Tag: Moderates

This auther speaks about Moderates mis-identifying themselves as Conservatives.

The Aftermath of Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

May I ask y’all a question?

While millions of Conservatives showed their appreciation for Chick-Fil-A yesterday, where was the presumed Republican Nominee for President?

For that matter, where was the GOP Leadership?

Were they still stunned from Cruz’s victory in Texas the night before?

Or, were they simply maintaining the aloof condension they’ve been practicing since they decided that Mitt was going to be their candidate for the Presidency of the United States?

Cruz’s victory was a blow to them, no doubt…especially considering the indispensable help given by Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin…which had to smart.

Check out what foxnews.com had to say yesterday about Cruz’s victory:

Google “Ted Cruz” and “grassroots” and you get 865,000 hits. That’s because the conventional wisdom posits that Tuesday night’s runoff victory for the former Texas solicitor general against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in their battle for the Republican nomination for an open U.S. Senate seat, marked the triumph of grassroots Tea Party activism over an entrenched GOP establishment figure.

To be sure, Dewhurst, aided by the backing of Gov. Rick Perry, outspent Cruz, a newcomer to elective politics, by a ratio of three-to-one. And prior to the May 29 primary, in which Dewhurst easily prevailed but failed to attain a majority of votes cast, virtually nobody gave Cruz even the faintest odds of winning.

But a number of factors at work in the Lone Star State make Cruz’s victory more easily understood, and beg the question of whether the new Republican nominee for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did not himself enjoy the backing of a wholly separate “establishment.”

For one thing, the gap between the Senate primary and the Cruz-Dewhurst runoff was nine weeks long. Previously, the longest such gap between a primary and runoff election in Texas had been a mere five weeks. Cruz used the 63 days effectively, drumming up money and free media. Second, victories like his are actually the norm in Texas, where, including Tuesday’s results, the second-place finisher in a state primary has gone on to win the ensuing runoff election nine out of fifteen times.

“He was the man versus Dewhurst, who’s part of the machine, the establishment there in Texas and in Washington, D.C.,” said Sarah Palin on Tuesday night’s episode of “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “He was the outsider to come in and promise that reform.”

Yet Cruz was no ordinary Tea Party figure, and few people’s idea of a Beltway outsider. He attended Harvard University’s law school and founded a Latino law review there; clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court for Chief Justice William Rehnquist; worked at two federal agencies in Washington, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, under President George W. Bush; and is married to a woman who works for Goldman Sachs.

More important to his electoral fortunes, Cruz received critical endorsements and millions of dollars’ worth of contributions and other forms of support from the likes of Gov. Palin, who campaigned for him; Tea Party hero and fundraising powerhouse Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; the D.C.-based Tea Party group FreedomWorks, which is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey; the anti-tax, pro-free market group Club for Growth, whose top executive is former Rep. Chris Chocola, R-Pa.; conservative columnist and ABC News commentator George F. Will; and National Review, the venerated magazine founded by the late William F. Buckley, Jr.

Ted Cruz, in short, was an establishment candidate in his own right.

“It is time to think differently about the Tea Party,” said Darrell West, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution. “In the early days, the Tea Party was basically a grassroots movement, didn’t have a lot of prominent people behind them, didn’t have a lot of money. But now they have big money. They can bring outside resources into a state election, and prove to be very decisive. So they are getting institutionalized as a movement: They have major political figures who are behind them; they have money that is behind them. So they have emerged as a different type of ‘establishment’ organization.”

Other races this year in which Tea Party-backed candidates have defeated better-known politicians include the victory of state Sen. Deb Fisher in a three-way primary in Nebraska, and the primary defeat of six-term GOP incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar at the hands of state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in Indiana.

Turnout among GOP voters in Texas dropped slightly from the 2008 primary contest in which incumbent Sen. John Cornyn prevailed over fellow Republican Larry Kilgore. In that race, more than 1.2 million votes were cast, as contrasted with Tuesday night’s results, in which just over 1.1 million votes were tallied.

