Maybe a Third Party?

I’m not one of those who is overly worked up over the pending resolution of the CR/Debt issue – given we only hold the House, we never were going to get much out of it and the sole purpose of the fight, for me, was to have a fight.  There were (and are) two reasons to fight:

1.  You never win a battle on defense.  You must attack in order to win.  MacArthur once was asked what his formula was for defensive war – he gave the one word answer:  “defeat”.

2.  To clarify things.  Fights make people pick sides.  Might as well know clearly who is with you and who isn’t.

But now that we have had the fight and we have started to go on offense and we have clarified things, I’m starting to wonder if the GOP is worth saving.  Boehner’s a good guy and mostly with us, but he seems to have flunked out on what should have been the basic strategy – pass the necessary legislation with a defund of ObamaCare and then done NOTHING until the President broke down.  Every GOP leader should then have been on TV morning, noon and night saying only this:  we’ve passed the necessary legislation to keep government open, we’re just waiting for Harry Reid’s Senate to pass it and Obama to sign it.  If Reid did bring it up for a vote,  and it was killed – then pass it, again.  If Obama got it and veto’d it, pass it again.  Until they break, we give nothing.  Eventually, they break and we end up with much less than we asked for – but they broke, not us.  But, the GOP leadership wasn’t up to that – and the reason appears to be that most of the GOP leadership is afraid of the Ruling Class.

They were looking at polls – some of which were, as usual, completely bogus – and the chattering classes getting all mad and, of course, some GOPers actually attacking the GOP and the leadership got scared…they started to surrender almost the moment the government was shut down.  They believed, that is, the nonsense story that shutting down the government was going to crush the GOP.  They believe this because that is what the Ruling Class believes – honestly, folks, they actually believe that the 1990’s government shutdown was a disaster for the GOP…even though we retained our Congressional majority in the election held just after the shutdown.  Its absurd, but it is what they believe…and so the GOP leadership was frightened that we’d lose in 2014, and so quickly lost heart.  And here’s the thing where I get to wondering if we need a new party:  even if it could be proved that a particular action on principal would cause a defeat, it is still the thing to do.  You don’t decide to do the right thing only because it is politically popular; you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.  ObamaCare is an utter disaster – we disagree with it in general and in particular…in general because Big Government is a fraud and in particular because this law is just hideously bad on its own.  This is what we conservatives are supposed to fight against and the only leverage we’ll have short of a GOP majority in the Senate in 2015 is the debt ceiling and spending.  It wasn’t a matter of fighting against it some other way – this was the only way to fight against it.  Those who said we must not shut down and we must increase the debt were essentially saying, “don’t fight against ObamaCare”.  Screw that.

So, the question remains – should we form a new party?  A party which won’t have Beltway squishes and tools of the Ruling Class who will cut us off at the knees?  Now, remember, one thing a Third Party guarantees is President Hillary Clinton, and probably for a full 8 years.  A new party might be able to get a majority by 2024, but the chances of getting it sooner are very, very small.  Or should we still work on the GOP and see if by “primarying” a few more squishes the rest might get the message?  Might understand that the GOP is either the party to dismantle Big Government, or its nothing?


44 thoughts on “Maybe a Third Party?

  1. Retired Spook October 16, 2013 / 1:07 pm

    If we do end up with a third party, it won’t be for very long, as I think the GOP will end up going the way of it’s predecessor, the Whigs.

    • M. Noonan October 16, 2013 / 2:31 pm

      To be sure, the GOP would rapidly die away – a portion of it going to the Democrats, most of it coming to the new party, in the by and by. But such a thing would ensure Hillary as President. The question is do we get more in the long run by staying GOP, or by striking out anew?

  2. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 16, 2013 / 1:19 pm

    A third party is not really an option. there hasn’t been a legitimate third party challenge in America since … ever. (The Compromise of 1850 and the death of Henry Clay marked the end of the Whig Party; most Whigs resigning from politics. The Republican Party; the anti-slavery Whigs, rose in place of the Whigs but not as a challenge to the Whig Party.)

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 16, 2013 / 1:49 pm

      I guess my point is that the Republican Party has to collapse from within, and then re-brand itself under a different name for the panacea of a third party to manifest.

      To pull away from the Republican Party to start another Political Party will only dilute the impact of conservatives further; we are a minority and the only way we achieve anything politically is to join with fiscally conservative-socially liberal moderates, center-right fundamentalists, Constitutional traditionalists and and Rockefeller Republicans to pull the Party to the fiscally conservative right.

      Fiscal conservatives are strongly aligned with smaller federal authority and greater economic freedom.If the central government is therefore restrained by fiscal conservativism the social issues all become state’s issues.

    • Retired Spook October 16, 2013 / 1:52 pm

      One of the main causes of the demise of the Whigs was their support of slavery, just as the demise of the GOP will be as a result of its support for Progressivism. And actually most Whigs from northern states became Republicans.

  3. Retired Spook October 16, 2013 / 2:37 pm

    I ran into my favorite Liberal at the Y this afternoon. I hadn’t seen him in a while, but the first words out of his mouth we, “you guys are really taking it on the chin today.” I asked what he meant, and he said the Republicans were forced to face reality, and lost — AGAIN. I told him he mistook me for someone who gave a sh*t about the GOP, to which he (without thinking) said, “oh, so you’ve wised up and become a Democrat. When I told him I would just as soon stick needles in my eyes as become a Democrat, he just gave me this blank stare. I told him he didn’t really have a clue and walked away. He will be one of the ones found hiding under his bed when the shooting starts.

