Please consider…

I’ve been lectured and spoken at.  I’ve been told I’m insensitive.  I’ve been told that I just don’t understand.  Donald Trump was elected president, and now people have all these feelings and I’m not taking them seriously.

Believe me, I do.  I understand that you are hurting and scared.  I completely get that.  My problem is not with your feelings themselves.  My problem is two-fold.  

First, and most important for my friends and family, my problem is that your fear and pain is based on lies.  You have been fed a diet of lies for months, and you believe them.  Indeed, why wouldn’t you?  It’s not like anyone has been denying them.  Indeed, much of the supposedly Conservative media (which obviously means something different than I thought it did a year ago), is engaging in the lies just as much as the “mainstream media.”

Second, and less important personally, but more important from a practical standpoint, your engagement in this very public hysteria is dangerous.  Because good and decent people like you believe the lies, too, bad and dangerous people have the moral cover to do horrible things.

You have been told for months that Donald Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.  You have been told that he is anti-immigrant and wants to deport all Hispanics and Muslims.  These are all lies.  Not one of them is true.

Is Donald Trump a racist?  No one thought so until recently - and there is no evidence that he is.  It has been said repeatedly in the last year, but those statements have no basis in fact.  He has been honored by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  He fought to change the laws in a city where one of his properties exists so he could allow Blacks and Jews to patronize his club.  His lists of nominees for positions in his cabinet are replete with minorities.

Is Donald Trump a misogynist?  Again, no one thought so until recently.  The recent evidence of that is better, but still completely overblown and taken out of context.  He regularly insults women - specific women with whom he has a specific beef.  Surprise: he regularly insults men, too - specific men with whom he has a specific beef.  That’s not misogyny; it’s equality.  Moreover, he was the first to hire a woman to lead the construction of a skyscraper.  His campaign manager was the first woman ever to run a successful Presidential campaign.  He neither fears nor hates women.  If anything, he sees them as *actually equal* which means he also pulls no punches when dealing with them.

Is Trump a homophobe?  Once more, I say no, and that no one thought so until the Media started saying he was.  When the “transgender in the bathroom” issue blew up, Trump was busy making sure Trump Tower was open to transgender people while also attempting to address the very real concerns of parents.  He has been supportive of the LGBT community for a long time.  He was pro-choice until recently, and even now I suspect is only pro-Life-ish.  He has announced no plans to fight homosexual marriage.

Is Donald Trump anti-immigrant?  If so, someone should tell his wife.  Because she’s an immigrant, you see.  Legal and everything.  Someone should also tell all of those immigrant owned businesses he uses to provide supplies and labor for his various properties and businesses - obviously they missed the memo.

Does Donald Trump want to deport Hispanics?  Again, there are no facts that support this assertion.  The worst that Trump has said in that regard is that he wants to deport all illegal aliens.  Hey, guess what?  If you’re here illegally, you should be deported - because that’s the law.  You can ask the Native American tribes, the Chinese in the 13th century, and the Romans what allowing unchecked immigration of peoples who do not wish to integrate and assimilate into your culture can do to that culture.

Does Donald Trump want to deport all Muslims, or even stop their immigration? Again, there is no evidence of this.  The closest he came to that was saying we should not be importing people from a part of the world where a large number of them want to kill us without some way of making sure the ones we let in are not those who want to kill us.  This is not even controversial, except that the Media told you it was.  If you hadn’t noticed, there is a significant portion of the Muslim world that either actively wants us dead or supports those who do.  We owe them nothing, so why wouldn’t we wait on letting them in until we had some way to verify we weren’t importing terrorists?

Donald Trump is crude, yes.  He is vulgar - in the same way that many of your neighbors are vulgar.  He’s even common and low-class.  But he is not a monster.  He’s not going deport your cousin’s mother-in-law, provided that cousin’s mother-in-law is here legally.  Even if she’s not, it’s unlikely that he’s going to get around to deporting illegal aliens who aren’t causing trouble - there are enough who *are* causing trouble to keep ICE busy for years, I think.  He’s not going to throw Muslims into concentration camps.  He’s not going to start some purge of the Gays.  He’s not going to attempt to reinstitute slavery.  The very idea that he would do any of those is a lie perpetrated by the Media, the Democrats, and even some Republicans for political gain - people who are in fear are easier to lead.

Please stop believing the lie.

Which leads to the next point - why it is so important for you to stop believing the lie.  For the last six months or so, you’ve heard the drumbeat from the Clinton camp that Trump and his supporters are literally just like Hitler and Nazis.  We’re supposed to be violent, barely restrained animals who will turn on Blacks and Gays and women in a heartbeat.  Trump is going to lead a fascist government bent on complete domination of the people.  The Clinton campaign, with the help of the Media, has made people believe that for six months.

And what has been the result?  It hasn’t been Trump supporters starting riots.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters gleefully defacing others’ property and posting it on YouTube.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters beating Clinton supporters because of their political beliefs.  It has been exactly the opposite.

And, again, why wouldn’t it be?  You yourselves believe that Trump is equivalent to Hitler.  If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be afraid of his Presidency and you wouldn’t feel “invalidated” by his victory.  You might feel disappointed.  You might be concerned that his policies would hurt the country’s prestige or economy.  You would not fear for your literal safety, or believe that his victory said anything about people’s feelings for you and your pain in any way.  Only if you accept, somewhere in your psyche, that Trump = Hitler does any of that make sense.

And if your opponent is the actual equivalent of Hitler, does that not mean you are not only morally justified, but even morally required to oppose him and those who support him with violence?  If Trump is Hitler, how can anyone complain that people are rioting in protest, or even if some call for his assassination (yes, that has already happened- on CNN, which did not bother to repudiate the statement).

In 2008 and again in 2012, I thought someone who would be disastrous for the country was elected.  I stand by that assessment, and would be more than happy to point out the ways he absolutely was that.  Yet I and those like me did not engage in violence.  We did not pull Obama supporters out of their vehicles and beat them.  We did not riot and overturn police cars.  We didn’t ask that you validate our “feelings.”

We bowed our necks, set our shoulders, and continued on as best we could.

When you fail to do the same, you validate and even encourage the kind of behavior we have seen- an old man torn from his vehicle and beaten on camera to the chants of “he voted for Trump,” children *actually beaten* (as opposed to mocked) for supporting Trump, even a child tormented by his own mother - again, placed on YouTube with pride - for supporting Donald Trump.

Your child’s hispanic friend was mocked and told their family was going to be deported?  You mean children said mean things to another child?  Why, shut my mouth.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  I mean, I and those around me were *never* mocked for our names, or because our families weren’t as rich as others around us, or because we were socially awkward.  This is a brand new phenomenon which has only begun in the last 4 days!

