Thursday, November 8, 2012

The State of the Republican Party

The mainstream media and lots of others right, left, and center have begun offering prescriptions for what ails the Republican party. The Democrats, of course, write one to produce a GOP that echoes--wait for it!--the Democrat party. Conventional "wisdom" apparently proposes a return to the "me too" party of the 1960s, when the GOP competed with the Democrats in finding things to give away, and more tasks and power for the government. Don't forget, for example, that EPA, DEA, and price controls were Nixon initiatives, and, much more recently, that G. W. Bush oversaw a significant expansion of federal involvement in education and health care.

So what do they see as the failings of the GOP? It seems it does not appeal to women, youth, blacks, and Hispanics. OK. First, using that criteria I would note that the Democrats have a major problem with white people, especially men, and with business owners. I don't see a lot of analysts worrying about that. Second, I would note that Romney's loss was pretty slim. It will be a while before we get the final vote tallies, but I suspect we will see perhaps a two or three point difference between Obama and Romney. The GOP also has kept control of the House of Representatives, and thirty out of fifty state governors are Republicans. The election, therefore, is not a sweeping rejection of the GOP by the American people. This loss could be attributable to fluke occurrences, e.g., trashing of Romney in the GOP primaries from which he could not recover in time; pernicious effect of media bias; the impact of hurricane Sandy and the bizarre actions of Governor Christie; decision not to raise Benghazi and Fast Furious; and even the historically well-known Democrat penchant for voter fraud in some locations. Who knows? The pundits will be yapping away and making money on this for years.

All that said, however, the historical trend line does appear running against the GOP, at least when it comes to winning the White House. America is a politically centrist and cautious nation; our voters are suspicious of sudden change, whether rightward or leftward. We see, for example, the great suspicion, rightfully so, of Obamacare and the draconian effect it will have on our lives. If, however, Obamacare gets installed, and becomes the new normal, then, as with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the public resists efforts to get rid of it. That means that there is a relatively small window in which to undo vast expansions of government power--the window on Obamacare is still open, but not for long. When, therefore, GOP politicians speak of reforming or otherwise greatly modifying already accepted programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc., they must do so with great care. In theory, we are all against "free stuff," in practice, however, well . . . hard to resist.

The solution for the GOP, and the way to win voters from thus-far resistant groups, is to become libertarian with an asterisk--in some areas, I admit, a pretty large asterisk. Many libertarian concepts can be repackaged and given a glossy "progressive" sheen. The GOP goal should be a government in which 95%-98% of the time it makes no difference to the average American citizen who is president. The US President should matter more to foreigners than to Americans. Except for foreign policy, national defense, times of national crisis, and providing a very broad economic vision, it should not matter who controls the White House. That means keep the government out of as many areas as possible, and where it has been involved deeply and for a long time, try to push the responsibility and resources out to the states, counties, cities, and people.

The most overlooked Constitutional amendment is the tenth amendment. That amendment is the GOP's friend. The default setting on most issues now brought to the feds, should be to push them back out as close to the people as possible. Some of this will be hard for social conservatives. Why should the President have a position, other than his personal one, on abortion, death penalty, gay marriage? Let each state decide its own policy. Some times there will be an impact on federal policy: gay marriage, for example, has implications for tax policies, survivor benefits, etc., which can be debated at the national level.

We need a party that focuses on freedom and remains faithful to individual rights, and federalist traditions. Low taxes, few regulations, dump big bloated unnecessary bureaucracies such as Labor, Commerce, Education, and Energy; radically cut bureaucracies such as EPA, USDA, State, AID, Veterans Administration, Justice, Interior, and parts of DoD, e.g., the whole domestic PX scam.

Certain sacred cows need to be targeted. Hollywood and universities, for example, get all sorts of preferential treatment. Do away with Hollywood tax breaks. Call in those very well paid university presidents and make them explain why their tuition rates keep going up; make it clear that federal support for tuition hikes is coming to an end. Then we will see, as we have, for example, with lasik eye surgery, how the market pushes prices down.

Along with defense, immigration is a legitimate area for federal action. Here I have a proposal that does not sit well with libertarian friends but seems to be a common sense solution, and one that could be adopted without appearing to target any specific group: a national id card. Every other country has one, the feds already have the data on each of us, and it would almost overnight put an end to the whole nasty issue of illegal aliens working and voting.

My own personal pet peeve, as I have written here many times, is the drug war. I see it as an outrageous expenditure of lives and resources, and a growing threat to freedom. Drug abuse should be an issue for education, medical professionals, and the market. In other words, run our drug "policy" akin to what is now done on tobacco. If you want to use drugs, fine, but you can't be a soldier, teacher, cop, pilot, bus driver, surgeon, etc. That, however, is probably still too far in the distance to spend too much time worrying about now.

The party needs to reform its selection process and reach out to new people, e.g., there must be many more people like Allen West, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Brian Sandoval, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Susana Martinez out there. There is no reason why the GOP should forfeit Hispanic, black, and women voters. I think the GOP can attract them and keep the base with an agenda that supports freedom and individual rights, and opposes unnecessary government involvement in our lives. The primary process is much too long, expensive, destructive, and provides fodder for the Democrats in the general election, e.g., "Vulture capitalism" was a Newt phrase which the Dems picked up and used against Romney.

Just some thoughts as we look over the political panorama for the next four years. More later.

UPDATE: A perceptive comment from reader, Penny
The Dem's "war on women" propaganda worked well for them. You can thank idiots like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, cannon fodder for the Obama water MSM carriers, for that. Both were stupid Tea Party darlings. And, it's not that I don't appreciate the Tea Party folks a lot, but, hey, they threw away Richard Lugar too and what did they get for that hissy fit? Look at the election stats - Obama did amazingly well with women.
We will never turn back the cultural clock to the 50's when their was a dad and a single pay check in most homes. America has become much more secular. It's time that the Republicans took a cold hard look at the today's electorate.
I have my moral compass, so do you. My kids know what is acceptable behavior. Many do not. It's fruitless to try to convert them to my moral position.

I guess my point is, how many elections are dedicated fiscal, constitutional and foreign affairs conservatives like myself willing to lose, killing this once great democracy with these lost elections, for the sake of appeasing the Christian evangelical folk's insistence on mandating their morality issues on abortion and gay marriage to others? It's really that simple. 
The next Republican candidate up at bat needs to not get enmeshed in the cultural/social wars and salvage the Constitution and American capitalism.