Still, the popular narrative of the Cruz-Dewhurst race was reinforced by the candidates themselves. “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots,” Cruz told an ecstatic audience at his victory rally Tuesday night. “It is a testament to Republican women, to Tea Party leaders, and to grassroots conservatives. This is how elections are supposed to be decided — by we the people.”

“Thanks for standing up for Texas,” Dewhurst told his supporters in his concession speech. “We got beat up a little bit, but we never gave up, and we can stand tall knowing we never compromised any of our values.”

That’s great, sir. But…what are the Republican Establishment’s values?

Because, if they don’t align with us God and Country-loving, traditional- American-Values-embracing average Americans, your fellow Establishment Republicans are going to join the Democrats on the Unemployment Line after November 6th.

And, Mitt’s going to be awfully lonely, being the only Moderate left in Washington, DC, surrounded by Tea Party Conservatives.

Think about it.

The Northeast Republican National Convention

On By kingsjesterIn Politics9 Comments

Have you ever been excluded from a club, meeting, or party? Remember how rejected and mad that made you?

Wellll…grab the duct tape Reagan Conservatives, living in the Heartland.

The New York Post reports:

The word is going out quietly to Republican activists across New Jersey: If you’re going to the GOP convention in Tampa next month, be sure to be there by Tuesday night, Aug. 28, because Gov. Chris Christie is going to be giving the keynote speech that night.

“We’ve been told that’s the night to be there, that’s when the governor is going to speak. They’re saying he’s the keynoter,” one top party activist told The Post yesterday.

On May 26, 2012, Andrew McCarthy wrote the following article for nationalreview.com, answering a post by National Review’s Noah Glyn, claiming that Chis Christie was one of us (Conservative)

As it happens, I am a citizen of New Jersey, so my reasons for examining his record closely go beyond my day job. It is based on that examination that I see Christie as wildly overrated. Sure, his YouTube smackdowns of overmatched lefty hacks are catnip for the Right. The routine gets old fast, though. The tantrums have become as mundane as “Pass the salt.” Christie now erupts not only at teachers’ union drones but at NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, New York congressman Pete King, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, anti-sharia “crazies” who resist Islamic supremacism, all those “completely intellectually dishonest” conservatives who think Romneycare may not have been a fabulous idea, and, one infers, just about anyone who happens by when Governor Grumpy is having a bad day . . . which seems to be often. Plus, there’s not much rain in them big winds: Christie’s bully-boy études do not drown out his nonstop symphony to “bipartisanship,” nor obscure that it is “compromise” with the Left that sends him into (not infrequent) frissons of self-adulation.

To be sure, Christie is a very talented politician and a deft extemporaneous speaker. He has done some good things in a heavily Democratic state dominated by municipal unions. He is certainly, as blue-state governors go, better than average. That does not make him a conservative, much less the “consistent conservative” of Glyn’s portrayal.

…In the post Glyn targets, my point was that Christie would be a poor choice as Mitt Romney’s running mate — a conclusion with which Glyn actually agrees. If the objective in making the pick is to improve Romney’s chances by balancing the ticket with someone more conservative than Romney, that purpose would not be served by selecting a near-clone of Romney. Another moderate northeastern GOP governor with a soft spot for socialized medicine is not going to energize tea partiers and other Romney-indifferent conservatives. Furthermore, my principal contention in the post, not mentioned by Glyn, was that Christie has been adamant about not being ready to be president. Given that readiness to assume the office is generally taken to be the salient qualification for the No. 2 slot, Christie would seem to be unsuitable on his own account. In any event, my main purpose was not to trash Governor Christie — as a governor for New Jersey, he may be the best we can do at the moment. My post addressed the claim, still making the rounds, that he’d make a good veep choice.

