At the beginning of 2012, Wisconsin and Germany were both suffering from the plight of compromised figureheads. In the case of Wisconsin, the figurehead is also the chief executive, whereas in Germany they are distinct offices, so the situation in Wisconsin was more intractable. Germany’s figurehead office has much less political power, so any occupant is more dependent on maintaining credibility and stature.

In Wisconsin,Scott Walker faced a petition for a recall vote. Assuming Walker is recalled, the vote would be followed by an election for the office. Even if recalled, he could be a candidate in that election. Wisconsinites could vote to recall him then conceivably vote him back into office. Because recall pertains to a duly elected incumbent, the bias in the procedure is to respect the result of the election (i.e., “elections matter”). This bias makes sense in the case of the recall movement against Walker because it was not predicated on scandal or any charge of illegality against him. The recall is not an impeachment. Rather, the movement was in reaction to a piece of legislation that Walker had supported that took away some bargaining rights of the government employees’ union. The law’s intent was to help reduce a $3 billion projected budget deficit in 2011.Walker did manage to balance the budget, with help from the law to enabled the government to save money on public employees.

                                            Opponents of Walker gather as the recall petitions are turned into the government.  
                                                                     Tannen Maury/European Pressphoto Agency

In terms of the recall, the issue is thus whether the four year term of Walker’s office as figurehead and chief executive of Wisconsin should be cut short because of disagreement with a law that Walker signed. In other words, the matter is not an impeachable offense; rather, the question is whether the popular sovereign—the people—should have the right to circumvent one of the hallmarks of a republic(i.e., representative government): the fixed term of office, which is meant to protect the officeholder from the popular passions of the moment in order to make difficult decisions. Put another way, if it were easy to recall an elected representative, none would be likely to make the difficult decisions that we look to be made for our own good. While valid from the standpoint of direct democracy, easy recall undercuts what distinguishes a republic.

In Germany,Christian Wulff was facing a vote from the legislature removing “immunity from prosecution” from his figurehead office. On February 17, 2012, with the SPD and Green parties having come out in favor of making Wulff subject to charges of improper ties to business executives, he resigned. The scandal first broke in the previous December. It gained traction not only because of the special gifts that Wulff had received while the executive of what is comparable to a county in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, one of Scott Walker’s aids was being convicted of corruption from when Walker was the executive of a county in Wisconsin (Milwaukee county). The immediate difference is that Walker was not implicated whereas Wulff was (by the Hanover prosecutor’s office). I would add that Walker could make use of the political power that came with his authority as the chief executive whereas Wulff had no such power and thus succumbed to the pressure by resigning. In both cases, the man at the top was compromised and this in turn impacted the respective states dramatically. Because of the “dual” nature ofWalker’s office, Wisconsin faced a prolonged fight over Walker in 2012 whereas German parties already settled on a new figurehead just days after Wulff resigned. It might be wise of Wisconsites to consider splitting the head office into two—one a figurehead and the other the leader of the majority party in the lower legislative chamber. Wisconsin would still be a republic.

I refer toWisconsin and Germany as states both in the sense of having a government and in being states in unions of states. That is, both republics were at the time semi-sovereign; the U.S. and E.U. taking up the rest of the governmental sovereignty, respectively. This basis of comparison is typically undercut. For instance, Nicholas Kulish of the New York Times writes of Wulff that the “scandal first emerged in December with the news that [he], while serving as governor of thestate of Lower Saxony, had taken a private loan from the wife of a wealthy friend worth about $650,000.” However, there is no such office as “governor” within Germany. The Wisconsin office of governor applied to Germany would be to combine the figurehead and chief executive (or chancellor) offices (i.e., Wulffand Merkel) of the German government. Furthermore, Lower Saxony is a Land, not a Staat. Translated into English, Land means land, region or territory whereas Staat means state. You can see how similar English is to German here. Auf Deutsch, the German regions are called Länder, nicht Staaten! Also ist es nicht richtig zu Lower Saxony “state”heissen. [so it is not correct to call Lower Saxony a state]. Lower Saxony is about thesize of a county in Montana, and Germany itself is the size of Montana. Inaddition to scale, both states (Germany and Montana) are semi-sovereign statesin unions that in turn have some governmental sovereignty. It would be utterlymisleading of a European to refer to Scott Walker as having been the governorof the state of Milwaukee in Wisconsin, but this is how Kulish describes Wulff as the executive of Lower Saxony in Germany. Dasist seltsam. (This is strange).

