Tag Archives: concession speech

​ The Wednesday Review of Delegates and the future

The winner.

I wasn’t planning on doing a delegate count issue this week…after all nothing was going to happen.   Then Santorum had a blinding flash of reality and sorta dropped out…I say sorta because his concession speech was strangely defiant and pompous…and whiny.  The man just whines about everything.  I don’t understand how his family can stand him, let alone his voters.  But let’s not dwell, he’s gone, good riddance, may he and his brand of insanity never darken my headlines again.

So why are we doing a delegate count?  Because for some obscure reason Newt isn’t dropping out.  Why?  Hell if I know.  He’s got no big money backers left.  He’s got no small money backers left.  His campaign is literally bouncing checks. Stranger still his check bounced when trying to file for the Utah primary.  This is odd as A.) Romney was definitely going to be at 1144 by Utah.  B.) Utah is a winner take all, and if you don’t have money to run you don’t stand a chance of getting any delegates in any winner take all state.  C.) It’s Utah; does anyone seriously think Romney is going to lose Utah?

Why is this relevant? …because unfortunately no matter how you figure it, even if Romney sweeps just about every single state with all of their delegates, then there is still no way to make it to 1144 until Texas in May.  I will understand if you want to bang your head against your desk at this point.  Yes, probably about a quarter of Santorum’s supporters are going to prove themselves to be little more than anti-Mormon bigots and go to Newt and let him hobble along until Texas.  Now that is the only dig I’m going to put at Santorum supporters right now because I believe the vast majority of them are going to do the right thing for this party and this country and get behind Romney…but I would be foolish to think they all will.   And the few that don’t will probably give Newt just enough life left to annoy us for another month or so.

What does this mean?  Not much.  Romney doesn’t really have to campaign against Newt, he should now focus on campaigning against Obama…albeit in the primary states.

What should we do as Romney supporters?  Well, Newt had his chance to be a class act and also drop out.  He didn’t. The fat philandering corrupt jackass has opened himself up to every insult he deserves…Back to pointing out all of Newt’s flaws. Sigh.  I miss attacking Obama and only Obama.  Not that I’m worried about Newt, but I felt the need to point out that there will inevitably be a slight surge in his numbers, don’t panic, it means nothing.

As our other “allies.”  The group of “conservative” commentators (Levin, Hanity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Michael Reagan) your economically liberal candidate is dead.  You can either rejoin real conservatives or you need to admit that you only care about increasing government power in terms of social issues even if the candidate is also a big fan of radically increasing economic liberalism.  I said it before, you don’t have to endorse Romney,  but you need to stop hitting him.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, GOP, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day–Palin doesn’t know what government is for

What to hit.  Obama’s economic plan will take a few blogs to tear apart, so we’ll wait for this next week for that one (or three).  Well I could do a little more destruction of Ricky’s concession speech (but John Stewart did such a good job, any further words on my part would be overkill) so instead I will turn to my least favorite liberal: Sarah Palin.  She’s probably my least favorite because she trots out trite liberal populism and then gets conservatives blamed for her idiocy.  If I was a conspiracy theorist I might have Manchurian Candidate statements here, but frankly the left isn’t that bright (which is also the main reason why this birther shit is nonsense, they don’t have the brains to organize a conspiracy of that level).

No clue as to what Conservative actually means...

When praising Allen West as a possible VP pick for Romney (and anyone liberal Sarah backs I have serious doubts about):

“[He] understands the Constitution, and wants to put government back on the side of the people.”

And this line makes me want to scream.  How does anyone think this woman is conservative?  Let’s ignore the bridge to nowhere.  The taxpayer money to pay for her TV show.  The fact that in her debate with Biden her grand solution to fixing education was just to throw more money at it.  (You really have to give the left credit here, intentionally or more likely accidentally by repeatedly attacking Palin they have caused the knee jerk right to waste time and resources in defense of a person whom we should be absolutely condemning).  And let’s really forget that she endorsed uber-liberal the corrupt John McCain for the U.S. Senate (yes I know everyone forgets McCain’s scandals from the late 80’s but this man sells his votes for cash like he was Rick Santorum).  But most of all she doesn’t understand what a conservative believes is the purpose of government.

Government is there to protect our rights from those who use force (Police, criminal courts, prisons, military).  Government is there to provide rules and regulations in systems that cannot come up with them for themselves (rules of the road, weights and measures, printing money, contract and tort law, etc.).  Government is there to provide an impartial system to work out arguments (Civil court).  And on very rare occasions it is there for large scale infrastructure creation that cannot be created without a central authority (the interstate highway system…private companies however can often take over after the initial creation).  Notice what it’s not?  It’s not on your side.  It’s not there for you.

It’s a necessary evil that ideally should do as little as possible to maintain a system that allows you to pursue Happiness (failure or success is up to you).

Contrary to Lincoln’s overstepping rewrite of the Declaration, government is of and by the people, but not for the people.  Government isn’t supposed to be for you.  It’s supposed to be against those who would do harm and a neutral arbiter but never for anyone.  Government for the people always leads to giving and helping with the best of intentions, but paves a road of corruption, inefficiency and destruction.

Now to be fair maybe Sarah chose her words poorly, as I’m sure most people do not make the hair splitting distinction between a government that protects your liberties and a government that is for you.  But this is not the time to get slipshod in our wording (as Sarah’s always is).  This is not 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 or 2008 (otherwise known as a battle between big government Tweedle-dee and big government Tweedle-dumb, although 2008 was actually between big government Tweedle-dumb and big government Tweedle-dumber).  This is 2012.  We actually have a candidate who not only preaches lower taxes, small government, closing loopholes, less regulation, efficiency and less spending, we have a guy who actually has done what he’s talking about.  For the first time in almost 30 years we actually have a true contest of ideas a contest between big government and small government—between government for the people and a government of laws and limits.    This is not the time for Sarah’s mindless demagogic drivel…

Sarah, you’re a liberal and a hack—shut up.  Your platitudes have no place here.

What we need is more of this…

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day