    • M. Noonan October 17, 2013 / 12:44 am

      I don’t think even the GOP, as such, took it on the chin – the Establishment did; the Democrats did; Obama did…but there is now a very bright line between “us” and “them”, as it were. Eventually this whole rotten house of cards collapses – and the only people around who were showing the way out is, well, us.

    • neocon01 October 18, 2013 / 6:14 am

      The GOP is DEAD in my eyes, I will continue to support TEA party candidates …not so sure about a third psrty, ross perot tried that and gave us slic willy and hitlery and BJ’s in the oval office. We now have degraded do a desolation from hell.

  4. Amazona October 16, 2013 / 3:13 pm

    Spook, your anecdote is such a great example of how spiteful the Left is. Your Y friend may not know why he is a Dem (I’m betting he doesn’t—so few do) but he does know it gives him permission to be a jerk. Hell, it encourages it.

    What he doesn’t get is that when the Right takes it on the chin, the nation takes it on the chin.

    I agree, we can’t just start a new party. But we can remake this one, which is what I think is happening.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 16, 2013 / 5:02 pm

      Spook’s “friend” accurately describes what is happening in DC; the Republican Party made a stand in a place they couldn’t define, for a cause they couldn’t defend, sending a message they couldn’t articulate to a populace they don’t represent.

      By January no one will care about the shut-down except those that will repeat the “take it on the chin” meme ad infinitum as the conventional wisdom will follow the pattern of 1995; recalcitrant Republicans got took in the BIG-DEAL and pay the price at the polls. It wasn’t, of course true in 1996 and it won’t be any truer in 2014, but who cares? They made a stand and lost the message!

      ObamaCare implodes, the IRS obfuscates, Hillary awards herself another accolade based on how much she cares and Republicans hold a gun to their own heads and threaten to … what? Where is the finish line in all this? where did we think this was going to end up?

      II first heard it from was Barry Goldwater who said that the role of a conservative is to say “I TOLD you so!” I just hate it when i say that to other conservatives.

      • Amazona October 16, 2013 / 5:51 pm

        “…a stand in a place they couldn’t define, for a cause they couldn’t defend, sending a message they couldn’t articulate..”

        Which puts me right back on my soap box. We are trying to articulate VALUES and ISSUES, and getting all tangled up in the various emotional baggage these carry with them. And we are then asking people to take sides based on VALUES and ISSUES.

        I have never heard any politician ask me to vote on what kind of government I want. Oh, there are vague implications that if I vote for lower taxes I am voting for smaller federal government, and so on, but it’s always just an assumption that the two are related.

        We have here an excellent opportunity to make the best case for a smaller and more restricted federal government.

        First we have to stop the refrain of “government SHUTDOWN”. It’s semantic infiltration at its worst, and most successful. It was a slowdown, nothing more and nothing less. And the world did not come to an end. The United States did not come to an end. States stepped up and assumed authority and control over things in their states, such as Rocky Mountain National Park and the Grand Canyon.

        We can point out the complete mess of the online system as a prime example of lack of accountability, inevitable when government gets so huge and unwieldy that no one knows what anyone else is doing or should be doing—or where the money is going. Would any private business throw nearly a billion dollars at a system with no checks, no progress reports, no verification of success, no accounting of expenditures? Would any state do this?

        We can define a choice between a federal government restricted as to size, scope and power, and a government unrestrained regarding growth and impingement upon every aspect of life in this country. We can defend the cause of returning to a Constitutional form of government, with most of the authority left to the States. And with just a little practice we can articulate this choice.

    • Retired Spook October 16, 2013 / 5:07 pm

      I agree, we can’t just start a new party. But we can remake this one, which is what I think is happening.

      That’s been my hope for some time now, but there may be some growing pains, or transition pains, as it were. Some Tea Party candidates will lose after ousting old guard Repubs in primaries, ala Richard Mourdock, sometimes handing a solid GOP seat, as in the case of Mourdock, to the Democrats, and some winnable Dem seats will be lost because the GOP candidate was not a viable candidate, ala Christine-I-am-not-a-witch O’Donnell, and, to a lesser extent, Sharon Angle. I take the long view, though, and figure I’ll be lucky to live to see an accountable, constitutional republic of the people, by the people and for the people again in my lifetime, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. For all the comments I’ve made over the years about the possibility of a collapse and ensuing violent chaos, I’d much prefer that the revolution be at the ballot box.

      • Amazona October 16, 2013 / 6:00 pm

        We got so caught up in the idea of nominating people with the right ideas, we forgot that they also needed the right skills. And we became so dogmatic that the only thing that mattered was the illusion of ideological purity, even though this was often inarticulate and based on issues more than on political ideology.

        I think we can find strong candidates, many of them already in the party, maybe already in office, if we narrow down our criteria to simply fighting to return to Constitutional government.

        Yes, in a perfect world our governors and senators and representatives would be faithful wives and husbands, members of acceptable Christian churches, devoted to the sanctity of life, modest in demeanor, devoid of bad habits such as smoking or profanity, without enemies, without defects. But in our world, I would take a smoking, drinking skirt-chaser who will fight to the bitter end to defend the Constitution, if he is good at what he does, over a ditsy Angle type with ideal creds and nothing else.

