Does history repeat itself? I fervently hope not.

Ok, I have grudgingly thrown my support behind Mitt Romney. It’s not that I am excited about Romney as a candidate, but I am genuinely excited about the need to get Obama out of office before he does irreversible damage to this country. But, here is where I see a problem:

In one corner, we have a radical Marxist/Progressive, with little to no understanding of human nature and economics, who is on a tear to totally transform society to fit a bankrupt utopian ideology. In the process, he destroys jobs, strips companies of investment capital, destroys human capital, demonizes success, romanticizes failure, takes command of and promptly ruins entire segments of the economy, undermines the Constitution, blatantly disregards the law and does his very best to bankrupt the country while redefining entire segments of the population as dependent wards of the state.

In the other corner, we have a square-jawed, well-coiffed, highly intelligent, erudite and successful businessman who made his mark in an industry demonized and under constant assault by the President. Formerly a Liberal, he now claims to be a Conservative, although large swaths of the Republican party refuse to accept his supposed conversion to conservatism as sincere. He is a nice, rational man who believes in using soft-spoken discourse to sway people and find common ground. Rather than go on a blistering attack in support of the capitalist, free-enterprise economy, he ends up trying to placate the population with his moderation and management credentials, while fending off internal strife within the Republican Party between those that promote strong advocacy of conservative principles and those seeking an accommodationist “middle way”. In many ways, he remains tone deaf to how others perceive him to be and how they react to his awkward choices of words.

This man of whom I speak was Wendell Willkie. He ran against FDR in 1940 and got creamed by 5 million votes. Now, I realize there are many differences between then and now, but take a look at these photos below and please tell me they don’t suggest a spooky echo of the past.

Wendell Willkie

Mitt Romney

Yay, there’s another Sarah Palin in American politics.

Mia B. Love – mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah.

Those of you that have read my posts and comments (whether you agree or disagree) know that I am a huge Sarah Palin fan. Frankly, there is a certain breed of all-American women that I hugely admire in this country – those descended from the same character stock that stood side by side with their men, gun in hand, ready to fight to the death for their families. This is the type of person that Sarah Palin typifies: strong, confident, articulate with a clear sense of…common sense.

Now, in Utah, we see that Sarah Palin is hardly alone. In fact, she may have paved the way for a new, assertive voice of American women in politics. Here is Mia Love…watch the video, imagine Liberal-Lefty heads exploding, then read the link (h/t Powerline Blog)

Click here to view the embedded video.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/mia-b-love-a-conservative-political-star-rises-in-utah/

Let a million Palins bloom! We may yet win this country back.

Besides, I think Allen West could use some help.

Thoughts during a busy day:

Idle thought 1:  I want to have Mewt Gingney for my candidate.  Newt Gingrich is a completely principled conservative with, in his past at least, an unprincipled private life.  Mitt Romney is an unprincipled conservative with, from the past to the present, what appears to be a completely principled private life.  Separately, each is an imperfect candidate.  Combined into one super Republican . . . well, wow!   If I have to pick one, though, I’d go for Newt, since I’m voting for president, not husband.

Idle thought 2:  My mother is not well, and I was at her bedside entertaining her.  In keeping with my belief that laughter is the best medicine, I read to her two of my favorite funny posts (here and here), both of which happen to be written by military types.  It occurred to me that, while many in our military have extremely well-developed senses of humor, the same cannot be said for the Occupy crowd.  Have any of them said anything funny?  (Intentionally funny, I mean, not insanely stupid that makes one feel as guilty as if one laughed at a mentally disabled person for an inadvertent joke.)

Idle thought 3:  People often try to figure out what it is about the West that made it zoom ahead of all other cultures.  I’d like to suggest a trigger for the economic and intellectual explosion:  banking.  Being able to transport money easily and, even more importantly, being able to rent it, unleashed enormous creative, exploratory and commercial energy.  It’s rather striking, isn’t it, that the Occupy movement is directed at destroying banks. In other words, the attack really isn’t against just banks.  The attack is at the core of Western intellectual energy and civilization.

I’ll be the first to admit that banks are royal pains in the butt (I’m still sweating from the effort I had to make to assemble the 200 pages of documents I needed to apply for a re-fi), but I’m more inclined to blame controlling Democrat legislation for this insanity than the banks themselves.  Banks should be policed for fraud and corruption, but otherwise, they — and we — function best in an open market.

