Romney Lost; Some Quick Thoughts

Well, it looks like the Golfer-in-Chief won a second term, much to the country’s detriment. It’s been an interesting election, to say the least. Here are some thoughts.

I have to admit, I called this one wrong. Even though the dynamic was very similar to the Reagan/Carter race of 1980, the outcome was completely reversed. I think several factors came into play. First, of course, is that Romney’s no Reagan as far as political skill and presentation. I also think that Romney made a very bad call in not making Benghazi-Gate a very major election issue, right along with Fast & Furious.

But there’s another issue that’s developed in the intervening 32 years that doesn’t portend at all well for the future of this country: the emergence of class warfare as a major political football, and the fact that almost 50% of this country’s populace is on some form of the government dole. I’ve written several times that when that percentage hits 50%+1 vote, this country’s doomed. I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. We’re in very serious trouble.

*                          *                           *

Now that The Amateur has won re-election, is he going to continue to Blame Bush for all this country’s problems? At what point will he start to accept responsibility for this lousy economy… if ever? Or will Biden, if he runs to replace Obama, decide to start blaming… Obama? How long can they keep pointing at Bush? They’ve already set a new world’s record in that event.

*                         *                           *

Fortunately, the GOP has retained control of the House. That means Darryl Issa is still his committee’s chairman. I predict that when the new Congress is seated in January, he’ll be aggressively pursuing AG Holder on the Fast & Furious debacle, and giving Obama some real problems on the Benghazi-Gate mess. I know Obama wanted to run out the election clock on that problem – and with the help of the lamestream media, he did – but it hasn’t gone away. I think it’s barely started.

And again, with the GOP retaining control of the House it’s going to be pretty hard for him to enact what’s sure to be an even more radical socialist agenda, now that he no longer has to answer to an electorate.

*                         *                             *

The destructive effect of “identity politics” and polarization can’t be overstated, and it’s a pernicious and cynical aspect that the leftists have used to full effect. The “Hispanic bloc” and the “black vote” are glaring examples of groups that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, even to their own detriment.

Frankly, I don’t see this situation improving in the foreseeable future; if anything, it’s going to get worse. The welfare policies of the Democrats as initiated by LBJ have essentially enslaved the blacks on the new plantation of government dependency. The devil’s bargain Reagan entered into in 1986 when he signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli “one time, never to be repeated” amnesty for illegal aliens didn’t solve our illegal alien problem; it merely opened the door even wider with the implied promise to new border-crossers that if they can somehow merely wait out the clock they, too, will be rewarded with citizenship and all the government freebies that come with it.

*                           *                                *

The biggest danger regarding the Judiciary is that Scalia – the oldest of the conservatives – will either retire or die. I think he’s too motivated to retire for anything other than health reasons, so we have to pray for his continued good health. The re-elected Commissar will be making other judicial appointments, though, giving him the opportunity to pack the lower courts with like-minded socialists.

That leaves it up to the Senate GOPers to finally – FINALLY – start playing the confirmation game by the same “rules” that their Dem counterparts use, meaning there are none. Time to take off the gloves and play hardball!

Will they do it? Who knows? The jury’s out on that one.

*                            *                                  *

True and effective democracy is hard work. Over the years I’ve written several essays on the topic, including “Bread and Circuses”, in which I’ve pointed out that we’re heading on a fatal course that, if uncorrected, will lead to the demise of this country as we know it as our freedoms and independence are whittled away. This election is a confirmation of those predictions.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the problem. In 1814 John Adams wrote: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

I’ll leave it at that.

© Brian Baker 2012

135 comments on “Romney Lost; Some Quick Thoughts

  1. Anonymous says:

    Not good at all. I fear the lesson taken from this is that the only way to win politically is to pander.

    As to Scalia, I think he might just be stubborn enough to wait out this term before retiring.

    • BrianR says:

      Slow Cowboy, you forgot to put in your username, and I can’t change it from my dashboard. But I recognize your email address.

      I couldn’t agree more with you, right down the line.

  2. Mrs. AL says:

    Great analysis here, BrianR.

    First, those elected no longer have a healthy fear of ‘we the people.’ They should have such a healthy fear. “We the people” are now considered pawns and tools to be used for exceedingly less than honorable means.

    Second, the vast majority of the media entered into an unholy alliance with the leftist/progressives and have commited literal treason against our founding priniciples.

    • BrianR says:

      MrsAL, special thanks to you for taking the tiome. I really appreciate it.

      I agree with you right down the line, too.

      Thanks for the kind words.

  3. Gray Ghost (Mississippi) says:

    To say that we are up a shiite creek without a paddle would be sugar-coating what we face Brian. Like you I believed that we had not yet reached the edge of the abyss. After this election, I am not so sure.

    With the “47%” sucking on the government teat and being paid to vote for more entitlements and the kool-aide drinkers in the Democrat Party who would vote for Satan himself (if he had a “D” after his name), there is no way that the future looks anything more than bleak. With the economy in ruins, more and more people will be forced to go on entitlements. With Obamacare starting to go into effect in 2013, the US medical system will be destroyed in less than 3 years.

    Therefore, what are our options?

