Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Lies, Damned Lies and Demographics

This is a turnout/percentage simulator and the numbers you see are from 2012. I urge you to go to the site and play with it a bit. You may be surprised by what you find.

2016 will be a lot different. I don't need to tell you the black vote will likely "normalize" with turnout and percentages. Since 1964 it has only been above 60% three times, and two of those times were...do I have to say it? Plus there's an untapped treasure trove of Black conservatives our progressive/establishment dolts haven't a clue how to attract. "Blacks, in OUR party? Oh my, what would father say!?"

Here's a very possible (and conservative) scenario in my view, as you can see we don't need the illegal vote. What we need is a few more black votes, a higher turnout and our share of the millennials which is still up for grabs thanks to BHO. Anyway, have fun and stop believing the MSM media and the Republican consultant class'  bullshit about how we NEED Hispanics. We don't...at the moment. Dick around on immigration and you might consider learning spanish.

Monday, August 31, 2015

What does the sole of a sensible shoe taste like?

Hillary's emails may or may not amount to evidence of a crime, but they certainly make for some fun reading. For example, suppose you were thinking that you were not good at ingratiating yourself with people in power. You know, you always wanted to lick the boots of greatness, but you never really got the chance. Well, now you can follow the example of great Clinton friend Lanny Davis (but be sure not to lean over your keyboard or anything else that might be damaged by vomit when you read the tweet below):

If we had good reporters, somebody would ask Lanny whether the soles of Hillary's sensible shoes would taste better with a little salt, or maybe even a strip of bacon?

Reparations? Not in This Life!

Mere de Hammer with brother Cliff 1949
Cliff 1950 on grandparent's front

Grandparents 1955

Mom and Cliff  on grandparent's swing1954

"When Clyde Ross was still a child, Mississippi authorities claimed his father owed $3,000 in back taxes. The elder Ross could not read. He did not have a lawyer. He did not know anyone at the local courthouse. He could not expect the police to be impartial. Effectively, the Ross family had no way to contest the claim and no protection under the law. The authorities seized the land. They seized the buggy. They took the cows, hogs, and mules. And so for the upkeep of separate but equal, the entire Ross family was reduced to sharecropping."
Ta-Nehisi Coates

Here's another family of the same generation that was "reduced to sharecropping". I doubt very much their standard of living was any higher than Clyde Ross and his family. But some would have the descendants of Tobe and Prudence (my grandparents) pay REPARATIONS to the descendants of Clyde Ross. Why? Because Clyde was poor? Because he couldn't pay his taxes which the author implies were not owed? The fact is I don't owe Clyde Ross or his family a damned thing, and if I'm forced to pay I will exercise my God given right to defend my rights. If YOU choose to throw your money away out of some misplaced guilt then that's up to you. Keep me out of it!

"Conservatism" is NOT Serving Conservatives!

Have Republicans suddenly gone stupid? They can read a poll. They know what Trump's candidacy is all about. They know what the base wants but yet they resist. Plus, oddly, much the same thing is going on on the Democrat side, but that's another post for another day.

So what's the end game here? A couple of months ago Jeb, (the quintessential establishment, monied, out-of-touch, disingenuous, elitist prick) was thrilled about Donald Trump. The thinking was he'll bloody the small fry while Jeb flies above the fray. WRONGO! Jeb might be the first out... and why? Because the people who control this party ain't the party. They might control most of the money but they don't control us.

There are already signs that a few of these candidates are starting to get it, IMMIGRATION is the key. They're still very tentative, this is the age of Obama after all, and they don't want a trumped up charge of racism to kill their candidacy. But it's encouraging that a couple have stuck their toe in the water. If their numbers go up look for every last one of them to try to "out wall" the other. Our goal is to SHUT DOWN THE BORDER COMPLETELY, impose a moratorium on ALL immigration for 10 years so as to "digest" the legal immigrants that have flooded the country for 20+ years as well as institute a visa system that TRACKS tourists and students etc. that are responsible for 40% of illegal immigration. Also to do away with "anchor babies" which any honest, thoughtful and reasonably intelligent person knows is not a Constitutional right.