        Without the foundation of a strong Constitutional government every other issue we claim is of the utmost importance will become moot, as a tyrannical government will trample those issues into the ground.

  5. Retired Spook October 17, 2013 / 9:31 am

    An AP article this morning reenforces Marks post from a few days ago about “why we fight”. 144 House Republicans voted no on the Senate bill last night, and I’ll bet not one of them will catch grief from their constituents back home — well, at least not from those constituents who put them in office.

  6. Mark Moser October 17, 2013 / 3:25 pm

    I agree with Spook and Amazon. A new party is a non-starter. We need to elect conservative republicans that respect and will defend the Constitution. The third party already exists and they call themselves libertarians. To say they’ve been less than successful is an understatement. It’s long past time to show those who are un-commitment and or lacking backbone the door. The Senate is such a huge disappointment… I can’t even begin to articulate my disgust with them. This stand should have shut the government down until the new Congress was seated or until good faith negotiations with the democrats began on a budget. Not the 2008 budget again either. This should have occured in 2009. The fiscal realities are completely different today, so how is it reasonable to do the same thing in 2013 we were doing 2008? How does that represent the people? Poorly! This should have been about passing a budget not delaying Obama-care, which can be killed through the budgeting process. Now it’s back to the same game in February with the same arguments and unfortunately the same results.

    • Amazona October 17, 2013 / 4:37 pm

      Mark, I think the reason the GOP is so weak is because we are so splintered. Dems are united—not in a belief in a certain form of government, but in hatred and distrust of non-Dems. It’s sick, but it works. We on the Right have allowed ourselves to be split into factions and then in believing that excluding those who do not subscribe to the “values” of certain faction is a virtue.

      The one thing that people can understand, and align with without the distraction of emotion, is the choice of one type of government or another.

      Do you realize that most of the people who are on the Left don’t even KNOW they are on the Left? They associate their political stance, such as it is, with “issues” such as gay marriage or abortion, and are utterly oblivious to the fact that they are being led to the voting booth by these issues so they can cast their votes for a specific form of government. It is bait-and-switch at its most successful.

      And what do we do on the Right? We argue with them about the validity of their ISSUES—and then preen in our assumed moral superiority for being on the “right” side of those issues. Well, we might be, in a moral sense, but we are throwing away political power in favor of self-congratulation, so we win tiny battles while surrendering the war.

      So we come up with all sorts of definitions of “conservative”—none of which seem to be simply the choice of Constitutional government—and then we sulk at home if a candidate is “not conservative enough” and hand the election to the opposition. And then we engage in spates of public self-analysis about what went wrong.

      I suggest, again, that if we simply define “conservative” as the belief in government according to our own Constitution, as believing that the federal government must be severely restrained as to size, scope and power and that the bulk of authority must be left to the States, or the People, we can eventually erode the silly stereotypes slapped onto us by the opposition and applied to ourselves in our foolishness.

      I suggest that if we simply identify anything that is NOT allegiance to Constitutional government as the Left, and then use the excesses and abuses we have been enduring as examples of big government running amok as it becomes unmanageable, we will start to gain ground.

      But the choices have to be between big and small government, the two have to be not only identified but defined and accompanied by examples of successes and failures of each, and we have to turn our backs on the emotional content of “issues” that will always lose out to the emotion-controlling Left.

      • Mark Moser October 18, 2013 / 12:53 pm

        Yes, I do realize they don’t know what they are for the most part. No and low information voters are the liberals bread and butter. A friend of mine was a Democrat. When I ask him why, he said his father was union and they were always Democrats. I ask him – he is an avid hunter – if he supported gun control. No, he didn’t. He runs his own small business, so I ask him about taxes, government spending, intrusive regulation. All were too high and getting worse he said. Did he support gay marriage? Nope, as a fundamental Christian he’s is firmly against it, believing marriage is an institution created by God. He doesn’t support big government either and thought we need to move back to the smaller form of constitutional Government he believes we have been moving away from. He’s voting the right side of the isle now, but until we spoke, he blindly cast his vote for a form of governance he believes is moving us in the wrong direction as a nation.

        I do agree refocusing the discussion in broader terms, arguing for limited government and greater local control will pay political dividends at the polls. Still, I can’t deny my faith. I can’t support policy I believe runs contrary to God’s direction for political unity’s sake. I believe our success is directly attributable to God’s blessing on our nation for being “one nation under God,” I know many don’t see things that way, which I think is the heart of our problem. Denying that truth or remaining silent about it produces the same results, which is the continuing trend of moral decay that is destroying this nation from within. I take solace in knowing this is not my home, but how I’ve come to love our nation for the gift of freedom, so few in this world have experienced in their lifetimes and so many have taken for granted. Seeing it “transformed” is breaking my heart.

      • M. Noonan October 18, 2013 / 1:32 pm


        I presume you mean that there are non-negotiable items which God has decreed and we must follow, come what may. I agree with that. We Christians have been tossed to lions before and if we’re to be so tossed again for our faith, then we’ll give glory to God for the honor. But our duty does lie in escape if that be possible – we are never to court martyrdom. As long as we are not being directly complicit in an immoral act, we’re fine – that immorality will go on all around us does not effect us unless we participate. This, I think, is what liberals don’t get – we don’t have a reason to stop people from doing wrong, but we must never be compelled to in any way, shape or form participate in it…so, we can’t bake a cake for gay marriage, nor pay for things which will buy abortion for others. If it comes down to that where I am to be forced by our government to participate in evil, then I’ll refuse and suffer what I must…though I hope, if it ever comes to that, that I’ll have the courage of a Cristero.

