Understanding The Current Primary

January 31, 2012

Read this entire piece by Jeff Lord at AmSpec. There is mush much wisdom in it. So much so, it's difficult to pull just one quote. How about what Gerald Ford thought of Ronald Reagan?

Writes DeFrank of what Ford really thought: Translation: The thought of Ronald Reagan becoming my party's nominee makes me want to puke.

I've been accused of being a nut for Newt, a panty-waist for Palin 3 years ago, and any other number of things because of conservatives I have backed over the years. Those attacks come from GOP establishment types and clueless "conservatives" who latch on to the word as a brand name with no appreciation for what it actually means to be one. The GOP has co-opted the word until it's almost meaningless.

Jennifer Rubin a conservative? Ha! The nitwit doesn't even know what she is, aside from thinking she's smart. Politically, she's a functionally retarded Leftist re-tread, as are a number of would be conservatives writing under the word today. But I digress.

Newt, Palin, Perry, Santorum, the people mean nothing to me in a particular political sense. It is what they stand for that I fight. If Santorum were up in the polls, I'd fight for him – and have, actually – just as I am fighting for Newt Gingrich as a banner, of sorts – a flag, if you will. I am fighting for conservatism, not some personality, or individual, alleged character flaws, idiosyncrasies and what not and all. I couldn't care less about that stuff right now.

I don't know how this primary ends, except that, hopefully, conservatives will continue to fight on as long as we can under whatever banner is left to us. Maybe we break through and win this year. Maybe we don't. Maybe we get to play a bigger and real role – as opposed to the usual pandering BS – at the convention, maybe we don't. This could be a break through year, or a set-up year as Goldwater was for Reagan and Reagan was for himself before 1980 when he finally broke through.

What I do know is that if we don't fight each and every battle and every time we have any banner to assemble and fight under, however tattered, to carry into the fight, we will lose. And when we lose, America loses. That's what I'm ultimately fighting for.

America has already lost much, to the point it's beginning to look like a nation of losers, not winners possessing the American spirit as I, a conservative, appreciate it. Call it the American Spirit, patriotism, American Exceptionalism, I don't care. But don't call it Newt Gingrich, or Sarah Palin, or Rick Santorum, they are merely fellow warriors just like you and me. It is something far greater that we are fighting for in this primary. And it's damned sure well worth the fight. So, fight on, conservatives, as long as we can in 2012. And, when the battle ends, rest, for we must live to fight on and again.

Now, as I suggested, read Jeff Lord's column here and, by the by, tell Rich Lowry, Jennifer Rubin and whomever else, to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Being such major elitist, establishment buttholes, they shouldn't have a problem doing that at all.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Ragspierre says:

    Looking at Romney’s record, I can’t find evidence of any conservative fire.
    At. All.

  2. Done That says:

    Glad to hear somebody else also gets what this is really all about.

  3. Jay says:

    RINOs are the worst enemy to Conservatism and it’s about high-time we establish that because we cannot hope to defeat the Marxists in the Democrats if we have a large minority hijacking and sabotaging our efforts.
    “Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.” ~ Sun Tzu
    The problem is, RINOs don’t know themselves nor the enemy, because they themselves are the enemy.

  4. Henry says:

    As a kid I remember reading the Peanuts comic strip. Every fall there was a cartoon where Lucy would entice Charlie to attempt to kick the football. As conservatives we are Charlie. At what point do we finally refuse to be suckered. We are told Mitt is better than Obama. But consider – Obama has only 4 more years (assuming there is an election in 2016. If Mitt wins there are two possible outcomes, either 8 years of Mitt or 4 years of Mitt followed by 8 years of a democrat. For myself, I think 4 years of Obama is the lesser of two evils.

  5. Ragspierre says:

    Henry there are at least two other POSSIBLE outcomes…
    1. A Mittens defeat for re-election by a Conservative
    2. A third party victory
    Note: I am not suggesting LIKELY…

  6. HTW says:

    Who would that third party nominee be, I wonder, assuming Romney is the nominee? A McKinnon-backed “moderate” like Bloomberg? Ron Paul? Palin? Even Gingrich?
    I would vote for all of them over Obama. We need the judiciary appointees, if nothing else.

