Mitt Romney, ’16?

Might as well join the link-bait on this issue – from the Washington Post:

President Obama thumped Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, but now their political standings seem reversed. During a summer in which Democratic candidates are keeping their distance from an unpopular president, Romney is emerging as one of the Republican Party’s most in-demand campaign surrogates…

…“Democrats don’t want to be associated with Barack Obama right now, but Republicans are dying to be associated with Mitt Romney,” said Spencer Zwick, a longtime Romney confidant who chaired his national finance council. He added: “Candidates, campaigns and donors in competitive races are calling saying, ‘Can we get Mitt here?’ They say, ‘We’ve looked at the polling, and Mitt Romney moves the needle for us.’ That’s somewhat unexpected for someone who lost the election.”…

It sure as heck is.  In fact, it hasn’t been seen since 1966 – when Nixon went on the hustings for Republicans.  Nixon was a washed-up has-been in 1966 – and in 1968, was elected President.  Of course, that was Nixon’s second bite at the apple – it is very rare for anyone to get a third bite. William Jennings Bryan did more than a century ago, but he still lost.

In Romney’s favor are two things:

1.  He’s been proved right about just about everything. You can go through the list of Romney predictions of what would happen if Obama got re-elected and check them off in the “I told you so” sweepstakes.  I don’t think there has ever been a more clear demonstration that the electorate got it flat in an election. All Romney has to do is show his 2012 predictions, show how they came out right – and then tie the failed Obama policies to Hillary.

2.  Being a loser has humanized Romney and does put him into the category of under-dog.  This would be especially true against Hillary, and Romney could neutralize the “rich guy” narrative by merely pointing out the buckets of money Hillary Clinton has made, all of it via raw, political power rather than doing something useful.

But, would that be enough?  I think so. Pondering it a bit, I think that Romney would blow Hillary out of the water in 2016. Unless there is a miracle turn-around in Obama’s fortunes over the next two years, anyone tied to Obama is going to have a millstone ’round their necks – and even with Hillary being a fluent and willing liar and having an MSM as willing to cover up for her as much as they did (and do) for Obama, it still won’t get her over the finish line against someone who can point out that he was right, Obama was wrong and Hillary was part of the Obama team. But, then again, I think that any first-rate GOP candidate can do that, just as well (and, of course, lose just as well – it could be that we are so stupid in our majority these days that the fact of Hillary “being the first female President” might be enough to carry her to victory…if that is the case, then it doesn’t matter who we nominate: GOP victory in 2016 depends primarily upon their being a majority of non-stupid people voting…I think we will have such a majority; but, we’ll see).

Given the fundamental weaknesses of the Democrats and Hillary, I don’t want just any reasonably decent Republican winning – I want someone who will start to dismantle the liberal State.  I want a Scott Walker or a Bobby Jindal…I want someone who will have America turn the corner.  My worry about Romney today is the same worry I had in 2012 – and why Romney was my 5th or 6th choice: decent as he is, I don’t think he sees that if we just try to make Big Government work, we’re doomed.  Big Government has got to go – even if Romney makes it super-efficient and balances the budget, as long as Big Government exists, another Obama will come along and turn it on us in the by and by.  Can Romney see, for instance, that if he wants successful education reform then the teacher unions and the Department of Education are stumbling blocks?  Can he see that both have to go – or at least be severely curtailed in their actions – if education reform is to happen?

I don’t know – and I don’t think so.  And, so, my take on the Romney 2016 boomlet is – its nice that people have figured out that Romney is the better man than Obama, but we need the best possible President in 2016, not merely the guy who was right in 2012.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Mitt Romney, ’16?

  1. 02casper August 3, 2014 / 7:59 pm

    I would be thrilled if Romney ran a second time.

  2. Amazona August 4, 2014 / 9:13 am

    In 2012, our country’s problems were primarily financial, and Romney was clearly the best guy to put us back on our feet economically. The fact that he lost should shame every single moron who voted for Obama, because it was a shameful Democrat campaign, and anyone who got sucked into it ought to be profoundly ashamed of being so susceptible to that kind of vicious lying and appeal to utter stupidity. As far as I am concerned, Obama voters in the 2012 election were not just Americans with a different view of government but a mob showing us just what kind of filth appeals to them, and I’ve got no use for any of them, other than those with the integrity and intelligence to admit they were wrong.

