Posts Tagged ‘Romney’

Mitt Romeny Racks Up 47,000 Donations Totalling Over $4.6 Million In 24 Hours After ObamaCare Decision Announced

June 29, 2012

Maxine Waters said to the Tea Party, “Let’s get it on!”

Well, game on, you corrupt, dishonest hack.

Admiral Yamamoto was said to have made a frightening prediction for Japan even as all of his fleet was celebrating their apparently wild success at Pearl Harbor:

“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

Obama and Democrats most certainly have a moment of success that was handed to them by Bush-appointee John Roberts.  But history amply documents that many such apparent victories turn out to be slow-moving disasters for those who celebrate them.  Not only is the ObamaCare that can now only be overturned by Republicans still wildly unpopular – and most importantly, wildly unpopular with independents to the tune of a whopping 70 percent who wanted it repealed - but it is also now officially the largest tax on the middle class in American history.  And that torpedoes Obama’s primary campagin rhetoric to be the protector of the middle class.

Then there’s also this: ObamaCare just ignited the Romney base to white-hot anger and very terrible resolve:

Romney campaign donations hit $4.6 million following health care decision
In a brief televised statement following the decision, Romney vowed that his first priority upon entering the White House would be repealing the so-called Obamacare law.
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, June 29, 2012, 1:17 PM

President Obama may have won the health care battle at the Supreme Court, but Mitt Romney is claiming a victory in the money wars.

Since the court released its stunning 5-4 decision upholding Obama’s health care law Thursday morning, the Romney campaign has taken in a flood of donations from Republican supporters angry about the ruling.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul tweeted Friday that the campaign received more than 47,000 online donations totaling $4.6 million in the 24 hours since the ruling.

The surge in small donations indicates that the decision may be an effective weapon for Republicans to mobilize conservatives for the general election.

The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more.  The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.

In 2010 enraged Americans rose up in righteous outrage over the even-then wildly unpopular ObamaCare and gave Democrats a historic ass-kicking:

[Consider] the sheer extent of the disaster Obama led the Democrat Party into: this wasn’t the worst election drubbing since 1994; it was the worst election drubbing since 1938 (and since 1928 in the state legislatures).

We also took 11 governorships.

Here is the map of that 2010 ass-kicking (red = “Democrats SUCK!”):

Well, now ObamaCare is back on the table.  You are literally voting for your very lives, people.  Time to get really, really angry again.

And now Obama is a big-time major documented liar to go with being a narcissistic sociopath:

[ObamaCare is] the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase. It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact. And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying. Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity. And you aint seen nothin’ yet. Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed. And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed. And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO. But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent. And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

This is what you will be voting for in 2012: do you want the kind of government-controlled health care system in which hundreds of thousands of elderly patients are terminated every single year just to make bed-space available as the inefficient government system crashes into chaos?  To put it into parallel terms given the population differences, 130,000 British elderly citizens euthanized every year amounts to at least 687,000 elderly Americans terminated.

Do you want 160 death panels?

Vote for Romney.  Vote for your very own life and most certainly forn the lives of your parents and grandparents.

New Obama Ad Demonizes Romney For Jobs Destroyed During Romney’s Bain Capital Days: BUT CONSIDER WHAT OBAMA DID TO 20,000 DELPHI WORKERS

May 15, 2012

Obama, thy title is “Hypocrite-in-Chief.”

Bain under Mitt Romney invested in Staples, which had 89,000 employees as of Dec. 31, 2010.  Bain under Romney invested in Sports Authority, which had 15,000 employees as of July 2011.  Bain under Romney invested in Domino’s Pizza, which has added 7,900 jobs since 1999.  And those are just three of the many, MANY companies that Bain Capital turned around or created with its investment.

Some of the jobs that Romney has claimed credit for were created several years after he left the company. But there is no question that had he not been involved when he made the investment decisions he made, those jobs never would have existed at all.