  1. You're quite right. Also who do the Democrats have besides obama for nationwide audience, no one. The Republicans, Allen West, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Brian Sandoval, Tim Scott, and Susana Martinez, just to name a few.

    1. Allen West and Mia Love lost. I still can't believe it.

    2. Lincoln and Churchill also lost elections.

  2. Re: The national popular vote. One thing that has been overlooked is the concentration of resources in the so-called battleground states. I know for a fact that some people in my state felt left out of the process and some questioned whether it was even worth voting at all. This could account in part for the lower turnout.

  3. Why do Conservatives always have to move to the center/compromise? The Democrats won with the most Progressive Leftist Candidate ever.

    1. From THe American Spectator:

      Barack Obama's victory vindicates the "base" strategy of the Democrats. Obama never moved to the center, even as he cast his centrist opponent as an extremist. Obama didn't worry too much about winning conservative-leaning independents; he just made sure liberal Democrats got to the polls.

    2. And my delusional sister in Seattle puts up the article in Slate about how Obama is a "Republican president". I couldn't even bring myself to follow the link to read the thing. It had a picture of Nixon, and somehow I don't think Nixon and Obama have very much in common.

      I also find it interesting that I got my mother to admit that JFK (Kennedy that is)would probably fit right in with the Romney wing of the party, but although she and my father are devout JKF democrats they would never consider voting for someone without that D after their name, no matter what their policies actually were.

  4. Herman Cain seems to be calling for a third party at the expense of the GOP, aka Dem-Lite. Wonder if that's where the tea party movement ultimately winds up. The establishment, patrician, my turn GOP grandees are either going to have to be shown the door or abandoned in place. They are entirely too comfortable nibbling the table leavings of the fascist bastages infesting the beltway.

  5. Dip:

    Some excellent suggestions. Even though I worked on loan in Bill Bennett's ONDCP for a while, I think I could support the drug policy you came up with -- although I wonder about how it's good intentions would be perverted by people who seem to turn every good program into something evil. Or worthless.

    Instapundit has some good links to articles on the voting in Philadelphia, where vote turnout was above 90% and 99% of the votes (or more) went to Obama. Somehow I suspect that the best of your suggestions would be corrupted by such practices. Not everywhere, but in places the Dems need to capture.

    The idea of a national ID card is a good one. We're really pretty close right now with our SSN, which is used in all kinds of situations for which it was never intended, including my phone company, who ask me for it as a means of identifying myself. You can imagine how much I don't like giving them a number for identification that also has financial links to my name. So a national ID number would be a welcome change from the current situation.

    Bottom line is that there are excellent ideas here. The big problem as I see it, though, is the belief for a lot of people that big government is like Santa Claus. That's a tough problem to overcome.

    1. Years ago I worked for the WSJ, when it was owned by Dow Jones. It had a sister publication called The National Observer. The NO did a series of articles on Social Security number abuse and advised readers that is is actually illegal to demand you provide that number to anyone in order to participate in commerce of any kind, as it is a number provided to you for one purpose, and was not to be used for identification purposes. That would include your telephone service provider. The law providing you with privacy re: your SS# has not changed, it has just been ignored. In the event that you were declined service, or an account, based on your refusal to give your SS#, that is grounds for a law suit, if you wanted to spend the bucks.

      I would go for drug laws if, and only, people were made responsible for their actions. If you abuse drugs, and wind up in an ER for that action, you should have to either pay the bill or go to jail. Yeah, I know there is no debtor's prison, but still, you are going to place even more burden on taxpayers by making drugs legal. And where do you end? Do you make marijuana legal, but not cocaine? Cocaine legal, but not heroine? Designer drugs cooked up on some chemical major's apartment? Make them legal? Having worked with a number of parents in a Tough Love group, I can tell you from experience that marijuana is a gateway drug.

      Now, to appealing to certain groups: one of the reasons I am a Republican is because they don't divide people into groups. We ALL seek the same thing, be we men, women, white, black, Hispanic, et al. To change that would not serve us well. What we do need to do is go back to founding principals. We need to start with our educational systems and with Hollywood, which was once quite conservative. If Hollywood learns that they are not going to make money off some liberal, sex riddled, profane movie, they will start making what appeals to the masses. Our schools need to be cleaned up. Professor Robert Jensen, chair of the journalism department at the University of Texas, Austin, is a very loud Marxist who keeps a photo of Che Guevera on his wall. Nice job, UT. Read any grade school history text book. I promise you, you will be shocked at the revisionist history that is being taught to pliable minds.

      And DiploMad is correct; all these agencies have to go. There are 17 agencies that deal with Indian Affairs, over and above the IAA. Why? It is a system of patronage, to give cronies a job. Department of Education? What has it really acheived? Are grade scores any better since it was implemented? NO.

      Now, I know I am really going to catch flack for this, but here goes: we had a candidate this primary season that would have fixed a lot that is wrong in our federal government. He is, to this day, a strong 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendment proponent. He runs the most successful state in the Union that was the last to feel the recession and the first to start coming out of it. In spite of the recession, job creation is booming in his state. Other governors, Bobby Jindal, Suzanna Martinez, Scott Walker, go to him for advise on how to improve their state's economic picture. Mitt Romney adopted his stance on the 10th Amendment, err, that is after lying about him. He believes that government should be inconsequential in your lives except for the Constitutional requirements that are listed in the 18 enumerated powers.

      Take a guess. I know you will disagree but I can tell you, as a proud resident of his state, I live in the last bastion of freedom in the United States.


    2. Having worked at a state correctional facility for more than a decade i am absolutely certain the government could save money by subsidizing all drugs 100%. I'm not advocating that, but the amounts we blow are mind boggling. To say nothing of the bed space that could be better put to use housing predators. The overwhelming majority of the dopers we have are self medicating for pain and serially committing petty crimes to fund thier habbit.

      Marijuana is principally a gateway drug because the dopers go to thier dealer and he is out, generally due to good police work, so they take what he has in stock. No one decides that going from high school cheerleader to whoring for crack in five agonizing years is the preferred career track.


    3. marijuana is a gateway drug, just as are liquor and tobacco.


  6. The Dem's "war on women" propaganda worked well for them. You can thank idiots like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, cannon fodder for the Obama water MSM carriers, for that. Both were stupid Tea Party darlings. And, it's not that I don't appreciate the Tea Party folks a lot, but, hey, they threw away Richard Lugar too and what did they get for that hissy fit? Look at the election stats - Obama did amazingly well with women.