    The only way I see out of this mess is one of two equally bad choices:

    1. Secession (and/or revolution).

    2. Move to another country.

    If there was a new world across an ocean (as in the 1600’s thru the 1800’s) I would take my chances and leave. If we had space vehicles like those in “Star Wars”, I and my family would be gone in a heart-beat. However, those options are not available to us. And no other country in the world would be anything else but worse than here.

    Instead, we are left with the worst choice of all.

    • BrianR says:

      Y’know, Gray, it’s funny, but I had a conversation with my daughter today along almost exactly those same lines. I told her that if I thought there were ANY country anywhere in the world where things were better, I’d recommend we all pack up and move. The problem is that as bad as things are getting here, they’re even worse everywhere else, in at least some way or another. And as we go down, we’ll simply drag the rest of the world right down with us.

      I also told her that in just my lifetime I saw this country go from its peak all the way down to where we are now, on a spiral to self-destruction.

      Simply un-frikkin-believable.

      The worst part is that the only way things can even start to be fixed is by electing people that truly believe in traditional conservatism, and they’re probably unelectable any more at the national level.

  4. I concur brother. This nation is screwed. We WILL NOT recover from the parasite attack and anyone who thinks so is crazy. We either secede or submit.

    • BrianR says:

      Yep, screwed we are. But secession won’t happen. Even if it were otherwise possible, did you look at the electoral map of the results? Check this out:

      Click on the “counties” view, and what you’ll see are little pockets of blue buried in massive areas of red. How can there be “secession”, when the election was basically determined by the cities? Which is what that map tells you.

      • Mrs. AL says:

        In your reply you said, “Click on the “counties” view, and what you’ll see are little pockets of blue buried in massive areas of red. How can there be “secession”, when the election was basically determined by the cities? Which is what that map tells you.”

        TIC reply — where are the drones when you need them?

      • BrianR says:


  5. thedrpete says:

    Agree with your analysis, BrianR. Cocktail hour here in the EST cannot come soon enough.

  6. Nee says:

    The hub said the same thing..cities winning. How do you get around that kind of “corrupt”? And, seriously –the liberal thinkers have no idea that this is about how many are now dependent on our money is what “won” the election! They still think its because Obama has done great things according to them.
    The tax implications are astounding!!! We could very well go out of business because improving and upgrading will not be a legal business expense!! Sigh. I cried. Now it’s time to buck up and fight harder!

    • BrianR says:

      Nee, I gotta tell you, I’m not sure it’ll do any good. There comes a point when you’re simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

      The whole idea behind the Crispies four years ago was that unfettered socialism a la Obozo would wake this country up. The risk was that it wouldn’t work. But if it didn’t, nothing ever would. Well, IMO that’s the point we’re at now.

      Just today Harry reid is already talking about raising the debt limit to $20 TRILLION. No one on their side has even made a peep about cutting spending. Think of it! It’s absolutely insane.

      It’s like a cancer. Catch it early and a simple lumpectomy removes the tumor and the patient lives. Wait until it’s spread to every organ in the body, and what can you do? Cut out everything? How can the patient live?

      Well, that’s where we are now. We have reached exactly the stage the Founders warned us against. Even if some guy comes along who has all the right ideas to fix things, how will he ever win an election, with the message that all the mooches have to give up their free money and actually start earning their way?

      Never happen. We’re on an irrevocable path to economic (at least) destruction.

      • Nee says:

        Indeed, I am overwhelmed by the numbers. Interestingly, we will be paying nearly five bucks more in taxes per one dollar spending cuts…109 billion in cuts, v. 474 billion in taxes. I heard Beck today and the question about knowing what the “fiscal cliff’ is was posed. These people voted but they have no idea where we stand economically. It’s UFB…I keep trying to hold out, but I am nearing my mental end with it. Truly.

      • BrianR says:

        Yup. I knoooooow the feeling.

        An electorate that votes on slogans and sound bites. No real knowledge. We’re screwed.

  7. says:

    I was born in the waning years of the depression. I grew up during WWII and Korea. I saw this country at its greatest and, sadly, I am witnessing its demise into something less than what it should be. I’m 73 and I am so very tired of the evil that is overtaking our country. I have a good fishing pole and a great fishing pal and I have a new Harley. I think I’m going to step back and forget the politics for awhile.
    Last night sickened me and I have no more taste right now.
    It seems I was right. You, Gunny G and Crawfish have only been preaching to the choir.

    • BrianR says:

      Yup, Buck. I can’t argue with that. The results speak for themselves.

      I’m completely disgusted and burned out, too. I guess I keep writing because someday my granddaughter will read what I’ve written. But I’m sure tired of wasting my breath on a country that insists on committing suicide.

      Like you, I enlisted; in the Army, in my case. But if I were that same age right now, there’s not a prayer I’d put on the uniform again for what this country’s become. I sure as hell wouldn’t risk my life for it, nor waste a minute of my time doing it.

      • Nee says:

        I am still prepared to die for a Country I no longer recognize, if only force the understanding to my children of what has been lost. I have gotten and given and if it seems sappy, I gotta tell you- I am afraid to die any other way…otherwise it will have been for nothing..does that make sense?

      • BrianR says:

        Y’know, Nee, there was a saying we had in Nam when we were given some brain-dead order from some green 2nd looey or butt-kissing lifer: “Who wants to be the last guy to die in the Nam?”

