I should not have to play clips of Milton Friedman for Mitt Romney to explain his problem with his position on minimum wage. I should not have to argue with Mitt Romney’s appointed hacks to explain the problem with RomneyCare. I shouldn’t have to explain to Mitt Romney why he shouldn’t feel guilty about his wealth and that he can explain to the American people more broadly why we want wealth creation in this country!I wish they let me embed the whole thing, but you'll have to click over and listen. Look, Romney is as bad as Obama, just not as fast. Screw 'em. The GOP is playing chicken with the future of the Republic. OK, then.
Because only that way can we lower unemployment. Only that way can we save the housing market. Only that way, through capitalism, wealth creation, productivity, can the American dream be returned.
Now if I can explain this in literally 3 minutes, why can’t he?!?!
I'm not blinking. I'd rather go fast, in a blaze of idiocy than be slowly roasted by the same idiocy. C'mon, GOP - how about a little Joy Ride?
Romney is a chameleon, saying whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely the only thing you need to know about Romney is that he was the governor of Massachusetts, which is home of Teddy Kennedy and clan. Things may be changing slowly, but at that time, no one came to political power without approval of the Kennedy clan.
+1 on anon... Romney is nothing by Obamalite.
ReplyDeletewell, this should read 2017...
ReplyDeleteAmen.
ReplyDeleteYa know...that is probably one of the best assessments of the situation I have ever seen BP.
ReplyDeleteIf I have a choice of paying now or paying later - I always pay now. If I have a choice between a bullet in the chest or a bullet in the back - I would rather take it in the chest.
'A blaze of idiocy' would be of great educational value for the marxists, it would blow the dust off the moldering brains of our leaders...there is a lot to be said for that.
Jim
All that matters is ousting Obama from the White House in November. Everything else is secondary.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/01/ten-things-you-should-do-if-youre-an-anybody-but-mitt-republican-and-one-you-should-not/
The only "lesson" you give by staying home is that you are unreliable and marginal.
Your choice.
Really, Anonymous, just getting Obama out of the White House fixes America? How, exactly?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it is my choice. If you offer me
-- A. Obama
-- B. Romney
I choose C. --None of the above.
That's freedom. The Republicans can put someone else forward, or they can decide my vote and my support does not matter to them. Their choice.
"All that matters is ousting Obama from the White House in November. Everything else is secondary.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself."
Well, there's a ringing call to arms from a real tower of courage.
(And by the way, my choice is exactly what it is; how good of you to notice, not that you meant it that way.)
It's also a straw man on two counts. First, Nonny Mouse's premise is that voting for Slick Willard will make a difference. It won't even make a difference in the judiciary, because Slick Willard will cheerfully Souterate the Republic in return for a heavy-lidded glance from the New York Times.
Second, I plan to show up in November. I'll be looking for good to do down the ticket while writing in Ron Paul at the top (and meanwhile, if I can scrape up a sawbuck to drop on the fellows primarying Lamar Smith and John Boehner, I'll do that too).
As for "unreliable:" exactly who am I supposed to care regards me as reliable or otherwise? Slick Willard? Jen Rubin? Georgette Mosbacher? You?
Shhyeah.
Anonymous (10:06), a few points:
ReplyDelete1. The "Get Obama out of office at all costs" meme strikes me as the Underpants Gnomes:
Step 1: Get Obama out of office.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
There are costs and benefits of both sides, and we need to pay attention to both.
2. The NRO article is entirely unpersuasive. Most of their points verge on "shut up, he explained". They're not even trying, and it's a bit annoying.
3. I find it hard to see how I'm being unreliable, when I'm not even a registered Republican. Romney's not part of my tribe. I'm willing to listen and possibly be persuaded, but this sort of thing has the opposite impact of what the writers seem to expect (as does the NRO article).
4. We're all marginal. However, I call it like I see it, and take some solace in the fact that while I likely don't convince anyone, I do seem to be reinforcing their own analysis. I'll keep doing so.
But your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.
The lefties, liberals, and progressives have been at work undermining this country's constitution for a hundred years. They did this by making a "Long March through the institutions." Does anyone seriously think the situation can all be put right in a single election?
ReplyDeleteGentlemen, undoing what's wrong in this country is a project that will occupy you for the rest of your lives. To sulk at home this November because nobody on the ballot is pure enough is, frankly, childish.
And supposing the ticket comes out as Romney-Santorum, where do you stand then?
Here's my point: you either get in the game or you forfeit all right to complain about the outcome.
Considering Romney's dubious relationship with conservatism I feel compelled to point out my concerns with what we in the IT industry call "failure modes." While not a term dedicated to the IT industry, there seem to be a lot of people in the industry that don't understand it and thus some of us end up having to explain it rather frequently. In other industries these things are self-evident.