I’m very sorry that mean people are saying mean things.  I’m very sorry that at some point in the past you were sexually assaulted, or that your parents brought you here illegally at the age of 6, or whatever bad thing happened to you.  I truly am - if you want to tell me about it and for me to extend my sympathy, I’ll be happy to brew up a cup of tea and sit with you on the couch.

But the public histrionics; the vociferous complaints of “I thought better of my country,” they are giving cover and even justification to those committing actual violence.  They are emboldening those who would truly overthrow our way of life - by installing their own choice for President over the justly elected nominee.

Please, I beg you: consider what you are saying.  Please stop believing and spreading the lies - lies so artfully concocted.  Those lies have very real consequences (not that you are lying - it’s not lying if you believe what you’re saying, but that the people who started them knew them to be lies) which are causing actual physical violence.

Please.

#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump (Probably)

Because f*ck Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush, that’s why.

Oh.  You wanted the expanded version.  I guess I can do that.

So, I’ve seen a lot on these here inter-tubez talking about “Trump supporters” this and “Trumpkins” that.  Most of it is completely missing the point, so I’m going to try one more time.  This is going to be incredibly cynical and self-serving. Also: long.  I hope you’re ready.

First, a little history. 

President George Herbert Walker Bush enacted a tax increase not very long after promising “Read my lips: no new taxes.”  That betrayal of his word cost him the presidency far more than anything Ross Perot did.  Here’s a hint: if you don’t want challenges from the Right, don’t move quite so far to the left.  But remember those words and that tax law, we’ll get back to them later.

President Clinton was a slimy b-tard of a president, and actually pretty leftist.  At least one self-described feminist offered him oral sex simply for “keeping abortion legal,” which says a great deal both about “feminism” and abortion – none of it good.  Nevertheless he did sign a balanced budget and welfare reform.  Sure, it was under duress, but he did so.  Remember those bills, too, we’ll get back to them as well.

President George Walker Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 on “compassionate conservatism,” which, as far as I can tell, is Progressive Liberalism, but with more praying and less sex.  Less beer, too, probably.  He signed a number of bills with which he did not agree including at least one budget after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.  Bills he did agree with – indeed: fought for, included a Medicaid expansion, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.  He also famously “destroyed capitalism to save it.”  Oh, and inflicted Karl Rove on the Republican Party for, apparently, the rest of eternity.

Enter Barack Obama.  Barack Obama (notorious stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor) took office in 2009 with a Democrat controlled congress including 60 Democrats in the Senate (okay, that came shortly *after* inauguration, but not long).  He rapidly passed a “stimulus” package which was nothing more than pay-day to his cronies, ignored written bankruptcy law to give GM to the UAW, and generally made a menace of himself.  The entire time this was happening, the Republican Leadership of Mitch McConnell (hereafter: Yertle) and John Boehner (hereafter: Agent Orange) in the Senate and House respectively made excuses for their failure even to slow very much of this down.  Given the headaches Democrats caused Republicans in 2001 – 2006, those excuses were a little limp, but I guess they’re all they had.

Then came Obamacare.  Now, I want to be clear here, Obamacare was passed by Republicans as much as by Democrats.  Sure, no Republican vote was needed for final passage of the Orwellian Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but Republicans had plenty of chances to stop, or at least slow, its passage.  Had they done so, then Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have been installed in his Senator’s seat in time to help a procedural filibuster kill the bill dead.  Instead, they opted for comity and show votes.  The bill was over 900 pages when it was first introduced.  A simple refusal to grant unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill would likely have stopped the thing cold.  But Yertle and Agent Orange wanted to get home for Christmas.

Shortly after the passage of Obamacare, Republican voters swept the Republicans into office on a platform of “We’ll oppose Obama and repeal every word of Obamacare.”  The echoes of their collective recitations of their oaths of office had not faded before Agent Orange started making excuses.  The House was just “one half of one third of government.”  I guess we were supposed to ignore the part where the House controls spending.

Republican voters gave them a pass, and in 2012, despite Obama’s reelection, Yertle became Senate Majority Leader.  Surely now, we thought, with the full legislature under Republican control, we would get some things done.  Hearings were called (remember Lois Lerner?  Remember Hillary!’s “what difference, at this point, does it make?  Remember Fast and Furious?).  Much hot air was released.  And.  Nothing.  Happened.  No spending was cut.  When it looked like spending *might* be cut, Republicans panicked and passed more spending.  No, a budget “balanced” in out years does not cut, and a cut in rate of growth is not “a spending cut.”  When a few Republican malcontents (Ted Cruz among them, but there were others) succeeded in forcing a meager and very partial shutdown, Yertle and Agent Orange couldn’t throw them under the bus fast enough, and quickly moved to authorize MOAR SPENDING!!!

All along the way we’ve had excuses.  “We don’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.”  “Obama will just veto it.”  Remember those passed and signed bills I mentioned earlier?  Funny how not having filibuster proof majorities in the Senate or veto-proof majorities in Congress did not stop Congress from getting Presidents to sign bills in the past.  I guess there must be a new rule that says “If we’re not assured of success, we may as well not try.”  I guess I missed that memo.

That doesn’t even begin to get to amnesty and illegal immigration failures and betrayals we’ve seen since the 1980s.

All of this is to say: “Burn it down. Scatter the stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.”  We have not had a two party system since at least 2006, and possibly as far back as 2001.  There is no significant difference in outcome between having Democrats and Republicans in office.  I mean, really, what’s going to happen if Republicans aren’t in office?  Will Planned Parenthood be revealed as priests of Moloch selling the parts of babies butchered in (and sometimes just out-of) the womb for fun and profit and Congress won’t do anything?  Will the Supreme Court overstep its bounds (again) and declare a constitutional right for homosexual partnerships to call themselves “marriage” while forcing those opposed to participate?  Will the EPA dump great quantities of pollutants into a river in Colorado and face no consequences?  Will the President make an unconstitutional Treaty with Iran virtually guaranteeing that they will gain nuclear weapons capabilities while ALSO promising to provide them protection from Israel?

When it comes down to actual outcomes, and not rhetoric, there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Just notice how fast Republicans pull out the race card themselves when confronted over their desire for amnesty.  But our system cannot survive under one party.  There must be an opposition – a real opposition acting against the majority.  It is the only way to curb the excesses of the majority against the minority, and the only way to ensure that the Federal Government only uses its powers in ways guided by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting Liberty.

Therefore it is time for a third party.  However, the game is rigged.  Democrats and Republicans get on ballots automatically.  Simply have the nomination of your party, and you show up on the ballot.  How nice.  Third parties have to have petition drives and hope they get enough signatures.  Democrats and Republicans have advertising advantages and a national structure enshrined in law (or nearly so).  Third parties must scrimp and scrape for every scrap of exposure they can get.  A third party, in short, is denied access with the two establishment parties.