    We will never turn back the cultural clock to the 50's when their was a dad and a single pay check in most homes. America has become much more secular. It's time that the Republicans took a cold hard look at the today's electorate.

    I have my moral compass, so do you. My kids know what is acceptable behavior. Many do not. It's fruitless to try to convert them to my moral position.

    I guess my point is, how many elections are dedicated fiscal, constitutional and foreign affairs conservatives like myself willing to lose, killing this once great democracy with these lost elections, for the sake of appeasing the Christian evangelical folk's insistence on mandating their morality issues on abortion and gay marriage to others? It's really that simple.

    The next Republican candidate up at bat needs to not get enmeshed in the cultural/social wars and salvage the Constitution and American capitalism.

    1. You don't know how wrong you are. Akin and Mourdock make statements not based in the correct terms. So what? Like Joe Biden never makes a gaffe? Was Biden punished for his idiocy?

      And you seem pretty well uninformed on the '50's when, as you say, there was a dad and a single paycheck in most homes. Perhaps you forgot a little event that cost a lot of children their dad and the only single paycheck came from mom? It is called World War II. Or do you think that only single, unmarried guys died in that war?

      And are you saying it is fruitless to try to teach your kids your morals? Try teaching by example. News flash, Penny, it's us "Christian evangelical" folks that are doing everything we can to preserve the nation the way the Founding Fathers handed it to us.

      "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politicans, that determine the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture to save it from itself."

      Tip O'Neill

      That philosphy is right out of the Communist Manifesto. Culture must be addressed. Do you think that Obama didn't address the culture? He did. He backed the culture of free love and women not cherishing their bodies. He backed the culture of killing our unborn. He backed the culture of dependence, and reliance on the government for all we need. Obama's entire campaign was based on the culture/social wars. And his policies come right out of Marx, Engles and Gramsci.

      We must return to being a "moral and religious" people that the Founders believed was the reason that we defeated the most powerful nation on earth, at the time, because God smiled on us and provided the Hand of Divine Providence. Otherwise, we are dooming ourselves, just as Rome did.


    2. fiscal, constitutional and foreign affairs conservatives don't have the numbers and without moral issues the Christian right won't support you en masse. Put another way were the DNC to drop thier support for abortion and stop antagonizing Christians, the RNC would never again win a national election.


    3. I'm not sure what you think is so perceptive about this comment, Diplomad.

      As a fiscal conservative, I am opposed to funding condoms for rich women like Sandra Fluke. So I say to the Democrat/Fascist/Communist Party: it's fiscally irresponsible to give rich women condoms. The Party replies: why?

      Funding condoms for rich women is good (a woman's right), permissible (judges have peered into the umbras and penumbras of the Constitution), and it falls within the budget because the state borrowed another trillion to pay for the condoms and raised taxes on the rich. Miserliness is poor argument to refute the state doing the Good, the True and the Right.

      "mandating their morality issues on abortion and gay marriage to others"

      If a photographer refuses to photograph a homosexual "wedding," will not the state punish the photographer? (Don't bother to deny it, it's already happened.) If an adoption agency refuses to place its children with homosexual "couples," will not the state punish the agency? (Don't bother to deny it, it's already happened.) Now who is forcing their morality issues on others? The state has legislated homosexual marriage and everyone must in word, thought, and deed speak, think, and act as the state demands. This, I assume is the "Constitutional conservatism."

      "It's time that the Republicans took a cold hard look at the today's electorate."

      Absolutely. The purpose of the Republican Party is conserve the bold, Socialist advances of their predecessors: Eisenhower conserved the New Deal; Nixon conserved and furthered the Great Society; Reagan conserved and furthered Carter's innovations (he had promised to abolish the Department of Education--it's still here. Reagan was windbag.); the Bushes kept all of Clinton's socialism and added their own.

      The only way the Republican part can succeed is by running a hard-left candidate in comparison to the Democrat's harder left candidate.

      But none of that will be fiscal or constitutionally conservative. "Fiscal" and "Constitutional" conservatism is a hollow mask and nothing more.

      * * *

      "they threw away Richard Lugar too"

      Not fast enough. If it takes a "hissy fit" to get rid of loathsome toads like Lugar, then I say "more fits!"

      * * *

      "growing threat to freedom"

      True. It's only a matter of time before we're ruled by American Bolivarists. The drug was must be fought and won. No quarter for dealers or growers. No mercy for addicts. No excuses for corrupt politicians and police.

      * * *

      "We need a party that focuses on freedom... dump big bloated unnecessary bureaucracies... radically cut bureaucracies."

      "We will never turn back the cultural clock to the 50's"

      Both these things cannot be true. If the clock's hands can no longer point to freedom, then the wish list will not be fulfilled. The American people no longer wish to be free, they want things to be free. They want to be ruled by Czars. They vote for more regulation, more bureaucracy, more Communism in every election, but every once in a will vote to travel to glorious Socialist future more slowly.

    4. I am unaware that any evangelical Christians tried to push their moral values onto anyone. They vote according to their religious beliefs, and they to only get one vote per person.

      Way back in the beginning of the primary season Mitch Daniels made the comment that Republicans needed to put the social issues on the back burner. It may not have been his primary reason for not running, but the backlash was immediate and swift. It certainly would have hurt him during the primaries.

      Read the platforms on any one of the national Tea Party sites. They are fiscal conservatives, for smaller government, and for individual freedom. There is absolutely nothing about social issues or foreign policy/national security. They are not Reagan conservatives who understood what Reagan did- if you remove any one of the legs from the three legged stool, it falls over. Yes, the stool that stood for so long has now completely fallen over, and it was done by Republicans themselves.

      There are many that believe that Rome fell for exactly the reasons we are now failing as a nation. Social, moral and cultural rot and decay.

    5. > I guess my point is,
      > how many elections are dedicated fiscal, constitutional and foreign affairs conservatives like myself willing to lose,
      > killing this once great democracy with these lost elections,
      > for the sake of appeasing the Christian evangelical folk's insistence on mandating their morality issues on abortion and gay marriage to others?
      > It's really that simple.

      1) It was very close.
      2) How did the Libertarian vote affect the outcome at the federal and state level?

      I don't see a "Christian Party" on the ticket.
      The refusal to compromise is not coming from the evangelical Christians, it is coming from big-L Libertarians.

    6. Unfortunately, I was unable to discover a data source where I could download 2012 election data for federal or all-state voting data for analysis.

