Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Unfortunately, the former is winning out in our party. Practicality and electability have taken a back seat to an ideological predictability that is so bold and disconnected with the American people as to virtually guarantee electoral defeat in November. In their one way tunnel of thought, the answers of our party brethren are always the same and never vary: Abortion? It's always wrong and never ok in any circumstance. Ever. At all. Gay marriage? It's destroying the country and threatening our children. Defense spending? No cuts, for any reason, at any time. Ever. Taxes? Get rid of 'em. The poor? Lazy. Women? Home makers. The courts? A beacon of truth and reason when we agree, activist and overreaching when we do not.
The purists can come no closer to a perfect candidate than Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania, who today is threatening the once seemingly inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney. And, of course, the problems with his candidacy are as predictable as his socially conservative, devoutly Catholic politics. He has compared homosexuality to polygamy and incest. He has said that women being allowed in combat rolls raises certain "emotional concerns". He has said that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve openly in the military. He has said contraception is dangerous to women. He has raised questions regarding the moral integrity of mothers who choose to have careers rather than be career mothers.
Regardless of how one actually feels about these issues, there is a skill in politics that good politicians learn, and learn fast. The art of learning when to shut one's mouth can be a very helpful skill. Only ideologues possess the kind of self righteous chutzpah required to actually say they believe homosexuals are as dangerous as men who have sex with their daughters or that working mothers are, somehow, subpar.
Needless to say, these issues would be unimportant if Americans at large actually agreed with Rick Santorum. The problem, of course, is that they do not. If the GOP is willing to nominate a man so comfortably out of the mainstream on these very sensitive issues then it is prepared to lose one of the most consequential elections in a generation. In the pursuit of everything these purists will gain nothing and insure the president's reelection.
It has been said, often grudgingly, that the establishment always wins in the nominating process. Let's hope that it does this time, at least.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
In just a mere two years 67 million (yes that's MILLION) people are now relying on federal aid in one form or another.
Investors.com explains "In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income."
The Left would have you believe that the reason behind this spike is mainly the crap economy, but WE'RE NOT BUYING IT.
In true Demo fashion BO has to create a dependency among the voting base so he'll have something "positive" to discuss on the campaign trail & like a broken record we'll hear it over and over and over again...
By creating this base of individuals who are largely dependent on the government Obama is attempting to solidify his next term. A few problems here 1) we're on to you 2) we're paying for it 3) we're sick of it.
Investors.com continues: "The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs."
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Last night, after losing to Mitt Romney in Nevada, the former Speaker of the House decided not to host a party and give a speech, as is traditional in these cases. Instead, the Speaker chose to hold a press conference in which he attempted to do what he does best; chastise the media and blame his campaign's failure on Mitt Romney's "dishonesty", calling him a "Soros candidate". The episode quickly disintegrated into an episode of a man desperate for any explanation of his poor performance other than his own inability to raise money, earn support and organize a GOTV campaign. Former GOP House leader Dick Armey, now Chairman of Freedome Works, has pity for Newt, but still calls Newt what he is, namely, a sore loser:
Armey said that Gingrich’s criticisms of Romney were not helpful for either the GOP in November or Gingrich’s own campaign during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. “I feel bad for him. I think he’s digressed into a state of taking a second-rate campaign and turning it into a first-rate vendetta,” said Armey
Of course, Newt's problem is not that he's incapable of being president. It's not that he is a poor debater. Nor is his problem that he is not intelligent or an important conservative thinker. Newt's problem is that he's not as smart or effective as he thinks he is, and after two subpar debate performances in Florida people are beginning to figure that out. If Newt Gingrich wants to have any chance of being competitive in this race again, he'd better figure that out for himself, and soon. Politics requires a certain arrogance if you are going to survive in the mine field of elected public life. But it also requires more humility, or at least feigned humility. Newt has neither feigned nor actual humility (which one might find odd for a man on his third wife).
The simple truth is that arrogance, not a determined desire to be president, is what is driving Newt's campaign. His over the top rhetoric as he grapples to explain to himself why he is losing is only making it worse. More from Mr. Armey:
“I thought that last night was really sad for him,” said Armey about Gingrich’s Saturday speech. “Quite frankly again so much of Newt’s whole life is overstated, he overstates the case in such a hyperbolic fashion, it just looks vindictive.”And that's what it is.
It's time for Mr. Gingrich to take a page out of Mr. Romney's 2008 play book and step aside and make way for the GOP nominee.