Germany is not in itself a United States of Europe. Nor for that matter is Britain or France, even though they are large states in the E.U. Neither for that matter is California or Texas a United States. These are all semi-sovereign republics that are member states of comparable scale (though not in population though clusters relative to the populations of the two unions) in unions also of comparable scale (and population) and with both political and economic aspects.Considering Kulish’s “report,” it is no wonder that the category mistake survives as the default. It would be more accurate of me to refer to Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron as governors (i.e., executives of states in the E.U.) than for Kulish to refer to Wulff as having been the governor of a region of one of those states. Any American state could itself have a federal system. Considering the cultural differences within Wisconsin (e.g., Madison vs. Reinlander—itself a Land or resembling the Länder along the Rein?)—not to mention Illinois and California each being incredibly diverse internally—giving the irrespective Länder some autonomy might not be a bad idea. Calling the regional or county executives “governors” andthe regions or counties themselves “states” would be utterly misleading, asboth terms refer to polities that are members of empire-level unions and yet are comparable in scale and government to independent states in the world.

In the cases of Wisconsin and Germany, correcting for the category mistake, we can say that the political risk in the credibility of Walker and Wulff being undercut or weakened in late 2011 was mitigated by the fact that both republics are states in unions of such states. In other words, Wisconsinites did not have to count only on the government of Wisconsin and Germans did not have to count only on the government of Germany. Therefore, the recall and possible prosecution were not so risky to political stability that they should not be undertaken for that reason. It turns out that category mistakes really do get in the way in political analysis, and that correcting them allows for insights that would not otherwise be possible.

Sources:

Nicholas Kulish,“German Chief Could Lose his Immunity,” TheNew York Times, February 17, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/world/europe/president-wulffs-immunity-challenged-in-germany.html

Melissa Eddy,“Merkel Backs Rivals’ Choice for President of Germany,” The New York Times, February 20, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world/europe/former-east-german-activist-nominated-as-president.html

Monica Davey, “OrganizersSay 1 Million Signed Petition to Recall Wisconsin Governor,” The New York Times, January 17, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/organizers-say-1-million-signed-petition-to-recall-gov-walker-in-wisconsin.html

Authored By The Worden Report The Worden Report

Authored By The Worden Report The Worden Report

A GOP primary contest in the newly drawn 45th Congressional District sets the four-term incumbent Mr. John Campbell, against John Webb, a former Marine and small-business owner from Rancho Santa Margarita. Heritage Action Scorecard gives Rep. Campbell a grade of 84%, and there are only two members of the California delegation with higher scores, Rep. Royce 91% and Rep. McClintock 86%. This district includes Orange County, a conservative region of California.

Orange County Republican Party Central Committee, the county’s highest official GOP body, met Monday night. One reason the meeting was standing-room only was because part of the agenda was dedicated to endorsing Republican candidates for elections this year. Out of all the endorsements given out this evening, Campbell was the only incumbent facing a challenger – Republican candidate John Webb. In the end, OCGOP Chairman Scott Baugh asked the elected central committee members to stand and record their votes, and Campbell fell short of securing the endorsement.

Political writer John Drew was in attendance of this meeting, and wrote this article. Here is an excerpt that provided me with my title.

John Webb is new to politics. He served in the United States Marine Corps and has been a California highway patrolman, and a police officer. In the private sector, John was a corporate executive with State Farm Insurance Company and currently owns and operates a successful insurance brokerage. Locally, John has become a favorite among Tea Party activists.

Rep. Campbell spoke first. He stressed his role in warning about California’s budget crisis and the significant role he played nationally in fighting against earmarks. Campbell looked nervous and a little hyper-active with his edgy, scruffy beard. Next, John Webb spoke. Webb came across as calm, friendly, self-deprecating in his humility and honesty. It quickly became obvious, however, that the most vocal members of the crowd were rooting for Webb to stop Campbell’s effort to win the endorsement of the local Republican party.