      There are a few sites that help, but they don't have data for download.
      * google has a breakdown by candidate if you hover over the state:

      real clear politics has data on each race, but not on libertarian votes

    7. I don't know where to start in rebutting some of the comments in response to my comment, which may have been poorly worded, so I'll simply repeat many elections are Republicans willing to lose getting ensnared in the culture/social issues war?

      Can most of us agree that the liberal media controls the narrative, that it will always distort or by omission work against any conservative candidate? Can most of us agree that whites are drifting into two very distinct classes and are not sharing core values any more as Charles Murray has observed in his book "Coming Apart"? (A large segment of the lower middle class white vote disappeared this election, by the way.) Can most of us agree that Biden's gaffes get no media attention vs Richard Mourdock's and Todd Akin's stupid statements(both Tea Party darlings)get amplified?

      And, in Lugar's place is a Democrat now. Lugar was no smarmy Charlie Crist or Arlen Specter. Just saying. So who got punished in that lame Tea Party primary move?

      It's stupidity for Republicans to keep trying the same failed formula and expecting a different outcome after two failed presidential elections. This should have been a landslide given Obama's record to run on. If morality is best learned by example, then isn't it time to shut up on the social/cultural issues before and deny the press, the secular libs, the frivolous victim/women's studies fools, Hollywood flakes and all of the other usual suspects an opportunity to vote against you because your moral stance on abortion/gay marriage sends them in droves to defeat you?

      There is an old Arabic saying that you can either change the shepherd or the sheep. This election leaves me realizing that the sheep are a serious fixture and conservatives need to factor that in next time.

    8. I'm not sure where everyone keeps getting the information that Todd Akin was a tea party darling because he wasn't. He was the closest to an establishment candidate in the primary. The problem lay with the fact that the tea party vote was split between Sarah Steelman and John Brunner, and McCaskill chose her opponent. (I voted for Steelman.)

    9. "It's stupidity for Republicans to keep trying the same failed formula and expecting a different outcome after two failed presidential elections."

      You're right.

      They should run a conservative next time.

  7. By using the term "Christian evangelical folk" you reveal your contempt for anyone who dares to believe that perhaps a great nation's decline might possibly have coincided with the simultaneous gradual decline of the importance of the Judao- Christian ethic as central to American life. I have not been to church in twenty-five years, but nothing is clearer to me than unless or until thre reversal of that trend, there will be no return to the greatness this nation once knew.

    1. I wasn't crazy about that term either but I do not think Mr. Mad meant it contemptuously. Besides, any day that I'm not being crucified for my faith is a good one (though it would be a privilege to die for my faith, but not something I am actively seeking). Careless words really don't bother me. What bothers me is a death toll of 50 MILLION souls and counting, based on terrible law executed by fiat. Abortion should be a state by state issue, but to get there we must have an uncomfortable conversation. Anyway, it's moot because Dems are about to stack SCOTUS with guaranteed friends of abortion on demand.

  8. Face the facts....its fairly simple.....people didn't want to
    give up their free stuff. Obama and government is their "daddy".

    The corrupt media protected Obama.

    There was massive voter fraud.

    How stupid are they? They voted for the person who was endorsed
    by Al Quada!!!!

    The rest of us whites, hispanics, blacks, women, etc. are part of the informed voter crowd who voted against Obama and tyranny.

    Making this loss about so many other things is insulting to our
    intelligence. Of course, the campaign wasn't perfect. Blaming
    the Tea Party candidates. Poppycock! Blame the candidates as themselves. You don't think Boehner crying continuously hasn't
    hurt the repubs? I could go on and on. Just stop.

  9. @ Penny November 8, 2012 8:08 PM

    THIS ONCE GREAT DEMOCRACY.... Oy vey, what have I just heard? I am not a person who worships at the idolatrous alter of that she-devil called Democracy. The Third Reich was a fruit of her womb, just as Jefferson’s America was. Her bastard brother, "Rule-of-Law", sent millions to the gas ovens and gulags during the last century - as well as setting the slaves free in Britannia and America. Every time she mistakes her purpose, then an accounting of society is needed.

    Morality is the sole difference. Everyone wants the fruit of the tree, but does their best to slander it's origins!

    Where did the the Western Nations civilization get their sense of 'right and wrong'? Did babies just pop out of their mother's womb knowing it was wrong to lie, steal, rape and murder? If that is the case, what can be said about the jungle natives of South America or Africa 400 years ago - they certainly did not have those restrictions in their tribal nations.

    We are all of one flesh, everyone on the planet. What made America great if not her moral worldview? Those nasty Jews and contentious Christians - or is it the other way around, I keep forgetting - supplied with their understanding (morals/ethics) the soil in which America was planted. You don't like this understanding? Let me finish, there's more.

    Take a look at the Christian church today, or even those who call themselves after the Abraham and his progeny (Isaac). The G_d, whom they say they worship, gives certain promises for those in rebellion. He also condemns certain practices as immoral, with associated promises. Oy vey, what have I just said?

    The true greatness of America rested in her moral uprightness, which has been cast off and dragged through the mud these past 100 years. The main reason being that everyone wanted to do what was right in their own eyes. Now they want that fruit of morality - while scorning the instructor of that morality and watching their country die.

    So, those nasty "Christian evangelical folk's insistence on mandating their morality issues" is going to cause problems. What good is a country without a peaceful wholesome worldview? Peace at any price? Well, that is what Obama is offering. Do whatever you want, no responsibility - absolute freedom. Do you want your 12 year old daughter to grow into a responsible woman? Obama's followers will tell you that's possible if she knows that it's OK to have an abortion any time she wants one. Soon drugs are going to be legal - just watch American productivity sink then! BUT, they will be legal (it's the Law) - our Democratically elected officials say so. lg

  10. The direction starts with our children. So many people are leaving the raising of their child to the "experts" at school. How do we get a handle on this monster? How do we convince parents to take their "me" time and spend it with their children? The most successful people I have met in my lifetime had parents that knew their children well and had a value for math, reading and hard sciences. If we cannot get this first step re-established we will never dig out.

  11. DiploMad, I have to disagree with you on the accolades you heap on the post by Penny.

    While Obama may have taken the Sandra Flukes of the nation, most women understand they are more than the total sum of their reproductive/sexual organs. I find it insulting to women for Democrats to think that the only thing in their pretty little minds is free birth control pills. But the female vote Democrats need to win. So while we see extreme violence and unrestrained sex on TV, the alphabet networks refuse to allow ads that show the dismembered body parts of an aborted infant. Just how many women do you think has ever seen those pictures (they are gruesome) or witnessed an abortion is all its gore? How many Democrat women are aware that a majority of Planned Parenthood abortion mills are put in minority neighborhoods? The largest PP center in the nation is in Sheila Jackson Lee's district which was, at one time, 90% black. Margaret Sanger's eugenics alive and well. Will black Democrats ever admit that while their numbers accounted for 20% of the population in 1860, they now represent a mere 10%? We can attribute that to abortion.

