Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Here We Go Again...

Where are the men and women who, just two years ago, were telling everyone they’d vote their convictions rather than vote for another John McCain and the same old, stale politics which placed our country’s future on the knife edge?

Well think about the primary system the GOP uses. Where do they go first?  Iowa, a blue state in 2008 with a population density approaching zero and lots of money in farms and ethanol, which require government subsidies just to exist these days. Second, it’s off to New Hampshire, in the liberal Northeast. Jump on the plane and jet to South Carolina, home of Sen. Amnesty Graham, poster boy of the RINOs behind McCain for most of the last ten years, for the third election. Then it’s off to Florida, which, while a “red state”, is packed full of all the old, retired Republicans from the northeast who moved to warmer weather.

This is, and has been for a long time, all carefully scripted, you realize?
The biggest batch of electoral votes among the Red States is called “TEXAS”. Why doesn’t the Texas primary come early? Why do we get blue and purple state primaries first, and leave the majority of the conservative base silenced and ignored for so long?

Once you examine how they tune up the base, you’ll realize why the GOP has such a ridiculous primary system so the establishment candidate can get a few small, but highly publicized, victories under his belt. These insignificant victories in fairly rural purple and blue states will be touted for weeks, if not months, before the bulk of the conservative base gets to vote, and they are used to build the image of inevitability for the hand picked, progressive Republicans like Romney so that when it comes time to vote in Texas, the average Republican voter thinks they have to “hold their nose and vote for Romney” because he’s the only shot at winning.  Iowa and New Hampshire combined have like 1/10th of the conservatives in them that you can find in two or three counties in Texas or Oklahoma, but they’re blown up and used to make those voters in Texas and Oklahoma think they’d better vote the way the GOP establishment wants them to vote, or else…

If they held the first primaries in Texas and Oklahoma, why, by God, a real conservative might win a few big fights early on and the liberal Republican candidates wouldn’t stand a chance for the remainder of the primaries.

 Notice how there aren’t any stump speeches in the GOP primary these days? How it’s all “debate” driven? Did you ever wonder why that is?

Could you imagine a Romney speech in a truly free environment? It’d look like the Health Care Townhalls from 2009. Angry, disenfranchised conservative voters, 75% of whom hate Romney and want anyone else at all, would be screaming, swearing, and generally making a scene if he EVER tried to get out and interact with the common Arkansan.

Where is the TEA Party during these primaries??? Actual votes are being cast RIGHT NOW. I can write that the TEA Party is dying because I now have freakin’ empirical evidence that they are all falling right in behind Candidate More-Of-the-Same-Bullshit.

Now it seems we've got a one man race with Romney and no TEA Party anywhere to be seen, much less heard from, and all of these people who said “Not a good idea” to a TEA Party rally are lining up behind Romney. Stellar. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy on the insides, huh? All of that work and effort, and it winds up being useless, hell, worse than useless because prior to the TEA Party, the GOP was done for the next 40 years........ but now they’re back, and putting the blinders right back on their base.



  1. Where are they? Voting for McCain again, of course. And defending it by babbling senselessly about Mittens (or Newt) being the "only one who can beat BO." Bollocks. But your post is spot on. Sad, yes, but too true.

  2. Sorry, DS. Have to disagree with you on this one. Romney has been doing stump speeches--for about six months or so now. The press won't cover them, because they don't want the public to hear what he has to say. I've had to search high and low for them myself. He's taking his case directly to the people of the United States. It's not the same old line, either. He agrees with the principles of the United States Constitution as originally written--and intended. And his concern is about our country, and preserving the values and hope and opportunities that we grew up with for our children and grandchildren.

    Anybody is better than the idiot in the Oval Office at the moment, but I don't want to vote against that idiot. I want to vote FOR the person I think will do the best job of standing up for the country I want my grandkids to love. My own diligent research has shown that Romney could possibly be that person. His personal character, and his political platform, and his leadership capabilities, are exactly what this country and her citizens need to help up rebuild what Obama has tried so hard to destroy.

    Give him a chance, DS. His speeches and other works may be hard to find, but they're out there. I honestly think you just might change your mind about Romney.

    But if you don't, I will fight to the death for your right to disagree.