Webb, in particular, contrasted his views with Campbell’s saying that he would have voted against TARP and against allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Graciously, Webb said that he did not want to attack Campbell. He merely said that he offered a different “skill set” that was more appropriate to the new conditions faced by the Republican party and warned that voters would lose faith in the Republicans if we did not offer candidates who held tightly to strong conservative ideology.

Campbell sort of made things worse by suggesting that since he had more time to focus on issues as a member of Congress that he was the recipient of better and higher quality information than those in the audience who doubted the wisdom of his decisions.

If I had been an elected central committee member in attendance, then I would not have stood up to endorse someone after they told me how much smarter they are because they are an incumbent. In addition to the TARP vote and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” vote, Campbell also voted for “Cash for Clunkers” and Sarbanes-Oxley. John Campbell has been an outspoken critic of earmarks that only Rep. Jeff Flake surpasses him in this regard. This contest could be where an incumbent may lose in the primary; a reflection that the people want change and are going to look for strong grassroots citizens to represent them. I also believe the GOP primary winner will win in the general in this CD.

Returning to your CD frequently to hold Townhalls and providing great constituent services are factors for House members to ignore at their own peril. If you are interested in supporting John Webb, then please visit his website and donate.

Authored By Pilgrim Unified Patriots » pilgrim

Authored By Pilgrim Unified Patriots » pilgrim

-also called the Republican Primary

Authored By stix1972 Stix Blog

Authored By stix1972 Stix Blog

It’s one of President Obama’s newest catchphrases: “American Values.”  He tends to bring up in the same sentence as phrases like “pay their fair share” as it pertains to the wealthiest Americans.  This of course displays the real problem with Obama talking about American Values.  The President apparently believes that his values ARE American values. He’s very, very wrong.

Last week I outlined that, once again conservatives are still the political center in this country. Conservatism is the largest group ideologically in America, followed by moderatism and then way back in third place is liberalism.  Can anyone argue that Obama is anything BUT a liberal?  Only if one is arguing that the President is too far left to qualify as a liberal.

Redistribution of wealth via high taxes and welfare spending is not a conservative value, now is it?  No.  It’s a liberal value.

Massive Healthcare laws that require people to purchase a certain product on penalty of law is not a conservative value or a moderate value, now is it?  No.  It’s a liberal value.

Saying that the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who already pay 40% of the income taxes in this nation, aren’t paying “their fair share” is not a conservative value or a moderate value.  (It’s also not mathematically logical.) It’s a liberal value.

Requiring faith-based institutions and individuals of faith to perform abortions and other proceedures that they consider personally reprehensible is not a conservative value or a moderate value.  It’s a liberal value.

This is a small sample, of course, but it’s also very descriptive of the logical failing of this catch-phrase by the President.  Mr. Obama, you are not pushing American values, because 75% of Americans are conservative or moderate.  You are pushing LIBERAL values. You are pushing your own values.  And your values are not American values.

Authored By Christopher Bastedo Biblical Conservatism

Authored By Christopher Bastedo Biblical Conservatism

I’ve written before about how big government is enriching people in the Washington metropolitan area. This is for two reasons.

First, bureaucrats are paid too much, getting twice as much compensation, on average, as people in the productive sector of the economy.

Second, lobbyists, contractors, and interest groups have figured out how to get lucrative positions at the federal trough.

A new report from MSN Money illustrates how the political elite is getting very rich by plundering honest Americans. America has 3,033 counties, and they identified the 15 richest jurisdictions from that list.

Of those 15 super-elite counties (the top 1/2 of one percent), 10 are in the Washington metropolitan area. I’ve identified them with stars in the map.

You may be wondering, by the way, about the location of the other counties in the top 15. Well, four of them are suburbs of New York City, meaning that they are home to rich Wall Street people who mooched from the taxpayers thanks to TARP bailouts and other subsidies.

So if you really want to be cynical, you could count them as auxiliary counties of Washington, DC. That’s probably an unfair conclusion, but TARP was unfair to honest and hard-working people, so I don’t feel too guilty.

As far as I can tell, the only untarnished jurisdiction in the top 15 is Douglas County, Colorado. And given that these are the folks who are implementing a good school choice plan, it seems that we have a group of productive people who also believe in doing the right thing.