        But we can still work with people – even, at times, with people who are ok with immorality. Tactical alliances can be made in the service of the larger good – if having a libertarian in favor of gay marriage yet gets me to the point where the laws will forbid anyone from forcing me to participate directly or indirectly in gay marriage, then that libertarian is my ally. I think we can cobble together a majority which will allow us to save the nation and, in the by and by, restore it to Judeo-Christian morality…but it will be an odd assortment of people, to begin with.

      • M. Noonan October 18, 2013 / 1:17 pm


        I see what you’re saying but I think that view is more appropriate to a Civil War than what I want right now. In order to reform our nation – and prevent either Civil War or national disintegration – we have to cobble together a majority which would allow us to reform. Point blank, there is not at this time a majority which understands the Constitution. We go out on a platform of merely restoring the government to its Constitutional framework and we’ll lose – the liberals will just go around saying we’re taking away everyone’s free stuff and the recipients of free stuff will vote in droves against us, joined by mush-minded people who don’t understand what is actually at stake. It took a journey of 10,000 steps to get to this sorry state of affairs and we’re going to have to walk it back by 10,000 steps, one at a time.

        The first goal, in my view, is to stop the bleeding – not initially reduce government, but to stop it from growing any larger. To do this, we need to reform the system so that the money we’re already spending is spent better…which will, in and of itself, result in a reduction in spending. Given the amount of waste and fraud legally built in to Big Government, any reform which merely seeks to use the money as intended will result in tens of billions of dollars not being spent…part of which will then be used to develope programs which move the dependent to independence. That is why I want us to go in to the bluest of blue cities and tell the poor that they are being robbed – that the liberal Democrats who run their areas and whom they vote for on the national level are stealing the money intended for them, and that if we get in they’ll get more aid (they will – just of nature; because less of it will be stolen en route from Treasury to recipient). This is both just and merciful – and politically amazingly powerful; it kicks out from under the liberals the primary reason why they have power, at all.

        That, in and of itself, is not enough to get us to the solid majority – we also need to go a bit libertarian. My program to separate Marriage and State gets us social conservatives off the hook for the marriage issue because it won’t be an issue and libertarians will like the idea that anyone can do as they wish. We also need to decriminalize drugs – all of them; there is no warrant I can see in the Constitution for drug laws of any type (only a misreading of the Commerce Clause allows it, at all). This will greatly lower the prison population as well as kicking out from government a gigantic reason for all their surveillance and militarization of the police. This will give us a greater appeal to young people, as well – some of it is misguided and some of it just temper-tantrum stuff, but the youngsters are very much in a “leave me alone” frame of mind where it comes to such issues (they are, though, also increasingly pro-life and this allows us the chance to cement social conservative support by aggressively pushing, State by State, bans on abortion after 20 weeks; its popular and it puts the liberals in a bind…they have to defend Gosnell while we get to be in step with the people).

        We also need to attack “the rich”. Not like liberals do which really just works out to increased taxes on the middle class, but attacks upon the sweet heart deals that some of the super rich make with Big Government. Soros and Buffet are the prime targets here – and doubly so as they are liberal heroes; we expose them as the con artists they are and demand they disgorge their ill-gotten gains! This separates us from the notion that we are the party of the rich. It is a very Jacksonian stance to take – no problem with any one getting rich, but massive problems with anyone who gets rich off manipulation and who then proposes to use his wealth to back liberals in their desires to loot the middle class.

        After we get power and start to lower the pressure for ever larger government, then we can start to tackle the fundamental problem: the liberal notion that government has a right and a duty to take care of the citizens. But first we have to get power – and that means crafting a majority among the people as they are, today. An alliance of TEA Partiers, libertarians, social conservatives and the working poor – that is what we need.

      • Retired Spook October 18, 2013 / 1:31 pm

        no problem with any one getting rich, but massive problems with anyone who gets rich off manipulation and who then proposes to use his wealth to back liberals in their desires to loot the middle class.

        That won’t quite fit on a bumper stick, but I LIKE IT!

      • Amazona October 18, 2013 / 7:03 pm

        Mark M., no one would be asking you to deny your faith.

        Think about it. What concept of the Founders Constitution is contrary to your religious beliefs?

        I am guessing the answer is “none”.

        Quite simply, under a Constitutional form of government issues of virtue or morality would be decided at the state, local or personal levels—where you would have much more input and influence than you can possibly have at the national level. There is absolutely nothing in my concept which has anything at all to do with denying any truth, supporting any policy that is contrary to God’s law, asking anyone to deny or ignore his faith. Nothing.

        It is about one single thing, which how to govern the nation. Period.

        Go back and read the Constitution. I once heard an evangelical preacher explain that the Constitution’s vision of federal governance has nothing whatsoever to do with virtue—that is left to the State, local government, or the People. I thought he phrased it well. The Constitution’s vision of federal government is about protection of the citizens and preservation and promotion of the Union, such as national defense and international diplomacy.

        You might feel that you would be denying your faith to share the voting booth, or a political party, with someone with different social or moral values. Fine. But that is the attitude that has handed this nation to the Left. If you insist that everyone who votes for your party is also someone who shares your religion or your beliefs on various other issues you will have to console yourself with a sense of righteousness while the nation falls into decline. But opening up your party to people who share your commitment to Constitutional government would have the benefit of actually helping bring Constitutional government back to the nation, which would have the effect of bringing back authority to the People.