    But now, just a little more than three years later, Obama has done so much damage that economic recovery is not our biggest concern. (A little I Told You So: I always said that this country is so vital and energetic I thought we could recover, at least a little, from even the most egregious assaults on our economy, and we are showing that, slowly making a little progress here and there despite the efforts of Obama’s Left to stop it.) Now we have this onslaught of illegals swarming across our borders in response to overt invitations from Obama, using the stalking horses of frightened helpless children to hide the real dangers to the country, and he is threatening to double down on his intent to swamp us with illegals, many of them overt threats to the security of the nation. Now we have the unbelievable mess he has made of foreign policy and the frightening events popping up around the globe. Now we have a federal government even more bloated and even more arrogant, with agencies acting like SWAT teams and the inmates running the asylum.

    I look at those who have stood up to these thugs and anti-American activities and wonder if Romney is the man to take them all on. Cruz can, Gowdy can, I think Pence can though I have never seen him in battle, but I have never seen Romney as a warrior. When we desperately needed what he would have brought to the White House—–intelligence, commitment to our Constitution, love of this nation and respect for it, decency, honesty, honor, business acumen coupled with the understanding of the role of business in the health of our nation—I backed him enthusiastically. But I don’t know if he has the toughness it will take to deal with the mess we have now.

    Right now I am looking for a warrior. Right now I want someone who will stand up to the thugocracy and beat it down, dismantle it, and throw the bums out. I don’t see Romney in that role. I would support him if he were to rise to the top of our candidate list, because I have great admiration for him and confidence that he would be a good leader, and it would be fun to see a Romney-Clinton matchup, a spin on Beauty and the Beast with Beauty being Romney and the Beast being, well, the HildeBeast. (While casper puts his pudgy fingers to his chins and titters, “tee hee hee hee hee, I made a funny” implying that he would find a Hillary/Romney matchup to favor his beloved RRL, the facts certainly contradict him. As they always do.)

    I think we are beyond needing a good business man or woman to alter our course and start to set things right. There has been so much damage done, and there is so much more damage waiting in the wings, we won’t need a surgeon and a scalpel to start to fix the mess, we will need a bulldozer and a flamethrower to clean out the embedded nests of filth and corruption, to strip the agencies down to their bare bones, and to make it clear that Obama has left the building.

    • M. Noonan August 4, 2014 / 10:05 am

      I’ll dispute the notion of an actual economic recovery if it is meant in the sense of the economy is actually larger than it was. I think it is money-printed up to a bit of a height, but I think that in terms of actual, worthwhile economic activity, the economy is probably smaller than it was in 2009. That said, you’re right – the basic problem with Romney isn’t Romney, it is the sort of challenges we face and the worry that Romney is just too much of a conventional, Establishment guy to really tackle the fundamentals.

  3. Retired Spook August 4, 2014 / 10:04 am

    Amazona,

    I too supported Romney, and for the same reasons. I can’t add to anything you wrote.

  4. sarahbloch August 4, 2014 / 10:18 am

    This could work if the right can coalesce around winning the election by getting out the vote of a unified base plus establishment republicans plus appealing to Latinos and blacks to chip away at that portion of the Democratic base. The latest poll I looked at exposed a high measure of disappointment with the second Obama term to the point where Romney would win in a rematch handily. That same poll shows that Hillary Clinton would defeat Romney in 2016 by nearly triple the margin of the 2012 outcome.

    • Amazona August 4, 2014 / 10:53 am

      Sure, an airbrushed Fantasy Hillary, created and propped up by a Complicit Agenda Media, out of the public eye while her flunkies promote her, could beat a lot of people. Keep her well groomed and her mouth shut, well shut off from the public while her PR people try to remake her, and she looks pretty good to some.

      Real Hillary? Not so much. The screeching harridan burdened with a history of scandal and failure, responsible for Benghazi, chortling and grinning like an ape while starting her State Department career with an infantile concept of international diplomacy (a RESET button which was not even the right word) and owning a list of failed efforts is going to have a much harder time. She would have to run as a “moderate”—that is, as one pretending to be conservative—-and do her best to hide her radical Leftist roots and agendas, and in a nation reeling from the aftershocks of being suckered into one radical Leftist agenda that will be a tough sell.

      You think Bush Fatigue was bad? That ain’t nothin’ compared to Dem Fatigue. Bush Fatigue was a cold: Dem Fatigue is Ebola.

      Hillary would have to run not just against the Republican candidate but against Obama. That would be an interesting balancing act, renouncing his unbroken litany of failures while not being branded as a racist, not being rejected by black voters, not alienating the Obama KneePad Society. What the nation wants/needs/demands right now is the Un-Obama, and for Hillary to be that she will have to throw him, his administration, his agendas, his policies, and his entire political construct under the bus and promise to be different. And she will have to do this with any support from the Obamas, if there is any at all, at least as unsupportive and passive-aggressive as Bill’s was for Barack.