So we’re faced with a conundrum.  Republican recalcitrance to be an opposition party means we need a new party.  The party establishments have basically enshrined the two party system, so a third party is not a viable solution.  What to do?

Destroy the party.  Destroy its leadership.  Destroy its ability to operate.  And then conservatives might, possibly, maybe have a shot (but it would be a long one) at seizing control of the new power structures and returning the Republican Party – no longer controlled by the establishment and their Donor Class allies/masters.

But who can do such a thing?  Not the seizing control part – conservatives will have to do that after the destruction part, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be able to do so.  The best we can hope for is a chance.  No, who can do the destruction part?

Answer – only someone not beholden to that current power structure.  But how can we avoid that?  How can one not be beholden to the current power structure.  Well, first, he’d need to be self-funding, because he’s not going to get the big power donors like the Chambers of Commerce.  And he’d need to have a lot of name recognition, because that power structure isn’t going to want his message to get out – so he’d need a way to get it out anyway.  And he’d need to have some shred of credential to say “see, I’m a success” so that people can be convinced that he’d be a successful president.

Sound like anyone you know?

Now, if it looks like this defense of Trump has been short on what Trump will do or why I support him, it’s because it’s not a defense of Trump.  I’m virtually certain Trump will be a terrible president (assuming he’s elected).  I’m virtually certain he’s only in it for him, and is only conservative insofar as being conservative is a path to the White House.  I’m pretty sure he’s saying what sells, and not really what he believes.

So be it.  I’m not supporting Donald Trump.  If there were someone else in the field who was self funded, had huge (or is that “yuuuge!”) name recognition, and the ability to sell himself as a success at something people respect, I would vote for that person instead.  Donald Trump is a means to an end, and that end is already being achieved.

The Republican Party and its enablers in Conservative Media are busy telling everyone who is mad at the Republican Party that we’re idiots.  We’re racists.  We’re fools.  And in so doing they are ensuring that many conservatives never vote for any Republican on the national level again. 

Burn it down?  Yertle, Agent Orange, Rove, Jeb, and all are doing that.

Scatter the stones?  That will depend on the burn it down phase, but I’m pretty sure I can trust the hissy fit they’ll throw when they lose (and they will lose, one way or another).

Salt the earth where it stood?  We’ll have to work on that.

No, I don’t support Donald Trump.  But Donald Trump winning the Republican Party will suit my goals far better than if anyone else does.

I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.

Okay. Let's get this straight.

For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they did have, because the MFM would call them big meanies. 

Porkuluous passed with nary a word.  ObamaCare could have been derailed at any of several points, but Republicans wouldn't.  At one point it could have been killed in committee.  At any number of points it could have been killed by a single Republican refusing "unanimous consent" to skip the reading of the bill (or the various amendments). 

Then Scott Brown was elected as the "41st Vote Against ObamaCare."  All Republicans had to do to kill it was keep the debate moving until he could be sat.  Instead, they allowed it to be passed because they didn't want to work over Christmas.

Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)

Did they even pass a budget?  No.  "Oh, it will just get stopped in the Senate."  So Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution passed.  Did they stop raising the debt ceiling, or even get some kind of real budget cut in return for raising it?  No.  In fact, they ceded that power to the President, just so no one would ask them to do something scary like vote on it again.

So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much. 

Admittedly, after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, they were a somewhat reduced party.  Lots of soul-searching had to be done.  But they still had chances.  The shut down was the most intestinal fortitude any Republican had shown in years, and the leadership fell over themselves to end it, and give up yet more concessions in the process.  Only their (stated, though not acted upon) opposition to ObamaCare saved them.

Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat of course they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.

Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?

Lamentations of Their Women:

CNN Cries over GOP Wave

So, continuing the leftist post-election trend going back to at least 2000 in Florida, CNN has decided that the only way the GOP won this election was through cheating.  How?  By violating campaign finance laws, in spirit if not in fact.

Their logic goes something like this: Campaign finance laws forbid specific candidate campaigns from coordinating with super-PACs and other non-candidate organizations.  "Someone" was tweeting what looked like poling data.  Since every Dick, Jane, and Harry wouldn't have been able to decode the tweet, it MUST be collusion.

Now they don't know who "Someone" was.  And by their own admission, they didn't find out before the accounts were deleted.  That would seem to be a hole in their case, but maybe that's just me.

Now, there are lots of problems with the whole article, so you should read it for yourself.  But I was taken by two things.  The first was the almost reflexive "they cheated!" reaction.

This article took some time to research.  The twitter accounts they reference were not widely known, so this wasn't something that was "general knowledge."  They had to have been looking for it.

Yet it is not Republicans who are known campaign finance law violators, unlike several prominent Democrats, the President among them (remember 2008 and not checking if donations were foreign?  Making a campaign speech on foreign soil?  Yeah- not legal.)

Projection, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.

The other thing that I noticed was they spend a whole lot of time saying, basically, "Those wascawy Wepubwicans!  They used Twitter effectivwy! That must be iweagle!"  And then, for support they go to leftists.

Case in point, this quote:

"It might not be legal.  It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

That comes from one Paul S. Ryan, cited as "senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center."

CNN references the Campaign Legal Center as "a nonpartisan organization," but, this being CNN, I figured I'd double-check their math.  If you follow that link above, it goes to the CLC's "Election Center."  Among their blurbs are "what the Court got wrong in [Citizen's United]," and bragging that their president played "an incredibly important role" as the "'personal lawyer' to comedian Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.'"

Does anyone seriously think that a center which sees being the "personal lawyer" for the Colbert Report and opposing Citizen's United is "nonpartisan?"  Seriously?

But the best part of that quote might be the idea that the FEC should have to rule on whether something is "explicitly" legal.  Umm... that's not how the law works.  Something is legal unless it is "explicitly" illegal.  Murder?  Explicitly illegal.  We don't have to ask if any given killing is "explicitly" legal.  It is legal (assumed innocent) until it is proven to be illegal.

This is how leftists work.  Does anyone seriously think we'd be hearing anything about this if it had been Democrats and they had won an historic majority?

Perhaps the best part is the end of the article, wherein CNN acknowledges that, yes, this is probably legal.  I'll leave with that quote (emphasis mine):

Despite the questionable nature of the Twitter communications, experts doubt the FEC will do much to act. Members of the commission have been deadlocked along party lines for years and attorneys for these groups often develop legal arguments before engaging in such practices to avoid acting outside the bounds of the law, Ryan said. 