        We knew it was a lost cause. We could see that the REALLY motivated guys were the ones wearing the wrong uniforms. Our ARVN counterparts were a bunch of undertrained unmotivated draftees led by a corrupt and incompetent officer corps. The other guys were a bunch of disciplined fanatics. You had to be blind to not be able to read the writing on the wall. Had I known that when I enlisted, I may well have not enlisted at all.

        Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad and proud that I did. But we could have actually WON that war, right up through the time I was there, if the political hacks back home had actually let us do it. But they wouldn’t. As usual, they had to screw everything up.

        I already fought for one winnable but lost cause, one lost because of political idiocy. I wouldn’t do it again. The politicians haven’t earned that kind of loyalty, as far as I’m concerned.

  8. clyde says:

    Excellent analysis. Here is another thought. We have seen,since 1992,EVERY time the GOP runs a MODERATE,we get creamed. I’m trying to compose a civil,thoughtful e-mail to the RNC and the RCCC,to see if there is ANY possible way to get them to try a TRUE conservative approach in 2014 and beyond. When I’ve got it done,I’ll put it here as a comment.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Clyde.

      Again, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been singing the same song for several years now. Back when Bush was still Prez.

      Please do post it here. I’ll be really interested in reading it.

  9. clyde says:

    OK,here it is from the e-mail I sent.

    “This e-mail is intended for Mr. Priebus. As a supporter of the GOP my adult life,I must say the defeat of Gov.Romney last night was a kick to the teeth. While we know we will never see a Ronald Reagan again,the fact that since the 1992 election of the scoundrel Bill Clinton against the moderate GHW Bush,we have witnessed 3 more Presidential election cycles in which we were led to believe that a moderate was the ONLY way we would win the White House.Starting with Sen.Dole,Sen.McCain,and Gov.Romney,all 3 moderates by any measure,we have had our heads handed to us by the worst the Democrat Party has to offer. Our great nation is at a crossroads that I believe can be turned around with sound conservative principles. This Party,being afraid of conservatism as espoused by Mr.Reagan,has failed us. I urge you and the executive committee to please consider using Reagan-type conservatism in 2014. It worked in 2010,as we saw. It is my opinion that anything less will lead to more failure. Thank you in advance for the opportunity to express my concerns”.

    Sure hope this doesn’t just get dumped in the DELETE shitcan.Will post any response.

  10. Our nation is no longer one that respects law, order, and morality. We’re now a nation of feelings. Whatever feels good or satisfies a desire is what the people go for, no matter the consequences. We have truly been overrun by the free love, no responsibility fried brains from the 60s.

    • BrianR says:

      Great to see you, Craw! I hope you’re feeling better.

      You nailed it. There are no “consequences” anymore, apparently. Whatever you dream is reality. One long acid trip flashback.

      I thought they were morons then; nothing’s happened to change my mind.

  11. virginia patriot says:

    The 47% turns out to be 50.5%, we’re past the tipping point. The root cause as I see it of our losing the country is the 1965 Immigration Act. Ted Kennedy assured us it would not change the demographics of the country or flood our cities with a million immigrants a year. It has. The Republic is over. Benghazi Obamugabe will have 30 million new Democrats after amnesty to make him President for Life.

    • BrianR says:

      VPat, you’re absolutely right. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been such a die-hard on illegal immigration, and that it’s been a dealbreaker issue for me.

      Of course, it all turned out to be too late anyway.

  12. clyde says:

    Hmmm….. three days now,and NOTHING from the RNC. Hit the SEND button every morning. Gee,ya think they’re ignoring me??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    • BrianR says:


      They’re still trying to uncork their heads from out of their asses. Hard to read anything when your eyes are still stuck in your rectum.

      • clyde says:

        No doubt. According to Condi,the R’s don’t have….. wait for it……… a big enough tent. WTF???

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, I saw that. I think it raises several issues.

      First is that the socialist media is always trying to raise issues to discredit the GOP, and they always find willing (or dumb) accomplices to help them out. Rice is one; Colin Powell’s another. I don’t even know why he claims to be a GOPer.

      In her case, she’s politically naive, at best. It’s especially interesting that in both cases there were elements that at one time or another advanced both their names as presidential prospects. Can you imagine? NEITHER has ever run for public office, and both manage to, from time to time, shove both feet in their mouths.

      IMO, the problem isn’t the size of the “tent” (as I’ve written in the past). It’s the lousy quality of the messengers the Establishment GOP hacks keep putting up at bat. As you pointed out in your email.

    • Nee says:

      Clyde- my husband has been doing the same…every day….send, send, send.

  13. clyde says:

    I see all who have signed secession petitions are an enemy of the state. Hell,just being conservatives made us that. Some moonbats posted a petition declaring everyone who signed one needs to be rounded up,stripped of their citizenship,and in the piece-de-resistance, DEPORTED. Too bad the damned fools don’t look at illegal aliens in the same light.

    • BrianR says:

      You’re right, Clyde. The irony is rich.