For more information about the overcompensation of bureaucrats, this video is loaded with information.

Most important of all, remember that any proposals to increase government spending will further widen the income gulf between the political elite and regular Americans. And any initiative to boost the tax burden would lead to the same result.

Authored By DanielJMitchell International Liberty

Authored By DanielJMitchell International Liberty

White House Golf Czar says new rules, once implemented, will effect fairness and scoring equality that will supplement and compliment the handicap system!

In conjunction with the book review at The Political Commentator this morning of “Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste” by Bart DePalma comes these new rules changes for golf.

New Federal Golf Regulations by P-BO himself…

Since these new golf rules will be in effect in March of 2012, please share with fellow golfers.

President Obama has recently appointed a Golf Czar and major rule changes in the game of golf will become effective in March 2012. This is only a preview as the complete rulebook (expect 2000 pages) is being rewritten as we speak. Here are a few of the changes.

Golfers with handicaps: 


- Below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%. 


- Between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees. 


- Above 18 will get a $20 check each time they play. 



The term “gimmie” will be changed to “entitlement” and will be used as follows: 


- Handicaps below 10, no entitlements. 


- Handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts. 


- Handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up. 



These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring. In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given 18-hole round.

Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes, but the term “net score” will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to “re-distribute” the success of winning by making sure that in every competition; the above 18 handicap players will post only “net score” against every other player’s gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. 

Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with ability, hard work, practice, and responsibility.

This is the “Right thing to do.”

Cartoon source

Authored By Michael Haltman The Political Commentator

Authored By Michael Haltman The Political Commentator

I play golf with Peter. Good man. A good Canadian who loves the United States and takes great interest in our politics.

I got a note from him regarding one of my recent blogs. It sparked an exchange of the kind that I relish. Friendly, civil debate. Whether anyone convinces anyone is hard to say, but differences can be narrowed and highlighted.

Here’s how it went:

Hi Tom,
I have been enjoying your recent blogs with regard to the Catholic Church and contraception. As someone looking from the outside in, however, I don’t think the Federal Gov’t's recent directions are a violation of the first amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom but simply a statement of their responsibility as a national employer under the Affordable Health Care Act.

A lot of employees are non Catholic and a majority of Catholics practice some form of birth control and would welcome coverage under their employer’s plan as mandated by their elected gov’t. It’s up to the employee to access that benefit or not.

Most people I know, seem to object to the AHCA not because of what it tries to do but because a central government is forcing people to buy insurance which runs contrary to to the idea of freedom of choice. But it’s the law, and until it’s changed, the Church should obey the law.

Also,I don’t think the introduction of contraceptives has led to rampant promiscuity in society. I think it helps couples maintain close personal relationships and when they are ready, leads to responsible parenthood.
all the best,

Peter

Peter:
First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful email. This is precisely the kind of courteous, civil dialog I hope to initiate with my blogs.

The number of Catholics using birth control is often urged as a rationale for approving the HHS mandate. But compliance with a religious doctrine does not determine its legitimacy. Nor does the fact that non complying members of a church may welcome getting something for nothing.

Would your view be the same if the government were requiring a Jewish Hospital to provide its employees with free pork chops? It seems to me that the fact that most of the employees might welcome free pork chops would not make it more comfortable to the hospital board.

Your statement that “it’s the law, and until changed, it must be obeyed” while superficially persuasive, is not actually true. In the United States, the federal constitution, by its own terms, is the supreme law of the land.

No act of Congress and no regulation by an executive agency is really “law” if it contravenes the constitution.

In our lifetime, there were statutes on the books in several states requiring Negroes to drink at separate water fountains, sit in the back of the bus and obey various other mandates of segregation. Rosa Parks, and the generation she inspired, engaged in civil disobedience as a means of protesting these regulations.

In due course, the Supreme Court of the United States set the record straight.

If a statute violates the constitution, it is not law. When the Supreme Court declares a statute unconstitutional, it does not repeal the legislation. It simply says that the words in the statute book are not, and never were, the law.