…Borrowing more millions to pay current operating expenses — heaping more exorbitant debt, with interest, onto the backs of New Jersey’s children — is exactly the practice Christie lambasted his statist predecessor over. He promised to bring it to an end. But now the dilemma: Christie wants to keep his conservative cheerleaders cheering by cutting income taxes while preserving his “reach across the aisle” cred by not only maintaining but expanding the welfare state. As always, the “have it all” fantasy relies on the mirage of epic growth. When that growth inevitably fails to materialize, a governor can either get real or start playing budget voodoo with borrowed money. The “consistent conservative” has made his choice.

I’m far from the first to observe that there is much less to Chris Christie than meets the conservative ear. A blue state could — and usually does — do a lot worse than Christie for its governor. But if “Christie is one of us,” then a lot of “us” aren’t.

As we get closer to the kick-off of what is sizing up to be a distinctly Northeastern Moderate (and I’m being kind) Republican Convention (no Reagan Conservative Republicans allowed), I am reminded of this analysis of the words of the greatest United States President in our generation, who just happened to be a Republican:

Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

I, like most other Conservatives out here in the Heartland, am going to hold my nose and vote for Mitt Romney.

But, this whole situation sure ain’t pretty.

Romney, Palin, and the State of the Republican Party

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

Yesterday, I was observing and commenting on a discussion thread on my favorite Conservative website, whose subject was an article in the barely-read magazine Newsweek in which Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin stated that she had not been invited by the Romney Campaign to speak at the Republican Convention.

Intrigued, I went to the source article. Here are some excerpts:

Romney never seemed quite comfortable with politicking in the Tea Party era. Even in the heat of the primary race, Romney seemed put off by the idea of courting the activists, complaining in February that he wasn’t about to “light my hair on fire to try to get support”—a remark that only underscored doubts about him within the base.

…[Herman] Cain believes that the grassroots will eventually rally around the Republican nominee. “Romney is not Ronald Reagan,” Cain says. “But Romney is not Barack Obama. The Tea Party people, the citizens-movement people, they get that.” (Cain plans to continue his role as emissary between the Romney camp and the Tea Party, and plans a unity rally in Tampa on the eve of the convention.)

…Palin shares much of these same reservations about Romney. “Romney has said before that he doesn’t want to have to light his hair on fire,” Palin said on Fox last week. “Well, there are a lot of his base supporters, independents, who are saying, ‘Well, light our hair on fire, then!’” Palin’s objections to Romney are not so much about the man himself—she speaks of him respectfully, as he does about her—but about who, and what, he represents. Romney was the choice of the party’s elites, whom Palin has regarded with open disdain ever since her rough treatment during the 2008 campaign. They are some of the same people who anonymously disparaged Palin as a clueless bumpkin, and some of them are now helping to run Romney’s campaign. When unnamed Romney aides tell reporters that Romney will likely go with a “safe” choice for vice president because of the 2008 “disaster,” Palin notices.

She noticed, too, that when the Romney camp reined in Fehrnstrom after his “not a tax” goof, the man assigned to take on a more public role as Romney spokesman was Kevin Madden, best known in Palin’s sphere for his appearance on a CNN news panel just days before the 2008 election. The subject was the latest piece of leaked Palin gossip—her $150,000 “shopping spree” (for which Palin later reimbursed the Republican National Committee)—and the damage Palin was perceived to have done to the McCain campaign. “That’s an indication just how unseasoned Sarah Palin is as a national candidate,” Madden opined, before laughing about Palin’s lack of knowledge about issues and declaring that “people who have done this before” know enough to choose running mates “that are nationally vetted.”

Palin says that she doesn’t know Madden and will not comment about him personally. However, she adds: “I assume he didn’t do his homework and his disparaging remarks were due to him actually believing the BS reporting on my record and reputation that began the day I was tapped to run for VP. I’ll assume and hope he’s evolved since then, perhaps understanding now the leftist media’s agenda against candidates they oppose.”

The Romney camp will not comment on Palin, or on plans for the convention, but one adviser associated with the campaign suggested that Palin would be prohibited from speaking at the Republican convention by her contract with Fox News. “It’s true I’m prohibited from doing some things,” Palin says, “but this is the first I’ve heard anyone suggest that as an excuse, er, reason to stay away from engaging in the presidential race. I’m quite confident Fox’s top brass would never strip anyone of their First Amendment rights in this regard.” (Fox says her contract would not prohibit speaking at the convention if she sought permission.)

