuck, then who do you like? And, yes, it feels good to tell the truth about our sorry lot of choices. The emperor not only has no clothes, he's got a screamin' case of flesh eating disease. However, if you would prefer to keep calling all of us names, why don't you do it on that blog you have yet to get up and running.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Golly, Chuck, then who do you like?"

    Do you think what you say is made true according to whether or not you feel liked?

    You seem to have a real problem with honesty. Tell everyone what name you were called. Or you could be honest. It's entirely up to you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brilliant post...

    Republicans haven't learned the hard lessons of 2006 and 2008 because they don't want to learn them. They LOVE watered-down statism. And they present themselves as little more than a semi-competent alternative to the socialist buffoonery of the Democrat party.

    And they are doing a horrible job, even with that.

    Your post sounds EXACTLY like several recent conversations I have had with friends.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ok, Chuck-No-Last-Name......my name is Sarah Bond, I co-run the San Diego tea party under the So Cal Tax Revolt Coalition, I live in Valley Center, California outside of San Diego, my blog is Lipstick Underground, I have a shop at Cafe Press under Paper Salad, My Facebook profile is Sarah M. Bond, I'm an artist, mother and Capricorn. Feel better?

    Still doesn't mean a single word of your reply makes any sense. I'm being perfectly honest. Our choices suck...and I'm not sure what your problem is with that sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't think there is any such thing as a satisfactory republican candidate for you people. If Reagan were running, you'd call him a damn communist or a "rino" or some other such juvenile asshattery. You're part of the problem.

    If what I wrote doesn't "make sense" to you, it's only because you don't want it to or you're illiterate. What name were you called again?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Chuck

    I would love the opportunity to vote for someone like Reagan. Someday folks like Rubio, Haley, Pence and other great conservatives might step up to give us that opportunity. If they don't implode or go RINO in the mean time.

    But today's Reagan wouldn't be a Reagan clone. Issues that could be kicked down the road in the 80s can no longer be ignored. We need fiscal hawks in Washington now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chuck-No-Last-Name, plenty of people I'd love to vote for if they had the balls to run. Don't know why the mentally ill and scandal ridden seem to be the only sociopaths interested in the job right now.

    McDonnel would wipe the floor with Barry.

    And lets see, so far you've basically called me "stupid" "juvenile" "illiterate" and implied I'm a lier. All you've done up and down this post is rip on people with offensive language whether they were talking to you or not. Why don't you spend your time trying to convince the rest of us there is a shred of hope that pop-culture America is going to find any of these candidates appealing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I basically agree with you. I'm on the Newt train right now. Maybe a Newt/Cain ticket. I will support Romney if need-be but am not impressed by him. I am impressed by Newt even though he has some questionable items in his past. His knowledge and ability to articulate this thoughts is incredibly compelling. I like that he has a background in history. If we know our history, we are slightly less doomed to repeat it, right. Something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A good quote from Jacobson:

    This primary cycle has been not so much a search for a nominee as it is a search for a nominee who is not Romney. No other candidate has given rise to a “not” movement. Romney is not capable of motivating the Republican electorate, and therefore damages the chances for victory against Obama. See, Bob Dole, John McCain.

    Read the rest:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/why-i-support-newt-gingrich/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sarah B...you cannot argue with an ego centered and stupid troll. The forever stupid will drag you down to their level and then bear you with experience.

    I summed up your argument a day or two ago...right here: http://thecivillibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/11/defending-elite-why-hating-right-is.html

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Sarah B,

    Consider me a new reader, then, of your blog, seeing how well you have stood your ground against the vitriol and uncouth rudeness of Chuck.

    My blog is open to you, as well. Come on over and hang out. You might know some of my friends already. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Sarah B - You've held your own with Chuck, not always an easy thing to do given his propensity for rudeness, uncivil language, desire to demean those who do not share his opinion, and in general disrupt civil dialogue.

    I tip my hat to you. :)

    I'll be visiting your site and hope to see you at my friend ecc102's site as well.

    If you get a moment stop by my place and let me know what ya think.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "
    And lets see, so far you've basically called me "stupid" "juvenile" "illiterate" and implied I'm a lier. "


    I "basically did none of those things. But since you've removed all doubt; you are a liar. I did label your ideas. You lack the maturity to understand the difference, so you lash out at me in frustration because, as you've shown, you sure as hell aren't going to actually substantiate any of the ridiculous things you've written because you know you can't.