    Penny also seems to think that social issues should be off the table. What are we, if not a social society? Are we ancient Rome, that will allow "if it feels good, do it" norms? How did that work out for ancient Rome? Even Cicero, who was no monotheist by any means, realized that morals must be maintained to keep a society successful.

    Penny says it is also fruitless to try to convince her children to accept her moral position. Sounds to me like her kids need an adult to raise them. I know many parents like that. They want to be friends with their kids, not parents. And who suffers with that philosopy? Those kids that eventually grow up and have to enter the adult world only to find that there are parimeters and an employer is not going to seek their friendship and that eventually they will have to face the consequences of their actions. Penny is not doing her children any favors. Does she not realize that she is abdicating her responsibility to her children by throwing up her hands saying "I can't do anything about how they think." and leaving the forming of her children's opinions/morals to others?

    Penny would have us abandon our "Christian" core values for the sake of comity. Perhaps Penny has never read the Communist Manifesto, or the writings of Antonio Gransci, who would agree with her. What did those men propose to bring about their great utopian society? Diminishing the influence of the church, and therefore the influence of parents, leaving children to be indictrinated by the state (schools); the abolition of sexual morality and the promotion of the gays as normal human behavior, diminished value for human life, including the unborn, the old, the infirmed. Yeah, Penny would fit right in with that group.

    Yes, we have lost two elections, although not in a row. We conservatives made a big dent in 2010, and this year we gained in gubernatorial races to now have 30 governorships. That is 60% of all states. And yes, it is depressing that the nation has seen fit to re-elect a Marxist (or as Thomas Sowell calls Obama, a fascist) but the pendulum never stops and eventually will swing back the other direction. If it does not, then we are ancient Rome.

    Penny is dead wrong. We must return to our "moral and religious" roots if we want to continue to be a successful nation and the standard for the world.


  12. There is a lot of emotion running rampant here. Same for me. I try to grasp and put into words my sense of things and find it not easy.

    There is a well worn saying: Your rights end where mine begin - and vice versa.

    I think abortion is killing. Abortion bad, right? But as a young man I was more than willing to kill in the name of our country. Good, right? This is not a dilemma I am asking you or anyone else to solve. I don't think it can be. Some will say (or at least think) that the lives taken in war are for a nobel purpose. Yet, when I look at historic records I find it not uncommon for ~50% of the deaths in war are what we call collateral damage - innocent men, women and children who happened to be in the way. To this day, I would not hesitate to take another life in order to protect my family, my country or myself. And, I do not think abortion is anything but taking an innocent life.

    The only resolution for me is to accept the ambiguity of my imperfect understanding AND allow others the right to find their own peace of mind. That may seemingly afford a young woman the right to take the life of her unborn child. If there is a price to be paid for that action it will not/cannot be by my hand. It is not a crime against me or society.

    Most of us formed our moral and ethical codes when young - just as our children do now. We decide to accept (or not) the influence of religion, education systems, and the circle of people we allow into our and our children's lives. I am sometimes in dismay at the result of the choices I and other make. Things are often not as straight forward - not as obvious as I might think. Life choices are seldom perfect - but we make them moment by moment, day by day. And we live with the result.

    We need laws to establish some consistency in the justice extracted for those occasions when people allow their actions to infringe on the rights of others. When laws are created which attempt to codify an individual or a groups moral and ethical standards when the natural barrier of rights is not crossed - then we are inflicting a belief system on others. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa.

    I would not live in a Muslim country if it meant I had to live by Sharia law. If I found a school practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance - complete with the 'one nation under God' phrase objectionable - I would go to another school. In the first case, I would not have a right to demand the Muslim citizens to abandoned their beliefs, even if I thought them savage. Nor would I have the right in the second case to demand change in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I have the power to pick and choose where and what I do without expecting others to abandon their beliefs.

    Same goes for politics... I should not be trying to decide the fate of abortion for you. The federal government should not be deciding for the nation. There may be state or localities or religions that set up common rules and principles. It is always going to be easier and less intrusive if these difficult and personal matters are handled on a smaller more personal basis. Our federal government should be focused on mutual defense, resolving interstate issues, and generally keeping as far away from the personal lives of its citizens. We have our schools, communities, religions, and personal associations through which we can build and reinforce common beliefs. Live and let live.

    When we have an understanding of common purpose, we can and will be successful. If we think we are going to change the morals and ethics by passing laws, we will create circumstance destined to devolve into chaos and conflict. Politically, we seem to be in a chaos and conflict mode. I understand that I may not be right. Heck, I am probably not right. With any luck I will evolve, but not because someone else demanded or legislated it.

    1. John, I would point out a few differences between the killing of another human being in war, and the killing of an unborn child.

      That enemy, that you might have faced in battle, and who you might have killed, made a choice. His choice was to go to war, and try to kill you first. At that point, you had a choice; flight or fight. His choice to try to kill you was a choice made by an adult, as was yours to try to kill him first. He could have, as many have done, laid down his arms and refused to continue with the plan for your demise.

      Same with protecting your family. When you do, once again, you are dealing with an adult who has made a choice that forces you, also to make a choice. It is no longer a matter of fight or flight, it is a matter of human survival instincts.

      Not so with the unborn child that had no choice in its creation, and with abortion, has no choice in its demise. Its entire fate is in the hands of the woman whose body was designed to protect that child until birth.

      Abortion proponents decades ago hit on a winning phrase: "choice" Wordsmithing in its grandest form. But the "choice" was made prior to conception. And please, don't give me the incest/rape argument as the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood, has stats that less than 1% of women who get abortions do so due to rape/incest. 99% of those who get an abortion do not do so for rape/abortion/life of the mother. It is due to convenience. Their unborn child is an inconvenience.

      Let me put it to you another way; pregnancy is not an action. It is a consequence of irresponsible sex. Just as a hangover is not an action. It is a consequence of drinking irresponsibily. What we have done is make legal for those who acted irresponsibly to get a "get out of jail free" card.

      Perhaps that is the sociatal norm you are willing to accept, by I am not.