      • clyde says:

        Just an afterthought, here is a question for any liberals straying in. Say you would be successful in your petition to have all signatories to the secession petitions rounded up,stripped of citizenship,and deported,and given the fact 99% of said signatories are taxpayers,who does that leave to pay for all the “free” shit?

      • BrianR says:

        Why….. a harvest from the Money Tree Forest, of course!

        What a silly question…

  14. Hardnox says:

    We didn’t lose. The election was stolen. The evidence is overwhelming. See my latest post.

  15. Nee says:

    Bill Whittle!!

  16. Hardnox says:

    In case anyone is wondering why the election fraud by the Dims is not being pursued, here’s the reason:

    The GOP is legally bound NOT TO.

    • BrianR says:

      Pretty damned amazing. I never heard of that before.

      • Hardnox says:

        Me neither until a few hours ago. No doubt the GOP wanted this to stay under wraps for the obvious reasons. They are neutered. The GOP is hamstrung for perpetuity, or at least until they get that ruling over-turned which is likely never.

        The 2014 mid-terms will be all out fraud. Wait for it. If bat-ears has both houses again, we are truly finished.

        The GOP was our only vehicle to counter the Dims. Now more than ever we need to form a new party. Conservative, Libertarians, Independents, TP’rs, and Constitutionalists.

      • BrianR says:

        They need to appeal and challenge that court order on constitutional grounds, IMO.

  17. clyde says:

    After reading the article,it’s official. The Republican Party has sealed it’s fate. Time to form a new party from the ashes. Gives a derivise statement,”the party of stupid”,an element of truth.

  18. jevica says:


    You seem to get better with age.

    This post is 100% spot on [as everyone has said]. Problem is the so-called “leaders” of the PSP are looking for ways that they can compromise with the enemy [what fools they be], on this cliff.

    Don’t they think it might be who they nominate to run [and how they do run the campaign] that is the problem? No they go after conservative talk hosts, and try to be Democrat lite. It makes me laugh how the Dems want to tell the PSP what they have to do to become more electable, and these fools are going to listen to the advice.

    Embrace some kind of “Dream” immigration bill. Can’t attack Rice on Libya because it’s racist. Can’t cut our way out of the fiscal crisis, on and on and they will listen, because they are [wait for it] the PSP.

    BTW just got power back on 11-12-2012, busy cleaning up, FEMA, Con Ed, etc. all over, many hit worse then me and the wife. Everything in basement had to go, wind damage etc… Now dealing with insurance etc

    Also TH blogs are really messed up might have to go elsewhere, try to contact them and it’s just going around in a circle.

    Again get post.

  19. jevica says:

    That’s GREAT post.

  20. jevica says:

    Coming along after Sandy, Better than most only water in basement, lost all in there. New water heater and boiler, wind damage and other stuff, some had water in living spaces and really bad. You just drive around [had to get new car] and see people throwing out everything, you have to get rid of most of your life.

    After BHO was elected I posted that they would blame Bush [43] as long as they could [who thought four more years] he [BHO] never takes blame for anything that goes wrong. These A– holes in the media, etc. just go along with this B. S.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, BTW how is that baby, let’s see some new pictures.

    • BrianR says:

      I’m really sorry to hear you got whacked. I wish you the best for your recovery. And the best for your and your family’s Thanksgiving.

      Yeah… “Blame Bush”… one of the reasons I’ve started call him Oblame-O.

      The munchkin’s great! I think she’s cornered the market on cuteness. I guess I really should post a photo update. She’s definitely the light of my life, second only to my daughter… and it’s a close race at that!

      How are yours? How many do you have, anyway? I’ve forgotten.

  21. clyde says:

    Happy Thanksgiving to all. Jev,glad to hear you didn’t fare too badly. As for TH,the heck with’em .C’mon in here.

  22. CW says:

    Sorry to be so late weighing in here (not to imply that you were waiting for me), but I am only just now learning to cope with my depression. I have finally, but grudgingly, faced the reality that it’s not just a bad dream.

    I know there are a million different opinions on why Romney lost, and probably it was a culmination of factors, but in my view his biggest mistake was that he failed to ever answer Obama’s one and only trump card in this election – the lie that it was “failed republican policies” that got us into “this mess.” This charge was repeated over and over throughout the campaign, and like most lies that go uncorrected it became the truth to a majority of Americans according to any number of polls. And it was a brilliant tactic. If people truly believe that republicans were solely responsible for the disastrous economic crisis that hit just before Bush left office, who in their right mind would put them back in charge? I’m sure the Obama team was amazed at the complete lack of resistance they met to this strategy. No doubt they thought someone would eventually challenge them on their lie, and they laughed all the way to victory.

    And what’s most maddening is knowing how easy it would have been to expose the truth and deprive Obama of the only thing he had going for him. It only takes a minute or two to explain how democrat policies also (if not more so) contributed to the crisis and that Obama & Co. are continuing those same policies even as they whine about the crisis.

    As for our future, I think it’s grim to say the least. The Left start out like termites. You don’t even know they are there, destroying your house from the inside, unless you are diligently watching for them and prepared to take action. Once the damage has been done and is difficult if not impossible to repair, that’s when they change into locusts, multiplying quickly and destroying everything in sight.

    Republicans, both those in office and those of us at home, have failed to protect ourselves from the marching onslaught of the Left and it’s probably too late now. Too many have refused to recognize that we are in a perpetual war with the Left, and we’ve been lazy and unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices and commitments that freedom requires. Go to a school board meeting or the average town council meeting and see how few people show up. We don’t always do our part against illegal immigration by refusing to use companies that rely on illegal labor. And so on. It will take a miracle to reverse the path we’re on.

    How’s that for doom and gloom?

    • BrianR says:

      Outstanding “comment”, CW. That deserves to be an essay in its own right at your place.

      That having been said, I have a few thoughts in response.

      As to your thoughts about the GOP’s flaccid response to Oblame-O’s 4 years of blame-shifting: I couldn’t agree more, and that’s exactly why I changed my registration from “Republican” to “Decline to State”, Greeceifornia’s version of “Independant”, four years ago when they nominated McAmnesty. They seem to have this idiotic idea that if they can be somehow “like” Democrats without actually BEING Democrats they’ll somehow magically win elections.

      First of all, it won’t work. But more importantly, what’s the point of winning at all, if you’re not offering an alternate approach to governance? Just so they can say, “Hey! We’re just like them, except not as much!”? Not exactly a winning message.

      But the more pernicious problem illustrated by this election is the appeal and efficacy of buying votes through government handouts and largesse, as I’ve mentioned oh so many times. That’s always how socialism takes root: the promise of free money and goodies. It appeals to the baser aspects of human nature, which is why it’s so alluring, and succeeds so readily.

      Romney made many mistakes, but one of the biggest ones was running away from his 47% comment. You should NEVER disavow somethin g you’ve said when IT’S THE TRUTH. It was actually a terrific opportunity for him to initiate the dialogue we MUST have in this country if we’re ever going to reverse course from this highway to destruction that we’re on.

      But of course, part of the problem is that, at heart, Romney’s not conservative. So there was no way he’d be comfortable or effective at entering into that ideological battle. He is DEFINITELY no Reagan.

      His other mistake, as you said, is that he just wasn’t aggressive about anything. He didn’t draw a line in the sand ideologically; he completely dropped Benghazi, and never mentioned Fast & Furious, both of which he should have beat Bat Ears to death with; he never hammered any issue, such as oil independance. He was trying too hard to be “nice”, and that was a very stupid mistake. He set himself up as a punching bag; that NEVER works in this country.

      Now we see too many of the GOPers getting ready to fold yet AGAIN over these current “fiscal cliff” (what a load of PR BS that name is) negotiations. Daaaaamn… thay should just stand firm! It’s TWO MORE YEARS until the next election, and already they’re running scared. What a bunch of weenies. If I’d had to share a foxhole with any one of them, I’d have pushed their sorry butts out of the hole for being useless cowards and used them as a diversion to draw fire while I tried to do something actually USEFUL.

      • CW says:

        >>”…the more pernicious problem illustrated by this election is the appeal and efficacy of buying votes through government handouts and largesse…”

        Absolutely. The only hope we could have of ever possibly getting this ship back on course is to cut off the ability of politicians to use OUR money to buy themselves votes, and yet, during those rare windows of opportunity when republicans have a majority do they take any steps to do this? Nope.

        >>”Romney made many mistakes, but one of the biggest ones was running away from his 47% comment. You should NEVER disavow something you’ve said when IT’S THE TRUTH.”

        I agree. In fact, if I were Romney I would have challenged those 47% to prove me wrong.

        >>”But of course, part of the problem is that, at heart, Romney’s not conservative. So there was no way he’d be comfortable or effective at entering into that ideological battle. He is DEFINITELY no Reagan.”

        You’ll get no argument from me on that!

      • BrianR says:

        “The only hope we could have of ever possibly getting this ship back on course is to cut off the ability of politicians to use OUR money to buy themselves votes, and yet, during those rare windows of opportunity when republicans have a majority do they take any steps to do this?”

        No, you’re right. With the exception of Reagan’s efforts, the GOP has been only a bit better than the Dems.

        And here’s the pickle we’re in now: it’s reached the point that if there ever IS a true constitutional/fiscal politician who proposes what’s really needed, he’ll stand just about zero chance of ever getting elected. The government money machine has seduced and destroyed the country. We’re in exactly the mess the Founders warned us against.

        I really don’t see a solution, short of letting a fiscal disaster happen, and then trying to rebuild it right from the ashes.

  23. 8than AMERICA says:

    It be overwhelming–but I do believe there IS still a ship called the USS Constitution–and she IS still sailing. We noeed to work towards the next elections and …now!

    • BrianR says:

      I admire your enthusiasm. My caveat would be that in order for the next elections to be meaningful, some very fundamental changes have to take place. I’m not convinced that — at least under the current circumstances — the electorate will go for the kind of candidates that will propose what needs to be done; nor, frankly, that the GOP will even field such candidates.

