I touched on this a bit in a previous post, but thought I’d elaborate on a couple of the candidates that the liberal media and establishment pundits alike, and supposedly even the White House, feel obliged to direct us to as the “serious” GOP candidates. Notice the first two that we’re supposed to believe are the most formidable contenders, the greatest threats to Obama: former US Ambassador to China/Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels…
Now, why would you’re opponent, in politics, in sports, in anything, tell you which of your ‘players’ he fears the most? Hmm…might I suggest he would NOT?! Might I even go as far to suggest that he’d tell you that the person he fears the most is actually the least threatening? Perhaps to throw you off, maneuvering to pick your nominee, to tell us who the White House wants to run against?
“Now, we know that Jake Tapper is not gonna be voting for either of those two guys, do we not? We know that Jake Tapper is not gonna be voting for Newt. We know that Jake Tapper is not gonna be voting for Ron Paul or Herman Cain, Romney, or Huckabee. He's not gonna be voting for a Republican, right? He's gonna be voting for Obama. So they really expect us to believe that the names they give us in response to this question are serious? They're really honest about this?”
Why are they really worried about Huntsman? Because of his centrism and bipartisanship? Oh, how ‘formidable’…almost as formidable as McCain!
“The media and the Democrats want to pick our nominee. You know what they know? They know that there are a lot of conservative Republicans who desperately hope that someday before they die the media will respect them. You know this is true.
There are people on our side who desperately hope that before they die the media will give our side a fair shake. And that's what they're playing on. They're hoping that this is one of those rare moments where the media is being truthful.”
And to inform us of these WH picks on the very day that the first “major serious” candidate, so we’re also told, announces his run for the presidency…
So while it’s a good sign that Newt didn’t make the White House pick, he’s definitely got some obstacles of his own to overcome. And I’m not talking about his personal life; I’m focused on his statements and actions that would contribute to policy decisions. I like to think of these instances as ‘good Newt/bad Newt’. The above announcement is definitely ‘good Newt’. Here’s an example of ‘bad Newt’ falling for bogus climate change science enough to make a commercial with Nancy Pelosi…
Another example, perhaps? Ok, in anticipation of the anniversary of Reagan’s 100th birthday, many books were released. One of those praiseworthy books was Newt Gengrich’s Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny. What’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. However, just a few years prior, a heated debate arose between Limbaugh and Gengrich over the direction of the Republican Party following George W. Bush’s term:
GENGRICH: “…I think there's nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining -- as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine -- the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.”
LIMBAUGH: “I don't know this. It's just a wild guess, but based on this comment, "The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We're at a point in time we're about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking..." Yes, they are. Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are. One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that? That's not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. It's what the Democrat Party had been.“
The next day, further elaborations ensued , which can be briefly browsed over HERE. Can people change? Of course they can, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Newt Gengrich is probably one of the most articulate and charismatic contenders to take on an Alinskyite like Barack Obama. But these few examples give us reason for pause and concern when diving head first into a Gengrich backing. If he can reasonably explain these instances to conservatives, satisfactorily acknowledging that ‘they didn’t seem as the sounded’ or ‘didn’t appear as they looked’, or better yet ‘he’s had a change of heart’ then perhaps we can move on from there, but that’s going to be a tough task to genuinely perform. The same can be said of about Romney, who has a genuine opportunity to say “I was wrong” about Romneycare. But I have a hard time believing either will take this route.
Not to just make this all about Gengrich, I’d like to share a little bit of a conversation that I had with a friend in the media addressing my concerns with Mitch Daniels:
I'm supposed to feel comfort in a man whose words and deeds either don't match or don't align with what I know to be 'conservative'? I'm to trust that Daniels will walk the walk, even though he doesn't talk the talk? We're supposed to trust that which has betrayed us before?
He called a 'truce' on social issues, but then makes a right move as he just did with defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana. Good move. BRAVO! I commend him for that move. But is this genuine or convenient politics to make up for his previous statement? I honestly don't know. No one can answer that but Daniels himself.
It discomforts me that after meeting with a small group journalist and pundits (mixed, but more left than right), the consensus of lefties were "“If we have to have a Republican…this one seems like he’d be better than the others.” And let's not forget that Krauthammer and Will LOVE the guy, which tells me right off the bat that he's not Reaganesque!
