« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Dammit: Our Presidential Field isn’t “Flawed”— THEIRS is!

Boy, if there’s one thing the Grandees of the Beltway can agree upon, it’s this:

“The Republican field is flawed”.

Michael Medved today, in his breezy “brokered convention” phantasmagoria  that graced the pages of The Daily Beast, tossed off the now-requisite  line: “…Some members of the party establishment may feel infuriated by the flawed and fractured field…”

It’s becoming a pass-word for all the establishment-types that are slobbering and panting over the prospect of employment in the next Romney administration. Yes, yes… the Republican field is “flawed”. Sometimes it is even “deeply flawed”. In a Washington Post column late last summer, George Will called it a “significantly flawed” field. Good old George, digging up those five-syllable words when a two-syllable word like “deeply” works just fine.

Remember, George also said last spring that, come January of 2013, one of three people would be taking the Presidential oath: Barack Obama, Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty. I think the bow ties might be cutting off the circulation to the ol’ noggin there, George.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface, though, of the absurdity of the claim. The “Republican Field” is a pristine Garden of Eden, with neatly tended rows of seed-leaves, compared with the weed-choked disaster down the road at the ramshackle barns of Obama Acres.

Of course, if the media stares long enough up any candidate’s nostril, eventually you’ll see some boogers. And, that’s what’s going on with the “Republican Field”. You’d have “flaws” too, if people kept staring at you through a magnifying glass.

So, when does this magnifying glass get trained on President Obama? Ever?

No, of course not. And, if one of the candidates were cunning, they’d make THAT an issue: Everybody knows that the Leftist/Media Complex is in the bag for Obama, and he’s not paying a cent for every fawning article, every carbon-copied press release, every phony poll– while the Republican Conservatives have to fight and claw their way over the dead carcasses of failed candidates, would-be candidates, faux scandals (“Ni—-rock”, for example) and hostile interviews… and then shell out their scarce campaign funds to buy advertising in the same venues that are torching them.

The candidate that does this first –that is, make the disgusting, unctuous, slobbering behavior of the leftist media a real issue– will leapfrog to prominence. But, that for another day. Our job, as conservatives, is not to eat our own (“You are Fool if you don’t vote for Perry!”, “Only an Idiot would vote for Bachmann!”, etc..).  Rather, our task should be to ruthlessly tear down the facade of the Potemkin Obama the mass culture has worked so hard to erect.

OUR Field is Flawed? You gotta be kidding me.

Come here: Let’s take a look under the magnifying glass, shall we?

EXHIBIT “A”: WE have a Candidate that believes Gardasil Injections cause autism. THEY have a candidate that believes he can see Dead Veterans in the audience at Memorial Day events. Which is kookier? Which is more fringe and disconnected from reality? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “B”: WE have a Candidate that’s cheated on his wife, and been married three times. THEY have a candidate who celebrate “Sinco de Quatro”, lights all the Hanukkah candles at once, thinks Austrian is a language, and proposes eliminating the deductibility of charitable donations is a great way to increase philanthropy. Which is more questionable? Which points to a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “C”: WE have a candidate that can’t remember the names of agencies he’d eliminate. THEY have a candidate that can’t remember to call in the Foreign-Flagged volunteer skimmers to help with a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Which candidate exhibits a bigger lapse in judgment? Who should we be concerned may lose his memory at crucial times? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “D”: WE have a candidate that has zany ideas about Space Mirrors and who has shoved too many donuts down his throat. THEY have a candidate that has stupid AND  zany ideas about Windmills replacing coal-fired power plants, and who has shoved iron-fisted, jack-booted authoritarian nationalized health-care down OUR throats. Which candidate is zanier, and which one endangers our health more? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “E”: WE have a candidate that makes flippant bets with substantial amounts of his own money. THEY have a candidate that made a bet with $870 Billion dollars of OUR own money in a fraudulent “stimulus” bet, and lost the entire wad. Which candidate is more flippant, more profligate with money? Which one spends like there’s no tomorrow? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “F”: WE have a candidate that shuns certain states, and hasn’t even visited others or set up field office for their campaign. THEY have a candidate that, as President, refuses to visit their states after devastating floods or fires or tornadoes  because there is no political advantage in doing so. Which candidate shows a more pronounced parochialism, which is more elitist? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “G”: WE have a candidate that has no executive experience, and has only six year in the House. THEY have a candidate whose little executive experience has all been horrific, and who spent about eighteen minutes prior as a junior Senator. Whose experience is more thoroughgoing in its positiveness? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

EXHIBIT “H”: WE have a candidate that takes up space on the stage, and barely shows up in the polls. THEY have a candidate that barely shows up at his JOB because he’s played over two solid weeks of golf, taken nearly three months of vacation in three years, and spent nearly two months fund-raising. Which candidate shows more work-ethic and tenacity to get things accomplished? Our Candidate, or Theirs?

In short?

No matter how you dice it, our candidates haven’t referred to our warriors as “Corpse-Men”.

Nor do we have a candidate that refuses to acknowledge that economic activity depends on a robust private sector. We manifestly do not have a candidate that believes in shared sacrifice, while he jets around in an all-expense-paid bubble, eating taxpayer funded wagyu beef– feeling not the slightest inclination to “sacrifice” a thing.

None of our candidates has added over $5 trillion in additional public debt my children and grandchildren will have to pay. I’m not aware that a single candidate on our side has utterly destroyed the housing market, or driven energy prices up while simultaneously driving down energy production.

I don’t think any of our candidates have called Law Enforcement “stupid”, nor do I think any of them has ever sent our valorous armed forces into war without congressional approval.

And finally, I’m pretty certain each one of our candidates has actually created jobs, out there on the campaign trail. Their candidate? He’s made four million jobs disappear.

Now THAT’S a “flawed” presidential field.

Get Alerts