  24. Nee says:

    What next?? I am still following that sailing ship but it’s gonna get harder and harder if this happens!! 🙂

  25. clyde says:

    Been a while,my friend. Just a quick thought on the shootings in Connecticut. Where the hell is the cry from the left to ban NUTJOBS?? These same snarkmasters are the ones who wailed and moaned about locking up the KNOWN mentally deranged,let alone the unknown ones,and pretty much led to where we are now. This guy Lanza had several disorders,there is NO WAY he should have been out in public. My late older brother was bi-polar. One time when I was home,my sis-in-law called me to come help her out with him. When I got there,he was jumping up and down on his bed,screaming at me to find the ammo for his Mossberg he had in his hands,so he could kill me and his wife and daughter. Needless to say,I didn’t try to find it,although I knew it was in his workshop. He had gone off his meds,which a lot of them do, several times. EVERY DAMN TIME,it led to similar incidents. Thankfully,I got him somewhat calmed down to take him up to the psych ward at the local VA hospital here. I wish the stupefied left would put the same energy behind getting the whackjobs off the streets as they do trying to disarm those of us who would like to able to protect ourselves. As the saying goes,when seconds count,the police are minutes away.

    • BrianR says:

      Hey, Clyde. Good to hear from you. Merry Christmas!

      On top of everything that you wrote there, the nutjob STOLE THE GUNS! He didn’t buy them. So what law do they think is going to do anything about that?

      Of course, in their perfect dream-world utopia, all guns in the country would just magically disappear. Problem solved!

      There’s a reason why the words “leftist logic” are the perfect oxymoron.

      • clyde says:

        Merry Christmas back at you and yours. You are right,I had forgotten the guns had been stolen from his mother. Don’t know if you’ve been to Gunny’s,but our pal Ivan left a real nugget on the issue.

      • BrianR says:

        I’ll have to go check it out. I’ve actually decided to write an essay on the topic.

  26. clyde says:

    Looking forward to it.

  27. thedrpete says:

    The progressives’ way is to tout that government is doing something. The constitutionalists’ way is to tout that government should do nothing, indeed undo what it’s already wrongly done. The former sounds reasonable and compassionate to the great majority. The latter is appreciated and respected by but a very-few.

    In any argument we lose, even if what the progressives do fails miserably. I mean, at least they tried, right?

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, exactly. Which is why, historically, democracies always end up committing suicide.

      • thedrpete says:

        And which is why America wasn’t designed as a democracy.

      • BrianR says:

        Well, it was their effort to circumvent the obvious perils. It seems to have failed. But a republic is still a form of democracy; it’s indirect instead of a direct plebiscite.

  28. Brian R, Mitt Romney sank his own ship in 2 ways: 1: His flip-flop with his claim that Romneycare was the basis for Obamacare, which he later admitted was true. 2: His claim that 47% of the population would stand with Barack Obama no matter what. An assumption of that nature is absurd.

    • BrianR says:

      Romney was an awful candidate, and not much of a “conservative”, either. My support for him was tepid at best, and only because I thought Obozo was one of the worst things that ever happened to the country.

      I STILL think that, in fact.

  29. Brian R, my preferred candidate was Rick Santorum. Do I agree with him on everything? No. Do I agree with him on most things? Yes.

  30. Brian R, have you read his books Blue Collar Conservatives or It takes a Family? I have the book version of Blue Collar Conservatives and the audio book version of It takes a Family. Both are very enlightening. Even if what Mitt Romney said had some degree of truth, you cannot claim that a certain segment of the population that pay no income tax vote Democrat and either have credibility or the support of the people you speak about. Mitt Romney is probably a nice enough guy, however, as a person who does not make any money at this time working a typical job, the claim that someone like me would have voted for Barack Obama rubbed me the wrong way.

    • BrianR says:

      Gotta admit, Jeffrey, I haven’t read his books, and actually, I’m not really interested in doing so. He just doesn’t animate me in any way.

      As you say, he spoke some pretty broad generalities which didn’t reflect much thought. I don’t have much respect for that. In a sense, it was very similar to Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment when you think about it. Just plain dumb, at least at the political level, as you said.

  31. Brian R, I know that sometimes things can be taken out of context. However, Mitt Romney did not help his case with his comments.

  32. Brian R, how do you mean I am a master of the understatement? Are you saying that you agree with me or are you saying that I am oversimplifying things?

  33. Brian R, I could never see myself voting for a Democrat. However, even if what Mitt Romney said had some truth to it, not all people who pay no federal income tax would vote for one candidate or another, regardless of Party affiliation, without knowing the political stances of the candidate. Here is an issue that many republicans get wrong (not all, but many): Advocating a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. The Dictionary already defined the word, so this legal definition b.s. is absurd. Since marriage ceremonies are performed by Churches, the Churches should have the final say. Since civil unions are overseen by government officials, government should only really acknowledge those and not marriage.

    • BrianR says:

      In a perfect world, that might work. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world, so there are consequences that ensue, as we see all the time sine the Obergefell decision.

      First of all, there are financial and other issue that emanate from whatever a “marriage” is by law: property issues, probate, inheritance, tax breaks, etc.

      But more importantly, we’re seeing same-sex “marriage” being used as a cudgel to stifle free speech and expression, right of association, religious liberty, and many other legitimate rights. Law suits against Masterpiece cake shop, the Boy Scouts, religious and charitable institutions, right on down the line.

      All of which was predicted by many people, including me.

      Dictionary definitions aren’t acceptable as legal standards. Those are defined by legislation. I think a constitutional amendment would be great if it had a chance of passage; it probably doesn’t. But more importantly, the 14th Amendment was improperly applied. It has to be THE most-abused amendment there is.

