If the current crop of candidates running for GOP nomination doesn’t get their act together, they are going to doom us all to another 4 years of Barack Hussein Obama.
Normally, it might be very entertaining process to let these gentlemen act out today’s equivalent of Idiocracy’s favorite television show, “Ow, My Balls!”, but I’m not a fan of suicidal economic and energy policies, flavored with identity politics and an unhealthy dose of envy. And the sad thing about the candidates’ current fumbling is that even this crowd, yes even the dreaded Luap Nor has a very real shot at unseating the Naked Emperor, who is trying his hardest to get people thinking about anything but his startling incompetence and unwavering dedication to himself and his twisted vision for this country.
Anyone who has studied history understands that you have to have an ego to want the job of President. And that’s ok. Confidence is good. Narcissism is not. Again, this might normally be a problem, but since this administration has been faithfully served by a fawning press that shouts down any serious criticism with shouts of “RACISM!”, no extravagance is too excessive for King Barack and Queen Michelle. This, like so many flaws, provided the GOP candidates with an opportunity, but it is one that they have sadly squandered in favor of the motes in their own eyes.
The first, and greatest opportunity that this presidential election has provided the GOP field is the opportunity to offer a stark and clear alternative to the reigning Democratic philosophy that, if carried to its logical conclusion, can only make us either vassals or wards of a bankrupt state. As conservatives, we know where the path we are on will take us. We can point to evidence of this now in the results of government “compassion”. We are smart enough to illustrate that the “poor” are the biggest victims of the government’s help without making them the villans. And yet, what are we doing? Standing by, watching people who have let their own egos blind them to this simple, powerful truth, as they prove themselves unworthy, or more ambitious than focused on what really matters. What do I mean? I’m glad you asked.
I don’t like Mitt Romney. I’ve watched him on the television, I’ve heard him on the radio, and I’ve looked at his record. The result is that I have both a personal dislike, and a visceral distrust of him. And that’s bad, because I want to like the guy. I really do. But he is someone who has been running for the job for a decade now, and he, and his supporters are playing from the tried and true GOP method of failure, “Its his turn.” It is the method that got us the grumpy old guy the last time, and Bob Dole before that. Running for years isn’t the kind of experience that I want our candidate to have, and his record as governor isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. Entitlement isn’t becoming, but it is especially unbecoming for a party that wants to appeal to those who have identified it as a bug and not a feature of our current predicament.
While I understand and appreciate that states, and not the federal government are the places where things like Romneycare should be tried, but at the same time, being a leader is more than “giving people what they want.” Anyone can be a rubber stamp, but offering alternatives to something that clearly goes in the wrong direction, and convincing people that the alternatives are better, or barring that, clearly saying “NO.” to the wrong direction is the mark of leadership. But then, it also requires the courage and acceptance of the fact that you might not be re-elected. I really don’t know why he is doing it, and I can’t figure out what, other than an understanding of economics that the current President lacks, that he thinks he truly offers as an alternative.
Newt Gingrich. If I had to sum it up, I’d say “A smart guy (no, really, not like the “smart like Spock” Obama) who says and does dumb things. Gingrich is another candidate who I want to like. I can see him speaking at a debate or talk show, or hear him on the radio, and be nodding in agreement, right up until I can’t, because he’s made a wild leap, clean off the reservation, and off into the next county. Whether it is the favorable self-comparisons to Wilson, T.R., or FDR, or more than coincidental revelations that his default answer to every perceived problem is “government”, he doesn’t fail to disappoint. When he started in on his ridiculous attacks on Romney for his work at Bain Capital, and for (gasp!) firing people, while making money, it eliminated any doubt that Newt is all about Newt (for anyone who slept through his previous self-coronation as the nominee weeks before Iowa). Add it to his other moments of dumb (cozying on the couch with San Fran Nan, and his years of gushing about man-made global warming), and I don’t care about the divorces. He’s already shown me where his heart and his mind are, and he still seemed to think that he could fool me into believing that he represented the alternative we need to present to the country at large.
