Why Is Everyone Going All Domestic Military Violence?
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009Good grief! I go to Memeorandum and see looney tunes from across the spectrum talking about war–not with Afghanistan or Iran–but war with ourselves.
Is there a rhetorical war? Yes. Are the leftists intent on “remaking America” blisteringly angry? Yes. Are the Silent Majority stirred? Yes.
Does that mean people are going to scoop up their arms and aim for dirty hippies or dudes in Brooks Brothers suits (both most likely liberals, but let’s just play along with stereotypes for a minute)? Please. As troubled as America may be economically, as difficult as life might be for people and businesses, it seems that we have a long way to go before civil war, dictatorship or coups occur.
People need to chill.
The Left Has Lost The Narrative
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009Consider all the ways they’ve undermined themselves. It’s delicious:
Racism: They’ve pulled the trump card too many times. Obama finished the narrative with his presumption of guilt with the arresting officer of his old buddy Yale professor Skp Gates.
Sexism: Between tossing Hillary Clinton like a used dinner napkin and treating Sarah Palin like the sexy high school librarian from a porno, the Left pretty much killed their credibility for loving women and equality.
“It’s for the children”: Uh, right. Tell the kids in D.C. trying to get a decent education that. Tell the 13 year old Roman Polanski rape victim. Tell the kids starving in the third world or dying from malaria because leftists won’t use DDT.
We love the poor. How about, “we love to tax the poor”. There have been tax increases already–on cigarettes that disproportionately affect the poor. Cap-n-Trade? Hurts the poor. GM buyouts? Creates poor people. School unions underperforming? Hurts the poor.
With Democrats running things, people have had just teensy taste of what liberalism does for and to a country and its people. Fundamentally all the “help” talk is really “we-don’t-think-you-have-what-it-takes” talk. Under the guise of helping, people feel disempowered and condescended to.
The health care debate revealed a callous disregard for the aging. It also showed the left’s collectivist tendencies: people aren’t viewed as individuals but as a group that either helps or harms the government’s desire for “fairness”.
Basically, the Democrats look mean and uncaring. In California, they care more about a smelt than people losing their property and livelihoods.
Anyway, the upside to their horrible positions and the nasty ideology at the foundation? When in power, it’s so much more difficult to lie. Oh, they can lie, but the policies and actions speak for themselves. People can see the truth. Ultimately, that’s good for America. Americans need to decide if they want that sort of America. Thankfully, they’re saying “no”.
Violence Serves The Left
Monday, September 21st, 2009The Left already enjoys a reputation for being whack-a-doodles. One only needs to visit Zombietime to see how leftists, or what is now being called neo-liberals, roll. Since conservatives don’t really protest, generally, watching the Teaparty movement unfold is fascinating.
For all the talk of violent mobs, crazies, Nazis, terrorists and the rest of the nasty rhetoric, TeaPartiers are a rather benign bunch. Oh yes, there’s an errant sign here or there, but perspective is in order. When you get over a million folks together, there’s bound to be a crazy. The key is to exert peer pressure to keep the crazy in check. Conservatives have been wise to exert that pressure.
The only people it serves if some deluded individual goes nutty is the neo-liberal left. They would love nothing more to point to one nutter and paint the whole movement with those actions while they enjoy a positive agitating reputation even with real terrorists in their midst. Yes, the hypocrisy is galling.
Matt Lewis addresses this hypocrisy:
.. While I would never suggest such a thing, logic seems to dictate that if Panetta believes Cheney’s warnings mean he is “wishing” for a terrorist attack, then Pelosi’s warnings might also mean she is “wishing” for violence. After all, it is reasonable to assume that Democrats would benefit from her being proven right. (Again, this according to Panetta’s logic — not mine).
The truth is that if anyone has incentive to avoid political violence — particularly anything specifically aimed at the president — it is conservatives. As Glenn Beck recently said, “just one lunatic, like Timothy McVeigh, could ruin everything that everyone has worked so hard for, because these people in Washington won’t pass up the use of an emergency. “
Ace wrote a thought-provoking piece last week and I’ve been ruminating on it since. He says:
Nancy Pelosi is being utterly hypocritical here, as she encouraged and cheered the rhetoric of incitement when Bush was President. Win-win for her, I guess she thought — such rhetoric keeps the crazies in a constant state of agitation, and if one should happen to kill Bush… well, bonus, eh?
