DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

To the Point News ^ | Thursday, 27 October 2011 | Dr. Jack Wheeler

[hocndoc]

DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

This is a serious question, by no means rhetorical. Conservatives may be full of sound and fury against Zero, but it signifies nothing without actual evidence, of which there is little.

Tea Partyers can wave the American flag and proclaim their passion for reclaiming America, but you can't beat something with nothing.

If this isn't true, then why is a Total Rino way ahead in the polls? *******************

Perry's tax and economic reform proposal is far, far better (and better thought out) than Cain's 9-9-9, which keeps changing and necessitates a national sales tax. His mechanism for reducing the federal government to Constitutional levels is the best one for doing so - the 10th Amendment. He will revive the economy far, far more than Romney would by getting the government more out of the way, and by drilling, baby, drilling. (Remember that Romney's a Warmist who loves renewable energy scams.)

One of these days, conservatives are going to have to figure out that we're not to going to get better than Perry. And that he really is our best chance to rescue our economy, indeed our country.

To see why - or at least to consider this as a possibility - read the transcript of Perry's interview with John Harwood of CNBC on Tuesday (10/25). http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/ (A caveat: this is an unedited computer-generated transcription of Perry's answers with lots of mistakes and glitches, which were left in - one suspects to make Perry not as fluent as you could see on television).

What really turned me on, frankly, was his absolute refusal to be intimidated by envy-mongering. Harwood starts right off the bat with this, saying that his tax plan would be a huge tax cut for the wealthy, that "those at the top, it is hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars for them." Perry immediately responds:

"But I don't care about that. What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies. To go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again 'cause they actually get to keep more of what they work for."

OMG. That's the ballgame. The entire argument of the Left is an envy-trip. What America needs more than any other one single thing is a president who says to the Dems, the Enemedia, Academia, their acolytes, the entire dog's breakfast of the Left, "I don't care about your envy!

Harwood can't get over this, so later he asks a gotcha, "Do you fundamentally believe we should not have a progressive tax system in the country?" Perry straight out answers, "I do." Harwood is shocked. "But the idea of taking-- of having-- higher rates-- of various kinds for people who earn more are [sic] not right?" Again, Perry says straight, "I don't agree with that."

I encourage you to read the whole thing. Try this on:

"I don't think this president understands basic economics. Not economics that work. He may understand some theory that someone in Princeton sat and dreamed up, but it's not working.

"This President would be wise if he addressed the economy in the way that we know it works. You give incentives to job creators. Lower the tax burden, lower the regulatory climate, and this President would be stunned I'm sure. But America's economy would take off and take off quickly.

"That's what we need in a president that respects how this country got to the point of being the greatest economy in the world. And it was done simply by giving the incentive to job creators so they knew they could keep more of what they work for."

No teleprompter here, ad lib. You really think Zero could take him in a one-on-one debate? And look how he took care of the "birther" thing:

"I don't have a clue about where the President (was born) and what his birth certificate says. But it's also a great distraction. I'm not distracted by it. If those of you in the media want to talk about it that's fine, but I hope what you'll really get focused on is how are we going to get this country back on track.

"Because if we don't, America's next generation is not going to have as good a future as what we had, and that's what I'm concerned about. I know how to do that. And you do it by giving a flat tax. You get these regulations pulled off of businesses, and you allow entrepreneurs the confidence that they can go risk their capital."

You can't get a better answer than that. Birtherism is a distraction for exactly the reasons Perry says. And for another reason. Getting Zero removed from office on a technicality would be a moral disaster.

A majority of American voters electing Zero was the most suicidally stupid and immoral act ever committed en masse in American history since the Civil War. It was complete moral collapse of the electorate to vote for a man whose preacher wanted God to damn their country.

The only way it can be rectified, to stop America from continuing to slide down the path to national suicide and resurrect their morality, is for a majority of voters to unelect him.

Moreover, to unelect him such that it reverses the direction he has taken our country. So which Republican candidate can best do this? Defeat Zero resoundingly, not even close, and pervasively reverse Zero's course?

Definitely, that candidate is not Romney. I do not think it is Cain, for as fine and accomplished a man as he is, he does not know what he is doing. I think Perry does.

I could be wrong about Cain. He is very smart, maybe smart enough to climb a virtually 90-degree learning curve in the next couple of months.

Conservatives will need to watch him carefully to see if he can do this. They can't be led by emotions, neither by a crush on Cain nor by carping on Perry. They have to choose wisely.

This is the most serious choice collectively conservatives will ever make. The literal fate of our America depends on it. Conservatives have to decide whether they want to win in 2012 or not.

[hocndoc]

Here's another transcript of the Interview, without the typos in the CNBC version, at Time magazine http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/

I've left out the middle portion that highlights the weaknesses of Romney and Cain, I would like to emphasize the strengths of Perry.

[hocndoc]

http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/

Here’s that link.