        Do the math:

        Option 1 requires that people agree on; gun control, abortion, gay marriage, small government (which is never really defined), the importance of God in government, and myriad other ISSUES. That is a daunting list of demands for inclusion in a party,

        Option 2 requires only that people ponder the differences between a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority vested in the States or the People, and a large and infinitely expandable federal government with unlimited power—and then choose between the two.

        Which do you think would have the most appeal to the most people?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 18, 2013 / 7:52 pm

        So, your idea is to offer the people a choice between a distant, un-involved, disinterested, small, weak government that won’t stop the KKK in Alabama where it’s protected by the local rednecks; an ineffective central government that can’t step in when schools in Georgia keep little African-American children in crumbling schools while little privileged white kids get new modern schools; a eunuch government that can’t do anything to protect coal miners from the companies that exploit them in Arkansas because the kickbacks to the Governor’s office keeps the Guv fat and happy; a faint shadow of a government in far off Washington DC that has to allow Agra-Business in California and Colorado exploit Mexican laborers, keep them in poverty and hopelessness because those States must protect their tax revenues; the racist LAPD cops who beat black motorists; the red-neck Buford T. Justice cops ticketing out-of-state speeders with wild abandon, that is those they don’t arrest on trumped up charges to extort “fines” and “fees”?

        Or, a caring overarching benevolent government that can cut through the local thieves and right past corrupt politicians and to honor and assist the People as the founders wanted, to bring us together as a Nation & appeal to the angels in all of us under a benevolent leader who only wants what’s best?

        A return to the bad old days of lynchings and cross burning or into the brave new world?

        Speaking as a Low Information Voter I’d have to say that’s not a Tough Choice,

        ~ Larry Lowfough

      • Amazona October 18, 2013 / 8:18 pm

        Mark N., you say “We go out on a platform of merely restoring the government to its Constitutional framework and we’ll lose –”

        Yep, we will. That is why we don’t say that. That is why we frame the choice not in abstract terms which are easily demagogued, but in simple terms people can understand.

        Small/limited/power at home. Easier to fire a governor than a president. Smarter to have laws that apply to your own state than trying to make laws that fit everyone in every state.

        Big/expandable central authority/one-size-fits-all laws. The few governing the many. Unlimited power over all aspects of our lives. A few population centers deciding who makes those laws for everyone.

        Define terms: If you believe in the small federal model, you are on the Right. If you favor large and powerful central authority, you are on the Left.

        Skip party names. No more personalities, scandals, bickering.

        People worry about losing their goodies? Sure, some will. But all we need is to bring about 3-4 million people over to our side to win the election. We don’t need to convert the freeloaders. And rational people will understand that just because money does not come from the federal government it will dry up—it will come from state government, where administration is more easily overseen and there is more accountability.

        States can’t afford this? Well, cut the federal taxes back once the feds are out of the welfare business and then states can tax enough to pay for what the people choose to pay for.

        Clearly, this would all have to be presented as a process, to be set in motion once the goal of restoring the original concept of Constitutional government is achieved.

      • M. Noonan October 18, 2013 / 9:10 pm

        The true freeloaders cannot, at this point, be converted…but the single mom working 40 hours a week who also gets $200 a month in SNAP can be brought over…not by an appeal for lower taxes (she pays hardly any) or by an appeal to the Constitution (she probably couldn’t accurately give even one of the rights in the Bill of Rights), but by explaining to her that she’s struggling because the liberals she votes for are stealing from her.

      • Amazona October 18, 2013 / 8:24 pm

        Count, thanks for the heads-up on the Lefty spin.

        But, as I keep saying, if we lost by only 5 million last time, we only need to convert 3-4 million to win next time, and I think there are that many people out there who will not be sucked into the mindless desperate demagoguery the Left will undoubtedly try.

      • Amazona October 20, 2013 / 10:41 am

        Mark N.——-I understand what you are saying, and to some extent I agree with you, but I think we need to start paying attention to what it is that turns people away from the GOP in particular and politics in general.

        I’ve been doing my own little experiment the last few months. I bring up politics to someone with whom I have never discussed politics before. Not in any specific terms, just saying that I participate in a political blog. The response is “I hate politics” or something to that effect. So I ask if that is because to this person politics means bickering and name calling, and the answer is always “yes”. I ask “If politics was just people talking about the best way to govern the country, would that make a difference?” and the answer is always “yes”.

        So if we are going to keep doing what has turned people off and away, we are going to keep turning people off and away, even though we are right.

        I’m not saying to walk away from the fight, I am just saying to fight smarter for a change. So instead of pointing a finger and squealing “They are STEALING from you!!!” we put the inability to oversee expenditures and control corruption firmly where it belongs—-an inevitable outcome of a massive, bloated, overly powerful central government too big for accountability, if by “stealing” we mean corruption, and the cost to the people of supporting a massive, bloated, over powerful central government that tries to be all things to all people if we are talking about the defects of Leftist agendas.

        And, again, I point out that you seem to think we have to win over everyone to win at all. Why don’t you look at the millions of middle class Americans who get nothing at all from the government, who work hard and pay taxes, but who for irrational reasons vote Dem? We all know these people. We work with them, we are related to them, we see them interviewed.