But her hypocrisy cannot push us away from what we know to be right: Some kind of rhetoric really is fairly dangerous, and, while it won’t put any evil thoughts (or more likely — reinforce evil thoughts already long-present) in the minds of most, it does have the possibility in doing that in a few.
And it’s that few we worry about.
So, although she is a disgusting hypocrite, the definition of a hypocrite is one who takes one position when it’s convenient for her and another when it’s not so convenient, but every hypocrite then does speak for both sides of the issue.
In this particular case — at least regarding the general claim she’s making — she’s right. Extremist rhetoric which has the likelihood of encouraging someone a bit off his trolley to commit an extreme act should be avoided.
Of course, this is self-evident. I agree.
What I wonder is this: What is “extremist rhetoric”? Ironically, almost anything Glenn Beck says is viewed as “extremist rhetoric”. In fact, anyone who disagrees with neo-liberal orthodoxy is considered an extremist.
Carrie Prejean? Extremist gay hater.
Glenn Beck? Extremist Obama hater.
Rush Limbaugh? Extremist race baiting hater.
Mark Steyn? Extremist Muslim hater.
Ann Coulter? Extremist self and women-hating hater.
Michelle Malkin? Extremist illegal alien hater.
Glenn Reynolds? Extremist Tea-Party loving hater.
When center-left Obama-voting Democrats like Ann Althouse are accused of hating, really who isn’t a hater?
I’m sick of the p.c. rhetoric police. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and all the whacked out lefty pundits can say anything. The word is a tool and a sword. They wield it with impunity and want the conservatives to stay muzzled.
So, somewhere between psychotic, crazy loud-mouth libs and meek muzzled, passive, submissive conservatives there’s a balance. Incite violence? No. Stir to positive action, yes.
Yes, violence serves the Left. So does a silent majority. They’ve had it both ways for too long.
9/12 And The Numbers Fight
Saturday, September 12th, 2009Michelle Malkin notes that the pictures of the thousands upon thousands (which eventually make a million) of people is from today.
Here’s a couple thoughts:
1. The libs must be completely freaked out. They are obsessing over the details.
2. If they obsess over the details they can ignore the big picture–which is that a lot of Americans are unhappy at the intrusion and scope of the government.
3. If the Left had organically amassed this many people it would have been called…oh, the Civil Rights movement.
And of course, the left is screaming racism. Where are the black people, they ask? Well, interestingly, that 15% of the U.S. population is overwhelming still please with the President’s work. Also, black voters voted almost exclusively for Barack Obama.
If 3% of blacks voted against Barack Obama and say .5% of them are outraged at the President’s policies, what would that be in real numbers? Not too big. And actually, I can think of a bunch of unhappy black anti-Obama folks right off the top of my head. Are they racist?
Are the white Independents and Democrats who voted for President Obama but are now disaffected, racists? There were those sorts of people at the DC march. Are they racist?
The racist card is utter balderdash. Barack Obama ran as a moderate and is governing like a hard core liberal bent on creating a soft socialist American state. That’s his whole “remake America” and “change” rhetoric. That’s how he wanted to change America.
Most Americans who voted for him, thought he meant it when he was talking about “bringing responsibility back”. They thought wrong. They feel duped. Now, they’re angry.
When black people were angry at President Bush, were they racist? When white liberals were angry at President Bush were they racist? When President Bush lost the middle and a chunks of the right, were those people racist? I mean, they hated the policies of a white guy.
The racist argument needs to stop. And the numbers fight is hilarious. There were a lot of people in DC and around the country making it known that America is going the wrong direction. How much is a lot? Well, enough to scare the liberals senseless. But that doesn’t take much.