ReplyDelete1. Pilot light goes out
2. Gas keeps running
3. Pilot light eventually relights
4. BOOM
5. Poor failure mode
In software or IT hardware these kinds of things can go like this:
1. Firewall starts up
2. Firewall software crashes
3. Firewall hardware keeps passing in packets anyway.
4. You get hacked
5. Poor failure mode
Instead it should work like this:
1. Firewall starts up in non-routing mode
2. Firewall software includes routing software
3. Firewall software fails taking routing software with it
4. Traffic just stops until you fix it.
5. You don't get hacked
6. Good failure mode
Here's how it applies vis-a-vis Romney.
Let's say we all hold our noses and vote in Romney instead of a real conservative because he's marginally better than Obama.
1. Romney wins
2. Romney lets Obamacare stand
3. Romney appoints Hillary Clinton to Ruth Buzzi Ginsburgs seat
4. Romney asks Congress for an assault weapons ban like Massachusetts has
5. It's 2015. Now what?
Do we try to primary an incumbent? When has that EVER worked?
Poor failure mode.
Putting a squishy Republican in office dooms us to 8 years of Demonrat light.
No thanks, I'd rather spend the next 4 years fighting Obama and have another primary battle then.
To first order, I don't care who runs against Obama, he (or she, who knows?) will get my vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's preposterous that Romney would do more damage to the country than another round of BHO. A Romney constrained by a conservative Senate and House will be forced to act differently from the Romney who was governor of Massachusetts, whatever his personal inclinations are.
After that, well, the project is to get to work on Leviathan and whittle it to something much, much smaller and less intrusive. That's the Long March stuff I mentioned.
But none of this is going to happen if everybody just walks away because it's all too much bother, or it dirties my hands, or it means getting involved in local politics and institutions....
Unless you're going to retreat to your own Fortress of Solitude, then you are in society and you are surrounded by politics and subject to the actions of politically-motivated people.
Never forget that a key tactic by which the left came to dominate was simply by having immense patience for endless meetings.
I keep coming back to Buckley's Principle: "Vote for the most conservative person who can win."
"A Romney constrained by a conservative Senate and House will be forced to act differently from the Romney who was governor of Massachusetts, whatever his personal inclinations are. "
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*gasp*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
1. With only 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election, the idea that we'll have a conservative Senate is preposterous.
2. What restraints did the Republican-led Senate put on Dubya? Medicare Part D? No Child Gets Ahead?
A Democrat majority Senate with a RINO President means that every liberal social program goes through. A Republican majority Senate with a RINO President means that every liberal social program goes through.
With Obama, we have to put up with fighting him for four more years and maybe the Senate Republicans will stand up to him. Sometimes.
With Romney we have to put up with fighting him for four years and the Senate Republicans will never stand up to him.
Any statements to the contrary are going to require justification because there's no evidence to support it.
"A Romney constrained by a conservative Senate and House will be forced to act differently from the Romney who was governor of Massachusetts, whatever his personal inclinations are. "
ReplyDeleteThat assumes a conservative Congress, rather than one that will say "He's a member of our party, we should support him without question."
I'd rather have Obama with a Congress that says "He's a member of the other party, we should oppose him without question." We'll certainly be better off that way.
So let me see if I have this right.
ReplyDeleteYou dislike Obama and his policies — but you're going to vote for him because Congress is full of RINOs...?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to vote for him. I'm just not going to vote for Romney.
Doesn't have anything to do with the makeup of Congress, although that is a good reason, too.
2 things are enough. (1)Massachusetts health care. (2) Massachusetts "assault weapons" law.
Mark Levin's economic analysis would do it all by itself, but I have been warning the Republicans since last June that they need a viable conservative candidate.
And to answer a question you posed in your earlier post. No, I don't care at all who he picks as his running mate. I'm not a Republican. I owe them nothing.
Run with Romney, you have decided you didn't need me, my support, or my vote. Here's where I said it last June 3rd: SORC™
OK, ASM826. None of that SORC for you. Got it. Loud and clear.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what'll you do if Romney's on the ticket? Ya gonna vote for BHO out of pique? Sit home?
Believe me, political parties don't "learn lessons." You can "warn them" until you turn blue in the face — they'll ignore you until you get involved and make your voice known that way.
Here's the Big Secret: parties respond to those who stick around, hammer home the same message, and never go away.
That's how the lefties did it. Plus relentless pushing at every point in society, including most especially culture and education.
Me, I'm not Republican. I just usually end up voting that way because of Buckley's Principle (see above). I don't care who wins the White House so long as it's not Obama.
The rest is just details.
"So let me see if I have this right.
ReplyDeleteYou dislike Obama and his policies — but you're going to vote for him because Congress is full of RINOs...?"
No, I'm not going to vote for Obama. But I'm not going to vote for Romney either. I'm not going to vote for a big-government left-wing statist no matter WHAT party they belong to.
Now let me see if I have THIS right...
You want me to vote for Romney because he's not as bad as Obama, right?
Please show your work. How would Romney be not as bad as Obama?
And you don't get to invoke "But Congress will keep him in line." That's busted.
He's your candidate, sell him to me.
Be advised, any of Romney's current positions that you want to point out where Romney has had a contradictory position before will be rejected. Current positions that you want to point out that have actual Romney policies that contradict them will be laughed at.
So hop to it, Anon. Explain to me why Mitt Romney is suddenly the conservative candidate that I can get behind.