      • sarahbloch August 4, 2014 / 11:01 am

        As the 2008 primaries showed HRC and the president are two diametrically opposed candidates that just happen to be in the same party. I think HRC is the more liberal of the two. As far as which Hillary will run I believe the voters like all voters will know which Hillary they are voting for or not voting for in 2016 if she runs.

      • Amazona August 5, 2014 / 9:31 am

        “..two diametrically opposed candidates that just happen to be in the same party”

        Are you serious? Really? “Diametrically OPPOSED??????”

        They were the same candidate, with the same radical Leftist roots, the same commitment to vast expansion of the federal government, the same conviction that the nation should turn over an additional 1/6 of its economy and all of its health care provision to the government, the same disdain for state sovereignty, the same bowing of the knee to every single Leftist issue, and the same Leftist hero/inspiration, Saul Alinsky.

        You people and your stupid Identity Politics. So he is black and she is white, he is male and she is female, to people like you this means they are different, politically. They had different campaign styles, but they represented the same thing, as far as dragging the country down as quickly as possible into the Death Spiral of Leftist governance.

        :…just happened to be in the same party…” You people crack me up. You don’t even know what a party IS, what it MEANS. To you politically illiterate, there is nothing bizarre in claiming that two people have completely different political beliefs but JUST HAPPEN to be in the same party, indicating abject ignorance of what it means to BE in a party. Your statement is proof that you have no idea what the Democrat Party is, means, stands for, wants, intends, or represents.

    • Amazona August 4, 2014 / 10:59 am

      And what we have been noting for years now is that the Dems have no depth on the bench. Unless they go shopping for another empty suit they can fill up with more lies while employing vicious smear campaigns against any opponent, they seem pretty much stuck with Hillary and Prudential Joe. They do have Princess Wannabe, Elizabeth Warren, and Debbie Whosis, and so on, but it is a pathetic field and every one of them will have the same problem of trying to be the UnObama while not running afoul of the Obamunists, while at the same time being just plain icky people representing an always-failed political system.

      • sarahbloch August 4, 2014 / 11:08 am

        My suggestion to conservatives Amazona is to energize your base and get everyone united around a single candidate. If the GOP does that and can get 70 million voters to support them then they will win easily. 60 million will not be enough. The way to do this will be difficult because the message of the far right simply does not resonate with a girl who was 14 in 2008 and will be a voting woman in 2016 and these people must be appealed to by any GOP candidate to avoid a blowout.

      • Amazona August 4, 2014 / 12:27 pm

        “My suggestion to conservatives Amazona is to energize your base and get everyone united around a single candidate.”

        I’ll bet your suggestion to a football team would be to get the ball through the opposing goal posts as often as possible. Gee, thanks for the brilliant insight. I’m sure it will help dispel a lot of confusion about how to run a campaign. Hmmmm. Note to self: get more votes.

        Question: What is “far right”? If we define Left, in terms of 21st Century American politics, as believing that the federal government should be expandable to meet any and all identified needs of citizens, with authority vested in the Central Authority rather than in the states or with the people, and if we define “Right” (or “conservative”) as believing that our rule of law demands that the federal government be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority remaining with the states, or with the people, we can then determine degrees of Left and Right.

        I suggest that there ARE degrees of Leftism, as people (those few who actually think of the political system itself and not just issues) can disagree about how big or how powerful the federal government should be, while still thinking it should be allowed to expand beyond the enumerated duties laid out in the Constitution. But what would be the degrees of the Right?

        If you believe in the tenets I outlined, would “far Right” mean really REALLY REALLY believing them? And what about the message of this “far Right” would fail to resonate with a young person?

        Remember, the message is never that any issue should be eliminated or defeated, only that if it is not contained within the enumerated duties of the federal government it MUST be dealt with on a state or local level. The real message is that if you are deeply committed to an issue such as the use of the word “marriage” to describe a relationship never in the history of mankind described with that word, you can feel as strongly as you like about this issue and still be a conservative, in that you believe that it is not within the permissible boundaries of federal authority and must be determined, by the people, at the state and/or local level. You can believe with all your heart that it is the responsibility of government to pay for legal contracts between people and companies which promise payment for health care, and still be a conservative, if you understand that this is not something allowed by the Constitution on the federal level.

        What about that message, which is the TRUE message of the Right, would turn away a young person? Or any person?

        Or are you one of those who can’t tell the difference between issues and politics? One of those who does not understand that you may think you are voting for an issue but are really voting for the political system hiding behind the issue?