President Obama’s Speech, Rules For Conservative Radicals And More…..Podcast 37
Sunday, September 6th, 2009Are the press, the mainstream media, now the alternate media? Lorie Byrd thinks the media ain’t mainstream anymore. She says:
Something happened last week that underscored this phenomenon. News outlets like the New York Times and NBC and ABC evening newscasts refused to cover the revelations surrounding President Obama’s “green jobs” czar, Van Jones. When those revelations of Jones signing a 911 “Truther” petition, calling Republicans a—holes and claiming white polluters were poisoning black communities reached the point that Jones was forced to resign, some of those news outlets had to cover the resignation. What should cause them embarrassment and damage any shred of credibility they have left as reliable news sources is that many of them had neglected to inform their audiences of any of the events leading up to the resignation.
As Andrew Breitbart put it, “For most people in this country, the resignation was the first they had heard of Van Jones. For this sin of journalistic omission, there’s institutional media blame. Bias is too tame a word for the utter shamelessness on display: Only Republican scandals – real and imagined – matter.”
Please read the whole thing. Lorie joined me to discuss thoughts on Obama speaking to the little children. Both Lorie and I are political writers and bloggers and mothers. We, along with Michelle Malkin, are a rare breed. There are few women political bloggers. There are fewer still who have school age children. Much of what I’ve read and heard people say even on the Right regarding the President’s speech has sounded theoretical. Lorie brings the “real” on this topic.
We also talk about Obama’s cult of personality and the press’ collusion with his policy objectives. Van Jones becomes exhibit “A”. We then play an imagination game of sorts. As in, imagine a conservative had said that “black people are out to poison white people” or some iteration thereof.
Then, I had Michael P. Leahy on to talk about his new book RULES FOR CONSERVATIVE RADICALS
Finally, we end with some behind-the-scenes fun. It’s always a fight to pick music and Twitter participants helped decide the “angry hippie” music we used–spirit of the times and all that.
Special thanks to @MelissaMoore who did this weeks coverart.
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Podcast 33: The Psychology Of Success & Happiness With Guest John Hawkins
Thursday, August 27th, 2009Why aren’t Leftists happy even when they run everything and get what they want? John Hawkins and I talk about that and much more on this podcast:
Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Camille Paglia Reveals More Than Flaws In President Obama’s Handling Of Healthcare
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009Is there such thing as a skeptical liberal? It seems not. Or they’re as rare as white tigers which is why the get displayed like exotic zoo animals.
That Camille Paglia is always so noteworthy simply reveals how the Left marches in ideological lock-step. There should be lots of thinking people on the Left pointing out shortcomings here and there, but no. So the always interesting Ms. Paglia says:
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
Pardon me, but that’s rather obvious criticism and the only place we’re hearing it is on the Right. Why?
Do thinkers on the left have no intellectual integrity? Are they incapable of criticizing their own ideas? Have they no compunction to question?
That’s what is really interesting about Camille Paglia. She seems to be a rare breed of cat. That’s too bad.
Gimme Some ‘Turf Money
Sunday, August 9th, 2009You know what stinks? What stinks is that the Tea Party and other Right leaning activists are totally unfunded. They get no money….AT ALL. I’m just bitter because while the no-talents on the left get paid $16 an hour to show up, act bored, block doors, [New: Punch people] and wave a sign, activists on the Right can’t seem to buy love from anyone in the government or grassroots organizations.
The Republicans, still coveting MSM approval that will never come, ignore the grassroots folks as ineffective and irrelevant. Well, the people are getting a little more relevant. Republicans aren’t being spared anyone’s wrath, either.
And the big spenders on the Right? WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? I’m getting nothing. Other bloggers get zip–except for well-earned ad revenue. And even then, it’s not making people, save a very few, any sort of living. And the people showing up to these get togethers? They get paid squat. Nada.
I mean, look at these activists. Beholden to no one, coming out to protest and to demand accountability from their elected officials. They are being so ripped. If the Right meant business, they’d do it this way.
P.S. While I’m mostly making fun of this whole situation, the fact remains that the Right side of the movement needs to start putting their money where their mouths are. The Left can screech about astroturf, but that is entirely a Leftist phenomenon. Ironically, the Right puts all their money into traditional media and trying to win influence among people who just don’t care about the message. They need to get outside of D.C., and help get some of the grassroots people funded so they could quite their day-jobs and help spread the message full-time. The Left spent loads of money winning hearts and minds–mostly people working on the ground. Well, people have families. They need income for their efforts.