I'm involved. I vote. I'm out here hammering away at the message. McCain wasn't it. Romney's not it either. The whole Tea Party movement is based on the idea that the same old candidates and same old ideas won't work.
ReplyDeleteWe're right here. If the Republicans keep ignoring the conservatives, there will be a new party and they will have to catch up.
Here's my point: you either get in the game or you forfeit all right to complain about the outcome.
ReplyDeleteEnlighten me, sirrah: Exactly when did you become part of my chain of command?
@Knitebane: Yeah, I'd rather you voted for Romney over Obama, if that's the choice that's offered. You take it as proven that Romney would be uncontrollable in office; I don't share that belief. I don't think either of us can "show our work" because by its very nature the issue is hypothetical. And, no, he's not "my" candidate, he's just someone who will probably end up running against a person who has no fitness whatever for the office.
ReplyDelete@ASM826: I have a hunch this is where it's all headed, if the GOP doesn't reform. But 3rd parties need to break extremely big in the election, or it's fratricide. (See under: John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader...) And I don't see a viable 3rd national party at this point.
@Ken: I'm not part of your command, but I do form opinions based on how others behave.
Well, if you're saying that have to take either Romney or Obama I say, "None of the above."
ReplyDeleteBecause if for lunch I offered you a sandwich made of dog crap or a sandwich made of chicken crap, which would you choose?
Romney has been for (at some point or another) abortion, gun control, state run healthcare, amnesty, minimum wage, gay marriage, crony capitalism, leftist judicial appointments, fetal stem cell research, befriending Muslim extremism, and unions.
Granted, he's also been against some of those things too depending on who he's sucking up to.
Obama's record is similar so I'm not sure what compromising my conservative principles and voting for a Massachusetts liberal gets me.
At least with Obama in office the Pubbies in Congress seem to find their spines and vote against him from time to time.
If I get force-fed a Romney sandwich, I'll skip the top of the ticket and concentrate on voting for conservative candidates farther down.
Romney hasn't earned my vote, he doesn't deserve my vote and he's not going to get my vote.
If Mitt Romney really wants to help us get rid of Obama, he needs to drop out of the race.
@Knitebane: What you say about Romney actually reinforces my point: that he's controllable. If he's as flexible as you and others say, then the job of keeping him on track is easier — just keep him flexed the right way. Won't be hard; he's pliable.
ReplyDeleteObama on the other hand is a committed ideologue. While he isn't very good at politics, he really believes what he believes. And since what he believes is anathema to the constitution and all this country stands for, that means he makes tactical retreats only and the target remains the same -- subverting the US into some bastard clone of Europe ("Yurp" as I think of it).
(In my view, BHO is the living exemplar of the phrase "book-smart, life-dumb." He should never have wandered more than two blocks off-campus.)
Anyway, Romney's flexible? Not a bug, that's a feature. But he does bear watching if he gets in. This makes the point much better than I can:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290033/case-romney-jonah-goldberg
Anonymous, I have to say that you defend your position with an admirable tenacity.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, but respect your advocacy of your position.
Send me an email if you'd like to do a guest post to make your case. I've never done this before, but you've earned it.
Thank you for the kind offer, Mr. BP. But I've said my piece here and I won't clutter your comment threads further. All I ask is that you and your readers give some serious consideration to what I've said. Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans could have gotten this Long March started at least 17 years ago. Instead they nominated Bob Dole. Which should tell you all you need to know about how serious they are, then and now. It's long past time to hold their feet to the fire.
ReplyDeleteConfession time: I was once a Democrat. I was all set to jump ship to support Jack Kemp (who made a lot more sense to me than either Clinton or Dole) in '96.
ReplyDeleteVoted for John Anderson in 1980 (first time voter), for whomever the Donks cared to trot out 1984-1996, Harry Browne in 2000, held my nose in '04 and went Bush the Younger, held my nose even harder in '08 for McLame.
Youo men of principles can stand on those principles all the way to the concentration camps. The reason Obama MUST NOT be reelected is because of his ability to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. Remember? All the 2A judgements that have come down all won only by one vote- and when the court is packed with flaming liberal statists (which is an Obama GUARANTEE) the next case will determine that the 2A is actually NOT an individual right.
ReplyDeleteWhen that happens (and if O is reelected it absolutely WILL) don't you dare complain to me one syllable, oh thou "principled men of conscience"...
As much fun as it is to play holier than thou yur hands will be clean only in your heads.
You men of principles can stand on those principles all the way to the concentration camps. The reason Obama MUST NOT be reelected is because of his ability to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. Remember? All the 2A judgments that have come down all won only by one vote- and when the court is packed with flaming liberal statists (which is an Obama GUARANTEE) the next case will determine that the 2A is actually NOT an individual right. Remember?
ReplyDeleteWhen that happens (and if O is reelected it absolutely WILL) don't you dare complain to me one syllable, oh thou "principled men of conscience"...
As much fun as it is to play holier than thou your hands will be clean only in your heads.
That's weird...sorry for the double post...
ReplyDelete