Every single one of those well-over hundred thousand jobs that Romney created ought to be counted from the very premise of the current Obama ad: because the steel company (GST Steel) that is featured in the ad lost the jobs well AFTER Romney left Bain.  To go with the fact that it’s a laugh to blame Bain for those jobs at ALL.  Mitt Romney was in fact turning around the Olympics by the time those GST Steel jobs were lost.

So now the same people who are saying Mitt Romney shouldn’t get credit for the jobs created after he left Bain are demanding that Romney be blamed for jobs that were lost AFTER he left Bain.  Because the quintessential defining essence of a Democrat is abject personal hypocrisy and abject personal dishonesty.

Interestingly, the key decision-maker at Bain Capital during those two years after Romney left and when GST Steel was closed was none other than Jonathan Lavine. Who was Jonathan Lavine?  Lavine just happens to be a major Obama supporter and bundler who raised more than $100,000 for the Obama’s reelection campaign.  But please forget that, as it is just a fact and interferes with Obama’s demagoguery.

At Steel Dynamics Romney created 6,000 jobs. Why doesn’t that matter?  Same reason it doesn’t matter that Obama’s money bundler was actually the guy who ran Bain’s dismantling of any job losses at GST Steel.  So let’s forget Steel Dynamics and focus exclusively on Obama’s bogus attack campaign.

Meanwhile Barack Obama boasts of having created millions of jobs even as in actual fact the actual number of jobs has nosedived since his presidency as accurately measured by the labor participation rate. The numbers do not lie: you can see the participation rate nosediving year by year by year under Obama. And it’s now basically the lowest ever measured.

If the same labor participation rate that Bush left office with were applied to Obama’s economy, the unemployment rate would be 11.4%.

Since those who give up looking are not included in the official labor statistics, the more workers Obama crushes into total despair, the better for his unemployment numbers.

Under Obama, 88 million working-age Americans have simply dropped out of the damn labor force altogether. It is sickening to hear Obama boast of creating jobs when he’s annihilated MILLIONS of jobs that have now simply ceased to exist.

We can rightly demand, “Where are the jobs, Obama, you liar???”

Anyway, Obama just put out a new ad attacking Mitt Romney. You need to ignore the well-over 100,000 jobs that Romney created and focus on the people who lost their jobs as a result of Romney’s work buying bankrupt and dying companies and rebuilding them.

But Obama demonizes himself by his own demonization. Consider what Obama did – you know, the guy who credits himself with saving GM – to Delphi:

The Delphi Disaster: An Economic Horror Story Obama Won’t Tell
Posted By Michelle Malkin On September 22, 2010 @ 12:21 am In FrontPage

The White House believes it can win back depressed and economically stressed voters by turning President Obama into the storyteller-in-chief again. But victims of Obama’s Chicago politics don’t want to hear any more of his own well-worn tales of struggle and sacrifice. They’ve got their own tragedies to tell — heart-wrenching dramas of personal and financial suffering at the very hands of Obama.

Consider the real-life horror story of 20,000 white-collar workers at Delphi, a leading auto parts company spun off from GM a decade ago. As Washington rushed to nationalize the U.S. auto industry with $80 billion in taxpayer “rescue” funds and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members’ costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts. In addition, the nonunion pensioners lost all of their health and life insurance benefits.

The abused workers — most from hard-hit northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states — had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees at Delphi/GM. Some workers have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish.

John Berent of Marblehead, Ohio, lost one-third of his pension: “I worked as a salaried employee for GM (30 years) and Delphi (10 years). After 40 years of dedicated service, I was forced to retire. Then Delphi terminated my health care, life insurance, vision, dental, then terminated the pension plan. Everything I worked 40 years for was wiped out.”

Kelly Fabrizio of Franksville, Wis., saw her pension reduced by 55 percent after working 30 years at Delphi/GM: “I am truly scared for my future. Every day I wake up, shake my head and say out loud — This Is Not How It Was Supposed To Be.”

Roger Hoke of Columbus, Mich., and his wife were both longtime Delphi workers. His pension shrunk by more than 40 percent: “After 33 years with GM and another 10 with Delphi, what did I do wrong to deserve such a fate?”

