It is days like today that make me thankful I think they all suck. At least I’m thankful I’m in the firmly not Romney camp.

Having told us only Romney was viable (with half-nods to Huntsman and Santorum) and having trotted out Elliot Abrams to smear Newt Gingrich with out of context quotes, even National Review is having trouble defending their candidate today.

This morning Mitt Romney said he wasn’t concerned about the poor. The poor, after all, have food stamps and Medicaid. But don’t worry. If the safety net is broken, Patrician Mitt Romney will fix it so the poor can stay comfortably poor. After all, just look what he did in Massachusetts. The poor can now wait 44 days to get in to see a doctor. Excelsior!

After making sure we all understood the poor were for the Democrats to be worried about, Romney decided to keep digging his hole even bigger. By the end of the day, Jim DeMint had to rebuke him.

Romney, digging his hole deeper, said his remark needed more context. The context, according to Romney, is that we have government programs to keep the poor . . . well . . . poor but comfortable:

We do have a very ample safety net in America, with Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps, earned income tax credit. We have a number of ways of helping the poor. And yet my focus and the area that I think is the greatest challenge that the country faces right now is not, is not to focus our effort on how we help the poor as much as to focus our effort on how to help the middle class in America.

Oh, but that’s not all. If you misunderstood patrician Mitt Romney, he trotted out the other New England patrician, John Sununu — the man who advised George H. W. Bush to go with David Souter — to dig the hole even deeper. Sununu told the National Review that their candidate has no intention of changing policies to those that might actually lift the poor out of poverty into the middle class.

Read More →

It is days like today that make me thankful I think they all suck. At least I’m thankful I’m in the firmly not Romney camp.

Having told us only Romney was viable (with half-nods to Huntsman and Santorum) and having trotted out Elliot Abrams to smear Newt Gingrich with out of context quotes, even National Review is having trouble defending their candidate today.

This morning Mitt Romney said he wasn’t concerned about the poor. The poor, after all, have food stamps and Medicaid. But don’t worry. If the safety net is broken, Patrician Mitt Romney will fix it so the poor can stay comfortably poor. After all, just look what he did in Massachusetts. The poor can now wait 44 days to get in to see a doctor. Excelsior!

After making sure we all understood the poor were for the Democrats to be worried about, Romney decided to keep digging his hole even bigger. By the end of the day, Jim DeMint had to rebuke him.

Romney, digging his hole deeper, said his remark needed more context. The context, according to Romney, is that we have government programs to keep the poor . . . well . . . poor but comfortable:

We do have a very ample safety net in America, with Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps, earned income tax credit. We have a number of ways of helping the poor. And yet my focus and the area that I think is the greatest challenge that the country faces right now is not, is not to focus our effort on how we help the poor as much as to focus our effort on how to help the middle class in America.

Oh, but that’s not all. If you misunderstood patrician Mitt Romney, he trotted out the other New England patrician, John Sununu — the man who advised George H. W. Bush to go with David Souter — to dig the hole even deeper. Sununu told the National Review that their candidate has no intention of changing policies to those that might actually lift the poor out of poverty into the middle class.

Read More →

All the members of the Republican Party who have been complicit and collaborative in the destruction of our nation in the past few decades always talking about smaller government while never fighting against the tide of creeping socialism have now come out against Newt Gingrich.

Yesterday, at National Review, Elliot Abrams attacked Newt Gingrich for attacking Ronald Reagan from the right.

Today, it is Bob Dole’s turn.

Bob Dole, you will remember from George Stephanoupolos’s memoir of his time in Clinton’s White House, totally cut the legs out from under Newt Gingrich and House Republicans during the government shut down. According to the Democrats, they were within twenty-four hours of caving to the House Republicans’ demands, but Bob Dole surprised them all by caving first.

Dole went on to lose to Bill Clinton and still hates Newt Gingrich for it because Gingrich was the face used to attack Dole — a man who would have been the hero in the fight had Dole not caved.

And we’re supposed to hate Newt Gingrich because Bob Dole caved to the Democrats twenty-four hours before they were going to cave to Gingrich?

Pffffft.

The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains — Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.

All the members of the Republican Party who have been complicit and collaborative in the destruction of our nation in the past few decades always talking about smaller government while never fighting against the tide of creeping socialism have now come out against Newt Gingrich.

Yesterday, at National Review, Elliot Abrams attacked Newt Gingrich for attacking Ronald Reagan from the right.

Today, it is Bob Dole’s turn.

Bob Dole, you will remember from George Stephanoupolos’s memoir of his time in Clinton’s White House, totally cut the legs out from under Newt Gingrich and House Republicans during the government shut down. According to the Democrats, they were within twenty-four hours of caving to the House Republicans’ demands, but Bob Dole surprised them all by caving first.

Dole went on to lose to Bill Clinton and still hates Newt Gingrich for it because Gingrich was the face used to attack Dole — a man who would have been the hero in the fight had Dole not caved.

And we’re supposed to hate Newt Gingrich because Bob Dole caved to the Democrats twenty-four hours before they were going to cave to Gingrich?

Pffffft.

The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains — Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.

Do we have to be against Romney in order to be for Newt Gingrich? Do we have to smear Newt to show our support for Mitt Romney? Am I the only one who understands the very basic concept of supporting the one who you personally feel best represents your values both politically and morally? Now don’t get me wrong there are such things as valid criticism and by all means as voters we should be able to both praise and criticize when necessary. And earlier last week I wrote about the reasons behind each candidate running for president and I believe that’s a credible source of one’s support or opposition to whomever is in this race.