Palin is keeping the dates open in late August, just in case. In any event, she says, she plans to be politically active between now and November, starting with a Michigan Tea Party appearance, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. “No matter the Romney campaign strategy,” she says, “I intend to do all I can to join others in motivating the grassroots made up of independents and constitutional conservatives who can replace Barack Obama at the ballot box.”

Palin’s admirers—and they are many, judging by Facebook and Twitter metrics, where her numbers are far greater than Romney’s—still hope for a rapprochement. “Palin is the female Ronald Reagan of our time,” says Kremer of the Tea Party Express. “There’s no one that excites the base, and energizes the base, the way that Sarah Palin does. There’s just not.”

As I write this post, that thread on the before-mentioned Conservative website sits at 1,807 comments and growing. The next closest thread on the site is at 592 comments.

How come?

Well, as I sit here at my computer in the Northwest Corner of the Magnolia State, I’ve had some rather pointed questions running through my mind:

If you want to become President of these United States, as Mitt Romney says that he does, why would you intentionally marginalize 40% of the country’s population in Conservatives, especially when you are in a virtual tie in head-to-head polls with the worst president in America’s collective memory?

Governor Romney, are you scared that Gov. Palin will upstage you at the Convention? Are you scared that Conservatives are actually going to expect you to stand for something? Have you ever lived anywhere in your adult life besides the Northeast Corridor?

Governor, you can continue to ignore Conservatives if you wish.  Just don’t compare yourself to Ronald Reagan.  Ronaldus Magnus united the party.

I, along with most Conservatives who love this country, plan on holding our noses and voting for you on November 6th, in spite of it all., so we can rid our nation of the Manchurian President.

So, would you please start attacking Obama as viciously as you attacked your fellow Republicans in the Primary?

Thanks.

Time for a Tea Party

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Now that we’re a couple of days removed from the advent of the biggest tax increase in our nation’s history, I sit here still turning Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling over in my feeble mind.

If you hang out on a certain Conservative website, as I do, you probably noticed an influx of Liberals, Paulnuts, and “Fiscal Conservatives” (i.e. Moderates), since ObamaTax was declared Constitutional.

While the presence of these postulating posters is nothing unique, their reaction certainly has been.

Allow me to elucidate.

The Paulnuts believe that not only was Robert’s ruling Unconstitutional, but every other American is stupid, we should all be smoking dope (like they seem to be), and Dr. Paul is still going to win the nomination.

And, that’s the intelligent ones.

The “Fiscal Conservatives” (i.e. Moderates, or Liberals in hiding)  seem to believe that Roberts made a brilliant decision and he was playing 67th dimensional chess…or something.  Also, we need to cut our Defense Budget to make up for ObamaTax, and just wait for Robert’s masterful plan to kick in, because, after all, the Tea Party is sooo gauche, aren’t they? 

I’ve noticed that these posters tend to believe that they are smarter than Conservatives and are quite enamored with themselves over their unique point-of-view.

Well, geniuses, being unique is one thing. Being a eunuch is another thing, entirely.

And finally, there are the Liberals.

Why a Liberal would want to hang out on a site founded by a Reagan Conservative is a question that has always bothered me.  Are they masocists by nature? But…I digress.

The Libs on this site were strangely subdued.  Yeah, they seemed happy enough, but not out-of-control-go-ride-their-unicorn happy.

Even the Libs in Washington seemed subdued.

Yeah, San Fran Nan threw a par-tay, but, with this sort of victory, I expected her to go streaking around the Washington Monument.

Try getting that image out of your head now. I dare ya.

It’s almost like they know that now, they’ve got to convince their brain-dead sycophants that it’s not a tax.

