Withdraw from the race, Mr. Akin. Please. For the good of your country, please withdraw. We’ll forgive you if you just get the hell out. I don’t want my little girl to grow up having to live under ObamaCare. I don’t want my soon-to-be-born son to live in a world where he’s given more incentive to leech off others than he is to stand on his own two feet. I want my kids to be good, responsible people. I want them to be free. If there was a way for me to trade my own freedom to preserve theirs, I would.

You say you care about children. Now is the time to prove it. They deserve a future. Get out of this race and give us a chance at that future. Please.

Please.

50 minutes to go.

Withdraw from the race, Mr. Akin. Please. For the good of your country, please withdraw. We’ll forgive you if you just get the hell out. I don’t want my little girl to grow up having to live under ObamaCare. I don’t want my soon-to-be-born son to live in a world where he’s given more incentive to leech off others than he is to stand up for himself. I want my kids to be good, responsible people. I want them to be free. If there was a way for me to trade my own freedom to preserve theirs, I would.

You say you care about children. Now prove it. They deserve a future. Get out of this race and give us a chance at that future. Please.

Please.

Caiwyn on August 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM

But that was before I saw the blatant manipulation that the Obama administration has engaged in this season.

Do you think Obama would have made his controversial decision to force the Catholic church to pay for contraception coverage if Rick Santorum wasn’t in the race?  I say no.  It wouldn’t even be an issue.  He wouldn’t take the risk of alienating scores of Catholic Democrats if he didn’t think he could get something out of it.  So what is he getting out of it?  Simple: He gets an issue he can successfully campaign on.

Do you think Barack Obama wants to campaign on his record, or the economy?  Of course not.  He’s an abject failure in that arena and everyone knows it, even if the media is desperately trying to claim otherwise.  If the economy is the major issue in this election, he loses by default.  The only way he can win is if he can distract people by making them think that the Republican candidate poses a bigger threat to their personal freedom than he does.

It’s no coincidence that Obama’s HHS has made the decision to force religious organizations to pay for things that violate their beliefs just as Santorum is emerging as an alternative to Romney.  Make no mistake, this administration is afraid.  Not of Romney, but of the possibility that they will have to answer for their failures on the economy and the size of government.  But if they can change the battlefield from the economy to contraception, then suddenly they gain an advantage.

Let’s face it: the American people are not going to put up with a candidate who says things like “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”  That’s a direct quote from Rick Santorum.  Yes, I realize he’s not quite saying he would outlaw or oppose contraception, but nobody who doesn’t follow conservative politics is going to draw that distinction.  And most Americans will take affront to a candidate who wants to tell them what they can and can’t do in their bedrooms.  It is the only thing that can motivate them to vote against their own economic well-being.

The Obama administration did not make a miscalculation in their decision to provoke religious organizations.  Make no mistake: Obama wants to have a fight about contraception.  He wants to look like the guy who is defending personal freedom against religious zealots, because that’s the only fight he can win.  Republicans have done a good job so far framing this issue as a matter of religious freedom.  But if Santorum is the Republican nominee for president, suddenly those past quotes come back to haunt him.  And the media certainly isn’t going to allow him to change the subject back to the economy.

Look, don’t get me wrong, if I thought Santorum was a reliable conservative I’d say this was a fight worth having.  But he’s not.  We’re talking about a pro-union shill who voted against national right-to-work legislation.  We’re talking about a big government spender who porked up his district with earmarks, voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, and voted to expand the entitlement system with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.  Until ObamaCare, that was the biggest increase in entitlement spending since Medicare was first put into place!  And when it came time for Rick Santorum to answer for these votes, he tried to hide behind a veneer of social conservatism as a way to appeal to those he had sold out.  That strategy backfired, and he lost his Senate seat by 18 points.  The choice we have at this point in the primary season is not RINO vs. Conservative.  It’s RINO vs. phony.

I’m no Mittbot.  He’s a consummate politician, willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, and his record is as atrocious as Santorum’s.  But at the same time, he’s not pretending to be something he’s not, like Santorum.  And he doesn’t carry with him the potential to turn this election from a question of economic freedom to a debate about contraception and personal freedom — which Santorum will surely lose.  I’m not saying Romney is a better choice for conservatives — there is no good choice for conservatives.  I’m saying Romney’s negatives are known, and Santorum’s have barely begun to surface, and that makes Romney a stronger contender against Obama.