Here's an instance where he seeks to support liberal policy: Daniels appears fine with taking an ax to defense spending. While I would concede that there's considerable things to cut everywhere; yes, even in defense spending, this is not the one to take the chainsaw to, particularly in today's world. Daniels has called for “massive cuts” to defense spending, but seems to guess on the particulars: “When I was OMB Director, it was $300 bn per year. Now it’s what, $800 bn per year?” (The answer is: $513 bn in FY2011, as a part of a total $673 bn ($513 bn +$160 bn) total military budget. The FY2010 defense budget was $550 bn in today’s dollars.) Likewise, on foreign policy, he says he's a "water's edge" kind of guy, and would consult with Lugar, his admitted 'mentor', over McCain on foreign policy matters. Lugar, a guy that's run interference for Obama on foreign policy issues such as the Russian appeasement of New START. But backing up to either of those choices of Lugar or McCain...are either of those 'serious' choices?
Daniels also supports the 'more revenues' ideals (I believe higher taxes are a liberal policy). Our problem is not that we need more revenues; the problem is that we need less spending! In an Al Hunt interview, he said "Yes" to net tax increases through closing preferences. Sounds like he's back on the VAT tax kick!
I'm not saying that the other guys are better or worse than Daniels...but I'm not ready to throw all my support behind the guy either based on some of the things he says or does. If the establishment is ga-ga over him, I'm immediately suspect.
So all of this seems to leave me with the same general question: is the media establishment simply informing us, or, as I suspect, coaxing us into the call that the RINOs cometh? I know that’s not gonna sit well with everyone, but I can’t seem to shake this feeling. Let me just leave you with this thought-provoking idea that is shared by many, but only the Maha-Rushie can give it voice:
So we just had the call from Indianapolis. "I don't want Daniels! He's just another McCain. We lost big with McCain."
I asked him, "Well, okay. Why would these people, why would these RINOs and so forth, nominate another loser? If they know that McCain lost, why would they go the route again?" I'll give you the answer -- and I've mentioned this on a number of occasions. It's hard for you to believe (you don't want to believe it), but the Republican establishment has people in it who dislike conservatives as much as the Democrat liberal establishment dislikes us. The Washington establishment's a big clique. Actually, you know, it's a very small clique -- and that's what makes it exclusive. That's why so many people want to be part of it. including people on our side.
It is, maybe, the ultimate club, to be an accredited, accepted member of -- and there are certain things that you have to be and do in order to be accepted into that clique. And one of the things that you have to have, there can be no doubt about you, is you must be believable when you disparage conservatives. We are the big enemy. I don't care if it's the Democrat establishment you're talking about or the Republican establishment, mainstream conservatives are the enemy. They dislike us almost as much as the left does.
Now, look again at the attacks on Sarah Palin, from so-called Republicans, from RINOs, from the establishment -- or, for that matter, their attacks on any unvarnished conservative candidate. What do they say about them? "Palin? She's unelectable. Unelectable." They'll say it about any number of conservatives. "Unelectable!"
That's the keyword -- "unelectable" -- and then they cite each other. Columnist A will cite Columnist B, who will cite Blogger C, who will then agree with Blogger Z, and you've got a giant circle of you-know-what going on with all the smartest people in the room writing for each other, to each other, using each other's phrases, impressing each other that their minds are unique and alike.
Oh, they'll occasionally have arguments over who cited something first or who came with some point of view first or what have you, but for the most part... You've read these blogs. You know what I'm talking about. The irreplaceable blogger name. "Yesterday in a post (that nobody saw) by the irretrievable, unmistakable, couldn't do without (name the blogger)" and then they write about each other this way, and they all get themselves worked up into a lather about the same things -- and the RINOs have, as their first mission, to defeat conservatives in the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan knew it; nothing's really changed, which is why those people were out there saying the era of Reagan is over.
But have you ever heard them say, "The era of Gerald Ford is over"? Have you? You haven't. You've never heard them say, "The era of Gerald Ford is over," or, "The era of Bob Dole is over." In fact, you will not hear them say, "The era of John McCain is over." So that's the answer to the question, and that's what we're up against -- and it matters, because how we deal with what we all know the Obama campaign's gonna be will be crucial in defeating Obama.