To the Point is a subscription site. I joined after reading an excerpt here. Maybe others want to also.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup, and here's the winner.

[iowamark]

Wise up!

Perry’s Open Borders, subsidies for illegals, trash conservatives politics is a recipe for the destruction of America. Such evil politics may work in the short term, but are nothing short of Death.

[Darkwolf377]

"... To go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again 'cause they actually get to keep more of what they work for." OMG. That's the ballgame

"OMG" no, it's not. Reading that, even the dopiest lib could respond, "But that's the problem they're NOT starting new businesses, they're keeping it for themselves." Of course, this answer would be BS, but it's one of those loverly 'populist' responses that got Obama in in the first place.

And I see no evidence that Perry would beat Obama in debate so handily--has this writer even watched any of the actual debates?

I'm certainly not anti-Perry, but he's far, far from being the only choice conservatives have.

[hocndoc]

That’s a city hat. It won’t keep off the rain and will bake his head in the sun.

[Utmost Certainty]

lol@Rick Perry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngiJhmoFKkw

I’m sure he’s a nice guy or whatever, but this isn’t acceptable.

[hocndoc]

I hope you read the post.
Perry is most certainly not for “Open Borders,” there is only one narrow instance in which he’s falsely accused of approving “subsidies” (achieving high school graduates who are ignored by the Feds for at least three years and who go to college pay in state tuition), and Perry has never “trashed” conservatives.

He has done everything he could in Texas to subsidize and strengthen border security and to force the Feds to actually deport illegal aliens. Including facing Obama in person and making sure that Texas’ invasion by illegal aliens including murderers, drug runners, and terrorists is not swept under the rug.

Where he has excelled in Texas is in promoting a low cost of living and a business friendly economy that is able to absorb a thousand people moving to our state from the rest of the U.S.

Texas’ “Debt Clock” is running backwards, while our GDP and revenues are increasing. http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-texas-debt-clock.html

[CSI007]

Rick Perry the answer? Bahahahaha. Rick Perry is more of the same...Another Texas republican - NOT conservative - who probably has just as hard a time tying his shoes as he does speaking the English language.

[hocndoc]

We can show them that in Texas, business is good. “They” are starting and growing business.

[AmericanInTokyo]

All -- There is no time left to "watch Cain" further (sic). Look, it is either s*** or get off the pot time, folks. Big time. We are T-67 days, a mere 1,608 hours counting to the first big event of Campaign 2012.

It is one thing to say all these nice things about Herman Cain.

And then another to add a "but" ("but" he cannot be elected, "but", we have to watch him more closely). This is called at some time, running out the clocking, keeping the opposition to RINOs in a state of suspended animation, frozen while the devil can go ahead and do his deed.

For PETES SAKE, the ship is leaving the harbor and Romney could be at the helm, DAMMIT!

Commit to Cain, the People's Frontrunner, to stop Romney the Elite's Boy, lead, follow or get out of the way!!

[hocndoc]

And this is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw

[hocndoc]

nein, nein, nein!

I’m not going to back OZ, whether it’s a brand new bureaucracy to collect a National sales tax or plans for “empowerment zones” or “opportunity zones” designed to bailout the corrupt Dems who have run the cities into the ground.

[Darkwolf377]

I don’t know how much that’s going to carry, though. You can show these folks facts, but look who they voted for last time. It’s going to take more than one election cycle to erase class envy, and the dems have always used that particular truncheon expertly. Perry saying “It’s working great in Texas and we’ll spread that to the rest of the country” sounds hollow just three-four years after we had a two-termer from Texas in the White House.

Not saying this is right or accurate, but that’s how it will play out. Just look at how incredulous the MSM are when people dare to say anything other than a variation on “rich = bad.”

[Yosemitest]

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain is my second.
Newt is my third choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Speaking of someone whose head has been baking in the sun...

[hocndoc]

I’ll ask you, how can the government stay out of a woman’s choice for abortion, yet make abortion illegal?

And why would a conservative ever say that abortion is a woman’s “choice?”

Cain on Stossel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw

On Morgan’s show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPn6Lv-SmM0

On Fox, the next day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyeAsWV9HEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93x0UEsNyqg

[CSI007]

I’m sorry those distortions will not work. Cain is pro life in all instances. Your boy Perry is not. Perry supports abortion in the cases of rape or incest.

[Yosemitest]

I could be wrong ... but I think Cain's hat is a military Cavalry Hat without the gold rope and crossed swords.

[kearnyirish2]

“DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?”

Yes, but we don’t live in a conservative country. Argue it all you want, there is little in the past thirty years to suggest that a majority (or even a large minority) of Americans are conservative. The “progressives” (Dems & Repubs) have won on a national level on just about every issue (excluding gun control in parts of the country): abortion, unfettered immigration, complete separation of Church & state, affirmative action, attacks on the nuclear family, growth/intrusion of government (nanny-state socialism), etc.