Paul Dobosz of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association recounts how they got screwed: “The Auto Task Force knew that the only thing standing in the way of GM getting what they wanted out of Delphi was the already frozen pension obligations.” They hatched a plan to dump those pensions on the federally run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, while at the same time “devising a clever way to make the UAW pensions whole using GM and TARP money to accomplish it.

The scheme was documented in sworn depositions (that) revealed … that some groups of workers were more ‘politically sensitive’ and would be afforded special treatment (i.e. subsidy using TARP money) while others less politically worthy would be left out.”

In other words: Obama’s team of auto-crats — stocked with Big Labor-friendly appointees and self-admitted know-nothings about the car industry — decided to “cherry pick” (one Obama official’s own words) which obligations the new Government Motors company would assume and which they would abandon based on their own political whims and fealty. Due process and equal treatment of union and nonunion workers be damned. Administration officials assert that the Delphi workers’ pension fund was underfunded, but two separate actuarial analyses undercut the claim.

The Delphi workers sued the feds and will have a day in court on Sept. 24. They are not asking for a bailout. They are simply asking for fair treatment under the rule of law. Delphi supporters also point out that the very scheme used to “top up” the union workers’ pensions with taxpayer subsidies was challenged by the federal government and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in the 1990s.

A separate investigation by TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky, announced last week, will also probe “whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees.” It shouldn’t take long to unearth the facts. Obama’s own former auto czar Steve Rattner admitted in his new memoir that “attacking the union’s sacred cow” could “jeopardize” the auto bailout deal.

While Obama conducts his worker empathy tour at staged town halls and rallies across the country, his Treasury Department continues to stonewall and refuses to answer questions about the Delphi disaster. But many workers left out in the cold know the truth: Lip-biting, yarn-spinning Obama doesn’t feel their pain. He caused it.

Twenty thousand Delphi workers lost their jobs, their pensions and their lives. And Barack Obama did it to them:

The unprecedented intrusion of the executive branch of the US government into the American auto industry when the Obama Administration orchestrated the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcy processes is now leading to unprecedented responses. Groups that were clearly discriminated against and had their rights subordinated to politically powerful unions may actually have a winnable case against our own government as lawsuits are being brought against the US Treasury Dept. and others.

The Delphi salaried retirees who saw their pension benefits disintegrate after the GM bankruptcy are now suing the US Treasury, the Auto Task Force, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and ex-Auto Task Force heads, Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom. The first hearing against the Treasury Dept. and others will occur on August 17th. The basis of the suit is that the Obama Administration wrongfully used taxpayer dollars to pick winners and losers in the GM bankruptcy. I had a conversation with one of the lead plaintiffs, Chuck Cunningham, who explained how there was blatant favoritism and discrimination in regards to pension benefits for groups that should have had equal standing.

Mr. Cunningham, who is a retired senior executive of Delphi, informed me that the Delphi salaried workers’ benefit fund was one of the highest funded plans that were taken over by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Company (an independent agency of the US government administered by Presidential cabinet members) during bankruptcy processes. Other Delphi groups whose pensions were taken over included the UAW, International Union of Electrical Workers and the United Steelworkers Union. Can you take a guess at which groups fared the best?

While the pension funds involved should have been treated equally, politically powerful cronies of the Obama Administration were favored through a process called “topping up.” Treasury instructed GM to use taxpayer money to top up pension payments for the UAW, GM salaried workers, the IUE and the steelworkers’ union while Delphi salaried workers lost the majority of their benefits. The favored groups lost none of their pension payments, courtesy of the US taxpayers, and retained health care benefits. The non-politically connected Delphi workers lost 70% of their pensions and all of their health care benefits.

A congressional committee has been investigating the unfair treatment that Delphi retirees received compared to other groups. According to Mr. Cunningham, while he was not at liberty to discuss congressional actions, the investigations will continue. Thus far, much evidence from closed-door meetings between Treasury and the PBGC has been withheld from Delphi plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also will be releasing a four page document described as a “timeline of deception.”