        I think perhaps you are saying that the ALLEGED message of the invented “far right” would not resonate with anyone who is ignorant of the true meaning of “right” and the true message it represents. That is, that concentrating power in a massive and unrestricted Central Authority is a really really bad idea, antithetical to the very core of our nation’s founding and its Constitution, and inevitably restrictive of personal liberty, while spreading power among the states and keeping it closer to the people, giving them not only more oversight but more say in what happens, results in better government.

        What about that message would turn away your hypothetical voter?

      • Amazona August 4, 2014 / 12:41 pm

        It was once said that the GOP was a “big tent”. It was, and it still is, though some people in the tent want to exclude people who do not think exactly as they do. There are some who want to be gatekeepers, telling those with differing views on some issues that they are not welcome. There will be those who will claim “I am the true face of conservatism and you have to look like/think like/be like me to qualify”. And they will be occupied with fussing with the other groups who say the same thing, but use different criteria.

        But in fact conservatism is a HUGE tent, because it is, at its heart, based solely on the belief that the federal government must be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and that the states, and the people, have dominion over every single thing that is not delegated to the federal government in its enumerated duties.

        Within this huge tent there will be factions, factions with disagreements with other factions about all sorts of things. But in the tent, they are all united in one way, and that is in their conviction that these various disagreements must be resolved by the people, at the state or local level, and not dictated from afar by a massive and powerful Central Authority. There will be, in this tent, a lot of squabbling and even name-calling, and a lot of disagreement. Hopefully there will be serious discourse and debate, but more likely there will be more bickering and arguing. But if you choose to be in the tent, because of your commitment to the concepts laid out in the Constitution and restated in the 10th Amendment, you will understand, no matter how energetic the debates may be, no matter how disputatious the disagreements may become, they will still be subject to the will of the people at the state or local level.

      • Amazona August 4, 2014 / 1:31 pm

        Regarding your vote analysis: From Slate:

        “Between 1900 and 1999, only five of the 25 presidential elections were decided by fewer than 130 electoral votes. Only three had a popular vote margin smaller than the Obama-Romney contest. It’s a sign of how accustomed we’ve become to razor-thin margins of victory that Obama’s 2.3-percent popular-vote victory seems almost like a rout. ”

        Even if you accept other accounts of a larger margin, such as US News’ “..Obama got 51.1 percent of the popular vote to Mitt Romney’s 47.2 percent, a four point margin..” we are not talking about a huge difference. Enough to win, certainly, but not a blowout.

        Now look at the vote count. From the Huffpo, not the final count but their last update: “As of Noon on Friday, with nearly all votes in, Obama assuredly will win the popular vote, leading Romney by a count of 61,173,739 or 50.5% to 58,167,260 or 48.0%. ”

        Do the math. My computer calculator gives me a difference of 3,006,479. If everything else were to remain equal—-equal susceptibility to demagoguery, equal energizing of the black vote, equal everything regarding the basic voting numbers and population, it appears that to win the popular vote only about 1.75 million people would have to change from D to R at the ballot box. I don’t have the time here to analyze the electoral college vote but suffice it to say that only changing a couple of states would swing that vote the other way.

        Remember, if a voter does vote but changes his vote, it does not just take a vote out of one column, it puts it in the other. So the Left has to retain its solid monolithic bloc of black voters and keep them just as hyped up as they have been when voting for a black candidate, in an environoment which is also experiencing Racist Fatigue.

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2014 / 9:25 pm

        And that is why I was so surprised at Obama’s re-election…I figured, taking one thing with another, that Romney would pull about a million more 2008 Obama voters as well as getting about 3 or 4 million 2008 stay-at-homes to show up, given how lousy Obama had proved. I figured Romney for the win by a margin of 4-6 million votes – ooops.

        That said, it was a small margin; 3 million out of 119 million. Had Obama won with Reagan’s 1984 margin, then the difference would have been 21 million votes (Obama would have got 70 million, Romney 49 million. I don’t see much evidence of an unbreakable progressive majority in a mere 3 million votes. And as we are likely to have a GOP Congress come January, I see even less evidence now than there was in 2012.

      • sarahbloch August 4, 2014 / 5:11 pm

        As facile as my suggestion may sound Amazona it is what conservatives need to do to win. From where I sit I can’t see how they are going to square the circle of establishment members and TEA Party republicans. good luck to them on that in 2016.

        To the point of what your definition of a political system is I feel the government of the United States should be large and effective for a wide range of reasons but chief among them are the size geographically and regarding population. Unlike you who understand the conservative fundamentals of a governing systems you have to accept that this sort of granular analysis of politics is lost on the majority of the GOP base that was formed out of the Reagan Revolution. Those Democrats for Reagan were converts by way of the Southern Strategy and were disenfranchised from their former party by social and economic changes within the Democratic party [i.e. civil and women’s rights and inflation during the Carter years.].