Some of the Tea Party folks were passing the plate at meetings–the activists themselves were funding….themselves. And then there are online activists who eek out a living or have to do other jobs to keep working–but only part time. Full time bloggers could be doing harder news and getting the stories out. We need more of this. And there are those willing to do it.
The Right needs astroturf money. Badly.
Weariness In The Face Of The Government Wolf
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009My concern with the health care debate is that the American people will just be worn down. There has been a lot of wolf crying with non-stop media hysteria. Well, the wolf wants to devour a sixth of the American economy. The wolf is here. The time to fight is now:
You are so sick of the debates. You have a freaking life after all. You have a mortgage. You have kids you worry over. You have a job, if you’re lucky. You like sports. You like your family. You like your car. You like your country. You believe there is a God and after this short time on earth, if there’s any justice, bad guys will pay and good guys will ultimately win. You’re an American. Imperfect, sure, but mostly decent.
It is simply unfathomable that someone would would see that life and think it is bad. It is difficult to comprehend that someone or a group of people would see this life as evil. And yet, many do.
The traditional suburban family, job, kids, house, SUV, sports, dogs, etc. are viewed with suspicion and pure hatred by some. Americans are viewed as wasteful, consumptive, selfish, stupid, parochial simpletons.
The solution to the “problem” of the average American, then, is to help the American live a better life…by force, if necessary. Doctor Zero of Hot Air’s Greenroom has a must read piece titled “The Aggressor State“. He says:
Because liberalism defines itself as transformative, it is very comfortable with aggression. This posture serves them well with a public that believes “progress” is inherently positive. The business of building the modern super-state has been a sustained attack, using cultural pressure, legislative power, and the blunt instrument of loyal voting blocs to beat Middle America into submission. The goal of the Left is to convince the middle class to give it the power to do things they would never be depraved or dishonest enough to do themselves. Ordinary people refer to the “redistribution of wealth” as “theft.” If a man wearing a tailored suit and power tie came to your door one day, and offered to take care of your health, in exchange for surrendering all control over your medical decisions to a board of faceless strangers – who also demand unlimited control over every part of your life that might conceivably impact your health – you’d slam the door in his face and call the cops. If you caught someone writing himself a $4000.00 check from your checkbook, and he explained he needs the money as tribute to his Church of Global Warming so they can save the world from an imaginary evil, you’d shoot first and call 911 later. The mission of the Left is to convince people that all of these outrages become virtuous when elected officials perpetrate them. After all, “they won.” [Emphasis added.]
But those who view American life with contempt know that a direct assault on the American character won’t work. It must be subtle. The arguments must infer that your neighbor, the small business owner whose company earns more than $200,000 is evil, not you. The insurance company is evil–hell, you know the pain in the ass insurance companies can be. The talk show host is evil–well, crud, Mr. Big Mouth Talk Show Host sure can be annoying sometimes. Then anyone who thinks mandatory union membership seems oppressive is evil. Then people who like their incandescent lights are evil. The circle begins to expand. Like a consuming Venn diagram, suddenly, all Americans, even you, are inside the circle of evil.
How did that happen?
How Can You Claim Moral Superiority Voting For Bob Barr?–UPDATED
Saturday, July 18th, 2009“Don’t blame me!” Bellowed one of my redneck relatives,”I voted for Ross Perot!” Did ya now? And that vote wasn’t a “screw you” vote, that felt inwardly satisfying while it also served Bill Clinton the presidency on a nice, silver platter (the one taking a prominent position on a shelf in his sprawling residence out on Long Island)? Oh no! It was a vote of conscience. It was a morally superior vote. Sniff.
Have conservatives, libertarians, and other factions on the Right learned nothing from history?
So now, people are coming out of the woodwork saying, “Don’t blame me! I voted for Bob Barr!” I ask you, Is that something to be proud of?
John McCain was a terrible candidate for a myriad of reasons I won’t list here. Rather than blogging anything negative, many times, I just held my tongue. (Other times, not so much.) Why? Do I and all conservatives who voted for John McCain lack a spine and principles? Some would say so. Did I hold my nose and vote for John McCain because I’m a conservative sellout?