"In many instances, we have very sophisticated political players with really good lawyers who know where the legal lines are and know where to push them to their client's advantage," he said.

The Politics of Conflict

Going back to 1972, at least, a good rule of thumb is that Republicans will lose low turnout elections.  High turnout elections have tended towards Republicans, but the reason for the high turnout matters.  For instance, Clinton's election in 1992 was a very high turnout, but the semi-spoiler of Ross Perot gave it to the Democrat.  Barack Obama's election in 2008 was very high turnout, as people turned out to vote for the First Black President.  However, both the 96 and 2012 elections had many fewer votes, relative to the prior cycle.

So it seems that the Republicans' best chance to win elections is to encourage high turnout.  High turnout gives Republicans a much better chance of winning than low turnout.  So the question becomes, "how do we encourage high turn out?"

Here, I have a suggestion.  I do not remember the 1980 and 1984 elections at all.  I do recall the 1988 election some (c'mon, I was 8), and I remember 92 and on pretty well.  Basing this guess on what I've heard about the Reagan elections, I feel fairly safe in making the suggestion.  Conflict wins elections for Republicans.

Reagan did not just run against Carter in 1980, he ran against the idea of Carter as well.  That is, he clearly defined two teams, and then asked American voters to join one.  People voted in droves, and mostly chose Reagan's team.  When Bush 41 ran in 1988, he drew similar team lines.  "Read my lips, no new taxes."  Contrariwise, Bush 41 lost to Clinton in 92 because he'd reneged on that "no new taxes" pledge, and people could see no difference between the two.  The guy who tried to draw clear team lines was Ross Perot, who didn't have the needed infrastructure to win.  Bush 44 barely won over Al Gore.  The reason that election was so close was, once again, the lines between the two "teams" were blurred.

Of note here is that I'm using the term "team" on purpose.  This isn't about parties.  One thing Ross Perot's runs in 92 and 96 prove is that there are certain partisans who will always vote for their party.  Those aren't the ones who are choosing a team in each election.  The teams are for those who are less partisan.  Maybe they normally vote R or D, but they can be persuaded.  Maybe they don't normally vote at all.

So how do we draw those team lines?  We use conflict.  Reagan was good at doing this affably, but the conflict needs to exist.  Let's take a couple of looks at popular culture to make the point.

American wrestling, currently existing as the WWE, used to be a very minor niche of entertainment, and just didn't have a following.  That all changed decades ago, when someone- I'm not sure any but those who were following then even remembers who- decided to make the show more exciting.  How was that done?  He took the persona of the bad guy.  Now, audiences had someone to root against (him) and, by extension, someone to root for.  To this day, the WWE uses this formula, and experiences great commercial success.  Professional boxing is trying to do the same thing through building up and promoting rivalries.

American Idol burst onto the scene 11 years ago.  From the beginning it was wildly popular.  However, the 2011 season was weak, and the 2012 season was weaker.  The show is flailing trying to maintain its power.  What changed?  Simon Cowell left.  Simon Cowell, the acerbic Brit and primary judge, was the primary draw for the show.  Why?  Because he created conflict.  While everyone else was heaping praise on contestants, Simon would make up some off-the-wall simile to say "that sucked."  It drove conflict on the judging panel, and it drove conflict with the contestants.  You could root for or against Simon, and therefore for or against specific contestants or the other judges.  With him gone, there is no conflict.  Randy has tried to fill his shoes by being a little more honest with the contestants, but he doesn't drive conflict.  He's too conciliatory when he's telling someone they suck.  So Idol is in decline.

It is this last part that I think is important.  No one who was paying attention could seriously believe that Mitt Romney and the SCOAMT had any positions really in common.  There was disagreement.  However, Mitt Romney seemed to run from conflict.  Mere disagreement will not suffice; a clear conflict, a rivalry is necessary.  It gets people excited and encourages them to pick a side.  Instead, people didn't see that there were sides to pick, and so people stayed home.

If Republicans want to win the White House in 2016 (assuming The Great Collapse has not already occurred), they must embrace conflict.  When the Democrat says, "We need to raise revenue," the Republican needs to respond "No, we don't."  Direct contradiction is the most basic form of conflict.  It gets people's attention.  Imagine if, during the debates, SCOAMT had said, "...and so I'm proposing to raise revenue by blah, blah..." and Romney had immediately rejoined, "Raise revenue?  Don't you mean raise taxes?  Please, Mr. President, be honest with the American people.  And while we're being honest; we don't have a problem with revenue, we have a problem with spending."

That's a clear line.  That creates Team Raise Taxes and Team Cut Spending.  On item after item Romney could have chosen to engage in conflict, and therefore give the American People some one to root for and someone to root against.  Had he done so, maybe we'd be talking about President Elect Romney today.

Susan Estrich: I Didn't Vote For Obama's Policies, Just For Obama

Well, then, Ms. Estrich, why did you vote for him?  His stunning success as cutting the deficit in half like he promised?  Did you vote for his stellar record of job creation and unemployment numbers?  Oh, I know, you voted for him because of his amazing facility for quieting our international foes while bolstering our allies.

Oh, that's right.  You voted because somehow no one can do what you explicitly state you were able to do.  To whit:

I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I know how hard it is to buy health insurance for a single person with even a minor pre-existing condition. In the case of my nanny/housekeeper/dear friend, it was gastritis. Thank God for Kaiser, which sold me the insurance that some years later saved her life when she was diagnosed with cancer. So call it what you will, but I did not want to see Obamacare repealed.

Now she's complaining because Obama claims he has a mandate to raise taxes.  Guess what, Ms. Estrich, he believes he does.  Why might he believe that?  How about the fact he ran on tax increases.  His answer to everything for the entire election season was "Tax the Rich."  And now you have the gall to be surprised that he wants to raise taxes?  I mean, it's obvious you're stupid from the paragraph I quoted, but exactly how stupid are you?  Are you only able to "type" because someone gave you Dragon, Naturally Speaking and showed you how to use it?

This kind of thing drives me nuts.  It's absolutely stupid, and I hate stupidity.  Democrats run on competing ideas all the time.  They want to raise taxes "on the rich" but won't raise taxes.  They're all about Amnesty when talking to Hispanic voters, and all about border control when talking to rural Whites.  So many Democrats are single issue voters, and they choose not to notice the Democrats' positions on the other issues.

So, yes, Ms. Estrich, you did vote for Barack Obama to raise your taxes.  He claimed that was his specific intent, and you voted for it.  You also voted for continued drone strikes and involvement in Syria.  You voted to stone-wall the investigations into Fast and Furious and Benghazi.  You voted for a porous border.  You voted to spend billions on "green energy" schemes which are doomed to failure, and continued refusal to drill for oil on Federal land.  You voted for massive spending cuts in Medicare and Defense.  You voted to support Hamas and Al Qaida over Israel.

These are all things that Barack Obama stood for during re-election.  If you voted for him, you voted for all of them.

H/T Ace.  Again.

Fighting Back

Okay, so let's assume we're not just going to surrender.  Let's assume we either want to actively attack, or make a strategic retreat to shore up our defenses.  What do would our goals be?  How could we accomplish them.

Goal 1 - Reform Education
This has a couple of different fronts, and we should work on all of them.  Whether we're attacking into Blue areas, or just shoring up the Red, the tactics are largely the same.

1- Run, baby, run.  Are you clean and articulate?  Do you have the fortitude to pound the pavement for several months out of the next year?  Then let me recommend getting plugged in with both your local Tea Party and local GOP groups, then run for a spot on the School Board or your City Council.  It's hard to think much bigger than that, for most people, so let's work on making our local governments as conservative as possible.

Then, support current local politicians who are solidly conservative for State-wide positions, including your State Board of Education.  Let's get Conservative ideas taught in schools. 

2- Let those who can, teach.  Are you moderately successful in your profession, and have a degree?  Are you now unemployed?  Let me recommend an alternative teacher's certification.  Not all States have these, but I'm pretty sure that most do.  This is a teachers certification for people who did not get education degrees.  Different states handle them differently. 

Remember that liberal Government and Economics teacher you had?  Imagine if he had been conservative.  How many high schoolers could have learned solid conservative economic lessons?  Remember when you had to read "Of Mice and Men" in High School?  Imagine if your teacher had been a Conservative using it to teach lessons about personal responsibility and the need of a society to protect itself?

How many times have Conservatives complained about the liberal bent of education?  Well, it won't change if we don't change it.

Goal 2- Reform the Culture
I've mentioned this a couple of times recently, but we really need to get into the culture war and start fighting.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to act seriously.  Again, I don't think these tactics change much no matter whether you're on the strategic retreat, or the attack side.

1- Conservative culture warriors. We have a plethora of conservatives in entertainment.  Many of them are afraid to 'come out' as conservatives because of what it would mean to their careers.  We need them to step up despite their fear.  We need conservative leaning action movies, dramas, and romantic comedies.  We need conservative TV shows and music.  In return, we need to vociferously defend any entertainer who comes out as conservative, and support them monetarily.

2- Get in the local game.  Your city has a Fourth of July festival.  Your local GOP and/or Tea Party group should sponsor a float and a booth.  Make sure the name of your local GOP or Tea Party group is on the list of sponsors of Christmas toy drives, or Thanksgiving food drives.  Make sure their names show up as sponsors of local 5Ks and bike races.

I think if we could focus on these two goals, using these four tactics, we could make great strides.  Think, if you're a "strategic retreat" type of deep, deep Red States churning out conservatives from their education systems, backed with a culture with which people can identify.  Eventually we would be big enough to attempt the Diaspora without losing our strongholds.  If you're an "attack" type, imagine Purple states turning Pink, and Pink states turning Red as the next generation is reared with conservative ideas.

But whichever side you're on, none of this works if you don't get in the game.

Surrender, Retreat, or Attack?

I mentioned this over in the comments at the Ace of Spades HQ (link in sidebar), but thought I would expand on it here.

After the devastating (morally, if not mathematically) loss by Mitt Romney to Barack Obama in the November 6th election, Republican recriminations have been thicker than flies on a carcass.  When boiled down, Republicans (and Conservatives; the two do not completely overlap) seem to fall into one of three camps.

1. Surrender
2. Retreat
3. Attack

The surrender group is actually made up of two different groups, not at all in agreement.  One group says we should surrender our principles.  They suggest that Republicans lost because they were "too far to the Right."  They suggest that a North Eastern somewhat Liberal Republican was too conservative for the US Electorate.  The other group says we should just give the Democrats everything they want.  The theory behind this "let it burn" mindset is that the collapse is inevitable, and either a) we'll be getting what we deserve or b) it will be less painful in the long run to get it done now.

The retreat group is also made up of two different groups, though I think they largely agree on the ultimate goal, and just disagree tactically.  The first of these groups agrees that the collapse is inevitable (and, indeed, may also be in the "let it burn" category), and says that the correct answer is to look to your own family, and do everything you can to prepare for the collapse.  Once the collapse then comes, the argument goes, "we" will survive in much better shape to guide whatever rises from the ashes.  The second group believes in a Mass Conservative Migration.  This group believes that conservatives from irredeemably Blue States should move to Red (or even swing) States and build a very strong Conservative base in those areas.  They do not believe the collapse is inevitable.

The final group seems also be made up of two groups.  The first group says that we should attack the Democrats on everything.  We should fight the fiscal cliff fight, for example, demanding everything we want, and be just as willing to go over the fiscal cliff as the Democrats are.   The second group recommends what I've heard described as the Red Diaspora.  This would be the reverse of the Mass Conservative Migration.  Instead of Conservatives in Blue States moving to Red States, Conservatives in Red States would move to Blue States, trying to make them into Swing States.

The only group I'm sure I disagree with is the "attack" group.  I do not believe we currently have the resources to make either of those strategies work.  For the political opposition line to work, I think we would need a strong Conservative leader.  Instead we have John Boehner.  I don't think the risk of turning reliably Red States into swing (or worse: Blue) States is worth the relatively minor gains we would see from Diaspora.

I find myself at least in partial agreement with both "Let it Burn" (surrender and retreat varieties) and with the Mass Conservative Migration retreat groups.  You might call these "strategic retreats."  They are falling back to stronger positions to reorganize and strengthen our "army."

Fill the comments with your thoughts.  I think this is of vital importance to decide before local elections next year.

The "Liberty" Party

No, those aren't scare quotes, they're to denote that the word "Liberty" should be featured in Republican talking points.

People more in tune with such things than me have been digesting the election return numbers, but I think a couple of things are clear.  First, too many people that Republicans thought would be voting didn't.  Second, the margin of loss, while painful, was actually less than in 2008- that indicates we made up ground.  Third, the Republican Message is scary to people who live on Government Cheese.

For an example of that, go check out this post from Ace.  This isn't the only story I've heard of this kind.  When one party is offering free stuff, and the other is offering responsibility, people who are dependent upon (or believe they are dependent upon) that free stuff will vote for the free stuff.

While it is actually true that Romney's plan would be better for them, they never heard that; or if they did, they didn't believe it.  What they heard was that Romney wanted to end their entitlements to "pay for" tax cuts "for the rich."

So it's time to change the messaging.  I noted in this space last week that part of what we need to do is infiltrate popular culture.  Movies, TV, and music should all be things on which we focus.  But our politicians need to fine tune the message, too.