As he oft-times seems to do, Rush Limbaugh spoke what I was thinking about this bizarre situation during his program yesterday:

Okay, folks. I now know what happened yesterday. I’ve had time to dig into this. Time that I did not have prior to yesterday’s program and did not have during the program. And I can’t tell you how sick I am. I am literally sick over what happened yesterday. I don’t know how else to describe it. Literally sick. …

A giant total fraud was perpetrated on this country yesterday. The Supreme Court as an institution is forever tarnished. There are now no limits anywhere on the size, scope, the growth of government. We were the victims of a purposeful, intentional fraud yesterday. There is no way, were anybody in Washington concerned about the Constitution, there is no way Obamacare gets anywhere close to being law in this country. There is no way it even approaches constitutionality. And the chief justice of the US Supreme Court knew that. He felt it was his duty, however, to save the legislation.I don’t even care about motivation. I don’t care if it’s because he wants the New York Times and Washington Post in love with him. I don’t care if he wants to be the next John Marshall. I don’t care. All I know is that we were defrauded in front of our eyes, wide open. We were taunted, defrauded, mocked, laughed at. I guess 5-4 court decisions are perfectly fine now. Oh yeah, hey, we’ll take whatever we can get, we’ll take it however we can get it. Even if they have to invent law, even if they have to rewrite a statute that was so poorly written, it wouldn’t have gotten past a first grader who understood the Constitution.

Folks, having now learned what happened, and by the way, I can’t take much more reading the faint praise for Justice Roberts. There are a lot of conservatives who are trying to find some comfort in all of this by pointing out that justice Roberts ruled that the Commerce Clause isn’t a catchall that justifies anything Congress wants to do. “Hey, Rush, we got to look at what we won here.” I understand that theory. You do want to try to take the best of things that you can. But this is theft! Theft of liberty and freedom right in front of our eyes. Okay. So the Commerce Clause has been limited, so? Now we get to pay a tax for something we don’t do. But it’s worse than that. It really is akin to going into a 7-Eleven, and saying to the clerk, “No, I really don’t want to buy any gum.”

“Well, okay, tax on that is $2.35.”

That’s what’s happened here. I see all these people running around now thinking they’ve got free health care, and for the next year-and-a-half that’s what it’s gonna look like. Michelle Obama, “Guess what, contraception is now free.” She’s got a list of all the things that are free. AP has a list of all the things that are free for everybody. What happened here basically is that Justice Roberts stretched the limits to avoid being accused of activism. He wanted to avoid being accused of activism. Activism, in this case, would have been finding the law as it is unconstitutional. So he succumbed to fear that doing that, upholding the Constitution, would have resulted in him being accused of activism. So what he did, he stretched the limits to avoid being accused of activism, and in the process, he became more activist than any justice in recent memory.

In other words, Roberts said to America,

My name’s Bennett and I ain’t in it. Here’s the book. Here’s the phone. See ya later. You’re on your own.

That’s fine, Mr. Chief Justice. As I wrote yesterday, our weapons will be our ballots.  November 6th will be OUR time. See ya at the polls.

Rush Limbaugh and the Liberal Blitzkrieg

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

In their unfettered zeal to get rid of one of the most effective barriers to the re-election of their false messiah and the continued existence of the political status quo, Liberals in both political parties and the Main Stream Media have launched a Liberal Blitzkrieg against Rush Limbaugh over his comments concerning Professional Activist Sandra Fluke.

What’s a Blitzkrieg, you ask?

Per historylearningsite.co.uk:

Blitzkrieg means “lightning war”. Blitzkrieg was first used by the Germans in World War Two and was a tactic based on speed and surprise and needed a military force to be based around light tank units supported by planes and infantry (foot soldiers). The tactic was developed in Germany by an army officer called Hans Guderian. He had written a military pamphlet called “Achtung Panzer” which got into the hands of Hitler. As a tactic it was used to devastating effect in the first years of World War Two and resulted in the British and French armies being pushed back in just a few weeks to the beaches of Dunkirk and the Russian army being devastated in the attack on Russia in June 1941.