I voted for John McCain for precisely the reasons we’re seeing right now. President Barack Obama is a statist. He’s a socialist. He wants to remake America into some liberal delusional utopian fantasy and he’s damn near succeeded at every single thing he’s wanted to do.
My brother was in Venezuela last week and talked to a local businessman who marveled of Chavez,”It’s amazing how much has changed in four years. How quickly it happened.” And it wasn’t good change. And he wasn’t hopeful. Do those who voted for Obama honestly think a slide of Venezuela-like proportions is impossible?
President Obama is a disaster for America and I hold those who voted for Bob Barr every bit as accountable as if the so-called principled person voted for Barack Obama himself. It was a vote that aided and abetted an enemy of freedom. How can a freedom-loving person be proud of this?
Stacy McCain’s defense for a Bob Barr vote is this:
A couple of days ago, I explained in a phone conversation with a buddy that, if I’m going to get screwed over, I’d much rather be screwed over by my enemies than by my friends.
Well, we’re not being screwed, these days. We’re being freaking gang-raped. And while I knew that a John McCain vote meant some serious discomfort in the future, there is no way in hell he would have presided like Barack Obama. Fiscal policy alone would have been drastically different. Does anyone really believe that a John McCain presidency would have sold out the country to the Unions? Does anyone really believe we’d have to be beating back the biggest power grab by the federal government ever?
The “teach you a lesson” folks want Americans and most especially, Republicans, to learn that Obama’s statist ideas are huge failures. After all these huge policy disasters come to pass, go ahead and say “Nah, nah, ne-nah nah!” That’s some hollow victory. America will have gone down the shitter. Yay, you! You were dead right! But dead.
Still, that does not mean that I believe conservatives and libertarians need to bend over now. Hells bells. We have nothing left to lose. And this is where I believe Ace is wrong. Here’s what Ace says:
But I really hope we don’t lose sight of the fact that we’re in a bad position — worse than we anticipated, I think it’s fair to say — and that winning is indeed preferable to “losing with principle and ideological integrity.”
Oh yes, we’re in a bad position. But the time to take on the mantel of appeasement is not now. Now is the time to push back against our squishy, fuzzy-headed Republican overlords. They have the equation all backwards. And since every branch of the government is now in the hands of the Left, conservatives and libertarians can fight nearly without restraint and expect the corrupt, bloated, entitled, DC power brokers to get in line or lose.
We are six months in on a four year hell sentence folks. If the Republican leadership can’t get religion in these circumstances, they deserve to lose. Again and again and again.
Here are some things that need to change:
King making: Don’t tell me Mitt Romney will lead us out of this mess. Please. Democrats love him because they know he is eminently beatable (just like McCain). Republicans should stop handing down the Republican nomination to the next guy who has done his time. It’s stupid. It nets us terrible candidates. Also, the NRSC needs to stop endorsing ANYONE. Let the local Republicans decide and then the party can throw their weight behind the Republican candidate (no matter how left, right, middle) with abandon. Ace is right about this: we need people with “R’s” behind their names.
Sniping: Some Republicans seem not to notice who the real enemies are here. FOCUS PEOPLE. We are getting our asses handed to us and we are helping the other side by piling on. If the RNC makes a mistake, if Michael Steele misspeaks, etc., unless someone is doing something horribly destructive (hello ACU), SHUT UP. For every one stupid thing Republicans do or say, there are fifty seriously stupid, hugely detrimental things Democrats are doing. How long must we bleed before we stop cutting ourselves? Turn the weapons on the enemy and then fight like badgers behind closed doors. Maybe this year at CPAC we can have a padded room and just let Republicans have cage matches. Get out our aggression and then get our sad asses together so we can return to the problems at hand–you know, a decimated economy, smothering socialist policies and on and on.
Stop Talking About A Constitution Or Third Party: It’s crazy talk. Stupid, moronic, dull-witted, self-defeating crazy talk. It won’t happen. It’s not going to happen. Let’s clean up the Republican house and start at the bottom. Get involved. And stop the delusional fantasizing.