    Hating a stranger for pointing out how lame your ideas are doesn't make anything you write more accurate. Offensive language? What a pity you aren't offended by lies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "The forever stupid will drag you down to their level and then bear you with experience."

    Down to honesty? Intellectual integrity is apparently really despised by some of you. How about you point out a single thing I've written that isn't true, "Brian"? It shouldn't be hard for a mental giant like you to do. After all, I'm a stupid troll and you're...not?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "the only people in the world who could possibly lose to Barry are all running."

    Who of you will be the first to defend the accuracy of that statement? Will even the person who wrote it be so brazenly dumb and/or dishonest?

    If our aim is truth and not winning arguments, we're a lot more likely to win arguments. If we depend on falsehoods to make our case, then we're no better than the leftist vermin we say we oppose.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Nick. Sorry, Nick, I've been meaning to change my name but haven't gotten around to it. But I think I was Nick first. But this Nick (I mean me) never called Obama a "filthy little bastard," but as.Patton said, "I wish I had." :)

    I agree with Chuck's first point (although by now I've forgotten what it was). Oh, yeah, yes there are many people here with a defeatist attitude. They continually say that this RINO or that statist is "no better than Obama." I cannot disagree more for reasons i have enunciated ad nauseum. At the risk of becoming more nauseated, I will say again that ANY person on that Republican podium will make better Supreme Court choices than Obama, and that is the number one most important thing we need from our next president.

    With respect to SCOTUS decisions, I would rather trust a coin toss than an Obama nominee, and the biggest RINO on that stage will appoint someone who will vote with us more often than a coin toss. Souter was a notable exception, but that was a pick made with a Demon Rat senate to consider, and Souter was a stealth liberal. Republicans are likely to retake the Senate, making the choice more palatable, but not if Obama makes it. And we might have THREE justices chosen by the next president.

    That said, I really don't disagree with the main post. We really can't get too excited about any of the front runners, but we MUST be for the reasons I've given. The "lesser of two evils" mantra is a cop out. The comparison between the most liberal Republican and Obama isn't even close.

    And I've already given all the reasons Romney is best suited to win: he has the best ability to raise funds, has the strongest campaign organization, has good personal attributes and impeccable character. Most of all (and this is why you hate him), he's not STUPID ENOUGH to stake out a political position which will drive him to defeat.

    I think abortion is the greatest act of barbarism in human history. But we are at a legal and political impasse on the subject. It would make no sense for me, as a candidate, to make overturning Roe v. Wade an explicit goal. I would avoid the issue if possible, state my position resolutely if asked, and make only incremental changes if a bill crossed my desk. That doesn't make me an accessory to infanticide. It would make me a sensible politician to understand that I cannot, by myself, right all of the injustices of the country. I would hope to persuade people over time, defend parental rights, maintain the ban on public funding, promote private charity to help single moms, and hope that advances in birth control make the abomination obsolete.

    Seriously, for all the talk some of you do about our Constitution, you really have no idea where a president's powers lie and don't lie. You have it back asswards. You need to worry more about what a president can do by himself and worry less about what a president cannot do without majority support of Congress and agreeable courts.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sarah, we so not need "the pop culture" of America to support our candidate.

    We need about 2.5 to 3 percent of the voters in fewer than ten states who could vote either way to come in our direction. We need the police officer in Akron. We need the senior citizen in Florida. We need the auto worker in Michigan. We need the farmer in Iowa. We need the college student in Virginia.

    These are people who have generally conservative values but vote for Demon Rats because they they think it's in their best interest or they think the guy is a moderate. To win these voters, we do NOT need a fire and brimstone Goldwater conservative. We need a charismatic candidate who understands finesse but also has the balls to go to the mat with Obama on issues like Solyndra, China, the federal debt, taxes, energy, etc. That candidate must avoid becoming embroiled in imbroglios such as collective bargaining rights, social security privatization, abortion, ending student loans.

    We here ALL know these things should be abolished, but the candidate we need NOW must know how to squeeze one more trick out of his bridge hand with finesse. When we have a 7-2 majority on the SCOTUS and control of both chambers, we can start to incrementally roll back the New Deal. Then the trick is to do so without alienating the very voters we relied on to put us in power.