    2. Zane - I offer no rebuke of your argument. It is good and honest. The notion that society or more specifically, government can or should make these judgements requires first that a human life exists before birth. You and I might think so but I cannot claim to know. In a moral and ethical society the respect for life would be taught, passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by religion and spiritual teachings. But even with that I do not know. As the act of abortion does not impact me, is not an act against me, where does the right to intercede come from? If I act with a certainty that I do not have what is the result? Am I then any different than the radical muslim who would kill me for not converting? He is certain in his belief, too.

  13. As a staunch conservative, I wouldn't shed one tear for the demise of the GOP. I haven't voted for one since Reagan. The present day GOP (at least the incumbants) only ever pay lip service to conservative principles. They are just as guilty as the Democrats for the erosion of our founding principles and the growth of the Federal Government.

    Since the chance of a 3rd party emerging in this country are slim to none, conservatives have 2 choices. Take over the GOP or take over the Democratic party - infiltrate their ranks. Come to think of it - maybe they should do both!

    What they need to fight MOST though is language - rhetoric - whatever you want to call it. I am not a writer - I don't know how to eloquently articulate my thoughts on this subject. I'm guessing most of us read 1984. Orwell's message in that book has stuck with me all these years. He who defines the message wins control. Go back and look at this campaign. The progressives defined the issues, the language, the rhetoric. "Reproductive rights", "fair share", "social justice", "climate change", etc, etc. They pounded us, They told bold faced lie, after bold faced lie and when confronted with them they played the idignant card and lied some more.

    What conservatives need to do is play their own game. Turn the tables on the progs with their own game. They need to study advertising, sales and rhetoric. They need messaging. They need to insert their language and their "newspeak" into the conversation or we are doomed.

  14. Akin was not a Tea Party favorite in the MO GOP primaries. Their support was split between Steelman (endorsed by Palin) and Brunner.

    When you have gullible women believing Romney was going to ban tampons, we did indeed lose the "War on Women".

  15. @ John at 11:11 Your post has articulated a bit how I'm feeling--and my late 30-early 40 year old girlfriends.

    We grew up with Roe v Wade already law. It is our "norm". While I and my friends always vote GOP and don't ourselves support abortion (certainly not taxpayer funded abortion), we accept it. Yes, you are killing an unborn child so am sure me saying that sounds completely stupid. Thing is, the left DOES NOT CARE. They want abortion to remain legal. Period. No compromise.

    I understand writing this may make me a monster or hypocrite or both but cannot bring myself to want to change the laws to abolish abortion or make it an exception only for rape, incest or life of the mother.

    Late term abortions are not common place (thankfully as that is barbaric and one of many reasons I'd never vote Dem), but will actively protest should any GOP politician decide to ban abortion outright alongside Democrats.

    If you believe the polls, American Catholics vote for Democrats. Evangelicals do vote for Democrats. Blacks churches, while many dismayed at Obama's support for gay marriage, will continue to vote Democrat.

    Living in Europe as I do and have (am an American expat), it is not Soddom and Gomorrah. People go to work, (yes) live in smaller houses, and have smaller cars and are socially liberal and many times have the baby first and get married later--but are a committed relationship during that time. Gay marriage is not a big deal. I personally don't care about gay marriage. Let them get married. Just don't force the churches to perform the ceremony should they object. Young people are more accepting of gay marriage as it has been normalized on television.

    Creation vs Evolution. I cannot believe we have to defend this. Please, keep the religous views in the church. I went to Catholic school and we had no problem with "some people believe this", but most remember Sister Mary Paul talking about evolution but on Thursday mass, about Genesis. I believe in God but not that he created Adam and Eve as the bible lays out.

    I am a fiscal, Constitutional Conservative. I have always voted GOP and am fully aware and respect those who have religious beliefs that would never accept abortion or gay marriage. Thing is, abortion doesn't affect them directly (no tax payer money of course) and neither does gay marriage. I mean, a man and a woman had to procreate to create the gay child. How can we deny that?

    Please do not take this as an insult to those of faith as being small minded or old fashioned. I'm only trying to explain how our big tent cannot only include what are the litmus test expectations of our last 2 losing Presidential candidates. I will still fight for the GOP as the best hope for law and order, foreign policy and fiscal issues.

    We have to neutralize the social issues to get more people to listen to us on the others. Now, they close their ears to us and call us racists, bigots and knuckledragging bible-thumpers. We call them socialists, marxists and the like. Guess what, they don't mind that because WE are the ones who are against "equal rights" and that trumps political philosophy and the powerful media enablers trumpet the GOP bigotry to the world...

    And "the world" (I know, we're not supposed to care) but as an American expat who has lived in Europe, Central America and India, it does become an everyday confrontation. When/if people find out you support the GOP, I kid you not, the abuse is incredible and frankly, depressing. Those idiots Murdock and Akin made the past few weeks unbearable trying to explain away the context for one and then accepting yes, he is a moron but no, not the face of my party.

    Anyway, that my $.02. Thank you for allowing me to express my views. I enjoy this site very much and am very happy to see it back on-line.

    (renagle - Riga, Latvia, trailing spouse married to a Dane that supports the GOP but only on fiscal issues. makes for some tough conversations at home. haha)

    1. I've considered the evolution of the rigid stances taken by varied religions with regard to evolution, homosexuality, and abortion as initially as chastisement.

      Really who is to say how or when creation (in the grand sense) occurred? People have their books and ideas - I say fine. Personally, I always favored the Hindu telling - but it doesn't matter. Not now and not ever. Better people give thought and concern to today's circumstance and what they are going to do now and tomorrow.

      If everyone behaved like ~25-30% of the San Francisco population nothing matters, not for long anyway. The species dies out and beasts rule the world.

      The abortion issue - I probably rattled on long enough already.

      I consider as a possibility in all three issues the varied churches and religions took a hard line much as a parent might with a young child not yet able to grasp any deep meaning. But over time, the non-tolerant approach became somewhat codified. Sit up and do as I say or you will go to bed without supper! I think this because the institutionalized church viewpoint is typically much different than what I encounter in more personalized settings.

    2. you are so right

    3. "Creation vs Evolution. I cannot believe we have to defend this."

      Outside of cartoons, you don't. Why do you believe the lefts' cartoons over reality?

  16. I'm not particularly religious, I'm an engineer...but in the REAL war against women, abortion is widely used, in the US and elsewhere, for sex-selection, and more often than not it appears that male is the preferred choice...not just in China.