While it is true that the vast majority of Americans, both out of respect for the elected government and out of recognition of the government’s military and economic power to enforce its mandates, are reluctant to engage in civil disobedience, it is nonetheless true that resistance to an unconstitutional mandate is precisely what an oath to support and defend the constitution requires.

Your last sentence reveals that you and I have a difference of opinion about a question of fact. These are the most difficult differences for men of good will to resolve. Our understanding of facts flows from many things: personal experience, study, reading and observation. Moreover, our belief about facts is colored by our disposition.

I’m sure that you would concede that the growth pattern of illegitimate births, divorce, social diseases and all the other indicia of promiscuity would, if shown on a chart, substantially parallel the increased availability of birth control.

Still, I would have to concede that the mere concurrence of factors does not prove a cause and effect relationship.

Like global warming, it boils down to a disputed factual conclusion. In the last analysis, we are all pawns on the chess board of life. History alone will reveal the truth. Even then, historians will disagree and debate ad infinitum.
TEB

Good morning Tom,
I certainly don’t know a lot about US Constitutional law. I can only use common sense and I would think that a law as promulgated by elected representatives, is the law until the Supreme Court says it isn’t. I presume the Affordable Health Care Act is winding its way through the system and will eventually end up with the Supreme Court for a ruling. Until then it would remain intact.

Peaceful civil disobedience against an unjust law is a legitimate way of expressing discontent and bishops are voicing their disapproval of President Obama’s edict from the pulpit. But in this case, a large majority of Americans including 61% of Catholics (as polled by the NY Times last week) approve of the HHS mandate.

With regard to levels of promiscuity, it has been impacted by a number of factors including music, movies, the internet and such but I do believe “the pill” has allowed women around the world greater control of their bodies and couples a better choice in establishing a family.

Peter

Peter:
Given the political leaning of the New York Times, I have some skepticism about their polling data, especially in light of having witnessed 2,000 Catholics spontaneously and enthusiastically burst into applause when the bishop’s letter was read at Mass.

Generally, I share your respect for laws passed by elected representatives of the people. Unhappily, the mandate about birth control was not enacted by representatives of the people. The law requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services without copays or deductibles. But the law left it to the administration to decide which women’s health services to include.

It does not stretch credulity to infer that the administration decided to include birth control services for the very reason that so many women use them. That kind of decision has obvious attraction in an election year.

Whether the Congress would have passed the birth control benefit is anyone’s guess, but I doubt it would have been adopted without a fight.

According to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, the average cost of birth control is $700 per year. After all, $700 is $700, and if someone wants to give you $700, you will probably be in favor of it.

I concede that artificial birth control has made it easier for married couples to plan their families. But $700 should not be too great a price to pay for the convenience of enjoying intimacy at any time of the month.

The incumbent President of the United States presents a new twist to John F. Kennedy’s famous statement. No need to ask what your country can do for you. The country will do for you without being asked.

Authored By Thomas E. Brennan oldjudgesays

Authored By Thomas E. Brennan oldjudgesays

Authored By The Young Federalist The Young Federalist - The Young Federalist

Authored By The Young Federalist The Young Federalist - The Young Federalist

I serve this up as a reminder

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor our entire country; progressives, conservatives and ordinary citizens of no particular political persuasion,  all turned their entire attention to One Thing…

Victory over the Axis.

Our entire economy, our every waking hour, our hearts, our prayers, our finest sons all dedicated themselves to That One Thing, and history will record that for over four and half years, that dedication produced a total victory that has never been wrought before in all humankind.

True, on closer inspection a lot of people fell short, most often as not out of pursuing some personal interest, from ordinary crooks who avoided the draft just to pinch more purses to Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, who cost the Allies thousands of needless lives so as to secure himself a higher place in the annals of military history.

But just as Montgomery’s boss, and George Patton’s boss, reigned them in, keeping their eye on That One Thing, so did the full weight of the American people those ne’er do well draft-dodgers, who, by war’s end wished they had been better citizens.

We have to match that sort of focus this year. We’re not there yet.

But I have to remind you the Left in general and Obama in particular also want… That One Thing. And today they are more like the Japanese were on December 8, 1941, proud and arrogant, and not like they were after Midway, limping home after their navy had been destroyed by a sleeping giant.

It’s important that we pay attention to what it is, That One Thing, Obama most wants, for it defines virtually everything he does.