        I would agree that it is the perception in the minds of young women, Latinos and blacks that they are not welcomed in the GOP tent because of the far right elements that want to be the gatekeepers. Much of this is self inflicted by the talk radio entertainers and amplified by the American MSM that will beat an issue to death during a 24 hour news cycle. My own blog is guilty of falling, often, into that trap.

        Amazona I think you would have to admit that the post Obama political world in America will be better than the last eight years and that many of the arguments of the base will simply go away when he leaves office. i can accept that because there is little damage that can be done between now and January 2017 that hasn’t been done already.

      • Cluster August 4, 2014 / 9:36 pm

        Sara,

        The following was written by one of your “progressive” male counter parts, obviously sarcastically:

        Most twenty-four year old women are much more concerned with whether America is currently aligned with their personal interpretations of the intent of our country’s founding documents than with safe, legal abortion and access to birth control as basic preventative health care. Most twenty-four year old women are much more concerned with comparing and contrasting abstract political systems than with workplace protection, childcare, and not having to worry about transvaginal ultrasounds….Oh, and I forgot states’ rights. Years ago, when I was in the dating pool of twenty-four year olds, I can’t tell you how valuable a thorough spiel on states’ rights was. I would start my preamble, and babes would gather round like moths to a flame.

        Does it offend you at all to know that this guy obviously thinks the most important issue to a woman when voting is what is between her legs, and who will protect her? And of course that “babes” are not at all interested in intelligent political discourse? Why do you continue to vote for an ideology, and particularly males within that ideology, who have very little regard for your intelligence and capability?

  5. Cluster August 4, 2014 / 6:37 pm

    I could easily support a Romney candidacy again and am still a little surprised that he didn’t win in 2012. I also agree with Amazona that we are in much worse shape than we were 2012 however it is who Romney surrounds himself with that will make difference on that front. Just as Obama has surrounded himself with inexperienced incompetents, Romney would surround himself with gritty, tough, experienced people.

  6. GMB August 4, 2014 / 10:15 pm

    In aught 16, if Mitt, Mike jebward, or da joisey beach ball is the nominee, get your tongue sharpened and your wits dulled. Better yet with over two years left before the election lets get the excuses ready and aimed!

    Here, I will be nice and start you off……… “If we had got more of the TrueCon, SoCon, Holier than thou, Gate Keeping, GMB and Neocon types to vote for our (rino flavorite of the day) we could of been contenders.

    You want prime rib.
    You will settle for a pork chop sandwich.
    You will get bologna on tofu crackers served by your gopE waiter.

    Yeah? What ever. Same to you.

    • Cluster August 4, 2014 / 10:30 pm

      Who is your candidate GMB? I know what and who you are against but I have no idea what or who you actually stand for.

  7. GMB August 5, 2014 / 12:34 am

    My ideal candidate will be one that increases personal liberty and decreases the size of the gub’mint. Drastically.

    Anything else is a losing proposition. None of the four listed above are any threat to the welfare/biggub’mint/bureaucrat state. In fact I would guess those four would be more than happy to use the new levers of power created by the light bringer themselves. Not only would they use those levers but they would push to create more.

    My Ideal candidate will be one who does not care if he/she/it offends the gopE/rino/goalongtogetalon crowd along with the progtards.

    None of my three preferred choices have expressed an interest in running. Yet.

    Feel free to guess who they may be and what order I would prefer.

    • Amazona August 5, 2014 / 9:53 am

      “My ideal candidate will be one that increases personal liberty and decreases the size of the gub’mint. Drastically.”

      Well. MY ideal candidate would be one with the understanding of the role of the Executive Branch of our government, who would understand that he or she simply should not have the power or authority to increase personal liberty or decrease the size of the government.

      But maybe that’s just me. Just me, commenting on the fact that so many who claim to be conservative really don’t mind an overreaching government, as long as they approve of the direction of the reach.

      MY ideal candidate would be one with a clear and unwavering commitment to reinstating the Constitution, with all of its delegated duties (such as enforcing the law) and restrictions, who will push the only part of the government with the power and authority to slash its size to do so. MY ideal candidate would be one who understands that the way to “increase personal liberty” is to decrease incursions upon it, and then let it flourish.

      My ideal candidate is NOT Jeb Bush, whose alleged reputation as a conservative is bogus, and who blew his cover when he supported Common Core. It is most certainly not Chris Christie, whom I have always seen as a blowhard who will turn his coat depending on which side he is trying to impress.