Ron Paul. While I think he has some decent economic ideas, he’s clearly failed to grok a simple but fundamental lesson: Isolationism kills. And he is so eager to go down that road that he thinks that the single most destructive tool ever built by man is simply an expression of sovereignty for one of the most unhinged and belligerent powers in the world today. That said, I think he is actually honest about why he’s in the race. However, his followers have an excessively fanatical dedication to him in more than enough supply to make up for the excessive love of self he seems to lack. And anyone who has ever been told “You just don’t understand. Ron Paul is the only one who can save this country!!!!11!!!!” knows it.
John Huntsman. What makes a man accept an appointment as ambassador from a President who is hostile to every conservative principle that we can state? What makes that same President offer it in the first place. Seriously, the talk isn’t impressive, and the walk isn’t there at all. Throw in some odd advertisements that say some odd things about the candidate, and the best thing I can say is that his daughters will be invited to all the best parties thrown by the Republican Party Reptiles at the convention, but he stands no chance of mounting a serious challenge to his former boss…and I think he knows it. You can tell me I’m wrong in 4 to 8 years, but this is about him making it his turn in the next election, or the one after that. Been there, done that, not interested.
Rick Perry. I love his platform. I sincerely believe that he is serious about making government smaller, not larger. He also inherited an economy from George W. Bush, but since he had no incompetence to distract us from, he doesn’t complain. He just grows jobs. Did he mess up with Guardasil? Yep. Does he know it? Yep. However, I think that he also had an expectation that this just belonged to him. If that wasn’t the case, then he ran a phenomenally bad campaign when he got into it. That said, he’s done so poorly up to now, I think that he’s probably done.
Rick Santorum. I admit that I like Rick. Yes, it is because I am also a social conservative, which means that I also am not likely to believe the sillier stories that people are likely to tell about him. I believe that he also understands the threats to our country, and not just our culture. But some of his negative attacks have smacked of desperation. I think that his message can resonate. I think that Iowa proved that. Romney certainly didn’t expect what happened. Newt had no idea it was going to happen. But I think that the temptation to believe that HE had to do this drove some of those attacks. And that strikes me as silly, because the only person in this race who should be desperate is Barack Hussein Obama, because he can’t run on his record. That leaves him with the race card, class warfare, and trying to smear whoever he faces in the general election.
In closing,
Mitt: I don’t trust you. And I’m not the only one. If you can’t close the deal after this many years, you aren’t going to. If you gave a damn about the future of this country, you’d thank your supporters, and step back out of the limelight.
Newt: I would love for you to debate the President. I think that would show the world that on the subject of intellect, he’s all hat and no cattle. I don’t care about your divorces. I’m not looking for someone to date; I’m looking for someone who can cogently identify the things that are broken in Washington D.C., speak clearly and honestly about them, present a plan that is simple enough for Democrats to understand, and execute it. And you come so close, only to lose it on the starting premise. Government does not and should not be the starting point in proposing solutions. The worst of it is, I think that you mean well, and that is simply your previous government service conditioning you, which is probably why you thought it appropriate and intelligent to criticize the other unacceptable candidate for his private sector experience.
Ron Paul: Retire already. Texas is a big state, big enough to contain your brand of insanity, and not be overly burdened by having to admit when asked that you are from there. Besides, your supporters are more annoying and condescending than even the Obamafaithful, and as this season progresses, they flirt with the prospect of injury by continuing to try to tell me how I just don’t understand about you.
Rick Perry: I love you man, and in a very non-homo way. But being right doesn’t mean that you can take the votes for granted. You have to want it, and you have to work for it. You didn’t bring your “A” game, and that is why you’re on track to not be the President next year, which is too bad, because I would have loved to hear the whining from the gun fearing wussies of the self-appointed cognoscenti about you being armed, and them not having the courage to call you “stupid” like they did through 8 years of George W. Bush.
Rick Santorum: You don’t quit, and I admire that. You have yet to disappoint me by saying something excessively stupid, and therefore I think that you must understand what further success in the primaries will mean for you. I’m sure that Dan Savage’s attack is just a taste of what kind of character attacks you can expect for trying to have some character and expect the same for us moving forward. It won’t be easy, and if the media even suspects that you have a serious shot at the nomination, Colmes’ and Robinson’s remarks will seem like the bleeding edge of a very, very large spear tip. Keep on the message, please.