So, don't be fooled by "conservatives". John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are "conservatives". They are of course false-flag progressives and the immigration issue is just smoking them out. So let's keep it up and we may just win this party back...and an election too!

A post about Elizabeth Warren, but not politics

In the morning mail we find this story, in which Elizabeth Warren, granted the great boon of seeing Pope Francis address the United States Congress, offers her granddaughter Warren's one and only "guest ticket." Granddaughter declines, because school.

Huh? A once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a pope -- even a Commie pope -- address the United States Congress, and freaking school is the conflict? This is elevating a given day of school, which for almost everybody, including no doubt Warren's granddaughter, is trackless hours of nonsense punctuated by occasional real learning, to a status it does not deserve.

It is tempting to pin this on Warren somehow, since I am sorely tempted by any opportunity to pin anything on her, but the ugly truth is that a huge proportion of aspiring and educated parents of the striving class would make the same foolish decision (recognizing, because the milk of intellectual honesty flows through my veins, that I actually have no basis for knowing why school was a conflict in this case -- perhaps it was on the day of a stage production for which the granddaughter was to be center stage, so to speak, or some shit like that), regardless of the consequences for actual learning, curiosity, or, most importantly, the urgent and permanent need to acquire stories with which to entertain kith and kin over the decades.

That is all.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist TooBy: David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, January 03, 2001

There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery
Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits
The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.

Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them
Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?

America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery
The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?

The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury
The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?

The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination
No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites ( and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?

The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.
The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?


Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?

What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?
Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.
America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.

"The Case for Reparations"

In the category of confronting one's own predispositions, for me a life-long endeavor, consider reading Ta-Hahisi Coates' essay "The Case for Reparations" if you have not already done in the year since it was published. With a few qualifications -- I think Coates unnecessarily weakened its otherwise considerable power with a pointless digression on climate change toward the end -- I found it persuasive.

Among the many things that might be said, and have been said, about Coates' essay, there are several worth mentioning.

Coates distinguishes between establishing the fact of the debt for which reparations would be owed and the means by which reparations might be paid, and offers no detailed or even useful solution to that end. One might say that the means of the reparations and the case for reparations are intertwined with no hope of separation. If reparations were cheap and easy, surely we would have done at this point. It is the probability that they would be vast, after a true accounting of the value stolen from American slaves and their descendants, that makes this such a difficult discussion. Of course, if the unspoken fear of the scope of reparations keeps us from a full reckoning of the underlying injustice, then we stand at the brink of admitting its enormous scale. But only at the brink.

Coates' solution is to support HR 40, a bill that John Conyers introduces every year. According to Coates, HR 40 would establish a commission to study the feasibility of paying reparations, including their size and the device for making payment. It is easy to dismiss Coates for signing up for what seems like a dodgy way around the feasibility question. It is also easy to charge that a reparations commission would become just another means for stirring up Democratic constituencies. I disagree. I think Conyers bill has not gone anywhere, even in Democratic Congresses, because it would fracture the Democratic coalition, of which more later.

The greatest value in Coates essay, and the reason intellectually honest Americans of good will ought to read it, is that it teaches that African-American poverty and social pathology have extremely deep and aged roots, were exacerbated by government policies from the left and right for 100 years after emancipation, and that expectations for their rapid amelioration are woefully misguided. A further exploration of this history and its consequences for African-American social and economic parity would be, I think, the greatest value in a reparations commission, at least if it demanded rigorous standards in the history it produced.