Domestically, Obama has a coalition in which each of the constituencies have a different idea of Victory, That One Thing. Today they’re talking about victory over (silencing) the Christians. But last week they were talking about victory over  corporate polluters, and before that victory over Wall Street by the Occupy Movement. A year ago it was victory over benign Arab dictators. And never forget that forever and a day black (and lately, Latino) plantation overseers are still out there pitching for victory over a racism that hasn’t existed for forty years.

None of these constituent groups will likely achieve the victory they dream of, and the list is endless as to how many constituencies there actually are and how many different (and even contradictory) victories they want.

But don’t let this encourage you, for while it’s true that down at the touchy-feely front lines of all these various left-leaning groups, who ain’t none too bright, trust me at the top of each group the differences in what is and what is not Victory is very narrow. They all share one common link to Victory.

They are generally on the same page, as we saw from the unions who put up a false (but artful) rebuff of Obama’s denial of the Keystone pipeline. The unions know that a sudden turn in good economic fortune, both in labor and oil, may deny them all That One Good Thing they have been working and waiting for for years.

Barack Obama is the titular head of this coalition. He’s Churchill, Ike, FDR, Stalin (heavy on the Stalin), even de Gaulle, all rolled into one. But as I said, he’s titular. I still am unwilling to say he’s the brains behind this. In fact, I seriously doubt it.

And we don’t know what That One Thing Is. We know it is total control, and control that cannot be easily (or constitutionally wrested away) but what That One Thing that brings this about is still a mystery which we need to be aware of at all times.

In concrete terms, we can surmise a great deal many things just in all the things Obama has postponed simply because of it. For him, That One Thing must occur first.

His dawdling over first the surge in Afghanistan, then slow support for the Libyan al-Q..er Freedom-loving rebels, then his stalling while Christian churches were burned and now Americans held hostage by the same people he helped put into power, are all because of That One Thing.

That he will take no real action, postpone and postpone, against the clear threat of Iran is also because of That One Thing he’s waiting for.

So it’s easy to see, even on matters that require immediate and forceful resolve, such as Iran and its nuclear ambitions, and its spike in European oil sales, which will trickle over into US gas prices at the pump, Obama must still waver. Obama’s foreign policy, from hugging China to kissing Putin’s arse, to bowing to every monarch and graven image the Dadaists will put in front of him, he must continue to wait for That One Thing.

What That One Thing Is, I have a guess, and I assume it is domestic in nature. Of course it will cement his (or his sponsors’) power, but how, when, or where…the financial/currency sector, or political sector, winning the election, or a favorable court ruling on Obamacare, I can’t say.

But I also know Obama has a Plan B.

I just know that all Obama’s plan, whether his own, or the plan of some super-smart overseer (which Obama is not) is directed at postponing, as in Iran, any tip of his hand until That One Thing becomes irreversible.

His re-election is paramount in our minds and that may be That One Thing in Obama’s mind as well. But I doubt it. I’m only 50/50 that he doesn’t have other benchmarks, unseen to us, but it is clear his re-election will allow him to use dictatorial powers regardless of the make-up the Congress, especially considering the fecklessness of the GOP in Congress in repelling him, or at least calling him out, the past three years.

(Mssrs McConnell and Boehner: You just don’t realize that when someone who sees everything in terms of That One Thing, and all others things revolve around it, how much wrecking you can do simply by disturbing the timetable of That One Thing.)

Of course we all know that That One Thing will eventually lead to…

My advice is that you watch and analyze and compare notes. What’s the reason he did this? Why did he do that? Why did he not do that? There are simple answers if you understand That One Thing’s existence. (This is far more therapeutic  than outrage and commiseration, in my view and I’ll speak of this more later in other contexts.)

Just know, they are all waiting for That One Thing.

But Obama, I think, has his own personal One Thing, apart from any purely political achievement, and that is getting even.

Never forget, V is also for Vendetta.

Authored By Vassar Unified Patriots » vassarbushmills

Authored By Vassar Unified Patriots » vassarbushmills

There is joke that the GOP is called the Stupid Party.   In reality it is an accurate name for the Republican Party.