With respect to Mark Davis, I suggest we become the "Liberty" Party.  We're not for tax cuts, we're for "Economic Liberty."  We're not for school choice we're for "Education Liberty."  We're not against unions, we're for "Labor Liberty."

Liberty should be the national message, and it can be adapted to anything- including social issues.

Homosexual Marriage: "I'm neither for nor against same-sex marriage.  However, I believe in Moral Liberty and vehemently oppose anything that would restrict churches, organizations, or even employers from having their own rules regarding who they employee or what benefits they provide based on such issues.  I believe that, where it becomes a public policy issue, Liberty is better protected by the States exercising their authority than by the Federal Government making one-size-fits-all laws."

Abortion: "As a matter of official national policy, I do not have a specific stance regarding abortion.  I do believe that the States should have their just Liberty, under the 10th Amendment, to make whatever laws their People see fit regarding the availability of abortions.  Roe v Wade is not bad because it made abortions more easily available, but because it simultaneously usurped the role of the Congress as the Legislative branch, and violated the 10th Amendment Rights of the States."

It is important to remember that these are national stances.  At the State and Local levels, you have much more room to fit yourself to your direct constituents.  That also means that Republicans in Texas and Republicans in Massachusetts might take different State stances on same-sex marriage or abortion, but would take a single, unified stance at the national level.

There are probably others who are even better at this phrasing than I am, but I believe this is the message we need to be broadcasting: Liberty.

Cover Up: Obama Admin Knew About Petraeus Affair

As more information comes to light about General Petraeus's affair with his biographer, the White House looks worse and worse.

First: the affair apparently began before General Petraeus assumed leadership of the CIA.  Before he was able to take that office, he would have been vetted, including an interview while attached to a lie detector.  Are the CIA really that bad at finding this kind of thing?

Second: the FBI had been investigating this for months.  While at the onset the were not aware that Petraeus was the object of their investigation, they knew that part months ago.  Now, the FBI reports to the Attorney General who, in turn, reports to the White House.  That means that Eric Holder knew, and that Barack Obama should have known, that David Petraeus was having an affair and, therefore, compromised. 

That second piece is hugely important for two reasons.  The first is simple- outside of the President himself, the last person the US can afford to have so compromised is the head of the CIA.  I have not seen any reports that Petreaus was being blackmailed, but those rumors certainly exist.  Importantly, he had opened himself to blackmail, which is bad enough.  He should have been dismissed as soon as it came to light.  Not only was he not, but the whole affair was covered up by the Attorney General and (likely) the President.

As a result of that cover up, a compromised CIA Director was in place during the 9/11 Benghazi attack.  Is it possible that some of the problems in coordination and response were due to Mr. Petreaus being compromised?  Or because he was actively engaged in getting some strange at the time he should have been assisting with the response?  It doesn't matter that we'll never know the answers to those questions, the very fact they can be credibly asked is inexcusable.

Further, why was he left in place?  Was it the deeply cynical idea that removing him prior to the election would have been bad for Barack Obama?  I certainly hope not, but I cannot put it past the President who still has not acknowledged his own roll in Benghazi, nor the Fast and Furious scandal.  Was there some other reason?  I certainly can't think what it would be.

In either case, we once again come this statement: it's not the crime, it's the cover up.  People have affairs.  Some of them are powerful people.  Having an affair compromises your integrity; it also opens you up to a variety of negative consequences.  The more highly situated you are, the more negative those consequences have the potential to be.  By covering up the scandal instead of simply demanding General Petraeus's immediate resignation, Barack Obama left this country vulnerable.

On Messaging

One of the things I've been hearing the last couple of days is that Republicans need a new message- or to refine our messaging.  Part of this comes from this post from DrewM at the Ace of Spades HQ, the other from an anecdotal comment from friend-of-the-blog tsrblke on twitter.  Drew points out that 81% to 18%, the electorate believed that Obama "cares more about people like me" than Mitt Romney.  On a related note, tsrblke points out that many believe that Republicans see everyone on welfare as "takers."

Now, both of these are silly.  They're even stupid.  They're also both absolutely correct.  What Republicans believe doesn't matter.  What people believe that Republicans believe is what matters.  Mitt Romney is a very caring man.  The stories of his being a caring man are poignant and hardly rare- except that he wouldn't talk about them.  As for all those on welfare being "takers?"  Well, that comes down to the "47%" comment.

So what do we do?  If we change our principles, then we're not the same Republican party.  We could do that, but we'd have to recognize we're giving up on things that have been core conservative values for generations.  If we won't change the product, though, maybe we have to change the packaging.

But how do we do that?  We can't just offer people free stuff, nor should we.  It's weak and cowardly to do so, which makes it all the more vexing that Democrats get away with it cycle after cycle.

I have a couple of ideas, here.

First off, about the "makers versus takers," we need to radically shift our language there.  Mark Davis (formerly of WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth, now on 660 KSKY ("The Answer")) has recommended using the term "Economic Liberty."  We're not for "Tax cuts for the rich" we're for increased economic liberty.  We're not for a national sales tax, or a flat tax, we're against the economic repression of a too-bulky, hard-to-understand progressive tax system.  We don't want to "privatize Social Security" we want to expand Seniors' economic liberty by giving them additional choices to fund their retirement.

Second, on the "he cares about me," stuff, there are two steps.  The first, and most simple, is simply to say that, over and over.  Not flippantly, dismissively, or in exasperation.  "Of course we care" is not the correct answer.  "Republicans care deeply about the plight of young urban youths.  That's why we want plans that will empower them to reach their goals and achieve their dreams."  "Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, believed in a world where your abilities, not your skin color, determined your success.  Republicans still believe in that dream."  Yes, it's touchy-feely, mealy-mouthed crap.  It's also absolutely necessary.

For those of you who are married- what do you think would happen to your marriage if you never, ever told your spouse, "I love you?"  Or, when you did, it was "Well of course I love you, I can't believe you'd ask that question!  Would I work 50 hour weeks to keep a roof over your head if I didn't love you?"  That wouldn't do much for your marital bliss, would it?

Well, the voters we need to reach are the same way.  They have to hear "we care," over and over and over.

The second step is more difficult.  We have to actively change our image from one of "big ideas" to one of "personal ideas."  Republicans typically reject this approach.  "We don't worry about [group], because we know that our policies are good for everybody."  Well, we need to be seen as worrying about [group] more often.  We need to be seen as thinking for X many minutes every day, "I wonder what I can do to help young blacks," or, "We've got to do better helping rape victims," or, "What can we do to make sure women are successful?"