        “…the single mom working 40 hours a week who also gets $200 a month in SNAP…” might understand that she would be better off if her boss was able to make his own decisions in his own company, expand, be more profitable, pay less in his own and his company’s taxes, and therefore pay her more as well, so she wouldn’t need that “$200 a month in SNAP”. But—-probably not, because no one is stealing from HER, they are only stealing from Other People who have more and therefore deserve to have it taken from them. Welfare recipients did not vote for the Republicans who pushed through welfare reform, but working people did. I just don’t understand the feeling that we must find a way to convince people to give up what they think is not only essential to them but owed to them. That is an unattainable goal.

        We know, we had it proved to us, that welfare reform helped those who were forced to become self sufficient. But it did not depend on those people voting to make it happen. If your definition of political success is dragging these people into informed and rational participation in government, then you have quite a job ahead of you.

        I will settle, for now, for communicating with the middle class, which is bearing the weight of Leftist control on its shoulders, and which faces an even grimmer future if things are not reversed. I will be quite happy to bring in a few million of these people, who now vote Dem for a variety of emotional reasons, by simplifying their choices.

        All I want to do is move away from an election in which people are told they have to sort through dozens of emotion-based ISSUES to decide who to vote for—hairstyle, like the wife or not, abortion??, gay marriage??, how rich?, religion?, scandal, family, background, stupid or clumsy comments, gotchas, personality, etc. I just want an election where people are asked to think about, consider, and vote on one thing—how best to govern the country. There will always be a dependent underclass and if we allow ourselves to be held back until we can “convert” them to willing self-sufficiency we are guaranteeing our failure

      • M. Noonan October 20, 2013 / 12:02 pm

        The thing is, there is quite a lot of stealing going on and when dealing with people you have to rhetorically hit them between the eyes. Remember, your friends who say they hate the bickering in politics are actually complaining about something Democrats are almost entirely responsible for – but I’ll bet your friends blame both sides equally or the GOP more. This is because despite claims to the contrary, appeals to raw emotion work. Democrats have learned the lesson very well – and in service to lies, have developed the art of getting people to react with their feelings rather than their reason. I merely propose to insert truth and shift the target towards the guilty.

        I agree that we must have a solid message for the middle class, as well – but even here we have to be careful. For instance, the horrid state of public education is a massive adverse thing for the middle class, but every time we try to inject reform Democrats scream we want to cut education and the majority of the middle class abandons us. And, so, rather than talking up school choice, let’s talk up how much money is being mishandled in the public school systems. In a debate over education with a liberal the other day, I just happened to look at the LA Unified School District and found that there are nearly as many non-teacher personnel as teachers! That is where to attack – your children are being robbed of a good education because a corrupt bureaucracy is siphoning (stealing!) the money. Don’t propose to cut even a penny. Heck, even propose to increase spending – but demand that at least 50% of the non-teachers be fired.

        And so on and so on.

      • Amazona October 20, 2013 / 1:04 pm

        ” Democrats have learned the lesson very well – and in service to lies, have developed the art of getting people to react with their feelings rather than their reason. I merely propose to insert truth and shift the target towards the guilty. ”

        And I merely propose to establish a campaign strategy which does not appeal to feelings at all.

        Sure, the easily gulled probably do think the bickering is the fault of the GOP—after all, this is what they have been told. But the fact is, the bickering does exist, and we are being blamed for it. So squealing “It’s not US, it’s THEM!!!” is just going to add to that perception.

        It might feed YOUR feelings, but it will not be productive.

        R: Let’s make this election about how to govern the nation.
        R: We need to give a lot of thought to whether we want to continue to have all of the power in the nation concentrated in one place, Washington D.C, and in the hands of a few Ruling Elites, or if we think the Constitutional model of limiting the federal government and keeping more authority at the state level would make the country run better.
        R: Our country was built on the basic idea that any central authority that has too much power will result in loss of freedom, and I’d like this election to be a debate on that idea.
        R: The conservative model doesn’t necessarily say that programs should be cut, just that they should not be administered by the federal government, but more locally, where there can be more oversight and accountability, and where fraud is easier to see and stop.
        R: I think it is important to have our ballot box decisions be about how to run the country and not about personality or scandal or other distractions.
        R: Maybe we need to accept the fact that my opponent is not going to shift the debate to the best form of government, or defend his preference. So let me define the two basic choices we have, and then we can look at how well each of them has worked when applied………

        ….and so on.

        It is possible to bring in things like corruption, the personal enrichment of the Ruling Elite, and so on, when and if it is appropriate, but it would have to be done in a way that is not just another form of bickering, and in the context of fixing the problem not just by electing a different party (which has, to be honest, been part of this whole problem anyway) but by changing the basic form of government to narrow the scope of the central government and bring more government activity back to state and local authority where it is easier to monitor outcome and outlay.

      • Amazona October 20, 2013 / 1:14 pm

        “.. rather than talking up school choice, let’s talk up how much money is being mishandled in the public school systems”

        I don’t see this as an either/or, but as part of a continuum.

        I think we SHOULD talk about school choice, but not if we are just going to toss out the term and then let it lie there, undefined. I would say that we are, as a nation, sliding into a nation of distinct class structure, and a lot of this is due to the wide range of education offered to our children. As a nation we have an inherent knee-jerk rejection of class, and we need to point out that in a generation or two a class structure WILL be established, whether we like it or not, unless we find a way to ensure that all children have access to the same level of education. We need to be clear. We need to point out education used to be about teaching children HOW to think, and it has degenerated into teaching them WHAT to think, and that when some parents can send their children to schools where they learn HOW to think instead of being trained to merely accept what they are told, the thinkers will be the leaders and the others will be the followers.