Idle thought 4:  I wasn’t in a rush to judgment regarding the Cain sexual harassment allegations, since such claims were a dime a dozen in the 1990s.  As the story develops, though, two thoughts occur:  if he did it, better we know now than later; and regardless of whether or not he did it, his and his team’s response to the story is appalling, which should concern us regarding his readiness for any upcoming fight directly against Obama.  I like Cain, personally, but I have strong doubts about whether he’s ready for prime time.  I’d rather see his flame burn out now than in October 2012.

Anything you guys would like to add to my list of idle thoughts?

The Obama administration is headed for a big showdown with judicial accountability next year. Let’s look at the dance list thus far:

1. The “Fast and Furious” gunwalker scandal, involving potential collusion from the top of our government to funnel automatic weapons and explosives to drug cartels operating within and actively undermining a friendly government. Democrats lied, people died.

2. Solyndra: potential crony capitalism whereby more-than half a billion dollars of public monies disappeared and remain unaccounted for within a private company, actively supported by Obama administration officials, that went bankrupt. Who benefited? Where did that money go?

3. Lightsquared: a privately held company in which the President of the United States was a shareholder, that potentially benefited from tainted government testimony to implement a technology that may have put our defense systems at great risk.

Something tells me there will be other scandals to surface as well.

Put it all together and the Obama Administration may find itself in a maelstrom next year… just before election time.

As even major media outlets are acknowledging, this reeks of crony capitalism and the “Chicago Way”. Unfortunately, I fear that the details will go over the heads of most Americans, many of whom would prefer to avoid the facts altogether and worry about their personal economic lives.

Here’s my dilemma: if real crimes were committed, there has to be accountability. If not, crony capitalism and 3rd world corruption will become the new norm and, as Bookworm pointed out, we will inevitably evolve into a fascist state. However, to have accountability, we would need impeachment hearings to get out the truth.

The atmospherics for this would be terrible.

I suspect that most Americans are still emotionally and mentally exhausted from the Clinton impeachment hearings. Now, in the midst of a depression (let’s not kid ourselves otherwise) and a world spiraling into a new round of economic disasters and global conflicts, the American electorate would again be subjected to the divisive, gut-wrenching politics of impeachment hearings involving America’s first black president and attorney general.

Whether or not the Obama administration skates or we engage in impeachment hearings, I see either scenario as lose-lose-lose: for the Democrats, for the Republicans and for the country. We would end up at each others throats and it could tear our country apart.

Does anyone else see it differently? If so, please enlighten me, because I find this prospect to be so very depressing…either way.

Apparently the passions that burned in voters’ breasts in 2010 have yet to burn themselves out in 2011.  In a very Jewish district (Jews!  The Democrat stalwarts!) Republican Bob Turner took over Anthony Weiner’s seat (although I hope he disinfects it well before he sits down on it).

This election bodes well for 2012, to which I say Thank God!  Strong though she is, I don’t think that America can handle too much more Progressive governance.

Your opinions, reactions, comments, jokes, whatever, on this election and the big one in 2012 are welcome here.

Ace has an excellent post up today about the way in which the media invariably frames Democratic and Republican victories:  when Democrats win, Americans are intelligently embracing the Democrat agenda; when Republicans win, Americans are acting irrationally, operating from fear, or failing to understand the virtues of the Democrat agenda.  As Ace says:

I’d be curious to ask a media type — put Anderson Cooper on the spot, say — if he could name a single election in which Republicans won in which he’d say the public embraced Republican policies, and weren’t simply reacting emotionally to a “flawed Democratic candidate” (Kerry, Gore) or a “poor messaging campaign” (the 2010 midterms) or having “a temper tantrum” (the 1994 Republican capture of Congress).

I don’t think they’d confess that even with Reagan, who is long dead and therefore safe for the Democrats to praise. But the media would say the public was simply reacting to the poor economic and foreign policy record of Jimmy Carter, rather than affirmatively choosing the Reaganite policy prescriptions.

Think about it:  in Media Land, it is impossible for a Republican victory to be the product of a principled ideological stand.  Republicans never win.  It’s simply that, sometimes, Democrats lose.  The default setting in Media Land is a Democrat victory.

I actually know a lot about what I call “negative decision making,” since it’s how I ended up becoming a lawyer.  Growing up, I always knew that I was going to get a PhD in history.  My tenure at Berkeley changed that certainty, for several reasons.  First, with a few rare exceptions, the history professors at Berkeley were so dreadful, I simply couldn’t see any virtue in making a history professorship a career goal.  Second, having hated my years at Berkeley, the thought of seven more years in academia left me cold.  Third, in my senior year at Berkeley, rumor had it that there were only four openings for college level history professors in the entire United States.  Paying to study for seven more years, merely so I could end up unemployed, seemed like a pretty poor bargain to me.  I decided then and there to keep history as my hobby (which I’ve done, with pleasure), and cast about for something else to do with my life.

