Thursday, November 10, 2011

If you follow me on Twitter, or like the Facebook page, you'll have seen that I mentioned the following website - I encourage you to take a look, sign up and follow.

We're less than one year away from the most important Presidential election in our lifetime, and I have to be honest, I have a bad feeling that a year from now we're going to wake up and hear Richard Milhous Obama has been re-elected to a second term....despite a faltering economy, high unemployment, and the worst divisions among Americans since the Civil War.

This scenario won't happen because Obama has deserved a second term, or mapped out better ideas to get our nation moving. It will be because the Republican Party has, as usual, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. In this case, the party will have, as they did in 1996 and 2008, handed to the designated "next in line," regardless if that person is the best candidate or not.

The fault of this lies with the Republican "Country Club" establishment, who are moderate to liberal in the vein of Richard Nixon or Nelson Rockefeller and hold conservatives in contempt. Joining them are the members of the Obama Lapdog Media and many in the professional "conservative" punditry who push the person they claim is the most "electable" candidate, at the same time they warn about "extreme" or "fringe" candidates. You know them. These are the same people who spent the last three years trashing Sarah Palin (and her family) in the worst manner possible, because she was an unapologetic conservative and the most articulate spokesperson of conservatism since Ronald Reagan. The lapdogs said she was "unelectable" (just like they said about Reagan in 1979-80), and looked to pile onto any frivolous claim to destroy her image.

The professional conservative punditry helped by either piling onto these claims, like one known as "The Architect," wrote snarky columns because they were pushing other candidates, or stood by and did nothing. I have nothing but contempt for those people.

While trashing real conservatives, the country club, good 'ole boy GOP establishment has all but groomed Mitt Romney, because he's the next guy in line. He was second in 2008, so it's Mitt's turn. Is that a good reason to nominate a person in the most important election in our nation's history? Especially someone who could not defeat the just a putrid John McCain?

The liberal media, Obama's lapdogs, push the "electability" phrase for Romney because he makes Obama more electable.

Why should the Republican party nominate a person who has flip-floped more times than fellow Massachusetts resident John Kerry? Do I need to remind you of his inconsistencies?

A Mitt Romney candidacy would take off the table the biggest job killer in our economy, ObamaCare, as a campaign issue. Obama would use the fact that his socialized medicine bill was crafted after Romney's, and even had Romney advisors aiding in drafting it. Obama would then tar and feather Romney with the "greedy Wall Street type" in an effort to endear him to the 99 Percent squatters. In that manner, the election would take the focus off Obama, his failures and his many mounting scandals, and put the focus on Mitt Romney.

Why? Because Mitt Romney has no core principles and never has. They've changed in order for him to win whatever election he was in.

Is this what the Republican Party wants to become, a party of no core values, only the slower road to statism?

That's not what we need in 2012. As Ronald Reagan said in his famous 1975 CPAC speech:

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

...A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

No comments: