MASON CONSERVATIVE

Obama Sucks Is Not A Political Philosophy

Beware, more ramblings frome me are coming.

So I've been thinking more and more, trying to figure out exactly why I need to vote for Mitt Romney.  I mean, the argument that he's the lesser of two evils still admits the fact that he's bad.  Just not as bad.  Shouldn't my standards be higher than that?  This week I've watched Obama take a beating, starting with Scott Walker and ending with "The private sector is fine."  Clearly I could front-run now and jump on Romney like everyone else with their crafty Facebook widgets and RNC-made videos.  But its not enough for me right now.  I'm looking for more, for substance.  

Now I realize asking for substance from anyone who makes it this high in politics is a lot to ask for, but with Romney it is especially weak.  First off, I believe he is a good man, even an honorable man.  He's worked hard his whole life, earned his money, and should be celebrated for it.  But this standard Republican cant I see week in and week out on the news, blogs, and radio driven by RNC and RPV press releases emailed ot everyone is so vapid.  

What is our philosophy as a party?  I get we want to cut government and cut taxes.  We are pretty good at cutting taxes, but when has a Republican last cut government?  The Republican Party since 1980 has ultimately failed as a limited government party up to this date.  We place conditions on our limited governmnet philosophy.  We want less government, but don't mind using it to start wars and nation build overseas that costs trillions and we sure don't mind using it to keep gay people from being happy.  But beside that, right now in 2012, what is our philosophy?

I know what Barack Obama's philosophy is.  Heck, I even know what Gary Johnson's philosophy is.  But is Romney?  What does he want to do?

The problem begins with the political parties themselves.  Professional Republicans and Democrats have metastasized into pseudo-government agencies themselves.  The parties battle each other just so they control the levers of power.  Neither wants to restrain any of it.  Anti-war Democrats start more wars, anti-government Republicans grow government.  And they both spend and spend.  To fix it, Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to cut taxes.  Neither party wants to deal with the real problems.  

American elections are no longer about philosophies, despite what professional hacks might say, but rather fights just to beat the other side.  I've been thinking about this, and I think the rubicon was crossed when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.  We haven't looked back since in terms of hyper-partisanship that leads to nothing.  But winning for the sake of winning isn't really winning at all.  If we defeat Barack Obama in 2012, what exactly will change in the bigger picture?  Don't get me wrong, he needs to go.  But in partisan politics these days, its personal.  I hate George W. Bush, the left says; I hate Barack Obama, the right says.  We have allowed our politics to degenerate into high school popularity contests for president.  

My main problem is Mitt Romney.  Everything a true constitutional conservative despises about what the Obama Administration has done, chiefly among them Obamacare, how can we believe that Romney will truly erase it?  I mean, he did the exact same thing in Massachusetts.  So far, all I know about what Mitt Romney will do is end EPA regulations, do something about Obamacare he hasn't really spelled out, and - oh yeah - he believes in America.  Great.  

We have a political system now where professional Democrats and Republicans agree to vote for each others corruption and spending and agree to keep principled conservatives and progressives marginalized, people who really do agree in taking power away from the powerful and back to the people (in different ways).  This system need more progressives and liberty conservatives running for office because we have a  bi-partisan machine that is now apart of the government itself taking this country off the cliff.  The Republican and Democrats Parties are wards of the government, the motivation to win is as much to replace the other in power than do anything really different.  Democrats have power now, and Republicans want that power.  

Is Romney Being Forced To Pick A Paul For VP?

Every step of this tortured road to the GOP nomination, Mitt Romney has been put in a corner.  Michele Bachmann emerged, the Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich (twice), then Rick Santorum.  In each skirmish, Mitt had to use all of his money to take each of them down and he made few friends doing it.  

Yet along the way, Ron Paul stuck to a strategy of delegate counting that ensured he would not be the nominee but that he would have an outsized influence on the nomination itself.  State after state Paul underperformed (except for New Hampshire) on the surface but over-performed underground.  It is as if he knew going in couldn't win, so he needed to figure out a strategy to ensure that his movement and voice does not die with him.  It also was a strategy that put a gun to the head of the Republican Party.  Close to 500 Ron Paul supporters will be delegates on the floor in Tampa, and we all know what shows these conventions are suppose to be.  With Romney suddenly showing strength in race against Obama, a convention overrun with Paulbots booing to their hearts content is a serious problem.  These conventions are suppose to come off like clockwork, showing how unified everyone is around the nominee.  With the Paul 2012 strategy, it is a guarantee that will not happen.

Unlike any of the previous candidates from 2011/2012, Ron Paul actually has some leverage over Mitt Romney.  Romney needs nothing from the Newts, Santorums, and Perrys of the world; they need him now.  But Paul needs nothing from Romney at this moment and Romney desperately needs a smooth convention to build momentum into the fall.  Paul could wreck that.  

Simply getting Rand Paul's endorsement isn't enough.  Check out Daily Paul or Rand's FB page . . . he's Judas to the hardcore Paulbots.  Hell, it was hard for me to watch.  I suspect they know their movement well enough to know this would happen.  This simply cannot be all there is.  Rand Paul wouldn't be doing this without his father's knowledge or blessing.  A simple endorsement for a speaking slot can't be worth the beating Rand is taking now.  