    I’m an engineer by training, not a doctor, philosopher or theologian…or diplomat or politician.
    I approach things as a logical sequence of steps, observable cause and effect, events and consequences.

    So I challenge anyone…
    …tell me what’s wrong with my logic here, if you can:

    • Human life begins at conception (fertilization) or implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall…take your pick.
    • If you believe otherwise, then please explain and defend your position that human life begins at some other point…

    • After that point, unless interfered with, or unless there’s a severe defect or accident, the result will in most cases be the delivery of a living human child.
    • Other than natural phenomena, that which actively or passively, deliberately terminates a human life is by definition manslaughter, or murder, or negligent homicide…a death has been caused.
    • If one person pays another to kill someone, the payer is as guilty of murder as the trigger person.
    • If ten, or one hundred, or one thousand people contribute to pay for that killing, they are in principle and fact, guilty of at least conspiracy to commit murder/manslaughter.
    • If Obamacare takes tax dollars or insurance premium dollars from me, from my church, or from my employer on my behalf, and transfers those dollars
    to someone to provide for the abortion of a growing fetus (which is the Latin word for baby, and not the name of an internal parasite), then logically and morally,
    the government is compelling me by force (the IRS will bring guns and arrest me if I refuse to pay taxes and penalties under Obamacare) to participate in a conspiracy which results in a death, manslaughter or murder or negligent homicide, which is a violation of my belief and conscience…
    • and I have no mechanism to opt out or refuse the collection of those funds for that purpose.

    1. "• Human life begins at conception (fertilization) or implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall…take your pick."

      It is a good and honest question. I would add a third option - soul (as knowable by self consciousness) may begin at birth. I have heard arguments for all cases. I do not know the answer and doubt if it is knowable by my limited state of awareness. I think a reasonable person would out of caution choose the first option. It would be the most respectful of life viewpoint.

      I agree completely with the notion that when tax money is used to pay for abortion then all taxpayers are responsible. And, as you noted we are afforded no opportunity to avoid that responsibility. Taking that view also burdens taxpayers with the responsibility for all of the collateral as well as the more obvious direct damage inflicted in time of military conflict.

      My problem is in that I willing accept the killing on one hand and reject it on the other. Such conflicts exist for many of us - I see some difference between the greater good necessitating armed conflict and the very personal decision to kill ones own offspring. But I also recognize it as a rationalization.

    2. To paraphrase and expand upon Robert Bork’s argument:

      In all humans every single cell will contain the exact same DNA as all the others because they are all descended from just one cell; the zygote or fertilized egg and your body cells have all been formed by mitosis. So they are all genetically identical. The only exceptions are Gametes; unfertilized eggs, and sperms. They are formed by meiosis so they have only one set of chromosomes, whereas your body’s cells have two sets. However, that single set will be identical to 1/2 of your DNA.

      At the moment of conception the zygote will have 1/2 of its DNA from the mother and 1/2 of its DNA from the father. Therefore, 50% of its DNA is not the same as its mother so it cannot be a part of the mother and 50% of its DNA is not the same as its father so it cannot be a part of the father. Thus, it must be a distinct member of the human species, or a third person if you will. Finally; Human embryos have everything they need to develop into the mature stage of a human organism except a suitable environment and nutrition; so it is alive.

      Given the above artificially ending its life is killing.


    3. John, War is not something to be lightly entered into, and I also can accept that collateral damage is the responsibility...of the party that is the aggressor, the party that initiated the war...that's not always clean cut,

      Obama initiated an attack on Libya with no clear threat to the US or it's interests, and with no madate from the UN or even permission for his own rubberstamp Dem Congress...with collateral damage that we are still dealing with.
      ...and Hillary bragged..."we came, we saw, he died..." and now the Jihadis can make the same childish claim about Ambassador Stevens...and we promptly left a vaccuum for Al Qaeda and the MuzBros to move in...

      Dan, thanks for that further refinement of the rationale...

    4. "War is not something to be lightly entered into..."

      Indeed. There have been too many police actions and too much done in the name of nation building in my lifetime. You are probably right about how responsibility should fall on the aggressor.

      The Bork argument is good - I had not heard it before. Sort of takes from the 'my body' argument that is so often raised.

  17. I think everyone better sit down and quietly read this twice:

  18. Replies
    1. Worth considering is the possibility that the 2008 republican turnout was in a very large sense due to Sarah Palin being on the ticket. Other than that, to his credit and to our dismay, Romney is not one to enter into a street fight. He would have been a fine president but for the sake of principle he would not attack Obama where he was vulnerable. He did not stoop to the level of Obama and a good percentage of the electorate.

  19. Can we put something to rest, please? Akin and Mourdock were not Tea Party candidates. They are idiots.

    We lost this election because Evangelicals stayed home on election day. No one in the Tea Party stayed home.

    1. Hey, I'm and Evangelical and I went to the polls in my deep indigo state of Maryland to vote for the Mormon.


  20. There's also the matter of the Romney campaign relying on the ORCA WebApplication to identify and enable pull-calling of republicans who had not voted yet in real time on election day...the concept failed completely, so perhaps 40,000 loyal volunteers at the polls had no support, and no back up plan or means to get ahold of known, registered Republicans and get them to the polls...sickening.

    An untested field system failed in the crunch, either because of administrative error in getting the passwords and codes and training to the users, or just flat inability to handle the quantity of inputs, or possibly a denial of service attack...

  21. OT: I'll make this fast because I deep losing internet coverage. I still have poower but I am an anomoly Most of my neighbors still don't have power. The scuttlebut (from the gas station) is that LIPA ran out of parts. The governor wants to send in the Army! It snowed here Wed night. We got about 2 inches but others got up to 6 inches. More destruction and people out in the cold.
    The church is still offering hot soup. I am bringing a plate of sammies down there every day.

  22. I don'think the American people realize what a disaster this was.
    I really hate to say this but, we are white people and the press doesn't give a damn... God, I hate to say that...
    We lost TV, phone and internet during the nor'eater for 36 hours. I can deal with that as long as the furnace keeps pumping... Others saw their homes collapse.
    It is very bad here in NY and getting worse. I welcome the Army to restore order and offer relief. We are now on gas rationing.

    1. I hope your circumstance improves soon. You are correct in thinking that there is not a lot of national coverage going out from New York. At least not that I have seen.

  23. @Zane

    "Penny says it is also fruitless to try to convince her children to accept her moral position. Sounds to me like her kids need an adult to raise them. I know many parents like that."

    I certainly never said that, here is what I said...