(This may piss some people off, and please forgive the ramblings, but this was a post a long time coming)

Insanity is “doing the same thing and expecting a different result”.   And what has the GOP done the past few elections, the same things over and over again.  We have the “Next In Line Candidate, The Social Conservative Candidate and the rest of the field”.  And inevitably it comes down to one of the Next in Line  or Social Conservative.  Which leaves a lot of people wondering why they are even in the party when they thought it was suppose to be the party of limited government and personal responsibility.

The Circus that is called the GOP primary this year has been one of the craziest things I have ever seen.  First we started off with someting like 12 candidates, some people may not have heard of some of the candidates.   The amount of vitriol and total lack of decorum in this primary has been insane.  We had the Bimbo eruptions made against Herman Cain, and actually helped to be spread by some in the GOP.  The only one that stood up for Cain was Newt.   (BTW, where have all these females gone, I have not seen any of them on TV anymore.)  Next we got the debacle put on by the MSM.  Why in the world would they expose themselves to the tactics by the MSM during their primaries.   And this year has been the “whack a Mole) primary.  Whoever was on top was bashed by all, well except Mittens, he is the inevitable one.

And now we have widdled down to 4 viable candidates.  First the Next in Line candidate is Mitt Romney (Mittens).  Of of his main legislation victories in Mass was his Romneycare , which has the GOP up in arms. He has the support of all the DC elite and established GOP apparatus.   Next we got the Social Conservative in Santorum (Vesty).  He would be a half way decent candidate if he would leave some of his Fire and Brimestone rhetoric at home on the Stump.   But he has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and scare the hell out of the Independents that are needed to win in Nov.  And all the others that would be called Conservatives are already gone except Newt Gingrich (Newtzilla).   (IMO he has the best chance of winning)  He has the distinct pleasure of being a thorn in the ass of Clinton in the 90s and to much of his credit, moved Clinton to the right on many issues.  But he has had 3 marriages, sat on a couch with Pelosi in a commercial about Manbearpig.  Last but not least is the (Ross Perot) type of candidate in the GOP.  Ron Paul (the Ronulan).  He has many good ideas about the economy, a little bit over the top, but has the right ideas in general.   But on Foreign Policy, he is to the Left of Obama.  He scares the Hell out of almost all in the GOP, except his culltish following of Ronulans.

So where does that leave us?

Well as of now, Santorum is in the lead in most polls, but has not gotten the Mitten Brigade id smears against him in full swing.  I can see that there will be more and more dirt and smears against Santorum in the near future.  Next we got Mittens, who has had a scorched Earth campaign and really has not run on his record, but he is out tpo destroy his opponents.   Next we go Newt,who was in the lead and was running a positive campaign and going after the real enemies, Obama, the MSM and the Left, but got side tracked by the onslaught of smears by Mittens and his smear brigade.  Next is the Ronulan who will recieve about 15% of his cult following and scares off the rest of  most Americans

As in true form, the GOP is falling for the MSM’s Social Conservative Culture War and pushing Santorum to the top of the race.  The GOP does this all the time and it falls right into the hands of the Left and portrays the GOP as a bunch of Knuckle Dragging Religious Nuts.  When will the GOP learn that they need to control the narrative in their primaries and not let the MSM and the left control it.   We get mired down into wedge issues that will only cause more people to go for Obama instead of focusing on fiscal issues which is on most people minds, not contraceptives (I will give Obama props in his forcing this issue on us though.  Bravo Obama well played).

As I see it, we are having 2008 Redux and just the names have changed.  In 2008, we had Huckabe as the Social Conservative, this year it is Santorum.  In 2008 we had McCain as the Next in Line, and this year it is Mittens.  WE had The Fred as the Grassroots candidate in 2008, and Heman Cains was this years.   Both of them bowed out early and left the grassroots searching for someone else.  And Mittens was the more Conservative alternative in 2008 (that is not saying much with the field we had) and this year it is Newt.  And Ron Paul plays the crazy Uncle Curmudgeon in both years.  In this scenario, I only see another victory for Obama in 2012.  The GOP has a way to shoot itself in the foot and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In other words:

feature pic By Tania Gail [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Authored By stix1972 Stix Blog

Authored By stix1972 Stix Blog