  7. Jaynie59 says:

    You’re right. All I’m really looking for is someone who loves this country as much as I do. That’s why I supported Palin and why I voted for Newt this morning. But I’m also looking for someone with balls. That’s why I supported Palin and why I voted for Newt this morning. I want a fighter.

  8. Ragspierre says:

    Well…there you go…
    Mega McAnus advises Newt to drop out if he loses Florida.

  9. Doors Xp says:

    Well said. I totally agree with you.

  10. B Steve says:

    Mitt Romney cannot serve as President because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. He is disqualified. Time to get Rick Perry back in the race!!!!

  11. Jen Kuznicki says:

    Mitt was born in Detroit.
    I’m with you on this, Dan.

  12. rrpjr says:

    Right on.

  13. Ragspierre says:

    The Collectivist Deemocrats are circling the wagons to keep Holder from facing justice…
    hell, or the law…

  14. Doors Xp says:

    Santspoilerum is a Rmoney tool. I’ll never trust that phony Santspoilerum again.

  15. B Steve says:


  16. Ricky says:

    I respect you for your wisdom Mr Riehl.
    Btw, if it wasn’t for you I would not have known about Rick Santorum (whom I respect a lot). So thank you and keep on fighting the good fight.
    You were willing to take a big risk with Newt, many have chosen the safe choice, Romney or Santorum ( not talking about all of Santorum’s supporters).
    Newt isn’t the first choice for many of us but we believe in this current field he was that imperfect vessel for our conservative cause against the capitalist (Romney) who brought us socialized medicine.
    Don’t be ashamed of the choice you made, those who matter understand why we did what we did.
    Many more states to go, we will not give up now.
    Rubio and Morris are Romneybots and they don’t speak for us. It is still in our hands, voters!

  17. Ricky says:

    For the sake of clarity, I meant to say:
    a) You “introduced” me to Santorum (good thing).
    b) Romney and Santorum are the safe choices. (Some of those who endorsed Santorum are leaning towards Romney but could not endorse him at the risk of losing listeners and readers.)

  18. Ricky says:

    “the capitalist (Romney)”
    I was being sarcastic.

  19. Ricky says:

    It is almost as if Michelle M wanted to endorse Romney:
    “Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012.”
    She forgets that Romney governed as a progressive when he was in government, while Newt, whom she loathes, has the record of implementing conservative policies when he was in government. For a conservative, the choice should be easy.
    (in my book she is a coward too afraid to endorse Romney – going for the safe choice Santorum – who doesn’t stand a chance against Romney – at the end she, like Beck, can say that they stood on their principles when they endorsed Santorum, no risk taken, that was easy – and they will get away with having supported (indirectly) the father of socialized medicine in America.)
    These cowards better not criticize warriors like Sarah Palin. Tom Sowell, Dan Riehl, etc.
    PS: I like Santorum

  20. Reg says:

    The third party candidate for the tea party is Gary Johnson. A popular two term Republican governor of a blue state, who promises to slash spending, nominate constitutionalist judges, keep a strong (but somewhat reduced) defense, and legalize pot.
    The way it could play out is if Romney gets nominated, Gary Johnson gets a rush of funding from disaffected tea partiers, and maybe an endorsement from a Palin, Cain, or maybe even Newt. He promises to veto any unbalanced budget. He appeals to disaffected lefties by his promise to legalize marijuana and to get the government out of the marriage business. He re-assures conservatives that, despite being pro-choice, he opposes Roe v. Wade and that his SCOTUS appointments will be in the Thomas/Scalia mold.
    It’s tricky, but possible. Say he gets the 5-10% of the electorate backing Paul, picks up another 10% from the tea party, and another 5-10% from lefties who would give up on Obama for legal pot. He’s then at 20-30%, enough to get in the debates and steal more votes from Obama and Romney. He peaks after the debates, right at election time, and wins with a 35-40% vote, with Obama and Romney each pulling in 30-35%. It’s happened here in MN a number of times. Jesse Ventura got elected that way.
    A libertarian president would have many advantages in balancing the budget, not being beholden to either party establishment. Also it would be helpful in resolving our abortion gameplaying by both sides. Make it a state issue, with no federal funding.

