Monday, March 5, 2012

RINO in the White House the Worst Possible Outcome

By Roger F. Gay

Once again, I'm reading the desperate chant of the messageless negative campaigners. The most important thing, they say, the ultimate answer to the question of life, the universe and everything, is the removal of Barack Obama from office. No matter who the Republican nominee is, we all need to come together and get behind him in support of our non-analytical, blindly obedient, collectivist goal; getting someone with an R behind their name in the White House.

Not so fast!

That's what they always say when there's no reason for us to vote for them. In fact, the negative approach, with nooks and crevices of the arguments filled with fear and loathing, may be more a reflection on the candidates asking for our votes than the opposition. As is often the case, it doesn't take much stubborn individualist analytical thinking to see it another way.

I don’t care if he has an R or a D behind his name, or an L, or any of the other 23 letters. I don’t care if he sells government expansion with liberal or conservative or ”moderate” phrases. I don’t care about those things because they don’t matter.

We need to be realistic. 2010 was regarded as an enormous success for the Tea Party, a watershed event in taking the country back. But the new House, the only place where federal legislation can originate, quickly turned to business as usual, wanting to ”get things done” through bipartisan cooperation, and mocking us with the pretense that anger with Washington is the result of not getting bills to spend more passed fast enough. Bipartisan bickering must end, they said. We must unclog the bottlenecks. What we need is compromise and cooperation, they told us. In order to get on with the business of raising the debt ceiling, increasing the budget, stealing money and destroying the country again.

It takes a great deal of continuing effort, past the elections, to keep the RINOs from business as usual. The best effect has been obtained when they are pitted against a president from the other party. The establishment agenda is characterized as the agenda of the other party and people clearly understand that it needs to be stopped, reversed, and killed. We can easily identify the frauds and call them out with a few words. With an establishment RINO in the White House, that leverage will disappear.

What we actually need is a real constitutional conservative in the White House. There is only one running for the presidency and you all know who he is. If he’s not president, then we are better off with the other compromise; dividing power between the two parties; between Congress and the White House. At least that slows them down.
.

3 comments:

  1. ”Ron Paul is the potential Ross Perot of 2012, and as such potentially dangerous. I do NOT think Ron Paul is the Tea Party answer; a reputable polling firm (Rasmussen or Gallup?) found that Paul gets less than 10% of Tea Party support. Ron Paul’ers magnify their apparent numbers by “flooding the zone,” whether in straw polls or blog threads. During debates, Paul seems uninterested in going after Obama, although he says a lot of damaging things, inappropriate for the forum, about the GOP. Although he is in the ideal position to look into the Fed, Paul has done nothing of substance; I must wonder if he’s not just another big-talking Establishment guy with a fabulous P.R. machine.”
    ..the above quote is from another in 12-2011

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a blazing indictment against the Tea Party. I've been looking at the Tea Party over the past few months. Can you define it and tell me who belongs? I think you'd be surprised. Anybody can say they're part of the Tea Party movement.

      Delete