Ultimately, this question constantly trips up Republicans in debates, "I'm a member of [insert group here], what are you going to do for me?"  Republicans respond with the quite factually correct answer that getting government out of the way is good for everybody.  Then the Democrat says, "See, I see people in exactly your situation every day.  What I propose to do is have group X fund a plan to give you more free stuff."

Republicans can't win against "free stuff" but we don't really have to.  We just have to be more competitive.  So, when the question of (for instance) student loans comes up, a good answer might be something along these lines:

"You know, I talk to college kids who are either just graduating, or looking at graduation pretty quickly all the time.  And their number one concern, as soon-to-be or recent graduates is 'how do I pay for these loans.'  Well, let me tell you what I'm going to do about that.  First off, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure your loans stay as affordable as possible.  The last thing you need is for your interest rate suddenly to go up.  The next thing I'm going to do is everything in my power to make sure you can get a job that will let you then pay back those loans as quickly as possible.

Then, for people who are further away from graduation, or aren't even in college yet, I'm going to do one more thing: I'm going to use what power I'll have to encourage colleges to offer a streamlined degree program that can be completed in 3 years of full-time work.  Right now, a lot of the cost of your education is taking credits that don't actually have anything to do with your major.  Now, that's really good from the standpoint of a well-rounded education, but when you're trying to get a degree so you can get a good job, you don't need those extra hours which cost you so much."

Now, here's the thing: realize how many weasel words you've left in.  "Everything in my power."  "What power I'll have"  "Encourage."  "As quickly as possible."  Just as importantly, realize that I can achieve all of those goals through conservative means, with the possible exception of the low interest rate (see also: weasel words).  A good job?  Lowering regulations, cutting the minimum wage, and all kinds of conservative ideas will make business boom- leading to more jobs.  Encouraging colleges can be done, not by increasing their grants and subsidies, but by threatening to cut them.

Messaging is important.  It doesn't matter how good your product is if no one will buy it.  We've got to figure our our messaging and get it fixed- fast.

The King Is Dead, Long Live The King

Such are the words reportedly said when a king would die- immediately acknowledging that a new king, a new reign, would step up and fill the void.  Well, last night, 50% of Americans voted to end the American Experiment.  Something else will rise in its place.  Fully half the country now believes that what you produce is not your own, that the Government as sovereign rights to redistribute the produce of your labor.  From the money you earn as a laborer, to services you provide (if, for instance, you are a doctor), what you make is no longer your own in the United States of America.

This underlying fact must be understood before it can be addressed.  If enough people understand it, there is still time to fix it.  That time is limited, however.

Liberty took a body blow last night.  I'm not going to say that Mitt Romney was our "last, best hope" for Liberty, but I will say the window is closing.

So we must educate.  We must prepare.  And, if all else fails, we must be ready to defend our Liberties.

Stories from the (Phone) Line: Cindy

My previous Story from the Phone Line was about Patty, a first time volunteer motivated by the SCOAMF (my words, not hers) to get off the sidelines and into the game.

This one focuses on a long-time operative.

Cmdr Cindy Stellar (USN- Ret) instructs Texas Rep. Bill Zedler on how to use the phone system.

Commander Cindy Stellar (USN-Ret) is the 1st Vice President of Programs for the Metroplex Republican Women.  She retired from the Navy Nurses Corps in 1995 and became active in politics shortly thereafter.  Her first major campaign was as part of GWH Bush's campaign in 1999 and 2000.  She and her husband were both Team Leaders in the Tennessee county where they lived.  That county was a heavy Democrat county which the Republicans won, when the dust settled, by 47 votes that year.

Where Patty gave me a good sense of what others like me were feeling, Mrs. Stellar (who was, by the way) had an almost grim determination.  Now don't take that the wrong way.  She was as up-beat and optimistic as anyone I've met who wasn't crazy.  I could tell she was jazzed about being there, about the volunteers being there, and about the opportunity to oust the SCOAMF (again- my word, not hers) from office.  Under all of that, though, was a determination to win this thing that I'd never experienced in person before.  Where my anger against the Traitor in Chief burns hot, she had managed to turn that into a steely resolve that I may never match.

I asked her exactly how important she believes phone banks and canvasing are.  "Very important," she replied.  She emphasized that what we were doing was not "just" get out the vote, but vital election day intelligence gathering.  By eliminating those who had already voted, weren't going to vote, or whose numbers were no longer in service, we were freeing up other resources which would become available later.  Now those people don't have to be called again.  Additionally, both over the phone and in person, she spoke of the connection that is made by real, human contact.  Every person who heard us on the phone realized they were talking to a human being instead of a recording.  Everyone who sees a canvasser walking the streets knows that's a real human person.  That helps build connections and relationships- making it more likely that people will vote the "right" way.  And, of course, there was the actual GOTV effect as well.

It is said that in a turn-out election, GOTV is supreme.  Well, they're all turn-out elections.

She further said she believed that it was of vital importance that Republicans were counteracting the vaunted "Obama Machine" from 2008.  By using the centralized database, the intelligence data gathered could more quickly be returned to the field as useful information.  With Conservatives on social media, she believes we have taken away one of Obama's primary advantages.

She spoke of a "silent wave" she believes is sweeping the nation.  She pointed out that, in the Bush win of 2000, none of the media expected the Evangelical vote- because they'd been wilfully blind to it.  She believes the same is true today; the People of America want Obama out, and she believes the media will be shocked, and left scratching their heads asking "well where did THAT come from?"

Finally, I asked her what one thing she would want people to know- both about this election, though few will see these words in time for them to be of use- but also for future elections.  She had three words. 

"Your vote counts."

She then said something that I and others have said, with perhaps less "moral authority."  People have bled and died to give you the right to vote.  People fought and died to give you that right, and not to be informed and exercise it is "lazy and self-serving."  "I lived in Europe for 4 years," she said, "I know what Socialism is."

With Cmdr. Stellar and those like her, I know we have the experienced, grass-roots leaders who can propel us to victory.  Hopefully those of my generation can learn the lessons hers can teach us.

NOTE: I owe Mrs. Stellar an apology.  I had originally thought, and told her, that this piece would appear on the Arlington Voice, and that the piece I've posted there (which will probably become available tomorrow or the next day) would appear here.  I decided I did not want to wait for the inevitable (and even necessary) delays of posting a piece there.

Stories from the (Phone) Line: Patty

While volunteering this morning with the North Texas Victory Center, in Arlington, TX, I took the time out to speak with one of my fellow volunteers.  I wanted to get a sense of why other people where there, and what they were thinking.  Patty had been my "neighbor" since shortly after I'd arrived, and I got the sense she was a first time volunteer, like myself.  So I asked her a few questions.

That's Patty at the right.