Rush Limbaugh addressed the situation and why he issued an apology last weekend to Ms. Fluke as he opened his show yesterday:

I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I’ve read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don’t expect — and I know you don’t, either — morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They’ve demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It’s what they do. It’s what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That’s why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, ’cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

What’s gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government, making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn’t willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.

Rush also had something to say concerning the advertisers who have acquiesced to the Liberal Blitzkrieg: 

The left, folks — the media — are giddy that some advertisers have said they’re leaving the program. And I’m sorry to see ’em go. They have profited handsomely from you. These advertisers who have split the scene have done very well due to their access to you, my audience, from this program. To offer their products and services to you through this venue is the best opportunity that they have ever had to advertise their wares. Now they’ve chosen to deny themselves that access, and that’s a business decision, and it’s theirs alone to make.

They’ve decided they don’t want you or your business anymore.

So be it.

For me, this program is always about you. You talk to anybody that knows me who asks me about this program, and I always say, “It’s all for the audience,” because if you’re not there, all the rest of this is academic. This show is about you. It’s not about the advertisers. I knew the political inclinations of these people. They didn’t care when they were profiting — and I didn’t, either. Everybody’s able to put these things aside for the sake of mutual beneficial business activity. No radio broadcast will succeed by putting business ahead of the needs of its loyal audience, and that audience is you. My success has come from you. My focus has always been, and always will be, on you.

…As I was saying, ladies and gentlemen, this show has always been about you. It has always been about meeting and surpassing your expectations as an audience on any level that I can imagine, on any level for which I have empathy. If this program were about the advertising… (laughing) you don’t know the kind of commercials you’d be treated to. I reject millions of dollars of advertising a year, much to the chagrin of my hardworking sales staff. Millions, folks, including, I might add, General Motors. What would you have thought, if, after the government took over General Motors, I started advertising General Motors? I made the decision not to accept that because you, the audience, come first. Because no successful program puts the audience second or third.

See, I understand my successes come from you. During the year, many of you regale me with how much the program has meant to you personally, your family, over the years. Every Thanksgiving and Christmas I take time out to tell you that no matter what this program’s meant to you, it can’t compare to what you have meant to me and my family. In fact, I have no adequate way to express my gratitude to you. Just doesn’t exist. It’s how great my gratitude for all of you is. Without you, advertisers would have no need to participate in this program. So what we’re gonna do is replace those that leave, those that no longer want access to you, those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine. We’ll replace them. It’s simple, really.

Advertising’s a business decision. It’s not a social one. Only the leftists try to use extortion, pressure, threats to silence opposing voices. We don’t do that. Never, ever, do any of us on our side of the aisle try to suppress the speech or the voices of those with whom we disagree, and we never will. So, as you’ve always done, you make your own business decisions about the products and services you buy. But don’t be like the opposition. That was my mistake last week. Don’t make it yours.

Rush will survive this.  Conservatives, such as myself, will not desert him, nor our political ideology.

I have noticed that since this story broke on the Conservative websites, the Vichy Republicans, otherwise known as Moderates, have aligned themselves with the Liberal Blitzkrieg…and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be Romney supporters.

Coincidence?  I think not.

Santorum/Romney: The Country Mouse and the City Mouse

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

I’m sick and tired of reading posters on Conservative websites and hearing from contributors on the Cable News Channels, including Fox News, pushing the idea that the Republican Primary is done, Mitt Romney is the winner, and there is no need for any more states to participate in the Republican Primary.

Rush Limbaugh (per usual) had a spot-on take on this on his Wednesday program:

…Oh, no, no, no. It’s not time to put a stop to it, anoint anybody and say that we’re done. Newt’s not getting out. He’s gonna stay in through Super Tuesday. That’s where he’s got all of his money banked. This thing could go on as far as May. Santorum’s not going anywhere. Santorum doesn’t have a lot of money even now. Romney outspent Santorum six to one in Michigan. I mean just some facts about Michigan. Romney won by nine points in 2008. He won by three points last night but got more votes last night than he did in 2008. But the percentage of his victory in 2008 was nine. It was three points last night. Santorum — and this is preliminary, I’ve gotta double-check this all, but this is what I have now — Santorum won 57 out of 83 counties.