If Coates' essay has a glaring flaw, it is that he argues for African-American exceptionalism -- that oppression of African-Americans was and is unique in scope, duration, and consequences -- without exploring the consequences for other groups that make claims against the privileged. If African-Americans have a unique claim to a remedy that we have mostly ignored, then what ought our response be to claims from blacks not descended from American slaves, Latinos, LGBTs, women, and other constituencies important to Democrats? One suspects that even Democratic Congressional leaders have bottled up Conyers' bill precisely because there is no politically useful answer to that question. If we were to decide that African-American descendants of slaves (and perhaps Native Americans) deserved reparations and nobody else did, the required distinction between the proposed recipients and other groups would blow away the justification for a huge number of big government programs and other legal preferences for ethnic constituencies. And, worse for the academics, it would establish a "hierarchy of oppression," which is anathema to the ideologues in the field.

For my part, I have long regarded reparations as the only sound basis for demographic preferences in hiring, contracting, or university admissions because, well, all the other rationales make no sense at all. That view is extremely unpopular, though, because it requires liberals to admit there is no real basis for preferences for constituencies other than African-American descendants of slaves and Native Americans, and it requires conservatives to acknowledge that African-American poverty and social pathology depend heavily from slavery and Jim Crow, those ugly stains on the American virtue that conservatives hold so dear.

Regardless, it cannot hurt you to read "The Case for Reparations." Or can it?

Who's On First, Who's Out First?

Ok, those of us who follow politics closely have had a chance to see what's out there, so let's do a little critiquing shall we? Who is looking good with STAYING POWER, who's just staying afloat with money and who's on life support?

1. Trump: Who woulda figured? But I still don't see him going anywhere. As I've said repeatedly, he's riding ONE issue and his support is no more than a clarion call to the establishment; GET IMMIGRATION FIXED! Some are still too friggin' dumb to see this simple fact and, well, money can't by me love and if you think crossing a border for money is love then your ass is grass.
2. Bush: See previous. But I am enjoying the slow burn of the country club Republicans! I hope it hurts!
3. Carson: I like Ben Carson. The man has good ideas, his politics are right on and he's brilliant. But smarts ain't enough. Although he's a quick learner, politics at this level requires a skill set few possess. I doubt he'll be able to keep up but if he can then I'm onboard all the way.
4. Rubio: Marco is the best politician in the bunch. He comes across as being genuine without pandering. I can see him winning but I still don't trust the guy on immigration. If he nails that down it's off to the races.
5. Walker: After what he did in Wisconsin Walker was a lot of folk's early choice, including mine. But he's kind of bland on the stump. Dullsville might play in Racine (Cheeseheads in general are very subdued, unless they're playing the Vikings) but he's got to show some fire along with the ice.
6. Cruz: I think Ted Cruz is deceptively brilliant. He's been careful not to criticize Trump and is even cozying up to him a bit. His views on immigration are nearly identical but a lot less bombastic. I think he's positioning himself to pick up the pieces when Trump does finally implode.
7. Huckabee: The religious fundamentalist's candidate. He's gonna pull 10% just about everywhere apart from Greenwich Village, Chapel Hill, Provincetown and the Maryland Eastern shore, but that's it, he's maxed out. He's an also, also ran.
8. Fiorina: I LOVE THIS WOMAN! If the Tickbite primary were today I'd vote Fiorina President and Earl "The Squirrel" Odell for mayor (the man is to squirrels what Mini-soda dentists are to lions!). I like her style, I like her demeanor, I like her policies and I like her guts. Politics is funny. As a woman she could turn the tables on Democrats and get through a lot of things a man perhaps couldn't. Choosing her would put identity politics in our corner for a change.
9. Paul: Trump nailed him, too WEIRD!
10. The rest: Kasich (Bush clone) Christie (sell by date expired) Perry (retread...with holes) Jindal (too nerdy) Gilmore (who?) Graham (fat girl in a bikini, can't bear to look at him) Pataki (a New Yorker, really?) Santorum (a Yankee version of Huckabee).