You seem to have resigned yourself to a GOP loss. For me the primary season is shaping up exactly as I had hoped and the trajectory to me seems to be an (R) in the Oval.
It’s posts like this that make me certain we were twins separated at birth.
Now all I have to do and sit back, and see what your pet Liberal douche bag has to say.
Alfie, I honestly can’t see the empty suit named Romney beating our self anointed king, but I really do hope I’m wrong. We shall see as it’s still way too early to tell.
Is that you, formerly The Big Dick, or as I used to call you Dick, the homicidal clown? If so, I can’t help but assume I’m your douche bag.
How you been, old man? Hope the New Year is treating you well.
Alfie, there is a difference between having an (R) in the Oval Office and having a conservative there and it is all about the direction that we end up going.
I honestly didn’t get what you were driving at there BiW. Paul, I think, defends the sovereignty of Iran and suggests we mind our own business. I’m not getting your statement because it seems to say the opposite.
Great article overall. I give you major kudos for some honest reflection on the current slate. I also think, given your conservative bias, that you’re still seeing the bunch pretty clearly for the most part.
Even a social conservative should be able to admit that Santorum went off the reservation with comments about man-on-dog sex. Now that he’s running he’s toned down the rhetoric a bit but the history still haunts him as it should.
I’d quibble that Ron Paul is not isolationist but rather non-interventionist. I think there is a difference. Paul believes in free trade and an interdependent world economy as far as I know.
I think your only big boo-boo on this analysis is Rick Perry. Even conservatives (perhaps ESPECIALLY conservatives) don’t want another four to eight years of George W. Bush and Rick Perry is Bush with more swagger, except when in debate where he is Bush with more stagger.
I honestly didn’t get what you were driving at there BiW. Paul, I think, defends the sovereignty of Iran and suggests we mind our own business. I’m not getting your statement because it seems to say the opposite.
Paul has stated on more than one occaision that he has no problems with a nuclear Iran. Since the country is lead by madmen and is active in attempts to subvert neighbors or destroy them, the question is not about their sovereignty, or whether having the bomb is a symbol of that sovereignty. It is about the hard fact that they have been up front about their intention to destroy Israel, and that not taking them at their word will mean a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, and severly limited options for us in how we may respond if a power that is willing to die to force submission has the capability to create and smuggle such weapons into our country.
Even a social conservative should be able to admit that Santorum went off the reservation with comments about man-on-dog sex. Now that he’s running he’s toned down the rhetoric a bit but the history still haunts him as it should.
I am not familiar with the “man-on-dog” sex remark. However, if it was a discussion of where “accepting” the notion that same sex marriage should be legal because that’s what some people want for themselves and where that “thinking” could take us, then I understand the remark. You don’t change a definition that has had a specific legal meaning for centuries, simply because those who want to do so say that it would be harmless to do so, and because they really love each other. If that is the standard, then your justifications for saying “No” get a great deal weaker when the people who “really love their dog” come around seeking the right to marry their corgi. I know that critics of that “slippery slope” argument will harp on consent being the differentiating factor, but again, I can point to no other example in law where we have changed a legal definition on which so much jurisprudence is based simply on the fact that people want it and can consent to it.
I think your only big boo-boo on this analysis is Rick Perry. Even conservatives (perhaps ESPECIALLY conservatives) don’t want another four to eight years of George W. Bush and Rick Perry is Bush with more swagger, except when in debate where he is Bush with more stagger.
Except that he isn’t.
I know its easy to make such an assertion, because of the similarities, but one of the significant differences is that Perry has come toe-to-toe with meddlesome and intrusive federal agencies, the EPA being the most obvious example, and has already made very clear his understanding that the federal government is involved with all manner of things it has no business being involved with. His proposal for a part time Congress is very popular with conservatives, and the fact that he lives the Second Amendment and doesn’t just pay lip service to it hasn’t escaped the notice of conservatives either. I’m not crazy about some of his positions on immigration, but then I haven’t heard many candidates express a willingness to enforce the law on this point, and when it comes to the candidate as a whole, I’m not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.
Ouch … I’m thick … after rereading it and after reading your explanation, the single most destructive tool ever built by man is the bomb. I totally got that wrong. I thought you were saying Iran’s expression of sovereignty itself was the most destructive tool. OK I get it now. Thanks.