This is where I began the negative decision making.  Having no idea what to do with myself, since the loss of my lifelong dream created a large vacuum in my head, I promptly entered into a passive-aggressive decision-making strategy.  I signed up for a Stanley Kaplan LSAT course.  Understand, though, that while this seems like an affirmative act, I wasn’t actually planning at that time to take the LSAT.  My thinking, instead, went along these lines:  “If I enjoy the LSAT class, maybe I’ll take the test.”

As it happened, I enjoyed the Kaplan class a great deal, as I learned all sorts of interesting test-taking techniques.  So, I signed up for the LSAT itself.  I didn’t have any plans for law school.  Instead, I said to myself, “I’ll take the LSAT test and, maybe, if I do well, I’ll apply to law school.”

Having learned all those cool techniques at Stanley Kaplan, I did very well on my LSATs.  By this time, I was well along the law path, despite the fact that I hadn’t yet decided I wanted to go to law school or be a lawyer.

As you can guess, after the LSATs, my next step was, “I guess I’ll apply to law school.  If I get in, maybe I’ll go.”  I ended up getting accepted to several law schools, most of which I couldn’t afford.  Fortunately, I had the good sense to choose The University of Texas at Austin, which I could afford, and which was a delightful place to be a law student.

I spent the next three years partying, studying, and promising myself that, if I graduated, I’d think about getting a job as a lawyer.  By this time, of course, the career tide was inexorable.  I eventually spent the first four years after my graduation working, quite unhappily, for a couple of prestigious law firms.  Only when I’d reach the nadir of professional misery did I finally take an affirmative stance:  I went into business for myself.  No money, but I’d finally found my way and worked very happily for more two decades.

The point behind my long autobiographical narrative is that I really understand passive, negative decision-making — and I can say with some assurance that this is not what voters routinely do.  Certainly there is a craving for something new (or, more accurately, a desire to escape from the old) every four years, and even more strongly every eight years.  For the most part, though, voters are actively heading towards something.  Having tried Carter-esque malaise and high taxes, they affirmatively seek out Reagan joie de vivre and lower taxes.  Eight years of Clintonesque corruption resulted, not a in a running away from Clinton, but in a running towards the wholesome George Bush.  In 2010, voters weren’t just repulsed by the Democrat spending spree, they were actively seeking politicians who promised to close the checkbook and hide the pen.

My hope — although the American voters have been erratic of late — is that, in 2012, voters, having tired of Obama’s and the Democrats’ profligacy, whining, national security weakness, etc., will not only reject them, but will embrace strong Republican/conservative candidates.  This will not be passive.  Passive behavior would see voters sitting out the election entirely or throwing away votes on useless third party candidates.  2012 will be active:  having learned a very painful lesson since 2006, when the Democrats took over Congress, voters will be ready to embrace, enthusiastically and intelligently, the Republican alternative.  (And don’t tell me this is a pipe dream.  I need my dreams.)



We’ve skirted this topic before in Bookworm Room, but never really plunged into it: If you could plan the GOP’s 2012 campaign against Obama, what themes and visuals would you bring into it? This assumes you have a big war chest and carte blanche regarding the many embarrassing and critical things you can bring up about The One. The only restriction is that you cannot attack the man’s person or family, only his actions and policies. (Well, OK, Michelle’s hi-calorie scarf fests are fair game.)

• What would be a great slogan (or series of slogans) that quickly defines the approach the GOP should take to unseating  Obama?
• What groups or voting blocs should the GOP especially aim at, and what would be the specific message(s) directed at them?
• What are some photos or videos that you would fold into the campaign?
• How much humor would you inject, and what would be some examples of that humor?
• What would be your preferred media? TV? Newspapers? Radio? Social networks? (Speaking of social networking, how would you use Twitter and Facebook to dismantle the Cult of Obama?)
• A related question: How would you handle the expected refusal of the mainstream media to accommodate some—or even many—of your ads? How would you get around them?

It may be, given the range of good minds here, that we could come up with some ideas worth passing on to the GOP. And just to hedge our bets, given the GOP’s almost reflexive cowardice, we could also pass them on to the Tea Party and conservative 527s.