Now, nobody here gets your putter to flutter? There are others you know. Let's have a look.
•Andy Martin; a lawyer from Connecticut. He has a long history of litigation (as a defendant) and some view him as an anti-semite. Too bad, he coulda been in the hunt.
•Kerry Bowers; ECU educated and Nevada resident, Bowers is a 30 year career military guy and from what I read a quality conservative through and through. But come on dude, you might want to start off with something a little more attainable than President. Just the fact you're running calls your judgment into question.
•K. Ross Newland; in a nutshell a religious zealot.
•Jack Fellure; this guy is hilarious. He's been running for President since 1988. Part of his platform is to bring back prohibition and criminalize homosexuality. He'd do well in Tehran I'm thinking.
•Jefferson Sherman; gee, the name is so schizophrenic, anyway he's a garden variety, small government conservative.
•John Dummett Jr.; a self-described small government conservative who feels "disenfranchised" by both the Republicans and Democrats. I can relate John.
•Shawna Sterling; hates GMOs and vows to ban them from school cafeterias. Pennsylvania Avenue here we go!
•George Bailey; black preacher with heart disease. He needs to talk to Dr. Carson I'm thinking.
•Mark Everton; hates the federal reserve and advocates a one term limit for Presidents. Sounds right to me.
•Estaban Oliverez; a Geraldo Rivera Republican. He needs a show on MSNBC, he'd be right at home.
• Michael Bickelmeyer; I LOVE THIS GUY! He, and I quote "takes a dim view of terrorists and drug traffickers...and wants to fry them from orbit". Holy Shit Batman, this dude is happening! Damn! Where can I send money!
•Bartholomew James Lower; solar power nut.
•Eric Cavanagh; favors a 100% "porn tax" and would "wipe away" all criminal records after three months! Hmmm, wonder what this guy's life experiences have been? No idea but I sure don't want him moving in next door I don't mind telling you.

Jesus, anyway what with the dogs and the kid and Sgt. Major yelling in my ear (Blogging again!? That's it, I'm getting a new car) I forgot what I was posting about.
By the end of September the first out will be all of #10 starting with Gilmore and Graham with Perry not far behind. The rest might hang on a bit longer but you won't even know they're there. By Christmas we'll have maybe five or six solid candidates, and guess what? Jeb might not be one of them.

Well that's it. I report and you can piss off.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Joseph Nocera thinks his readers are idiots

This is an old school TigerHawk post, insofar as I bash The New York Times just because. I know, I know, it is small of me to do, but not all blogging grows from greatness.

In this morning's column, Joe Nocera denounces a particular analyst's humping of Tesla (TSLA) stock, and darkly suggests it is akin to Henry Blodget's bull call on Amazon in 1998. Fair use excerpt:

Do you remember when Henry Blodget first became famous?

No, it wasn’t when the then-New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, unearthed those notorious emails Blodget wrote as Merrill Lynch’s Internet analyst, the ones in which he privately disparaged companies he was publicly touting. That came later.

It was 1998, the height of the Internet bubble. Blodget was then an analyst with CIBC Oppenheimer, and the “it” stock of the moment was Amazon, which had as many detractors as it had boosters.

One day that December, with the stock at about $240 a share — and with no change in Amazon’s fundamentals — Blodget, an Amazon bull, raised his price target to $400. That day it popped more than $45; within three weeks it hit Blodget’s target. Some months later, I wrote an article about his coverage of Internet companies. It was titled “The Cheerleader.”

During the current six-year bull-market — a market that has also seen its share of excess — a new “it” stock has emerged: Tesla Motors. Led by the charismatic Elon Musk, Tesla is a company that makes beautiful, and thus far very expensive, all-electric cars, vehicles that are so fantastically well made that Consumer Reports just gave the Model S P85D sedan its highest rating ever.

Tesla is also, however, a company that eats through cash, loses money on every sedan it sells, routinely overpromises what it will deliver to Wall Street and is regularly in need of new funding.