It is no coincidence that the Obama administration has chosen to provoke religious organizations just as Santorum is emerging as an alternative to Romney.  He wants to give Santorum that boost, because he knows that will make it easier to change the subject to contraception and make the Republicans look like sex-hating prudes, just as liberals have always claimed.  And it’s no coincidence that he’s using ObamaCare to justify those rules, either: by doing so, he turns ObamaCare from a govermnent takeover of health care into an assurance of personal liberty, like some perverse Orwellian doublethink nightmare.  This is what we’re allowing to happen if we nominate Santorum.

Obama and his media enablers are preparing the battlefield this November as a false contest between religious conservatives who want to take away people’s access to contraception and liberals who just want to maximize personal freedom, because it’s the only fight they can win.  In order to facilitate that, they are choosing our candidate for us.  And by fooling ourselves into thinking that Santorum is a conservative alternative to Romney, we are helping them do it.

If you haven’t already voted early, then today’s the day — time to psych yourself up, and there are few better ways to do that than with music.  Here are some songs I’ll be blasting on the car stereo on my way to the polls:

1. Muse – Uprising

This has been a favorite of a few of my fellow tea partiers, and with good reason: not only is it chock full of revolutionary rhetoric; it was written, at least in part, in response to the 2008 financial bailouts.  I wouldn’t be so naïve as to characterize frontman Matthew Bellamy as a conservative (he supposedly dabbled in trutherism, although he later denied it, claiming he simply had an interest in conspiracy theories), but he isn’t necessarily a liberal either: he describes himself as a libertarian who would like to see a constitution introduced to his native Britain in order to limit government power.

Whatever Bellamy’s political loyalties, it’s hard to find lyrics that resonate with the tea party movement as well as these.  If you’re sick of liberal condescension and sneering ridicule, this is the song for you.

2. Oingo Boingo – Capitalism

How many full-throated defenses of the free market are put to music?  This cut from Oingo Boingo’s 1981 debut album is often mischaracterized as satire.  The truth, according to a 1982 interview with frontman Danny Elfman, is that it was written in response to many punk bands’ embrace of socialism:

“I’d been hearing a lot of music from England. Gangs of Four. The Clash. It was all ‘Socialism forever’ and ‘bring down the government.’ I thought it was ironic that any group would praise a socialist form of government that wouldn’t let them play the type of music that they do. There isn’t any socialist government that wouldn’t consider it hooligan music”

Well said, and it’s hard to find a lyric that gets to the point better than the refrain:

You’re just a middle-class socialist brat
from a suburban family
and you’ve never really had to work

3. Stevie Ray Vaughan – Taxman

Austin, Texas, is often thought of as a liberal stronghold, so it may seem surprising to hear the Texas capitol’s greatest blues guitar hero delivering a cranked version of this Beatles classic about being crushed under the weight of excessive taxation.  But Stevie was no fool.  This one goes out to supporters of Dr. Donna Campbell, the physician running to unseat liberal taxman Lloyd Doggett (who you may remember getting run out of his own town hall meeting) in TX-25.

4. Rush – 2112

Rush’s epic masterpiece denouncing collectivism is a must.  Though the band’s devotion to Ayn Rand is often overstated, she was a crucial influence on their early work, and 2112, based loosely on Rand’s short story, “Anthem,” was the breakthrough record that brought them to prominence, as well as bought their independence from record label meddling — appropriate, considering the song’s message of individualism.

The 20-minute song has five movements; this is the intro, but you’ll want to skip to the Grand Finale when election results start coming in. “Attention all planets of the Solar Federation: We have assumed control. We have assumed control. We have assumed control.”

As a bonus, Rush’s vehemently anti-union song, The Trees, is also worth a listen.

Let’s do this, everybody.  Get out there and vote.