I'm beginning to wonder if the threat of chaos in Tampa is enough right now for Romney to essentially have his hand forced on who his running-mate will be.  Most say its Rand, but I disagree.  A less-than-two-year senator without any previous experience in leadership will be tougher to swallow than Sarah Palin because she at least had been a mayor and governor.  Besides, Rand Paul needs to stay in the Senate where he is most useful to Liberty.  I can't imagine Rand would not only sell out his movement but also his own Senate seat.

My own 1 am logic is telling me that the more obvious choice in this scenario is Ron Paul himself.  He is a 76 year old man who has built a movement from Austrian economics seminars in the 1970s that is poised to take over the GOP.  He will not be President of the United States, even he knows that.  But his career is essentially over.  He has something to offer Mitt Romney, the hopes that much of his movement will come out to vote in November.  There is still the problem of those newsletters that have to be gotten over.  Paul is at the end of his run in politics and might want the vice-presidency to preserve his legacy and legitimize his life's work.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is something Romney and his team would do out of want, but rather need.  Paul's supporters could essentially hold that convention hostage and embarrass the entire party on national television.  The only balm to that rash would be Ron Paul himself.  This would be a candidate forced on the party.  Paul's delegate counting campaign ensured he would have an out-sized presence at the Convention, could it be enough to make him Vice President?

EPIC Takedown

I don't know who The Last Federalist is, I've never heard of the blog before.  But this is one of the most epic takedowns of a campaign I have ever seen.  Whoever this blogger is, he was a big supporter of Chris Perkins and then proceeds to waylay his campaign and has endorsed Ken Vaughn.  This might be my favorite part:

What is even more disconcerting is the lack of a ground game by the Perkins campaign. Whether it is their voter identification program or the lack of signs in the median, the Perkins campaign has been unable to prove that they have the organization and campaign strategy necessary to win in November. The fact that there is a growing concern that Ken Vaughn might actually win on June 12^th, shows how weak and inept the Perkins campaign strategy is and how the senior management of their campaign has failed to put a structure together that sufficiently demonstrates his operation has what it takes to succeed. "Team Perkins" has many failings chiefly among them is he has not hired a campaign manager, Chris has decided to give the keys to his campaign over to a corrupt consultant with a track record of running dirty campaigns. See this press report about his previous track record. This consultant named Tyler Harber has not only taken Chris a new comer to the political world to the proverbial woodshed and suckered him for all the money that he is worth they haven't developed a winning strategy. Looking at the FEC reports Prosper Group Tyler’s company and there contractors have been paid $97,850 from the Perkins Campaign. This is and unheard of amount to spend on Consulting in a primary! AND the best part is that’s only through April so since Tyler is averaging 11K a month from this candidate so I can’t wait to see what the next FEC reports show us.

There is a big problem in our local party about certain types entering party leadership who double as consultants and lobbyists.  They use their positions inside the party to steer business to their friends, and often take advantage of newcomer candidates.  These new-to-politics candidates generally don't know what they are getting into and end up getting ripped off.  It is why the grassroots conservative activists must continue to fight and be vigilant in the local party and refuse to surrender it to the professional Republican apparatchiks out there.  

DOOM Poll For Bill Bolling?

Wow.  Just WOW.

• Cuccinelli:  51%
• Bolling:  15%

I mean, seriously?  He has a 70% job approval rating while Bolling is at 48% (and McDonnell is at 64% in another poll) among Republicans.  Ken leans among men, women, Tea Party voters, moderates, evangelicals, and conservatives.  

I'm wondering if Bolling might be hoping Mitt Romney wins the White House just so he can get a graceful way to exit this race.  

Electoral College: Romney 272, Obama 266

Romney states:  VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, MS, AL, LA, AR, OK, TX, AZ, NV, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, OH, KY, TN, IN, WV, AK

Obama states:  ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, PA NY, DE, MD, DC, MI, WI, IL, IA, MN, CO, NM, CA,OR, WA, HI

• Fools gold states for Republicans:  Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan 
• Fools gold states for Democrats:  North Carolina, Arizona, Indiana
• True toss-up states:  Virginia, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida

Periodically I'll keep doing this but honestly, I'm a conservative blogger so naturally I'm going to lean it in Romney's direction.  I'm not going to pretend I'm some newsman.  A couple thousand votes here and there in any of these states will swing this election.

This is just going to be razor-close if things hold to form and no monstrous events or scandals affect this race.

 

"Forward"

I was ready to bloviate on and on about the aparant recall victory tonight by Gov. Scott Walker and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch but instead I thought this fact was most telling and perhaps the biggest message out of this.

The state motto of Wisconsin:  "Forward"

Nothing else really needs to be said.

Baby Beer Coming 12/12/12

Jess and I are excited to announce we are expecting our first child this December!

Blogging Pet Peeves

Over the years I've comprised a long list of pet peeves that many bloggers (including myself) have done.  Here is a quick list.

• Using the term "meme"
• Prefacing names with the word "Shorter"
• Referring to politicians too formally, like constantly calling Eric Cantor, "Leader" Cantor.
• Moderating comments.
• Putting up long posts about the UFC in a politics blog.
• Bad spelling.
• The term "jumping the shark."
• Bad grammer.
• Primary vs. convention.
• Money bombs.  It's gotten old, folks.  The original money bombs were grassroots activists getting together and raising money all at the same time.  Now its no different than regular fund-raising that astro-turfs "grassroots" support.
• Posting press releases.  Come on, we're better than that.

That's all I've got.

Wow. That felt good!  Haha, if there is anything else feel free to vent!