The American people should pay close attention to the Delphi case. The auto bailouts are an ugly chapter in American history and should be viewed as such. Actions taken by the Obama Administration were manipulative and displayed a clear plan to redistribute wealth from taxpayers and less favored groups, like GM bondholders and Delphi retirees, to politically powerful friends of Obama. The claim that these actions were taken with the sole intention of saving jobs is false as evidenced by the Auto Tasks Force’s demands to close thousands of dealerships during the process. The intentions were to save UAW jobs and reward the groups with the most political clout. In the words of former head of the Auto Task Force, Ron Bloom, they “did it all for the unions.”

When the Obama Administration presents its case that the auto bailouts were a huge success, they are relying on an arrogant assumption that the majority of voters will not be paying close enough attention to the discrimination and unethical conduct that transpired. I don’t expect that most Americans will be too concerned with the losses incurred by Delphi retirees or GM bondholders, but there is a much more important reason to be concerned. If the executive branch of our government can seize assets from any one group of individuals and redistribute the wealth as they deem fit, all Americans are at risk. Congress should be unrelenting in its investigations and America should pay attention. Most of all, the unprecedented actions that took place should never have a chance of being repeated.

Saving a sick company is like saving a cancer patient: you very often have to remove a lot of stuff in order to save the patient’s life. Just like with healthy cells infected with cancer cells, with sick companies, there are invariably more jobs than there is profitability – and you have to go in and cut out those jobs in order to bring the company back into balance so it can survive – so the company can survive and continue to employ the workers who can best support the company’s operations and bottom line.

It’s often labelled “creative destruction.”  It is simply a fact of reality.  The doctor removes part of the patient’s liver; but thank God because the entire patient would have died a lingering death if the doctor hadn’t taken out that part of the patient’s liver.

The essence of free markets is that some businesses succeed and others fail. Some jobs in failing businesses need to be preserved and others need to be cut. And the only people who abjectly refuse to understand this simple fact are communists.

If Obama’s ad against Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital has any validity whatsoever, Barack Obama himself is unfit for president by his own rhetoric and ought to resign in disgrace for what he did to Delphi workers.

Then there’s the whole issue of Bain Capital versus Obama Capital. That comparison doesn’t make Obama look good AT ALL.

On top of that you’ve got the further hypocrisy in the fact that top Obama officials worked for Bain Capital (OMB Director Jeffrey Zients).  One of Obama’s top bundlers worked for Bain Capital (former Bain managing director Jonathan Lavine).

Obama is a hypocrite, pure and simple. He is a pathologically dishonest man. This is no different from the Obama who demonized George Bush over Gitmo - only to keep Gitmo open throughout his own presidency and making himself a documented liar. This is no different from the Obama who demonized George Bush over the debt ceiling – only to not only increase the debt ceiling himself, but in fact to ram through the three highest increases in the entire history of the human race.

This is an abject liar who documents again and again that he is unfit to be president measured by his own lying rhetoric.

Barack Obama’s lies and hypocrisy are shameful and sickening. And if you support Obama, it is because you yourself are a dishonest person whose shriveled soul swims in a great ocean of hypocrisy.

‘Obama’s Approval Rating Has Hit The Lowest Level EVER In CBS News Polling’ – That’s A Quote From CBS

March 13, 2012

America won’t actually be safe until Obama sees a giant crowd of millions of Americans banging on the gates of the White House and he decides he’d better flee the country like many of the banana republic-style dictators have done before him.

March 12, 2012 6:30 PM
Poll: Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low
By Stephanie Condon

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

(CBS News) President Obama’s approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey. The drop may be partially attributable to rising gas prices.

Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.

Mr. Obama’s approval rating was 50 percent last month.

The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 12 cents over the past two weeks. The poll found that most Americans, 54 percent, believe gas prices are something a president can do a lot about.