Get a room full of conservatives together, and one of the things that they’ll talk about is potential Republican candidates.  I can tell you that, last night, many were enthused about the thought of Rick Perry jumping in.  Others dreamed of a Jeb Bush candidacy.  The current “frontrunners” — Mitt, Mitch, Tim, etc. — did not inspire much enthusiasm.  Interestingly, there was a lot of hostility to Daniels, who we mostly seemed to view as weak in his principles and suspect in his personality.

UPDATE:  Erick Erickson says Perry’s really, truly, really, absolutely not running.  Bummer.  Here’s the deal:  I’m not thrilled about Mitch Daniels, but if he’s the candidate, I’d vote for him as opposed to Obama.  I’d vote for Homer Simpson as opposed to Obama.

Since I’m in California, which has always been a late primary state, and since California is now switching to open primaries anyway, it’s always hard for me to get very excited about primaries.  The fact is that I never feel I really have any say in them, since the front runners are already decided by the time the primaries get here.  I may like or dislike potential candidates, but I observe them rather passively, at least until the race’s outlines start to tighten up.

The current crop of candidates hasn’t given me much of a buzz.  I’ve always liked Romney’s intelligence and competence, but RomneyCare means I wouldn’t bet on him to win.  His robotic talking style doesn’t help either.  Ron Paul’s domestic libertarianism is becoming more attractive to many, but his foreign policy stands are not going to be hawkish enough for a people feeling besieged.  Mitch Daniels is playing Hamlet (an arrogant Hamlet, but Hamlet nevertheless), which is not endearing.  I haven’t been following him closely enough to know whether I like his policies or not.  Tim Pawlenty — well, I don’t know.  He’s awfully likeable, and pretty solidly conservative, but I don’t know if he has what it takes in a telegenic age.  But again, I’m being very vague right now, because I’m still not paying that much attention.  Newt?  No.  I can’t put my finger on it but, even aside from all the baggage, he simply doesn’t work for me.  Chris Christie?  I like him.  I like him a lot.  I think he’s an extraordinary speaker, and he’s shown that he’s a Happy Warrior with great political courage.  I’m worried, though, about the stories indicating ties to Islamists.  I’d like to see that develop before I embrace him as a candidate.  Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio?  Love ‘em, but I truly don’t see them running.

And then there’s Herman Cain.  Up until about half an hour ago, I didn’t know too much about him, other than that he’s got a business background, solid conservative chops and a witty speaking style.  A half hour ago, though, I read Robert Costa’s Introducing Herman Cain, over at National Review.  An article like that makes you sit up and go “Wow!”  The man’s values and life history — his drive, his solid (as opposed to Marxist) education, his political consistency, etc. — are all very appealing.

I know that people are going to point to his outsider status — no political office, ever — as a problem, but his executive experience strikes me as equally valuable to what Obama brought to the White House.  As you may recall, Obama brought a failed social activist history (the dismal Annenberg Challenge), a part-time teaching job, and some senatorial experience that saw him voting present a whole lot of the time.  If Cain has the wisdom to surround himself with experienced political operatives, I’m sure he can do every bit as well compared to Obama as an executive, and probably much better.

I’m not jumping on the Cain bandwagon.  I’m just looking at the Cain bandwagon.

Since many of you have already started studying the potential GOP candidates much more closely than I have.  I’d really like your opinions about all of the potential conservative candidate (whether they’re touted as GOP candidates or Third Party candidates).  In fact, if your opinion has a lot of substantive information, both facts and your own opinions, I’ll probably elevate it to a post at Bookworm Room.  I may be passive out here in California, but I know a lot of you are in states where it matters.

UPDATE:  Can you believe that I forgot Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann?  The fact is that, while I admire both, even in a new media age I don’t see either surviving the unleashed savagery of the old media.  Independent voters will be so swamped with vicious lies that it will leave them with biases at a subliminal level.  I just don’t see either a Palin or a Bachmann candidacy working.

Also, I forgot to ask for you opinion about running mates.  For example, I see Cain as a strong domestic leader, but not a strong foreign policy guy.  Would it work to pair him with John Bolton or Gen’l Petraeus?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.

Jack Davis put himself on the ballot in the New York-26 special election as the Tea Party election.  If you are in that district, please beware the he is a fraud.  He is either trying to capitalize on Tea Party popularity, or he is an imposter deliberately trying to destroy the Tea Party brand.  As this post explains, every one of his stands is antithetical to what the Tea Party stands for.  He is a spoiler.  Ignore him.