That said, talking about Ayers is not going to help McCain win the election. In fact, it is likely to backfire. Here are the reasons why:

1. No one understands why Ayers isn’t in jail. And we’ve done a lousy job explaining it to people. The truth is that he got off on a technicality, but without that critical piece of information, most people assume he’s either done his time or was never all that guilty in the first place. It is too late to educate people about this; the issue is yesterday’s news and first impressions have already been made.
2. It was 30 years ago. No, that doesn’t excuse his actions, but it reinforces my first point: Ayers has managed to stay on the right side of the law for all that time. No matter how despicable his actions in the 60s and 70s, the fact of the matter is that Ayers just isn’t setting bombs anymore. That makes our description of him as a domestic terrorist seem hyperbolic to undecided voters.
3. Obama’s defense is airtight when he says he didn’t know about Ayers’s violent past when they worked together. Be honest: had you ever heard of Ayers before this election cycle? I sure hadn’t; I had barely even heard of Weatherman, and I’m plugged into political news feeds and blogs almost constantly. You can bet that the average Joe is going to give him a pass for not knowing what they themselves didn’t know.
4. It ties McCain to Bush. Any mention of terrorism reminds people of the War on Terror, which is almost entirely Bush’s baby. Popular opinion is that the threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated. This makes McCain look like he’s delivering more of the same at a time when he should be running as far away from Bush as he can.
5. Most importantly, Ayers has nothing to do with the economy, which is the single most important issue to voters right now. Talking about Ayers makes it look like we’re trying to change the subject, when — and I cannot stress this enough — Americans do not want the subject changed. They’re worried about their jobs, their homes, and their nest eggs. They are not concerned about William Ayers.

The only positive argument for talking about Ayers is that his relationship with Obama is instructive in deciphering Obama’s worldview. Ayers may not still be a bomb-thrower, but he’s still a radical with Marxist ideals; that Obama worked so closely with such a man suggests that he is also not moderate in his own views. But this argument is tedious, convoluted, and difficult to sell to undecided voters. In short, the negatives of talking about Ayers outweigh the positives.

Every moment we spend talking about Ayers is a moment taken away from pinning the current economic crisis on Obama and the Democrats. Every mention of Ayers at a campaign rally is an excuse for the media to make McCain look like he’s ignoring the fact that the Dow is falling drastically every day. Every comment about Ayers makes it look like we’re not engaging Americans on the number one issue facing them right now.

In reality, McCain has a bulletproof argument on the current financial crisis, revolving around three points:

1. Obama says McCain has always supported financial deregulation, but that’s a lie. In 2006, McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, which would have prevented the failures at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two entities most responsible for the housing bust and subsequent financial crisis.
2. Democrats blocked the very legislation that McCain sponsored on a party-line vote, and argued that there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. Now the American taxpayer is footing the bill, to the tune of $700 billion.
3. Obama himself said that subprime mortgage lending — which is what caused the housing bust and financial crisis — was a good idea, and that it was fine with him, while taking more money in contributions from Fannie and Freddie in just three years than any other politician in history except Chris Dodd.

McCain has been hitting this message. I was pleased to see him make these points during the last debate. He’s said it at town hall meetings all week. But the media has ignored it because they know it hurts Obama. If we want to get this message out to the people, we need to make it our only message right now. We need to be talking about this 24/7, and not giving the media an excuse to focus on anything else.

Edwards Suspends Campaign

He does it because his wife has a recurrence of cancer in some degree to be further explored. It is of a piece with his character to do this; and a simple testament that he has the right priorities and values to be a president of the United States. Sorry, Ms Coulter. But this man will be remembered for a character you do not even want to possess.

– Andrew Sullivan, March 22, 2007, 12:17 p.m. (emphasis mine)

Edwards Forges On

So, despite earlier reports, Edwards will not suspend his campaign. Good for him. The diagnosis is not as dire as it seemed only a little time ago, it seems. And if anyone did not know of Elizabeth Edwards’ extraordinary character before, they do now. What I saw in this press conference was the reality of family values – not the rhetoric, not the divisiveness, not the politics, just the reality of an actual family dealing with real issues. We all face such issues. Cancer survivors and their families know it all too well. So do those of us who live with HIV, diabetes, Parkinsons and many other diseases that patients can now live with, rather than die from. In this, John Edwards is doing a public service. He was admirably candid about his wife’s cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common – and it’s affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn’t give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That’s what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.

The campaign should go on, as life goes on. The cancer should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration.

– Andrew Sullivan, March 22, 2007, 12:39 p.m. (emphasis mine)

The above quotes signify the moment I realized I could not longer stomach Andrew Sullivan. They seem especially poignant now, indicative as they are of Sullivan’s lackluster judge of character.