    I hate to tell you this, but democracy sucks. We have to rely on the checks and balances and separation of powers in our REPUBLIC to save us. That is not a one man job, boys and girls. Neither Ron Reagan nor Ron Paul is going to lead us to wonderland. It will take the efforts of conservative and libertarian politicians in every town, every county, every state, and on every court. Liberals understand this, which is why they have "community organizers." Some of you do not understand this. You're praying for Moses.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nick,

    You said:
    I hate to tell you this, but democracy sucks. We have to rely on the checks and balances and separation of powers in our REPUBLIC to save us. That is not a one man job, boys and girls. Neither Ron Reagan nor Ron Paul is going to lead us to wonderland. It will take the efforts of conservative and libertarian politicians in every town, every county, every state, and on every court. Liberals understand this, which is why they have "community organizers." Some of you do not understand this. You're praying for Moses.
    ------------------

    I'm in love with this statement. For too long have we, for some reason, put all our hopes on the President. Big mistake. We have only created the "rock star" image.

    I do not believe in democracy, but in a republic. I'm so glad you said what you said. Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "With respect to SCOTUS decisions, I would rather trust a coin toss than an Obama nominee"

    Every Federal election is a coin. Tails is Satan. Tails is the side who thinks the wrong side won the Cold War. Tails is the slavery side. Tails is the democrat side.

    Heads is our only hope because there is only one coin. Look outside your window for godsake! Your country is being destroyed before your very eyes. One party is doing it. Another party (with almost no public support) is trying to stop it. There are no other actors in this play. As Nate Branden said, "No one is coming."

    Fantasy is not a viable option.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Your country is being destroyed before your very eyes. One party is doing it. Another party (with almost no public support) is trying to stop it. "

    That statement is rubbish because it is stated as an absolute.

    Anyone with a modicum of cognition knows it is rubbish.

    All I can say Chucks is... YIKES!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm going to assume you're drunk, Les. That load of nonsensical gibberish is indefensible...unless you're effed up on something.

    Platitudes don't refute. I understand you have a script, but geez, Les. Why not use our own words? Why not make an actual argument? What are you afraid of?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Assumptions can lead to one looking very foolish Chuck.

    Classical Liberalism is what this republic was grounded in. Today's liberalism is unquestionably NOT classical liberalism which is limited government and the recognition of maximum individual liberty as defined by a proper code of ethics and the rule of law. Our founders were brilliant indeed.

    True conservatives today, and I do mean TRUE conservatives are really Classical Liberals. Many just don't seem to understand this.

    Modern American liberal philosophy of governance is really nothing more than European socialism. That defined, is democratic socialism.

    Establishment conservatism today has morphed into a rigid statist neo conservatism that borders on fascism. You might want to read The Ominous Parallels by Professor Leonard Peikoff.

    Where is this all going at 2:37 AM EST Saturday 11/19/11? Well, I SHALL pose a rhetorical question. Does it take two to tango?

    Now go have a Bud.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Not a single one of the founders would find much common ground with the Libertarian Party or Ron Paul.

    "Establishment conservatism today has morphed into a rigid statist neo conservatism that borders on fascism."

    More platitudes. Do you ever consider the meaning of what you write instead of just dashing off stuff the like the sound of? It's just weird. You don't think clearly. You bleat these tired platitudes you pick up from maniacs like Lew Rockwell and throw them up like decorations.

    You don't bother to substantiate this gibberish either."Establishment conservatives" are fascists? Name one. And just what the hell is a "neoconservative" in your mind? The word actually has a definition, but these days it seems to be a meaningless pejorative signifying more about the person using the word than anything about it's intended subject.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Chuck - Ever look in the mirror, Mr. Troll? Got any positive idea's of your own?

    Oh, and by the way Mr. Genius what the hell have you substantiated other than you're probably the most boorish and uncouth individual on the net.

    I'll give you this though, you're consistent.

    Come to think of it I am beginning to think you may have two identities. Hm... Could it be?

    Oh, By the way, how's the Top Floors? Lonely from what I can see. Maybe there's nothing in the room because the elevator doesn't reach Top Floors?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Your anger is the product of shame, Les. I just want you to be honest. That's all. Who is the conservative fascist again?

    Attacking me personally doesn't validate anything you've written. We're strangers. You can't hurt my feelings. You can prove me wrong, though. I would be in your debt if you did.

    Best,
    Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  44. So no interest in proving me wrong? Gee. I'm such an easy target. After all, I'm a "troll".

    O well.

    Best,
    Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Remind of who the conservative fascist is, please. I'm sure you've written the name a dozen times and I'm just too much the dumb troll to remember.

    Who is it?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Why is it OK on this site to display no willingness or ability to back up your own assertions with any fact?

    a=a

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.