As of now, Santorum, who lost the popular vote, won because of the way delegates are apportioned. Seven of the 14 congressional districts, Romney has won six. So that’s seven and six, a total 13 out of 14. One is still too close to call. Now, according to what I’m told, the 28 delegates, of those 28 delegates in Michigan, Santorum will either win 14 or 15, something like that, the way things get apportioned because of the number of delegates and counties, districts, so forth and he won in Michigan. So it’s not winner-take-all. So when you ask me if I should pronounce it over, it’s not my job to do that anyway.

I think the weakness that Romney has is not the conservatives won’t show up in November. They will. They want Obama out, and that will override everything. The problem is with the Reagan Democrats, the white working class that Obama lost in 2008 by I think about eight or ten points. You’ve gotta win that by 20 points, and you can do that. Some of the Republican candidates in theory could do that. Romney is weak with that segment. He knows it. That’s why he tries to do the everything and he keeps tripping over himself. If he wins that constituency, he wins the presidency, but that’s where he’s gotta work.He is just not all that good a candidate. So here are the numbers: Romney won by nine in 2008; he won 41-38 or three points last night.

Santorum won 57 out of 83 counties. That’s an incredible percentage, and it reminds me of the map of the United States, red and blue by county, when you look at that after a presidential race. The whole country is red (signifying Republican) except LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Washington, New York, Boston, Chicago and Detroit. The Republicans win 80% of America’s counties and lose the White House. Santorum won 57 out of 83 counties. And, as of now, Santorum, while losing the popular vote, has won seven of the 14 congressional districts; Romney won six; there’s still one at least right now (earlier this morning it was one) still too close to call. This means that, of those 28 delegates, Santorum will either win 14 (if the last district goes to Romney) and 16 if Santorum wins the last district.

So the delegate count from those 28 will be either a 14-14 tie or 16-12 Santorum.

The way that the state of Michigan was divided between the two candidates is a metaphor for the political blood bath currently going on between Conservatives and “Mitt Romney supporters” (which seems to encompass everyone from “Fiscal Conservatives” to Ron Paul tin foil hat wearing nutjobs) .

This whole primary battle reminds me of Aesop’s Fable  “The Country Mouse and the City Mouse”:

There once was a mouse who liked his country house until his cousin came for a visit.

“In the city where I live,” his cousin said, “we dine on cheese and fish and bread. Each night my dinner is brought to me. I eat whatever I choose. While you, country cousin, work your paws to the bone for humble crumbs in this humble home. I’m used to finery. To each his own, I see!”

Upon hearing this, the country mouse looked again at his plain brown house. Suddenly he wasn’t satisfied anymore. “Why should I hunt and scrape for food to store?” he said. “Cousin, I’m coming to the city with you!”

Off they went into the fine town house of the plump and prosperous city mouse.

“Shhh! The people are in the parlor,” the city mouse said. “Let’s sneak into the kitchen for some cheese and bread.”

The city mouse gave his wide-eyed country cousin a grand tour of the leftover food on the table. “It’s the easy life,” the city mouse said, and he smiled as he bit into a piece of bread.

Just as they were both about to bite into a chunk of cheddar cheese, In came the CAT!

“Run! Run!” said the city mouse. “The cat’s in the house!”

Just as the country mouse scampered for his life out of the window, he said, “Cousin, I’m going back to the country! You never told me that a CAT lives here! Thank you, but I’ll take my humble crumbs in comfort over all of your finery with fear!”

Conservatives, like myself, can identify with the Country Mouse.

We would rather hold on to our ethics and values, than compromise and elect a Left-leaning Moderate who will “reach across the aisle” to shake hands with Liberals.  

We feel that, if we elect a Conservative candidate, we won’t have to spend time worrying about the knifes that the Liberals are holding behind their backs with the other hand.