  21. bigmike says:

    Hey EBL, That economic forecast, is pie-in-the-sky dreaming, the actual truth is a lot worse. REALLY old people will look back with fondness to the great depression, when things really weren’t that bad.

  22. Ragspierre says:

    Mitt The Messenger is at it again…
    “I’m not concerned about the very poor…”
    Just great.

  23. tired of the b/s says:

    rags seem to have forgotten the last part of Romney’s statement (out of convenience, I suspect)
    “I’m not worried about the poor. They have a safety net.”
    Yeah, and it is that safety net that all of us productive citizens pay for. But of course, let’s all jump on the liberal bandwagon and demand that the poor get even more largess from the productive. Seems like free housing, free food, free utilities, free cable, free medical care and even free cell phones are not enough.
    Tell us rags, just how much more concern do you want us to have over those who owe their very existance to the taxpayer? What else would you like to give them? Free lottery tickets?

  24. Xiaoding says:

    “Yeah, and it is that safety net that all of us productive citizens pay for.”
    True, but you left out something…
    “Yeah, and it is that safety net that all of us productive citizens and machines and computers pay for.”
    There is more in the mix now. It is not strictly productive vs. unproductive. It’s, how much can our society carry, the society being productive citizens, PLUS the productive machinery and computers. That removes some of the moral high ground!
    Bear in mind, the REASON many of the “unproductive” don’t have jobs, is because they have been replaced by machines. That, and those who do have jobs, are greedy about them, and refuse to share. For instance, how would you feel about a 30 hour work week, with NO overtime, for BOTH management and employee? With jail time for those who violate the overtime rules? Bet you would complain about that!
    Sometimes, those high taxes have an upside.

  25. Ragspierre says:

    b/s, your idiot is out in full view this morning.
    The point is MESSAGING, moron.
    As a guy who does MESSAGING for a living…and critiquing a guy who is SUPPOSED to be a marketing mavin…
    I pointed out how COLOSSALLY STUPID Mittens was for EVEN mouthing that IDIOT phrase.

  26. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, the MESSAGE was that Romney was more worried about the middle-class who are the ones suffering the most in the Obama economy. Because you are too stupid to understand that doesn’t mean that everyone is. You can only twist the MESSAGE by leaving part of the statement out, which you did.
    So………..what else would you like to provide to the poor? Free movie tickets? How about free cars, or perhaps free designer suits? Or maybe free “vouchers” for some tony restaurant? What the hell else do you want to give them from my taxes.
    Maybe if we quit worrying so damn much about the “poor” and expected a little personal responsibility from them, there would be fewer of them. Gee, I guess if you lost your job as a computer programer, you are just too damn good to dig ditches or clean toilets in some hotel room. After all, its much easier to be a 99er (99 weeks of unemployment that you never totally paid for) than having a little self respect by not being a burden on your fellow Americans, right?

  27. Ragspierre says:

    b/s, you just proved that you can’t fix stupid.
    Don’t take my word for it…Romney’s IDIOT phrase is all over the interwebs.
    It WILL be featured in Deemocrat ads.
    Right along with, “I like firing people.”
    You don’t HAND out klinkers like that.
    Why not say, “I’m worried about the entire American economy. If the kind of awful economic performance we’ve seen during the entire Obama administration continues, ALLLLL Americans are going to suffer”.

  28. Ragspierre says:

    BlunderMitt: Let Them Eat Food Stamps; Plus: PPP results point to Santorum
    See, moron…???