Embrace Partisanship: How can any Republican still be squishy these days? How can a Republican not see that their party didn’t lose because of being so conservative but by being so all over the road? When Susan Collins and Olympia Snow voted for the Stimulus, they enraged Republicans further. If you can vote for huge spending, how can you consider yourself a Republican? I’ll allow for the social issues. Most thinking people understand that a Texas Republican is a different animal than a New England Republican. But can’t we all agree that smaller government which means more individual freedom is quintessentially Republican? If you’re not that… why are you Republican? Go. Away. Like Arlen Specter. Really, you’re already a Democrat.
Message better: Can we agree that John McCain is woefully inadequate at communicating either Republican or conservative values? I don’t see many doing much better. And yo, Tea Party people: If there’s someone who communicates the small government values well Let Them Speak. If they are actually a Republican, fine. Newsflash, people: The problem is politicians and the solution will be politicians too. It’s not like they’re a pure breed in a pure business.
Anyway, I don’t see any honor in voting Bob Barr. I don’t see any honor in losing. And I don’t see what we have left to lose. Conservatives and libertarians should come out with teeth bared and put some bite behind the bark. If that means going hard after fat-n-happy-n-lazy incumbents, fine. If the old guys are forced to stand on their unprincipled records, and fall, fine. But more than that, the lazy, disorganized and dithering local and state Republican party folks need to snap to attention. If they don’t, buh bye. This is where the Tea Party can be extraordinarily effective. And from there the party will change. And hopefully, for the better.
In the meantime, it’s fun to be the out-of-power party. Republicans are so far out of power, they literally are helpless before the Democrats socialistic onslaught. But in this position there is opportunity. Pick battles. Offer better alternatives. Regroup. Clean house. Tighten the belt. Get back in shape. And never lose an opportunity to point out how pure, unfettered liberalism is a destructive force. Highlight all the failures. And there will be many.
Before this is all over, conservatives, libertarians and everyone else is going to be reminded of why a bad Republican is better than the best Democrat on his best day. And that’s why I voted for John McCain. Because I already knew this and needed no reminding.
Since we lost, it’s time to give up going with crappy candidates. It’s time to rebuild the team. We can start making bad Republicans better or boot them and find great Republicans and elect them. Here’s my gamble: the Democrats are going to screw things up so badly, nearly any Republican will look good in comparison. We need to make sure that a nice solid conservative-small-government type is the Republican.
P.S. The Republicans who vote for these big government policies will pay. The policies will fail and they’ll be hugely unpopular with voters. Voting with a popular President buys you good press and immediate gratification but it’s a long-term losing, unprincipled decision.
UPDATED:
McQ opens a can of whup ass on me. He quite rightly notes that the Barr vote didn’t make a dent in Obama’s electoral superiority. A Barr vote did nothing except register discontent. What about the next election? You know, when there are more impure Republicans? Do the libertarians plan to vote for an independent or vote for a Democrat?
I’ll grant you, the choices have been grim. After this election, in a fit of pique I wrote that I was glad McCain lost. And McQ’s sentiment here rings true to me, too:
Barack Obama sits in the White House not because of Bob Barr or the libertarian vote. He sits there because the GOP has completely and totally failed to live up to its claimed philosophy and its word for decades. John McCain’s nomination told libertarians all they needed to know about the lack of seriousness within the GOP to remedy that situation.
If the GOP wants libertarian votes, then it had better mend its ways. We don’t do “tents” and we don’t do “plantations” and we don’t belong to the GOP. You want us, you’d better do what it takes to get us – and you’re not even close right now.
Fine. All I’m saying is that McCain WOULD be better than Obama and I don’t want to see the Right fracture into delusion that nets us socialists in charge. That is worse. Much worse. It is worse right now.
And who owes the GOP anything? The party owes the faithful an apology for treating the base with contempt. And it would help, like I said above, if the Republicans wouldn’t undercut their own position by being corrupt, arrogant, and big government, but not quite as big as Democrats, they would still have a party. Thus, my bringing up Snowe and Collins.
But the Libertarians don’t help anything by flopping around at the edges and indulging in third party fantasies. Libertarians needs to put their formidable energy into the Republican party at the bottom and take the party back to constitutional greatness.