    "I have my moral compass, so do you. My kids know what is acceptable behavior. Many do not. It's fruitless to try to convert them to my moral position."

    ....granted I worded myself poorly and on re-read should have substituted "others" as in outside of my family. But, I think you knew that too, why spoil a good rant.

    Your string of assumptions about me and my children which you wove into your ad hominem attack were unnecessary and insulting, Zane.

    I laid out my thoughts on two presidential epic fails by Republicans in good faith. This election should have been a cakewalk with the shape of our economy alone. Five grandchildren inheriting these failures can really focus the mind to what's most practical and can be salvaged for them, so, I stand by my comments.

  24. Romney lost the election when he told the girl if you want free stuff, vote for the other guy. If we have to bribe voters to win elections now, I would rather lose.

    reagle: I just got back after spending 4 days in Latvia. I saw the changing of the guard at the Monument to Freedom. I think the Latvians have a greater appreciation of freedom, since they suffered so long under Nazi and Communist tyrany.

    1. Well, Buzz, you can sleep better with your superior moral virtuousness intact. That "girl" and a whole hell of a lot of her friends took Mitt's advice and voted for Obama with the largest gender gap in history...and, it wasn't about "free" as in expenses. It was really about the the same old Roe vs Wade issue that will cost conservatives needing to win blue states.

      Personally, I'd rather keep this once great democracy intact for my grandkids and shelve the abortion issue as we head off the fiscal cliff and have more of our rights chipped away by these thugs until a safer time in history to calmly debate it.

  25. @ Penny

    Just a smidgen from your 'Update' - "I guess my point is, how many elections ... willing to lose, killing this once great democracy with these lost elections, for the sake of appeasing the Christian evangelical folk's insistence on mandating their morality issues on abortion and gay marriage to others?"

    I never ever thought I'd be linking to anything Pat Robertson had to say but (from October 2011 at that!):


  26. Thanks, Arkie. Life is full of surprises.

  27. Hear-Hear! I wrote something rather similar myself on the 10th.
    The Republicans lost pretty narrowly -- but they mostly did so by telling a notable chunk of their own voters to go die in a fire:

  28. Get rid of the social conservatives and you will have no grass-roots to the GOP. The biggest problem, as I see it, was low turnout by the GOP's voters. Romney got many fewer votes than did McCain. One must presume that those voters are copacetic with the trend of the last four years and content to get more of the same for the next four.

    As for outreach to Mexicans etc, fuggeddabouttit. The Mexicans, blacks, women, and others who voted for Obama voted for freebies for themselves paid for by their hate objects: whitey, "the rich," suburbanites. I saw it reported that many people said they voted for Obama because they were worried about the economy, that the economy was their primary concern. Bull. If the economy had been their primary ocncern Romney would have won a landslide in a cakewalk, so incompetent has the Obama Administration been on the economy. Romney is plainly the turnaround expert. If people had been worried about the economy and were thinking rationally (or at all) about the matter, their votes would have gone to him. Instead they went to Obama. Why? People saying that their major concern was the economy who voted for the IWON are disguising their greed for free goodies from the Feds.

    Speaking of those ghastly, infra dignitatum religious people, what powered the Obama win was greed, covetouness, envy, and racism. Since you can subsume that last one into anger, Obama won by appealing to the mortal sins. A moral rejuvenation would significantly cut down on that.

    As for the Drug War, like poverty we fought drugs and they won. I agree that it should be ended, not because there is some Constitutionally-given natural right to make oneself psychotic and schizophrenic by chemical means, but solely because it isn't working, and diverts resources away from more urgent dangers. You will never, however, get prohibition of people from jobs or other positions owing to drug use once that is legal. Doing so would be discrimination, dontcherknow. Here again is an area where a religious effort may bring good results. Generally though, from what I've seen, the mostly liberatarian types who push drug legalization so strongly are apt to sneer at the religious right.

    Americans have acquiesed in the growth of Leviathan, and now that monster has the whip in his hand. The Obama administration will rule for the next four years even more lawlessly and arrogantly than in the last four. Obama's idea of conpromise is "You agree to everything I want." The Adminstratin's agenda will be forwarded by Executive Orders and judicial decisions; Congress will have no say. I expect to see even levying taxes without Congressional input, on the grounds that the emergency requires it. Never let a crisis go to waste, after all.

  29. Please let me note that if we're not talking about the social issues, that means the (bipartisan!) government in power has decided them for us. Conform. Also, Penny may not think we can reach those who live on government assistance now but how can we ever have limited government without talking to their children or those who wrongly see government as charity? Surrender. Furthermore, this shunning of social issues is a herding pattern under foot that we must resist. We should never turn our back on members of our party who speak freely, right? Recall a certain video and a pattern painted after Benghazi... don't feed the censorship trolls.
    __ If you are on drugs, you don't care how you are governed (why heroin was cheaper than tobacco in Portugal). Marxists want drugs legalized, and gain by culture losing one of the arguments for securing the border, to stop drug smuggling.
    __ Selection process should include a runoff for the top two primary candidates. This will ensure a reformer can win against the establishment machine, and have a clear shot at getting their message out without the dandy boys (Libertarian, Independent, Green, CPU, etc. candidates with their foppish r3volutions on ballots) gossiping along the walls of the ballroom and playing spoiler as they do in the first party vote. Ted Cruz, baby!
    __ We need to seize the primary process and make it as tribal as they do. Obama was anointed as the international Left's guy because he doesn't want to govern, he is more than willing to be the power ballad frontman and spend his whole time in office campaigning, or as our tribe should recognize it, spreading their message and reinforcing their brand. We must not allow the consultancy class to get rich while playing whack-a-mole with our candidates. The consultants are so enmeshed with the media, they are all of a liberal default, too much Favor Banking. The problem is not the 47% but the affluent, highly-educated urban hipster voter who now has the European mindset that government is charity. The Republican party should have drawn out the primary as long as possible -- more debates, bring PA back into the fold of voting Republican and MN, etc. -- and forced the media background messaging of conservatism all throughout Obamas endless campaigning. Instead, the establishment have surrendered to the soulless secularism that Rove is selling as best for business. Again, if you take the social issues out of discussion then you enshrine the GOP as Big Business and not free market.

    1. A very good point. We also need to reconnect with the small contractors and other such people.

  30. Sorry I have to disagree with Penny. Politics is informed by culture which is informed by worldview. A rotten worldview leads to rotten culture which leads to rotten politics. A failure to change the worldview will never result in any meaningful long term change in either the culture or politics.