  34. Brian R, even if same-sex marriage was not technically recognized at the federal level, on a state by state basis, what benefits should be available to same-sex couples in your opinion? Hospital visitations should be one benefit in my opinion if a partner is ill.

    • BrianR says:

      This state, and many others, had already accommodated that issue with the “civil union” proposal, which had all the same benefits as actual “marriage” without using that word. So there was no de facto “discrimination”.

      Not good enough for the fanatics.

      Which is another reason why I’ll NEVER accept same-sex “marriages” as legitimate. Ever.

  35. Brian R, each to their own. The only arguments against same-sex marriage that are valid are those that are religiously based. All other arguments are lame.

    • BrianR says:

      Really? Non-religious objections are “lame”?

      So, everything I’ve said here about the legalities involved; the overreach by the fanatics and the consequent effects on free speech, association and religious practice; the abuse of the 14th Amendment; the destructive effect on our social construct and mores; all of that was “lame”?

      How about if I say that comment was stupid?

  36. Brian R, I was not speaking of your objections specifically. I was speaking of general objections outside of the religious aspect. Religious objections are fine. Political objections are not.

    • BrianR says:

      My objections are ALL “political”.

      First thing, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

      You sound like a sanctimonious fool right now.

  37. Brian R, what is it with the personal attacks? Insofar as I know, none of my previous comments have attacked you. Since marriage ceremonies occur in Churches, it can be argued that marriage has a religious connotation in that sense. As I said, I view all non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage as lame. Legally speaking, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is a Constitutional right, any claim that this is an act of redefining marriage is dishonest. Look up the equal protection clause. Any person who wants to cherry-pick which parts of the U.S. Constitution to follow has absolutely no value for it. I am not acting like I am morally superior to you (or to anybody else) in any regard. No, I do not believe myself to be morally superior, so the accusation of me sounding like a sanctimonious fool is dishonest. How exactly am I digging myself into a hole?

    Now, back to the subject of why Mitt Romney lost. He spoke well during the debates. However, he used the term middle class, which is a Marxist term. Class rhetoric is divisive. He also destroyed himself politically with his 47% comment. If I was in the 47%, I would never have voted for the Democratic candidate in any election. Quite honestly, I did not vote for Mitt Romney in my state’s primary or in the general election.

    • BrianR says:

      No not back to Romney

      Kid, you did it again: “As I said, I view all non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage as lame.”

      And you’re still in that hole and digging vigorously, managing to sound like a sanctimonious fool, as I already said.

      Maybe you should review this thread and see if you can figure it out.

  38. Removed by the moderator.

  39. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, if Mitt Romney had kept his mouth shut and not denounced 47% of the population as moochers, he would have been more credible with what he said otherwise. One of the people who commented on your post spoke as to how he thought political objections to same-sex marriage were lame. That was obviously not directed at you. A statement that political objections on the marriage issue are lame means that the law should have no place in telling you that your relationship has any validity.

  40. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, as a follow up, I know that people can say things that will be taken out of context. To say that you will never be able to convince a certain percentage of the population to vote for you may be technically correct. The issue is that these people who are spoken of may seem like they are being accused of being moochers. Mitt Romney made a valid point about the issue of “free” stuff, however, just saying that someone who does not make enough money to be able to pay federal income tax, may fall on hard times and needs help qualifies as being a moocher, is absurd.

    If a politician said, “I believe marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman, however, it is not my business,” that is one thing I can respect. A politician who advocates for traditional marriage and yet cheats on a marital relationship would demonstrate a severe lack of credibility.

    • BrianR says:

      In your second paragraph your first sentence is only tangentially relevant to your second sentence. Those are actually two entirely separate issues.

  41. ragnarsbhut says:

    True. If I may further elaborate, here is what I mean: If a politician advocates for traditional marriage and yet cheats on their marriage with a member of the same biological, that is a hypocrisy by nature.

    • BrianR says:

      I got the point you were trying to make. I’m not looking for saints in politicians; I’m looking for advocates of the policy positions I support. For example, my ultimate reluctant support for Trump was based solely on his being the Not Hillary, and frankly he doesn’t strike me as someone I’d ever hang around with.

      That having been said, he’s surprised me by what he’s done in office, and I’ve become a very strong supporter of his presidency based on the positions he’s taken and the policies he’s promoted.

  42. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, I know that you are not looking for saints in politicians. Neither am I. I just want transparency from them, regardless of Party label.

    • BrianR says:

      Sure, as much as possible. More is always better, but I always temper my expectations with an acceptance of human nature and imperfection.

  43. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, you are preaching to the choir.

  44. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, even though you go for political stuff from what I am reading, do you like spicy foods at all? Is that not really in your taste?

    • BrianR says:

      Well, Ragnar, I assume your question has something to do with the topic of your own blog. I’m not much of a foodie at all. For the most part I eat what I nuke at home, or pick up at a Mickey D’s or sub shop.

      I used to be a fat kid, so…

  45. ragnarsbhut says:

    Yes, it does. As far as your inclinations for spicy foods is concerned, what is in your taste?