      I never saw Mitt Romney express a preference for a large and powerful federal government. I saw him as a man of intelligence, honor, dignity and immense talent, whose grasp of the principles of business, combined with his love of country and his commitment to our Constitution, would have made him a good president.

      I still see self-proclaimed banner carriers of conservatism, who announce that THEY are the ones who represent the movement, in all their narrow-minded bigotry and overweening ego, screeching that if people do not look like, think like, and act exactly like them then we don’t need their vote and they can just go vote Left, as an element crippling the cause and the nation. They are, as I often comment, not different from the Left, just the other side of the coin, because their alleged political views are really as identity-based as those of the Left, and just as ignorant of actual governance.

      I would not be surprised, if it came to that, to see these self-proclaimed gatekeepers declare that they don’t want to accept the votes of the Log Cabin Republicans, or of anyone who falls outside their rigid little boundaries of what THEY find acceptable. Their attitude is “Take those millions of votes and give them to the Left, because we don’t want them—–they are not from people we deem to be Christian enough, or straight enough, or whatever enough. We only want votes from people like US.” They put Obama back in office, and I think they are willing to throw the whole country in the trash can year after year, posturing as loving their country but really only loving what they see in the mirror.

      • GMB August 5, 2014 / 12:48 pm

        Racist and-or ageist and-or sexist bigotry is never allowed. You can’t seem to get more than one post in before reverting to it. People with this pattern soon have every post removed as soon as we see the name of the poster. // Moderator

  8. canadianobserver11 August 5, 2014 / 6:46 am

    GMB
    August 5, 2014 at 12:34 am
    ————————————————–

    Are you a Sarah Palin supporter, GMB? If so, here’s my guess:- Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and either Allen West or Rand Paul.

    • GMB August 5, 2014 / 7:07 am

      You have two of them correct. Two of them not correct.

      I will say however that I am possession of a digital copy of a Marshall County, Illinois birth Certificate with the name Harper, Stephen Joseph. When it is ready to print you can bet that it will not have eight layers.

      😛

  9. GMB August 5, 2014 / 6:59 pm

    “Racist and-or ageist and-or sexist bigotry is never allowed. You can’t seem to get more than one post in before reverting to it. People with this pattern soon have every post removed as soon as we see the name of the poster. //” Moderator

    What ever. Copies have been saved, those who wish to see the truth can. You are old and you are a woman. Truth that can not be denied. I do find it interesting that you now have “canned” moderator warnings.

    Would you care to show me another post, other than response to your incessant cackling where I have been “racist, sexist, or ageist?

    You can not. This was informative.

    Your continued devotion to a document you are unwilling to enforce is just mildly amusing at this point.

    Roll this off your lips, “President Warren” Again, “President Warren” One more time “AND NOW………. PRESIDENT Elizabeth Warren!!!!!!!

    Bottom line is Go ahead and delete all my posts. Only a narcissist would care anyway .Your threats have never nor do they now work on me.

    • Amazona August 5, 2014 / 10:01 pm

      My goodness, you are having quite a little hissy fit, aren’t you?

      Do your parents know the contempt with which you view those older than you? I am sure the women in your life are fully aware of the fact that you find the term “woman” to be an insult, but I do wonder if you have taken the time to let them know, in that inimitable way of yours, how adding a few years will put them at the tipping point where there will be TWO reasons to have contempt for them.

      I always wonder, when I see you and the forkers share the same characteristics—–that is, when you stub your toe on an argument you can’t refute you fall back on name calling, focusing on age and gender—–if this means that, as you disdain people of a certain age, you hope you never reach it.

      You certainly have every right to determine how narrowly you will define those you deem acceptable. You can exclude people based on age, gender, sexual orientation, various opinions, etc. No problem. It is your life, and you get to live it the way you want to. No one is asking you to step outside your bubble. No one is asking you to associate with people who are different from you. No one cares. NO ONE CARES.

      However, my point was that when it comes to POLITICS—-that is, how to govern the country—–you don’t get to make the rules for a whole political movement. Particularly when your litany of criteria does not have a single thing to do with how to govern the nation, but is only about the many many areas in which you are so gleefully judgmental. You claim to love your country, and constantly wave around your military service, (you know, John Kerry served in Viet Nam!) but it is impossible to believe that anyone who will contribute to the downfall of the country just to make the point that you are all bent out of shape because you didn’t get your own way also truly loves the country he has just helped condemn to misery.

      You talk the talk, loudly and often, but you don’t seem to walk the walk. Bluster is all I see.