  29. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, why don’t you apply for a position as Romney’s speech writer since you think you could do so much better? As a matter of fact, why don’t YOU run for POTUS since you think you could do so much better.
    You now whine because you say the left will take the statement out of context. Well, what the hell did you do? The same thing. So can we now call you part of the left?
    The only net people who are taking this to absurdity are those who have jumped on the New Newtie bandwagon and are licking their wounds from last night’s Florida primary. Should I congratulate them for doing exactly what you say the left will do? I think not.

  30. tired of the b/s says:

    Michelle Malkin is doing what she always does; pimp for her latest candidate choice, this time it’s Santorum. So if you are looking for any non-bias from MM, you’re barking up the wrong tree. She’s turned into the same kind of harpy Coulter is, nothing less, nothing more.
    I am constantly amazed at how you seem to have to rely on others for opinion. I guess if an original thought landed in your head it would die from loneliness.

  31. Ragspierre says:

    I don’t “rely on others for opinion”, moron.
    I OBSERVE, and I apply what I know about how things work.
    But you just are NOT capable of seeing how STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooopid Romney was to say that, are you…???
    Naw. As you’ve proven here.
    BTW, did Romney say, “I want to provide a national climate where jobs really CAN be created”?
    HELL, NO…. He bloviated about how he would FIX the safety net.

  32. Ragspierre says:

    Jonah, I agree with you on the general tin-ear of Romney. He’s extremely un-nimble on the stump, which means that Republicans will be gambling that he can be sufficiently insulated and managed across the finish line without offering up any campaign-detonating hostage to fortune.
    But, beyond that, I’m less sanguine about the underlying worldview that “I’m not concerned about the very poor” betrays. Romney:
    We will hear from the Democrat party, “the plight of the poor,” and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor. . . . We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.
    The Pundette responds:
    I know Romney gives generously to charity but what a cold fish he is… A conservative candidate would talk about increasing opportunity for the very poor, about lessening the need for food stamps and housing vouchers by reducing government and invigorating the economy, rather than touting the awesomeness of our massive, dependency-inducing welfare state and suggesting it might need some beefing up.
    Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.
    –Mark Steyn

  33. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, you are waaaaay too quick to link to the words of others, be it Malkin or whoever. Independent thinkers don’t have to refer to the words of others to make a salient point. You seem to have to.
    But thanks to all you bet-wetters, you are giving David Axelrod fodder for an ad against Romney, should he become the nominee. You should be proud of yourself. Perhaps Axelrod can put you, Dan Reihl, William Jacobson and Jim Hoft on the payroll.

  34. Ragspierre says:

    Really, b/s…
    you are just making your own rubble bounce.
    You can’t think…much less think independently.
    But…if you insist on embarrassing yourself MORE…please, DO…

  35. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, I don’t quote others to make my own point. You do. That is not the sign of an independent thinker. It is the sign of a lemming, willing to follow along for the sake of acceptence. You have no argument, so to try to turn on me the very thing you are guilty of.
    And you fill out bankrupcy forms for people? God help them when they get into court.
    Gotta go. It’s been fun pointing out that you are simply a follower, but one of us had to earn money that will be taken by the government. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands. Perhaps you are on the dole and that is what really concerns you, not Romney’s misstatements. Later on this evening, it will be interesting to see how many times you post here today, being the busy person you are.

  36. Ragspierre says:

    b/s, you just proved that you can’t fix stupid.
    Don’t take my word for it…Romney’s IDIOT phrase is all over the interwebs.
    It WILL be featured in Deemocrat ads.
    Right along with, “I like firing people.”
    You don’t HAND out klinkers like that.
    Why not say, “I’m worried about the entire American economy. If the kind of awful economic performance we’ve seen during the entire Obama administration continues, ALLLLL Americans are going to suffer”.

  37. ljm says:

    Romney’s comment is being taken out of context but it is an unhelpful gaffe. He will need to refine the way he presents his message. Like anyone who is constantly talking, all candidates are prone to gaffes.
    Having said that my first reaction to seeing it was – rut row… Romney just lost the entitlement segment of the Obama base. Next thing ya know right-to-work small business owners and unemployed construction workers will start putting up Obama/Biden signs in their yards.