That’s not to mention other factors impinging on Tesla: the falling price of oil, for instance, which diminishes demand for electric cars, or the fact that a number of traditional luxury auto brands are poised to get into the electric vehicle game. It’s not hard to make a case that, at around $250 a share, Tesla is as insanely overvalued as any Internet stock in the late 1990s.

And guess what? Just like the Internet stocks of yore, Tesla has its own Wall Street cheerleader: Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s auto analyst.

But here's the thing. Amazon is up 10 times since Blodget made the call that Nocera ridicules, or 988% vs. around 200% for the Nasdaq and the Dow, notwithstanding the popping of the Internet bubble in early 2000. I know this in part because I shorted Amazon in 1998 for basically the same reasons that Nocera attacks Tesla now. It was a very useful learning experience for me.

The point, of course, is not to vindicate Henry Blodget or rescue Adam Jones, who is more than capable of defending himself. Indeed, Nocera seems to have justified Jones better than Jones ever could. The next Amazon, you say? Bring. It. On.

But how do you write that column, and how does your editor publish that column, without a whisper of a hint of an acknowledgement that, well, people who acted on their belief in Blodget in 1998 (and had the discipline to maintain their conviction for a few years) are far happier today -- or at least wealthier -- than people who believed Nocera? We don't even get a single "to be sure"?

You need to read the NYT so you know what is going on inside the lefty echo chamber, but it is very hard to believe anything on its editorial pages at face value. Otherwise, for example, you would think that Joe Nocera can distinguish a good securities analyst from a bad one.

Addendum (10:47 am ET, Aug 31): In a very down morning for the stock market, TSLA is up. There are no doubt many explanations, but some of it probably has to do with Nocera comparing it to AMZN in 1998. At least that's my theory for purposes of this post.

Friday, August 28, 2015

On Anchor Babies

Jeb Bush got into a little trouble with the prone to fainting crowd this week in his embrace of the term "anchor babies".  I find nothing objectionable in it, and I am glad that he has not repudiated himself on its use.

This morning, I came across this headline on Twitter:  "Hate Label "Anchor Babies" enters 2016 Playground"  ,  and I nearly fell out of my chair.

There you have it friends.  "Anchor Babies" = "Nigger".   Why?  Well, because someone or some group finds it offensive, and they deem it "hate" speech.  Now I know that the story doesn't equate the two, and even mention the hateful word I used above (note: I do not use "N-word".  I am an adult.) But as soon as you begin to throw around the term "hate speech" you move quickly and invariably to the most hateful term of all, a term that DOES in fact have a great deal of meaningful negativity behind it--rather than the straightforward meaning of "anchor baby" which in absolutely no way, shape, or form denotes particular ethnicity.


Marco Rubio News

Marco Rubio was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show last night.  Below, please find a link to a 15 minute or so interview with him, an interview that contains some great stuff on the state of the Navy and his plans for it.


Also--there's no reason to fret about the GOP front-runner---Howard Dean had better numbers in 2004 at this point....

Get out those checkbooks and give until it hurts!

BIG FAT Free For All (or if you're a Lib, fee for all) Friday!

Just saw something on the Interstate that makes the new NCSU vomit machine seem redundant? Donald Trump licking the red off your candy and Mama won't make him stop? Hitch your wagon to a falling star and now the future looks very...rural? Then let's hear about it. But just remember, unless you've just been shot down with a Glock 19 on live TV, you're having a better day than the Clintons.
Peace be with you.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Social Issues to the Rescue

So, now we have a Republican Party which refuses to talk about, confront, even acknowledge social issues and their impact on American politics. We have thrown up the white flag of surrender on gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism (whatever the fuq that is) and just about anything MSNBC deems a "freedom". Apparently you have a Constitutional right to abort your 30 week "fetus" (at government expense) and Planned Parenthood (half a billion a year in taxpayer subsidies) has a right to part it out like a Southern California chop-shop... for even more money. What you don't have is the right to bitch about it. Just shuddup and go along, you're gonna screw up everything, we don't want to hear it Redneck.  