Oh, one more thing BiW … I think there is a problem with Bain and that is not that it represents capitalism, it is that it represents capitalism gone awry.
From my perspective, proper capitalism says that a venture capitalist has some risk when he invests in a company (or buys one) and if the company goes south, the VC takes a loss.
From what I understand, Bain NEVER takes a loss. If the company revives, Bain wins, if the company goes bankrupt, Bain wins. That’s a scam. That’s not capitalism.
Now if you can show me I’m being fed propaganda about Bain and I have mischaracterized them, have at it.
I think you have a warped view of how private equity deals work.
The VCs always get paid first, but more importantly, they always get paid. I’m not going to play Newt’s silly game of trying to judge the “fairness” of the deals that Bain was involved with. I don’t have the details with which to do that, and more importantly, it isn’t what NEWT does for a living, either.
As a general proposition, private equity funds don’t invest their money without setting the terms and conditions out for the companies to review, and accept. Business people understand that many businesses are risky…and if they are in a tight place where they are looking for outside money, then they have almost always made at least one gamble that didn’t pay off. The price of help in such situations is control…and generally, they get that back if everything goes well, and they may lose everything if things do not go well. The only venture capitalists that I am aware of that actually lose is the United States Government, and that is because its money doesn’t come from shareholders, it comes from taxpayers, whom they can and do ignore, and to whom they are not legally accountable for the terms under which they lend money.
I guess then, we are all in the wrong profession. Nothing better than a business model that goes “heads I win, tails you lose”.
Rutherford said at his blog:
“Although I had an interesting exchange over at BiW’s place where he says that basically, no VC’s lose their shirts. It’s the nature of the business. So maybe I’m wrong.”
Did you really say that BiC?
I guess then, we are all in the wrong profession. Nothing better than a business model that goes “heads I win, tails you lose”.
Rutherford, if you are seeking venture capital, it is because you do not have the assets to obtain a conventional loan, or because your prospects for success are much lower than conventional lenders are comfortable betting on.
Venture capitalists exist to make those loans, but as I said, it comes at a price. No one makes those companies take the money. They came, hat in hand, to the venture capitalists. As I said, if it goes well, you get out of your rough patch or you get off the ground, and the VCs get paid. If despite the best efforts of yourself and your new partners, you crash and burn, then they get paid. There isn’t anything “dishonest” or “unfair” about that.
So you’re saying this is not much different from a bank expecting to get their money back from me when I take out a mortgage?
Food for thought.
R, I have had clients with business-terminating financial crisis (extremis) that plead for VC to save their businesses. I don’t get your thought about “unfair” at all. Is it unfair that someone wants to invest for a return? I think Perry was talking about “vulture capitalism” to minimize Romney’s claims to “creating” jobs and companies. Lame talking point really. Turning companies around and putting your skin in the game to do it ain’t far off from what we expect of our president at this point.
BiC, I am nowhere near as pessimistic about Romney as you in terms of beating Obama. Romney ain’t my first choice by a long stretch, but Obama is unquestionably my last.I really think that reflects much of the sentiment to be expected in November.
It’s like you’re in my head. That makes you me and dick triplets.
Did you really say that BiC?
I suppose that he’s extrapolated this from what I have said here, especially with my last remark in my comment from 9:23. This is based on my experience with businesses and venture capitalists. I perused the comments at R’s, and gleaned that the WSJ article was talking about situations where Bain was actually buying troubled companies, which is different from my experiences, and to my mind is actually something LESS to bitch about than swapping cash for control, because a) some troubled companies are worth more in pieces than they are as going concerns, and b) owning the company outright means that you can do whatever you want with it. That means that maybe you don’t save the jobs of the company you just bought, but maybe you create more somewhere else.
Bain invested in Domino’s Pizza in 1998. At the time, it had 16,000 employees. Today, it has 145,000.
R got exposed pretty bad in his own house on his abject lack of understanding of how the real world operates economically. Of course, that’s not all that surprising considering he’s a liberal.
Yeah, I made the same mistake as those other liberals, Gingrich, Perry and Palin.
BiC, I am nowhere near as pessimistic about Romney as you in terms of beating Obama. Romney ain’t my first choice by a long stretch, but Obama is unquestionably my last.I really think that reflects much of the sentiment to be expected in November.