    • BrianR says:

      Wow. Tough question. I spent much of my youth overseas, being an Army brat, so I was exposed to a lot of very authentic international cuisine.

      If I had to pin it down to one cultural origin, I’d say that would probably be Greek.

      How about you?

  46. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, I like a wide variety of spicy foods. I will be blogging about that as often as is possible. You are more than welcome to tell whoever you want to about my blog.

  47. ragnarsbhut says:

    I will post on my blog as often as possible with some material related to spicy foods, peppers and so on. Be sure to look into it whenever you want and give me feedback or suggestions. Any are welcome.

  48. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, my spice threshold is pretty high. Having said that, if I push my limits, I know it.

  49. Well written and insightful post, Brian. Flows very well.

    Romney’s politically incorrect comment on the 47% hurt him badly.

    I agree. He should have attacked Obama much harder on Benghazi.

    Have you seen the movie, 13 Hours?

  50. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, in my opinion, even if some of what Mitt Romney said was taken out of context, that does not make him entirely right. I read where you accused one person who had commented on the issue of opposition to same-sex marriage being lame as being a sanctimonious fool. If someone says, “I object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, however, it is none of my business,” that is one thing. If the person in question said, “I object to same-sex marriage, however, it is none of my business,” that is a separate matter.

    • BrianR says:

      Or someone can say “I object to same-sex marriage, and will fight to make it again illegal”, and IMO they’re perfectly within their rights. There’s nothing sanctimonious about that. We ALL fight for policies which reflect our opinions. That’s what democracy (or a republic) is all about.

      When I accuse someone of sanctimony, it’s generally not because of the nature of their opinion, it’s due to their method of expression or lack of an intellectual basis for it.

  51. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, you make very valid points.

  52. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, if Mitt Romney kept his mouth shut and not made his 47% comment, he could have turned the tide more in his favor. That should come back to bite him in the ass, particularly if he has another moment like that.

    Outside of the tax issue, as well as a few other matters, I believe that government should not have any involvement in marriage. What are your views?

    • BrianR says:

      Great question. The term “marriage” has pretty broad meaning, so let me be specific. I agree with you that government shouldn’t have any role in defining the boundaries of what relationships are “legitimate”, assuming consenting adults.

      HOWEVER, I do believe that government has a legitimate role in defining the legal definition of what an actual “marriage” is. “Government” is the method humans use to define their societies as social constructs and social contracts. Because of that some form of “government” is part of human nature and inescapable.

      In the USA I believe the proper role of government in defining marriage is as a state issue to address, which in fact they already do with varying ages of consent, restrictions on familial marriages, etc. The feds should have never gotten involved. Obergefell was a horrible decision.

  53. ragnarsbhut says:

    I would scrap the word marriage from every legal code. You could use the term legal partner to describe the relationship you have.

    • BrianR says:

      You could use the term “potato”, too. But you’re talking about a cultural and social practice, and everyone’s going to know what that is regardless of the terminology.

      In our society the word “marriage” has a specific definition. Now, as far as I’m concerned if people want to legalize “civil unions” as an alternate to “marriage”, have at it. In fact, I’ve advocated it for years. But in the entire history of this country the word “marriage” denotes a relationship between a man and a woman. I think changing that was a horrible idea that’s led to terrible consequences.

  54. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, I provided a scenario for you in which case someone can say that they object to same-sex marriage, however, it is none of that person’s business anyway. In your opinion, is there any inconsistency if you have a person who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, however, they elect to leave the matter alone?

    • BrianR says:

      “… it is none of that person’s business anyway.”

      You could use the same “argument” about any and every law. The result is anarchy and chaos.

  55. ragnarsbhut says:

    In some cases, that is true.

  56. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, I do not believe so. Can you provide me a link to the website? You also never directly answered my question as to if there is any inconsistency in the thought process of a person who said that they object to same-sex marriage, however, they elect to leave the matter alone.

    • BrianR says:

      You don’t know whether or not you’re the same guy?

      Huh….. Well, here’s the link:

      As to that “inconsistency”, people aren’t under any obligation to take action on anything. Having an opinion doesn’t mean one has to spend time “acting” on it. If it did, I doubt many people would have time to actually do anything else.


  57. ragnarsbhut says:

    Actually, there is no relation between me and the same guy you mention. The only common factor is the first name.

  58. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, as a follow up, my last name is Snedeker. It only says bhut based off of the Bhut Jolokia pepper.

    • BrianR says:

      Okay, Ragnar, thanks. But I don’t really pay much attention to people’s online names other than obvious first names. So I wasn’t thinking “Butt”, if that was your concern. I wasn’t giving it any thought at all.

  59. ragnarsbhut says:

    Brian, you said, “When I accuse someone of sanctimony, it’s generally not because of the nature of their opinion, it’s due to their method of expression or lack of an intellectual basis for it.” I think I can understand where you are coming from. As far as political objections to same-sex marriage being lame, I think that the people who make the argument that political objections are lame basically are saying that they don’t believe that they require the blessings of the politicians to give validation to their relationships. I would interpret the statement that objecting to same-sex marriage on religious grounds means that the people saying that do not want their places of worship being infringed upon by people whose lifestyle they oppose. From a political standpoint, the libertarians get this issue right. Just my thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s