Do you guys remember Nixon's "Southern Strategy"? Probably not, I doubt you even remember Nixon. Anyway what Nixon did from the '68 election (which he won by a whisker over arguably the worst candidate who ever lived Hubert Humphrey) to the '72 election, which he won in a landslide, was peel away the Southern, white, Protestant vote and the Northern Catholic social conservative vote. He went from about 48% to 61% in four years. Not too shabby. Anyway Nixon did it by appealing to the "silent majority" of patriotic, God fearing, hard working Americans who weren't smoking dope and listening to Jimi Hendrix (and even a few who were, present company accepted). Hell he even got a lot of union endorsements. As you might imagine that shift scared the Holy living shit out of the Democrats and played a major role in their "shoot the moon" strategy to get Nixon at all costs, and they pulled it off.

So, tell me again how a socially conservative Republican Party will hurt themselves? Will it hurt with Southern whites? No, I think not. Will it hurt with Catholics? No, I don't think so. Will it help attract all those "naturally conservative Hispanics" Republicans are always yapping about? I'm thinking HELL YES!

Here's the thing. When Nixon put together this new coalition he lost the Republican left. The Rockefella, Jacob Javits, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lowell Weicker wing of the party was LIVID! They didn't have a lot of numbers but they had the money, and now they had no place to spend it. Well they've made a comeback (of course) and guys like GHWB, Bob Dole and yes Mitt Romney are THEIR kinda guys. In terms of direction and policy they aren't all that concerned about losing, they just want to control the money pot every few years. But what they absolutely DON'T want and will not tolerate is another Reagan.

So, now you know. Our brilliant Republican leaders have lost the Reagan Democrats, the Northern Catholics, and they're about to lose Southern whites. Go along with Jeb or one of these other Northeastern, Midwestern Republicans and you'll be no better off than with Hillary. The litmus test this cycle is immigration (the ultimate social issue). If they won't give us that then they don't want us and the Republican Party is yesterdays news.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Just Remember, Folks....

A government empowered to deport 11 million people is a government with a lot of power you might not want it to use elsewhere.

You're WHAT Kind of Republican?

Well, it seems some of our brilliant strategists in the Republican Party are demanding Donald Trump take a "loyalty oath" in order to be on the primary ballot in some states. Virginia and North Carolina (among others) are currently floating trial balloons to gage the reaction. It's not going well.

Jeb (among others) has been saying Trump is not a "real" Republican and certainly not a conservative with a "proven conservative record". Boy that's rich ain't it, coming from a Bush? Ok fine, let's examine our "big tent" party and see who's the "real" Republican.

In 2010, 2012 and 2014 we were promised...
Obamacare would be defunded. We got NOTHING!
Obamacare would be delayed. We got NOTHING!
The individual mandate would be delayed. We got NOTHING!
Congress and the Cabinet would be covered under Obamacare. We got NOTHING!
Deny certain types of birth control coverage. We got NOTHING!
Medicare would be means tested. We got NOTHING!
Government employee pension reform. We got NOTHING!
Defund Obama's executive amnesty. We got NOTHING!
An abortion ban past 20 weeks. We got NOTHING!

Will I go on? Plus according to the Washington Times the GOP is actually running ads against some members who actually took those promises seriously!

So, if these are our "real" Republicans you may count me among the politically homeless. But I ask you, has there ever been a political party so out of touch with their base? Forget winning or losing, how can a party even survive being the lapdog of the opposing party?

The Republican Party has some splanning to do, and whatever candidate eventually wins this nomination he or she has a lot of housecleaning at the top if they have even the remotest hope of winning. That's the issue isn't it, winning? McCain didn't want to win, Romney didn't have the balls to win and our current leadership isn't interested in winning. These people aren't "real" Republicans, they're real LOSERS! 

Older Posts Home