Patty is a stay-at-home-mom, with three kids.  Two of those are now in college, the other is in High School.  She told me one of them lives in Virginia, now, and that she'd been pestering him to vote all last week.  Her husband is a physician, and they live near University Park.  She says she's always been a Republican, and the fiscal side of things is much more important to her than the social.

This was her first time volunteering.  Like me, she had limited time, but wanted to do what she could.  When I asked her why she decided to volunteer, she first told me it was her "Love of Country," and "Loyalty to the Republican Party."  Those are hardly unique to her, and I wanted to know what pushed her to volunteer.  After all, many share those qualities and weren't there this morning. 

"I really believe this election is hugely critical."  She told me that she feels the election is just so close, and that she felt she had to do something to make a difference.  The fire in her person as she spoke left no doubt, in my mind, that she'd like to take every Democrat and undecided voter she could get her hands on and just shake them. 

We spoke briefly about Benghazi.  Despite the virtual MFM blackout, she was aware of much of it.  She took the name of the blog, and may learn more about it later today. (Hi, Patty!).

Meeting Patty made me a lot more optimistic about today.  Texas is a virtual "gimme" for the Republican Party in Presidential Elections.  One of the reasons there are so few Victory Centers here in Texas is that those resources can be better spent elsewhere.  So knowing that, and knowing that she was still excited to volunteer and willing to sacrifice some of her time to ensure victory made me realize how much more determined and excited those in more hotly contested areas must be.

Broken Glass

So today is Election Day.  As already noted, I was in line to vote before 7AM.

Now, I'm sitting in the Victory Center, making phone calls for the Republican Ticket.  What are you doing to Get Out the Vote?

Are you a Broken Glass voter, or just a voter?

More from here, soon.

Freedom Day

I, along with about 100 other folks from two different precincts lined up outside Timberview High School (MISD) this morning, eager to exercise our sovereign franchise.

The line at 6:45 AM.  Many more would join us before the doors opened.

I can't say that, at 7 AM CST, the excitement was "palpable," but you could tell these were motivated folks.  How many were "broken glass" voters?  I couldn't say.  What I can say is the sight made me happy.

Since none of the campaigns ever called me back, my plan is to contact my local GOP today and see if they have some call-centers I can drop into.  I may make some phone calls, but mostly I'll be taking more pictures, and relaying the stories of those hard working folks trying restore Freedom and Liberty in America.

When Not To Vote

It is frequently the case, as election day draws nigh, for political pundits to extol the virtues of voting.  Much is said about the sovereign franchise, and not having a right to complain if you won't vote.  Many words are spilled to try to get those who aren't interested in politics to be interested in politics.  Many say, "Vote as if your life depends upon it."

I'm not going to do that.  I'm going to say some unconventional things, here.  I'm going to encourage people not to vote.

If you haven't been paying attention for at least the last 3 months, don't vote.
If you think it is the government's job to "fix" things, don't vote.
If you couldn't be bothered to find out the candidates' positions on the issues important to you, don't vote.

People's lives are busy.  I understand that, and I appreciate it.  But voting is to exercise the sovereign franchise.  As Robert Heinlein described it, "it is force."  Your vote carries with it the promise of gunfire and bayonet charges.  To cast a vote which could, literally, get people killed without first considering the ramifications thereof is negligent in the extreme.

On the other hand, if you have been paying attention, vote.  If you think the government's job is not to fix things, but to enable others to fix them, vote.  If you understand the candidates' positions, vote.

Don't vote like your life depends upon it.  Vote like your children and grandchildren's lives depend upon it.

T Minus

One Day

Closing Arguments: Part 2

In the first post discussing my final considerations in voting for Mitt Romney, I discussed the case against Barack Obama.  In this, the second part, I will discuss the positive case for Mitt Romney.

In many ways, Mitt Romney is a blank slate, even to this day.  He Governed in Massachusetts as a moderate, "reach-across-the-aisle" Republican.  He lent his name to RomneyCare, the Massachusetts socialized health care plan.

So why would a Dedicated Tenther vote for Mitt Romney?

Largely it is because I am a Dedicated Tenther, and Mitt Romney's performances in the debates, as well as his stump speeches, lead me to believe he is also a Tenther, if not as dedicated as I am to that cause.

When he ran in 2008, Mitt Romney was already discussing RomneyCare in terms of the 10th Amendment.  He understood then that people in other states didn't like it, and was promising not to force it on the rest of the states.  As a candidate this time around he has claimed, loud and often, that he would immediately waive the requirements of ObamaCare for all 50 States.  He can do that on his on recognizance, with no input from Congress at all.  He has then also said that he would pursue "Repeal and Replace."  The "Replace" part of that makes me a little nervous, but the Repeal is absolutely necessary.

One of the solutions that his running-mate, Paul Ryan, suggested to fix Medicaid, and one that Mr. Romney seems to have accepted, is the idea of block-grants to the States for them to run their own Medicaid programs.  This is not quite as good, philosophically, as doing away with it all together, but it may be the most realistic Conservative solution.

Similarly, unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney has put forth plans, at least in general terms, for fixing both Medicare and Social Security.  Here I want to make a point that is often overlooked.  Republicans are often attacked for wanting to "end" or "privatize" Medicare and Social Security.  While it is true we believe that private solutions are probably much better than Government solutions, there is another question that never gets asked: what is the Democrats' plan?  They never seem to have an answer for that.  At least Mr. Romney is willing to lead and put forth a plan.

In short, everything Mr. Obama is fiscally, Mr. Romney is not.  The reverse is also true.

Socially, I believe that Mr. Romney and I share much of the same space.  That is this: shut up about social issues.  But, if you're going to make social issues into political issues, we're both coming down on the side of social conservatism.  I do not believe that Mitt Romney will particularly pursue the reimplementation of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  I do think, given the chance, he would continue to defend DOMA.  I do think, if people made homosexuality in the military a big issue, he would side with social conservatives.

Regarding foreign policy, I do not know how Mitt Romney will pursue his course, or how he will direct our nation.  I do know two things.  I know he would not leave our personnel to die in an under-defended diplomatic mission just to further his own political goals.  I also know that he's listening to at least some of the right people.  Among those is former Ambassador John Bolton.

Ultimately, however, the question comes down to character.  During the primaries, I did not trust that Mitt Romney was the kind of man I wanted to be President.  He had not made that case to me.  The truth his, he has never made that case for himself, but those around him have.  They have told stories of his character, his patience, and his charity.  They have told the stories of the things he did when he thought no one would notice.  And those stories have reassured me.

Four years ago, I drug myself to the poling place to vote for John McCain.  It was painful, and I didn't want to do it, but I did.  In 5 days, I will walk into my poling place with a song in my heart and vote for Mitt Romney for President.