I didn’t say that I didn’t think he could beat Obama. I DO doubt that he has the right philosophy to govern as a conservative, and I see a disconnect between his actions and his words…much like I also see with “The Great Uniter” who has done nothing of the sort, and hasn’t even taken his own advice about toning down the rhetoric to heart.
I was working from the first sentence in your post. Hyperbole?
No, more of a reflection of the state of how he’s conducted himself thus far. Does he have the potential to do it? Yes. Can he do it doing what he’s done so far? No, but that wouldn’t stop the party from giving him the nomination anyway.
It IS his turn, after all.
I don’t understand the “they always win” concept. First, it just ain’t true. Second, I don;t get what inherent “unfairness” you guys are (supposedly) talking about.
There are reasons that cash for control is swapped: desire and risk.
Again, in my experience, it helps to think of the VCs as bankers.
I used to work for a bank. The bank almost never “lost”. If it did, it wouldn’t be in business for very long.
I think Rutherford is in part under the misunderstanding that says that it the control element that comes with the cash wasn’t an element of the bargain, or that the distress of the company seeking the help makes having to accept the loss of control is somehow a duress or taking unfair advantage situation.
While I have been involved in a situation where the VCs in a start up were less than forthright about their intentions with regard to control, and purposely convoluted the company’s governance documents in a manner that otherwise would have made absolutely no sense, so as to create the impression that the “owner” actually had control of his company when it simply wasn’t the case, I also know that it was the exception and not the rule.
I used to represent banks myself. I saw them lose too. But the few VC cases I’ve dealt with were because the bank’s would not take the risk.
With what he’s said here I can’t figure how R thinks the GM bailout was “fair.”
I don’t buy the Dole- Romney comparison but then again I’m admittedly biased.
I can tell you this, if you don’t like Romney now you’re gonna freakin’ stroke out when he is the general election candidate and POTUS.
…if you don’t like Romney now you’re gonna freakin’ stroke out when he is the general election candidate…
Not really. I’m used to the Republican Party being a disappointment. I’ve even reconciled myself to their remarkable longevity while doing it, as well.
…and POTUS
No. I won’t be thrilled that he is President, but I will be happy that Obama will have to find a community to organize again.
Dream on. Besides getting secret service protection for the rest of his life if he wants it, Obama will make millions writing books. Remember what happened to your other favorite failure of a President, Jimmy Carter. He’s done quite well for himself over the years.
Truthfully, if you really wanted to “punish” Obama, you’d reelect him. I’m pretty sure he hates the current job.
Wrong.
He only gets Secret Service Protection for 10 years after leaving office. (The new standard for Presidents entering office after 1997.)
Treasury Department Appropriations Act, 1995: Pub.L. 103-329
Fine, he’ll still be making millions. Community organizer days are over.
I’m not sure that it would be “fair” for him to do that…I mean, at some point, haven’t you made enough money? Isn’t it someone else’s turn?
Besides, considering the raw deal he got the last time around, you don’t think Ayers will be sucked into ghost writing for him again, do you?
On the other hand, they could be footing the bill themselves for their lavish parties and vacations….
@R re Carter:Obama
Obama doesn’t have the foreign suck up cred nor to his credit the desire to piss on America in great disproportion to the good that is building homes for poor folks. Obamas other post Presidential downfall will be that given his one term status and the Clintons health he won’t be the go to guy.
He’ll pen one more book and it will make a considerable sum of $$$. He will be thankful that the GOP tax breaks are in effect. Oh the irony!
Who the hell wants to read another book about Obama? This schmuck is so arrogant, he wrote two books about himself before 99% of the nation even knew who he was and he hasn’t done anything of substance since. I knew Brack was a narcissistic fool when I learned of that.
Incompetent and a megalomaniac to boot, married to a monkey faced Marie Antoinette – the black Adams family, when you throw in Uncle Fester, Rev. Jeremiah. Gawd Damn America!
This last four years has been an absolute disgrace. Might as well have a pimp and a skank sleeping in the White House beds. Guarantee if I was President, the first thing I would do is get rid of everything this grime had touched and have it torched in whatever city these two choose to reside when Brack is gone.