        And as part of this, it can be pointed out that opposition to choice in education is mostly from those who have the most to gain by keeping educational dollars in the control of the government, where it is spent not on education but on expanded administration, outlandish salaries for administrators, and benefits that never come close to classrooms or students.

    • neocon01 October 18, 2013 / 6:19 am

      . We need to elect conservative republicans that respect and will defend the Constitution.
      the dilemma ……….other than 5 or 10 THERE ARE NONE!!

      • Amazona October 19, 2013 / 10:01 am

        neo, what are your criteria for the term “conservative Republican”?

        If you have only one—-a firm commitment to a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and to retaining authority at the state level, the local level, or with the people—-then there are probably a lot more than you realize.

        If you are using ISSUES to evaluate conservatism, them you are going to limit the number of people under that umbrella to those who also happen to share your personal opinions on a variety of things that have absolutely nothing to do with how to govern the nation.

        And if you are going to eliminate people from that category because they are not very good at what they do, you are limiting it even more.

        I say, expand that category. Limit the qualification to one thing and one thing only—that commitment. Then teach these people how to present that commitment, how to avoid the pitfalls and traps set by the wily Left, how to communicate this in ways that are clear and understandable to people who have never thought in those terms before.

        You are talking about the light coming, spread in all directions, from a light bulb.
        I am talking about a laser—about tightly focusing all that light in one direction.

      • neocon01 October 20, 2013 / 10:42 am


        I am more the first, but still cling to my bible and guns.

      • Amazona October 20, 2013 / 1:18 pm

        Cling away. There is no reason at all to change your personal beliefs about things like your faith and your Constitutional rights.

        I am just saying, while it is personally and emotionally gratifying to have leaders who look like us, who also cherish their Bibles and so on, if we are result-oriented we should acknowledge that we would be better off with a lesbian president who will fight strenuously for the protection of our Constitution than a Bible-thumper who pays lip service to it but really thinks the size scope and power of the federal government is not the problem, just how it is used.

  7. Mark Moser October 17, 2013 / 3:32 pm

    My bad. Let me correct myself. in 2009 Nancy Pelsoi was Speaker of the House controled by the donks. That should read 2011.

    • Retired Spook October 17, 2013 / 4:20 pm

      Rush was talking about the sequester and the budget baseline today. I had a lot of interruptions, so I didn’t quite get it all. He should have the transcript of that segment on his website tomorrow. Basically, what I got was that the reason the Donks were so intent on eliminating the sequester was that it returns the budget baseline back to 2008 levels. It’s the largest single reason that the deficit has come down in the last year, and, IIRC, not at all dissimilar to what the Republican Congress did in 1996 and ’97 to bring about a balanced budget. Clinton took credit for it even though he was dragged kicking and screaming to accomplish it, but it was congressional spending controls plus welfare reform plus getting Clinton to sign a capital gains tax cut that actually brought the budget into balance. Perhaps the Count, if he’s free today could comment on it, as I’m still not certain how baseline budgeting works, especially when the Senate went 4 years without passing a budget.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 18, 2013 / 2:23 pm

        You are correct as always Spook.

        Baseline starts with the 2008 Spending minus off-budget or extra-budgeted expenses like the Postal Service or Afghanistan adventure. To this they calculate the rate of inflation and population growth over the past 5 years to decide what the 2014 Budget should be then add the current off-budget items back.

        Obviously, much new (read: expensive) legislation has been inflicted since 2008, so the baseline only includes things as they existed in 2008. All the new crap is tacked on to the already bloated federal budget thus bypassing much of the revenue-neutral language in the legislation itself. Ah, that last part! Remember how Congress whined as they stuck in amendments to make whatever bill they were passing revenue neutral? All the expenditures must be offset with cuts somewhere else? Well, watch that circle the drain with a 2008 baseine budget deal.

        Sound like a dimocrat wet-dream?

        Btw, the “balanced budgets” of ’98 & ‘99 was a myth created by counting the social Security surplus as an asset (Gore’s “Lockbox”) while simultaneously using the Social Security receipts to pay current liabilities, then counting the IOUs as outstanding contra receivables rather than government liabilities. Enron used the same accounting trick and this trick ended for the federal government the same year it ended for Enron.

  8. Retired Spook October 19, 2013 / 11:32 am

    Nothing illustrates the disfunctionality of our current government better than this cartoon.

    • neocon01 October 20, 2013 / 10:44 am

      100% on the money, funny yet so sad.