But to take it as far as some in the conservative media have taken it, openly waging campaigns to stop this candidate or stopping that candidate, we’re beginning to resemble Democrats in this respect because Democrats are the ones who wage personal air raids against their opponents be it in the primary or the general election. And in our arrogance little do we know that we are in fact giving more ammunition to the real opponent than we are helping our man or woman inch closer to the nomination.

I’m not just for the best person who can beat Barack Obama because quite frankly I’m not as obsessed with that as some on our side have revealed themselves to be. Win at any cost? Win at the cost of losing the general because we’ve torn each other up to the point where by the time we have a nominee he or she will be damaged beyond repair? Why destroy the carcass for the vultures to finish it off? Why go after Newt (National Review) when you can simply endorse a candidate and leave it at that. Why is Jennifer Rubin, shameless and vocal Mitt Romney groupie going after Newt Gingrich like she’s some Democrat Strategist employed by the Barack Obama reelection campaign.

You can tell this is the first time we’ve had an actual contested primary where every candidate has a chance to win and state their case instead of the next guy in line taking it without a challenge like in years past. You can tell because we’re acting like we’ve never done this before and that’s sad. We should never go back to the next guy in line approach because we end up creating a circular firing squad when we have such open and widely contested primaries. Unfortunately I see the same thing happening in 2016 or 2020 when Chris Christie decides to run and he’ll be the next guy in line. If anyone tries to even challenge one little issue remotely related to Chris Christie the Jennifer Rubin’s and the National Review geeks will move in to silence all those who dare challenge their political Jesus Christ, the governor from New Jersey.

So I’m taking the Glen Beck approach and I’m not voting for Obama, I’m going to look for the candidate who I feel represents my Christian faith, my pro-life belief, my constitutional beliefs, my support of individual thought and reason, and most important I will support the candidate who I believe is running for the right reasons. If that person isn’t running as a Republican then so be it. I’m open to the libertarian party and if that means one less vote to put a Republican closer to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue then fine.

I will leave you with a quote from a great man John Quincy Adams. I just pray many of you actually think about what he said and perhaps follow this nugget of wisdom:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”-John Q. Adams

How bout we start voting principle instead of  who best can defeat Barack Obama because on one hand we’re told both attributes cannot occupy the same space, especially if you’re a conservative, and on the other hand we should be careful what we wish for in the latter because we might get the most electable candidate but turns out that candidate loses in the general after all. Principles matter guys, elect ability does not because at the end of the day if you lack principle you lack the ability to lead, thus ultimately you’re not electable.

One of our co-founders, Ben Domenech, produces one of the best daily reads in my inbox. It’s the Transom. If you do not subscribe, you should. And if you do subscribe, today you got Ben’s thoughts on the two big conservative endorsements for Mitt Romney.

I think he hits the nail on the head and it is very much worth sharing.

Read More →

One of our co-founders, Ben Domenech, produces one of the best daily reads in my inbox. It’s the Transom. If you do not subscribe, you should. And if you do subscribe, today you got Ben’s thoughts on the two big conservative endorsements for Mitt Romney.

I think he hits the nail on the head and it is very much worth sharing.

Read More →

Massachusetts with Mitt Romney as Governor became the testing ground for gay marriage, which Romney revisionists would have you believe he fought more than he actually did, and socialized medicine, which Mitt Romney is still quite proud of.

The United States with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House saw welfare reformed and the budget balanced.

Mitt Romney once said he supported abortion rights because his mother did. His wife gave money to Planned Parenthood. As Governor he made numerous pro-abortion appointments. Newt Gingrich has always been solidly on the side of life.

While I might choose to look at that record and go with Gingrich, the fine folks at National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney with a blistering broadside about Newt Gingrich for being unelectable.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he is so bad a candidate that National Review cannot even use the word endorsement in their endorsement. They describe it as “winnowing the field,” but they stack the field for declaring that he and two guys barely at 2% in the national polling (Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) are the only viable candidates.

As one of National Reviews online commenters notes:

Read More →

Massachusetts with Mitt Romney as Governor became the testing ground for gay marriage, which Romney revisionists would have you believe he fought more than he actually did, and socialized medicine, which Mitt Romney is still quite proud of.

The United States with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House saw welfare reformed and the budget balanced.

Mitt Romney once said he supported abortion rights because his mother did. His wife gave money to Planned Parenthood. As Governor he made numerous pro-abortion appointments. Newt Gingrich has always been solidly on the side of life.

While I might choose to look at that record and go with Gingrich, the fine folks at National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney with a blistering broadside about Newt Gingrich for being unelectable.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he is so bad a candidate that National Review cannot even use the word endorsement in their endorsement. They describe it as “winnowing the field,” but they stack the field for declaring that he and two guys barely at 2% in the national polling (Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) are the only viable candidates.

As one of National Reviews online commenters notes:

Read More →

Note: the following article was originally written in late June for another venue, but I’ve reprinted it here because I think its point is still relevant.

Hardcore libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and rabid leftist Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) have united for a cause near and dear to many a crank’s heart: drug legalization. The two have introduced a bill to all but end the federal War on Drugs. While their proposal would still let the feds prohibit the transfer of marijuana across state lines and keep it from entering the country, it would recognize the states’ authority to legalize pot within their borders if they so choose.

Constitutionally, it’s not the federal government’s job to handle the states’ internal affairs, and as we struggle to trim the fat from our debt-ridden, bureaucratic federal government, every little bit helps. Also, comparing the results of varying drug policies in newly empowered states would help us clearly see whether or not legalizers’ rosy predictions of safer narcotics and collapsing cartels actually come true.

So, is Paul-Frank a win-win? Not quite.

Read More →