      My point, the one that got your panties in such a twist and stirred up the hatred that obviously lies very very close to the surface, is merely that when it comes to POLITICS (how best to govern the nation) not anything in your endless list of issues and biases makes the slightest difference. A gay man can believe in the Constitution, and vote conservative to help preserve it. So can a Wiccan, a lesbian, an atheist, an agnostic, a Hindu, and so on. And the fact that you are so impressed with your own perception of your own superiority that you want to tell all these people to go vote for the Other Side because, for whatever reason, they do not meet your standards of purity is proof that you put your own ego and your own arrogance above the well being of the country.

      I repeat—you are perfectly able to limit your contacts to the very few who meet your standards, but you do not have the right to try to impose them on others, and you most definitely do not have the right to use your overblown opinion of yourself to appoint yourself a gatekeeper for a whole political movement and try to dictate who can belong and who cannot. I can pretty much promise you that not one of these people you would refuse to associate with would be the least bit upset at keeping a considerable distance from you. Promising that no one would be expected to associate with you would probably be a good recruiting tactic.

      As for your silly bleat that I am “unwilling to enforce” the Constitution, once again you sound like a forker, falling back on a lie to try to insult. (Hint: Only those I respect, only those whose opinion I value, can insult me.) It is not only a lie, it is a stupid lie, and easily refuted by every single post I have ever written on the subject. On the other hand, the guy who postures as Super-Christian doesn’t hesitate to stoop to bearing false witness, or to ignoring the edict to judge not.

      I don’t threaten you. I laugh at you and your pomposity and irrationality but I do not threaten you. Paranoid much? Hey, it’s not my fault that you are so freaked out by being challenged by a WOMAN. Sounds like you should stick to areas where the women know their place, under the thumbs of the big bad menfolk. Places like this are always going to upset you

      So you go copy away, put together archives of being picked on, brood and hoot and holler. None of this will change the fact that when a woman said something that tweaked that massive ego of yours, you flew into a name-calling temper tantrum. If you are going to fret that the blog might not offer itself up as a forum for your wall-kicking and screeching, go right ahead.

      BTW, I have seen plenty of racist crap from you, mostly the pathetic “white hut” variety, and in this very post you wallow in ageism and sexism. Get over yourself.

      I, on the other hand, will be out volunteering to help win this election cycle and the ones after it, encouraging people to vote for the conservative side and assuring them that the few egomaniacal blowhards who try to set themselves up as gatekeepers for the movement are really just that—–egomaniacal blowhards far too impressed with themselves and unaware that when they never take their heads out of their donkeys the view never changes, and do not in any way represent the core of the movement. You are our lunatic fringe, and will always be identified as such.

  10. Cluster August 6, 2014 / 8:08 am

    I don’t ever remember 25-50 regular posters here and I have been here since 2006. I do remember possibly 20, half of which were Progressive “speed bumps” who were only here to denigrate others and display their ugly character, which is a little something they have in common with you. Amazona has not mischaracterized you at all. You do regularly question the conservative credentials of others, and like to come off as the only one with the “true conservative heart”. You are condescending to those who are trying to move the ball forward towards conservative ideals and are always complaining that it is never enough, “so why even try”. You have indignantly told us to get ready for President Warren, which I can only guess to mean that you have no interest in battling the other side unless you get everything you want. It’s a childish approach to politics for sure.

    I will also say one other thing about one of your chosen politicians – Sarah Palin. She’s done. Her 15 minutes is over. Sarah Palin is more interested in Sarah Palin than anything else.

    • Amazona August 6, 2014 / 8:44 am

      I’m not so hard on Sarah Palin. I saw her, at the beginning, as a bright and competent woman who was a fresh face, not one of the old Washington Establishment, who had the potential for being the first of an exciting new generation of conservative leaders. I watched with dismay as the rabid, hate-driven, frantic Left swarmed in like jackals to destroy her. And that was clearly their goal—not to defeat her, as an opposing politician, but to DESTROY her.

      I think she has made the right choice, in accepting the fact that she has become, through no fault of her own other than being a threat to the Left, a lightning rod that will attract more of the insane viciousness we have already seen, and continue to see whenever she appears on a public stage as a representative of conservatism. So she has decided to move to a role more like that of Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, and I think that is great.

      I don’t fault her for that. I like having lots and lots of people like her speaking up for what we believe, and I like having people who can draw crowds and get attention and raise money for the conservative cause.

      We saw the full force of the Left descend upon this woman with the obvious intent to destroy her, to smear her and her family, to ruin her life, to shred her and her reputation, to annihilate her in every way. We saw the most despicable onslaught of lies, slanders and libels imaginable, which continued long after the election was over. It continues to this day. She can’t fight this. The Republican machine that put her in the crosshairs of the Left turned its back on her and left her there to fend for herself, and I think she has done a remarkable job of it. There is no reason for her to step in front of that firing squad again as a candidate, but there is also no reason she should not use her name and her talents to try to influence people and spread the conservative message.