  9. Retired Spook October 20, 2013 / 11:05 am

    I ran across this description of the ObamaCare exchanges at Ann Barnhardt’s blog (sorry — no permalink):

    There are now basically two camps on the ObamaCare website fiasco. There is a camp that says that the site was built to crash and cause denial of service attacks on itself because the regime didn’t want people to see that insurance premiums are skyrocketing. There is another camp of IT guys that says that the entire website is a Potemkin Village – that it is just a front-end facade with a data entry form, and that there is no real code underneath the facade to actually sell people insurance on an “exchange”. This is VERY plausible. When massive database code is written, it is broken up into tiny tasks with each task assigned to a team. When the Red Team finishes Task A and the Blue Team finishes Task B, the Yellow Team is tasked with knitting the Task A code together with the Task B code. And once that is done, that finished bit, called Part D is then married to Part E which was created in the same way, and that goes on and on for level upon level. There are entire companies that do nothing but micro-manage these tasks and teams so that a massive, whole database project can be accomplished. What this means is that an entire group or even company is totally unaware of what is going on elsewhere in the project, because all they focus on is their specific taskset. So, the guys who wrote the front-end code would have no clue and no way of knowing that no one was writing any code to create a functioning insurance exchange. Everyone would just ASSUME that it was happening – just not in their office, or even their company, and they would happily write and pass their code for their tasks up the chain assuming and trusting that the whole ObamaCare exchange project was, you know, REAL. So… where did the $650,000,000.00 go? Oh, I couldn’t even begin to hazard a guess…

    To say that my working knowledge of IT matters is limited would be an understatement, so I don’t know if either of the two scenarios Ann describes are accurate or not. From what I’ve read and heard, just about everything that’s been done so far has been done wrong, but then that’s what we’ve come to expect when the federal government gets involved in something that it shouldn’t. To modify an old phrase, never try to ascribe to nefariousness that which can be ascribed to stupidity, but in the case of this regime, nefariousness is their middle name. Perhaps someone else who reads this blog who is well well-versed in IT infrastructure can comment.

    • Amazona October 20, 2013 / 12:39 pm

      And both scenarios lead to the same conclusion: If the feds can’t throw almost a billion dollars at something accomplished successfully in the private sector—building a workable website—with even a modicum of success, how can we expect them to handle the far more complex and important task of managing healthcare for 300 million people?

      I don’t think the regime planned to have the system crash to try to hide the rising premium problem. There is no upside to just making people mad while looking like major doofuses, when they could always just fall back on Plan A and blame the Right.

      Remember Barry’s first foray into problem-solving, when he brought in some Big Brains, sat them down like students, lectured to them, broke them up into focus groups, sent them off to brainstorm, and then brought them back to report? He handled the complexity of international diplomacy, or the economy (whatever problem it was he was showing us how to solve) as if it were a simple academic exercise.

      Aside from the fact that this entire administration is in so far over its collective head, regarding even basic competence, we have yet another example of what happens when an organism just gets too big to function. The government is collapsing under its own weight.

  10. Retired Spook October 20, 2013 / 11:22 am

    This came in an email from NewsMax this morning:

    Call for Third Party Hits New High

    A majority of Americans now say Democrats and Republicans do such a poor job that a third major party is needed, a new Gallup poll reveals.

    Respondents were asked: “In your view, do the Republican and Democratic Parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed?”

    The result: 60 percent say a third party is needed, the highest percentage in the 10 years since Gallup first asked the question. Only 26 percent say the two parties adequately represent Americans, a new low.

    Republican and Democratic respondents basically agree — 52 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats say a third party is needed. This marks the first time a majority of either party’s supporters have said a third party is needed.

    Among independents, 71 percent say the country needs a third major party.

    The prior highs came in August 2010, shortly before the midterm elections when the tea party movement was emerging as a political force, and in 2007, when the newly elected Democratic congressional majority was battling with President George W. Bush, Gallup disclosed. Both times, 58 percent of respondents believed a third party is needed.

    Support for a third party was lowest in 2003: 40 percent.

    Gallup cautioned: “The desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties’ own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years.

    “Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success.”

    • M. Noonan October 20, 2013 / 11:52 am

      The only successful Third Party in American history was the Republican Party – and that was because most of the northern Whigs were Free Soil and so easily gravitated to the new Republican Party when it was founded…the new party started off with a certain number of governors, Senators, Representatives and local officials. In other words, you can only have a successful Third Party when one of the two parties is ready to break up. This could very well happen – I really do get the impression that people like McCain and Graham would be happier without the TEA Party people being part of the GOP…then they can get on with semi-conservative boilerplate which goes nowhere while living the high life as part of the Establishment in DC without all that embarrassment of being connected with people who rock the boat (just so rude, don’t you know?). I don’t think they even care that without the TEA Party they’d be a small minority party with no chance of success…as long as they could keep themselves at the trough, they’re ok with it. On the other hand, I believe that the McCains out there represent a declining portion of the GOP…still with influence because of seniority, but declining none the less. There are plenty of rumors that McCain will retire in 2016 (and thus he’s now more willing than ever to show his Democrat sympathies)…Collins of Maine might leave while Murkowski of Alaska would switch to Democrat in a second if she feels she could get re-elected as such. We might find ourselves free of our troublesome RINOs in short order.

      Though, of course, we can still push – by trying to elect as many true conservatives as possible in 2014…and if our actions in doing this provokes a split, that is fine. We’ll be a larger part after such a push than we would be without it. And as all thinking people know the truth – as Instapundit commonly reminds; promises which cannot be kept, won’t be and debts which cannot be repaid, won’t be – when the complete smash up of the current system hits, we’ll be in the position to rise to full power as the party which is (a) not compromised at all and (b) has a genuine alternative.

  11. Retired Spook October 21, 2013 / 12:34 pm

    Excellent article in the Washington Times last week by Judge Andrew Napolitano. I think the number of people who are starting to pay attention and realize the deep hole we’re in is increasing exponentially by the day.

Comments are closed.