  3. DS,
    I'll admit to being just plain confused. How Obama could garner a majority of the vote from any demographic except the f****** severely mentally retarded is beyond the scope of my pea brain. Mitt Romney? He is nothing short of a whores delight to the Democrats. He is the liberal gift that keeps on giving. For Christ's sake the man has done more flip flops in his political career than Mary Lou Retton ever dreamed of attempting in hers.
    Mitt giving stump speeches under the radar of the main street media? What a f****** joke. YouTube is chock full of Mitt's history of free style moderate political gymnastics, 'I might have said that yesterday. And really meant it, but I've changed my mind because that position mirrors the Democratic agenda.'
    Yeah, Mitt is the man.

  4. I'll attempt to answer your questions, DS. BTW, I'll be sending you a post for review on a related subject RE: Romney very soon, too.

    The real problem is that the GOP fears Conservatives, and when i use that word, I have to engage in a bit of political hair-splitting.

    Today's conservative used to be called a Liberal, that is, they sought to conserve that which was created by Liberal means (i.e. the United States Constitutional Republican system). Like all political terms, it has been warped beyond it's original definition BY CONSCIOUS EFFORT, so as to be misleading.

    The same thing happened to the word Liberal.

    When we talk nowadays about a 'conservative' what we mean is someone who, much like their upside-down-definition Libtard counterparts seeks to use the power of government to destroy the personal freedoms of the average citizen, just in a different way than your typical Libtard -- i'll explain.

    A Liberal, in the modern sense, seeks to force people to live according to her own mentally-constipated world view. There is nothing Lineral at all about a political movement which usex the power of the state to take people's money and property, restrict their speech, force integration of the races, or to erode or elimnate constituionally-guarenteed freedoms. Today's Liberal is a petty dictator who seeks to tell everyone else how to live.

    Today's consrvative is much the same thing, in the poltiical sense. Although conservatives do speak lip service to constitutional rule and limited government, what the bulk of the conservative movement in America truly wants is to correct what they see as a dreadful oversight made by the Founding fathers:

    They didn't establish Christianity as the State Religion, nor did they establish the dictates of Christian morality as the basis of policy and law.

    Before I get accused of bigotry, let me say this: I have no issue with Christianity (I was raised a Roman Catholic)just with some Christians. Particularly the ones who feel it is their right to force their religion down everyone else's throats. I paint with a broad brush, I know.

    25% of Americans identify as Conservative Evangelical Christians, perhaps the most committed of the lot, and they have the ability to organize both huge voting blocs and scads of campaign cash. The GOP knows that if a candidate who was beholden to the religious doofuses were to be put forward for election, they'd never win one, and the republican brand would go the way of Oldsmobile.

    So, the primary system is rigged to ensure three things:

    a) candidates who don't display the same religious zeal/positions as the bulk of conservatives get weeded out early, the better to keep the Evangelical cash and votes coming in. This is exactly what happened to Rudy Guiliani, who was probably more conservative than half the 2008 GOP presidential field on everything but social issues.

    b) The marginal candidates (Huntsman or Bachmann, say) despite their merits or conservative chops, get eliminated early because they can't garner enough "momentum" (i.e. excitement..and cash) to keep going. which is just as well, as they're boring and/or creepy.

    c) The primary system reflects not the will of the voters, but the view of the republican intelligencia. People like Coulter, Krauthammer, Will and Noonan get to pick your nominee by killing the others with a thousand cuts from a distance.

    If the primaries were held first in die-hard red states with a large Evangelical/Conservative population, we'd get nothing but Religious conservatives married to a program of implementing A Christian Theocracy upon us. Simply put, we'd get an American Taliban, as Julian Bond once put it.

    Rigging the primaries as they do ensures that the GOP gets to field a candidate who has a chance to at least show well. It also leaves us with a hollow ticket of the McCain/Palin stripe, so the sword is double-edged.

  5. Long standing organizations suffer from their own form of inertia and the GOP is one of those organizations. At one time the GOP was basically an East Coast establishment. The advent of the Tea Party influence has radically changed that paradigm and the GOP establishment is now feeling the wrath of conservatives, who have long been ignored by the Republican Party.

    Polls indicate that conservative numbers are growing and that definitely concerns the GOP, as it is a challenge to their historical power and control of the Republican Party.

    It now appears to me, at least, that the tail of the dog is wagging the dog as the old line GOP establishment declines in numbers as conservatives increase in numbers and may very well outnumber moderate to liberal Republicans.

    The Republican Party is coming to a crisis point. The party must adapt to the influence and direction of the conservative Tea Party faction or become irrelevant going forward, in which case liberal Democrats, although a small minority, will be able to wield enough power in the Democrat Party to lead it as the majority party in power.