      • Cluster August 6, 2014 / 8:55 am

        What the left and the media did, and continue to do, to Palin was and is reprehensible, no argument there. Maybe I am wrong, but I see Palin as a self promoting, cliche machine. I don’t see her advancing the argument in any constructive, intelligent way. Instead she just seems to fall back on tired old expressions that only resonate with her core supporters.

      • Amazona August 6, 2014 / 9:27 am

        I can understand this reaction to her personality. However, as long as she does resonate with many people, and attract many people, more power to her.

        I have no problem with her being “self promoting”. She did nothing to put herself in the public eye, other than do a good job in her own remote state, but once she agreed to try to serve her nation in a national office, and suffered the attacks she did, I think she has every right to make the most of the name recognition she has. I hope she can make the most of the position in which she found herself and I don’t fault her at all for trying. I hope she gets filthy rich from whatever she does, and has a good time doing it.

        I often find her a little annoying, but then I am often less impressed by people others find compelling and fascinating. For example, I don’t like Bill O’Reilly and am not a big Sean Hannity fan, and while I agree with what Glenn Beck says and appreciate the information he has provided (and really like his books) I find his personality off-putting. Yet in the aggregate, these people and many more like them reach and influence millions of people, and if the message gets out it really doesn’t matter to me who delivers it.

      • Cluster August 6, 2014 / 10:46 am

        I don’t like Bill O’Reilly and am not a big Sean Hannity fan,

        I am with you on that. I enjoy Hugh Hewitt and of course Rush and like the analysis of people like Charles Krauthammer, Steven Hayes, Liz Cheney, Katie Pavlich, Andrew McCarthy, Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro.

    • Amazona August 6, 2014 / 9:16 am

      Cluster, I have found the perception that the GMBs represent the conservative movement to be the single most negative and damaging element in political discourse. While most of us are focused on adherence to the Constitution, and understand that this does not mean absolute unanimity in every single aspect of everyone’s personal life, opinions and beliefs, the existence of the image of conservatism as being represented by strident pompous self-righteous bigots serves only to discourage people from looking at its real message.

      These people truly do not care if we are stuck with another radical Leftist administration. They do not care if the nation plunges into irreversible economic misery and tyranny. They do not care if the Constitution is shredded. They will gladly refuse to support a movement dedicated to keeping this from happening if this movement does not submit itself to their rigid and narrow criteria of what they consider moral and political purity.

      The message I get from these people is “We’re not against tyranny, we’re just against THEIR tyranny. We want our own tyranny——we want to dictate morality to the nation, and we demand that it be OUR definition of morality. We want to be the ones to make the rules, instead of having a nation in which the people have the right to make their own rules.”

      The way I see our system of government—that is, the system devised by the Founders—-is that it will sometimes provide laws with which I agree and sometimes laws I don’t like, but if I truly support the notion of government BY the people I have to accept that. I hate abortion. I think it is a foul, vile, brutal act of pathological selfishness, and I believe any attempt to defend it is completely incompatible with any claim to decency. Allowing it and working to remove any stigma associated with are stains on our honor as a nation. Yet I, if I am to be consistent in my defense of the Constitution, accept that abortion might be deemed legal, if the people vote to make it so. All I can do is work to keep this vote where it belongs, which is at the state level, and then to work to keep the perception of abortion from shifting from being recognized as an ugly act to being accepted as a trivial act of no consequence and with no moral judgment attached.

      I see the basic fact of being sexually attracted only to those of the same gender as an act of God, which I do not pretend to understand and do not assume to judge. I do find much of what can be called the “gay culture” to be profoundly offensive, but no more so than the sexual promiscuity and indecency of heterosexual exhibitions and pornography. It is not exclusively the homosexual aspect that offends me, but the coarseness and crudity and flaunting of sexuality in public. It is disgusting. I would never associate with these people, I want nothing to do with them, I think there is something profoundly wrong with them and that their behavior is aberrant and harmful to society in general.

      Having said those things, I also think that the personal lives, opinions and beliefs of these people, the sexually deviant and the abortion defenders and so on, do not exclude them from believing that the nation must be governed according to our Constitution, that we must have a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, that authority must be retained by the states or by the people I don’t have to invite these people into my home, or accept their beliefs, to not only want their votes to keep our Constitution intact but to believe they have exactly the same rights to vote that I have. And from a purely political point of view, that of making sure that we elect people who will defend and honor the Constitution, I think I have an obligation to make sure they are welcome in the political tent, even if I don’t want to hang out with them otherwise.

Comments are closed.