Obama and Marie have sullied the place, and it will never be the same until razed.
———–
I’m with you BIC. I believe Romney can win and will win, but he’s not the medicine we need at this moment in history. Too safe, too politically correct. We need massive changes, and I’m afraid Romney will only slow the slide to bankruptcy and scold the Republican party about harsh language.
[...] Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: The first, and greatest opportunity that this presidential election has provided the GOP field is [...]
When did I ever say the GM bailout was fair? I was against it but felt it necessary to avoid downstream economic catastrophe and avoid losing a uniquely American brand.
I believe in 99.9% of cases companies should live and die on their success or lack thereof in the marketplace. I am against bailouts particularly by the federal government.
R, we unwillingly became venture capitalists with GM. Necessity is always determined those with a stake in the outcome.
Yeah, I made the same mistake as those other liberals, Gingrich, Perry and Palin.
Gingrich and Perry are desperate and doing something to stroke their egos, not advance the cause, which was kind of the point of this post.
I didn’t hear what Palin said, but then, I don’t have an unhealthy fixation on her like you do, R.
No, but you claim to be an informed analyst of what is going on. You also have claimed in the past that Palin has credibility so one would think her opinion would interest you.
Yeah. You ain’t informed unless you tune in to MSNBC and hang on Palin’s words.
Since her comments were made on Hannity (on Fox) one would not have to watch MSNBC to find out about them.
Tigre are you suggesting you and BiW have the good taste to NOT watch Fox News?
Indeed I am. Never watch it. And frankly,I find Hannity and Palin annoying.
But you already knew that.
No, but you claim to be an informed analyst of what is going on. You also have claimed in the past that Palin has credibility so one would think her opinion would interest you.
1. She isn’t running for office and those who are aren’t exactly seeking her opinion or endorsement, so her effect on “what is going on” is generally negligible.
2. While she usually has a point to make, that doesn’t mean that I take her word as gospel, especially if she is second-guessing what someone else did for a living 10 or fifteen years ago.
3. I don’t hang on her every word like you do, Rutherford. I simply don’t share your obsession.
Tigre are you suggesting you and BiW have the good taste to NOT watch Fox News?
I can’t speak for Tigre, but I frequently don’t. While I listen to Hannity on my drive home (especially when he has Juan Williams and Stuart Varney on at the same time) I rarely watch him unless there is nothing else on or his “Great American Panel” has an interesting lineup.
Other than that, I might occaissionaly tune it to Red Eye, but its no more news than The Daily Show. But it is funnier, so it has that going for it.
Perry does seem to be the best of a questionable buch of imperfect apples. He does in some ways remind me of Bush, but I think there is a difference…in temperament (I think Perry has the shorter fuse), and in not having the same degree of “trying to please people”, that Bush had. For example, I don’t see Perry embracing “compassionate conservatism” (what even in the seven circles of hell that is). And he would be “more conservative” than Bush would ever hope to be. (Not that Bush ever was a conservative…the man was, in most cases a moderate, a good man, but moderate none the less.)
I think both men, when talking with someone, one on one, are charismatic enough to win them over. And I am willing to bet Perry, when talking from the heart, could be every bit as effective as Bush was immediately following 9-11, in addressing the American public about what had just transpired, and our stance on that tragedy.
The question is, at this stage of the game, will he be able to catch his second wind, as the primaries head toward the south? If he doesn’t have a strong showing in SC and FLA (among others), who does that leave us with? Newt (if he is still in the game)? Paul?? Santorum? Or will we be left with the dregs of the GOP barral, Mitt Romney?
And I really don’t think Paul is going to be around, other than to be a gadfly. Huntsman doesn’t count for much either (Mitt lite?), Newt might make a resurgence, but his knowledge of government and the Constitution aside, will he be able to reassure voters what he says while on the stump is what we are going to get, if he gets selected/elected? And Santorum (though he may just be the one to emerge to the fore, depending on how well he does in the south) has that awful, I know what needs to be done in returning to the constitution (or at least closer to it) but I ALSO know what is morally best for America, and I am going to work toward giving this country the medicine it needs without any sugar to help it go down.
Wonder if Michael Reagan is interested in running under his father’s style of leadership?