Americans have historically felt that a president can control gas prices, though experts attribute changes to a variety of factors, many outside of a president’s control. They also felt this way when gas prices spiked during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Chart - Are Gas Prices Something the President Can do a lot About (Credit: CBS)

When asked Tuesday by CBS Pittsburgh affiliate KDKA whether he can impact gas prices, Mr. Obama said, “Understandably people are frustrated when gas prices are going up, and there are things we can do, but they’re not going to result, provide results overnight.”

The president noted that the U.S. has reduced its dependence on foreign oil under his administration and that fuel efficiency standards for cars are being raised. The administration is exploring other ways to reduce prices, but Mr. Obama said the biggest contributor to the current high prices is rumors of war in the Middle East.

“Which is part of the reason I said a couple weeks ago let’s stop with the loose talk about war,” he said. “Because a lot of what’s driving this is people’s concern and fear that there might be major disruptions in the Middle East oil markets.”

Attacks from the Republicans running to replace Mr. Obama may be having an impact on his approval rating as well. His disapproval rating has risen to 89 percent among Republicans (from 82 percent last month), and more independents now disapprove of his job performance than approve. Though Mr. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats remains high, it has dropped seven points – from 85 percent last month to 78 percent today.

Of the four remaining GOP candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has hit Mr. Obama particularly hard on high gas prices, promising on the campaign trail to bring down the price to $2.50.

Jim Ritterbusch, president of an oil trading advisory firm, told CBS News there are no quick fixes.

“It’s become somewhat of a political football,” Ritterbusch said. “But none of the candidates or the current president can flip a switch and drive gas prices down to $3 a gallon.”

Mr. Obama’s job rating on the economy remains about the same as it was last month – 39 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove.

The economy and jobs remains the most important problem facing the country today, according to 51 percent of Americans. Three in four Americans think the economy is at least somewhat bad, including 30 percent who say it is very bad.

More Americans, 30 percent, say the economy is getting better; 24 percent say it is getting worse. The public’s economic outlook was slightly better last month, when 34 percent said the economy was getting better.

Most GOP voters expect Romney nomination
Most support U.S. military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons
Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception
Poll: Romney, Santorum narrow gap on Obama
Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low

Just 20 percent of Americans feel their family’s financial situation is better today than it was four years ago. Another 37 percent say it is worse, and 43 percent say it is about the same.

While his rating on the economy is about the same as last month, Mr. Obama’s rating on foreign policy has dropped 10 points. Now, just 40 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, while 41 percent disapprove. This is the first time since the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 that more Americans disapprove than approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing handling foreign policy.

Amid speculation that Israel may consider attacking Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions, Americans are split on the president’s handling of the situation in Iran: 42 percent approve, while nearly as many – 39 percent – disapprove. Nineteen percent don’t know.

CBS Radio News’ Rob Mank contributed to this report.


This poll was conducted by telephone from March 7-11, 2012 among 1009 adults nationwide.

878 interviews were conducted with registered voters, including 301 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and six points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

As we speak, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum lead Barack Obama, according to most-reliable pollster Rasmussen:

With Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney adding to their primary wins Saturday, the latest Rasmussen poll shows both of them capable of posing a challenge to President Barack Obama in the November election.

According to Rasmussen’s poll of likely voters, the updated numbers show Romney ahead by five points in a hypothetical 2012 battle with the president. While Romney sits at 48 percent to Obama’s 43 percent, Santorum sits at 46 percent to Obama’s 45 percent. His one-point lead over Obama is Santorum’s second time ahead of the president.

Romney, Rasmussen reports, is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.

Obama’s approval index history shows a swing in his approval numbers, from 44 percent strongly approving of the president’s performance in January 2009, to 25 percent strongly approving now. The new numbers show that 44 percent strongly disapprove of the president’s performance, up from 16 percent in January 2009. Obama’s presidential approval index rating is -19.

Hopefully, this will at least shut the pie holes of the talking head fools who have asserted that “Obama is unbeatable.”

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

January 31, 2012

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers