Conservative Republican policies work best for the poor, middle class and Liberty-based happiness pursuits for all
An exchange with a close friend, self-described as a "bleeding heart" who is "sure" President Barack Obama will be re-elected, inspired the eponymous section of this column discussed further below, but first let's address concerns of conservatives who delivered the historic 2010 GOP mid-term election landslide that may be disillusioned by the emergence of Mitt Romney as the likely nominee of the Republican Party after the failures of Cain, Bachmann and Perry to continue the tea partier takeover.
This column never uses the term "tea party" for a reason. There is none. Which is why that non-existent "party" has no nominee.
Rather, the tea partier "movement", whose rumblings were first heard before "compassionate conservatism" completed eight years of Big Bush Government spending, held its first party at the invitation of CNBC's Rick Santelli to toss mortgages into Lake Michigan and coalesced in opposition to near trillion dollar non-stimuli and Obamacare; is one of the four major conservative movement surges of the past 50+ years to influence the GOP.
The first was led by William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater in the late 1950s and early '60s; the second by anti-tax Proposition 13 proponents in California in the late '70s and President Ronald Reagan's two terms in the '80s; and the third by Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America in the '90s. A main component of each of these conservative surges was revulsion at the excesses of an ever larger federal government infringing upon Liberty and private property-fueled happiness pursuits via higher taxes and ever more burdensome regulation of economic activity.
The tea partier iteration is no exception and some recent musings of the, now presumptive, nominee of the GOP should reassure conservatives that their pleas for a candidate that will will fight back against Obama leftism and actually reduce the size of government and the debt, have been heard.
Since Mitt Romney's early April visit with Paul Ryan around the time of the Wisconsin primary he has:
Eschewed arguments against Obama's re-election based upon a lack of experience and competence in favor of a more conservative policy-based critique that includes movements to the right on taxes, regulation and national security;
Been overheard suggesting that he would eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development and make the Department of Education puny; and
Called out the press as the "Obama Media", thus assuring voters that he is not afraid to call out the Left despite their purchases of ink by the barrel.
Gone are the days when GOP primary and caucus voters were invited to choose Mitt because he has business experience. Now the former governor of Massachusetts cites the failed policies of Obama and offers conservative policies as the remedy rather than merely a biography. Romney has also deftly seized upon Obama's open mike admission to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would be a more flexible appeaser in foreign policy after the election and suggesting that such an attitude would also translate in domestic policy to a more dictatorial executive branch encroaching upon the powers of We the People's representatives in the legislative branch.
Moreover, even the polls the Obama Media regularly use to try and shape public opinion have moved Mitt's way, which makes the recent musings of my close friend on the inevitability of an Obama second term even more perplexing.
Bleeding hearts, the moral case against Buffett Rule tax hikes and increased welfare class envy spending "fairness"; and Obama's "inevitable" second term?
Maybe I'm too harsh in my broad and harsh criticisms of the national Democratic Party and Barack Obama? Maybe I'm too sanguine concerning the Republican Party's obvious superiority as compared to the Democrats? But I doubt it.
I ask these questions because my good friend, who is an economic conservative businessman that will vote for the GOP nominee, regularly refuses to join in my periodic bashings of Obama and his party on issues; and immediately changes the subject to the supposed impossibility of a Romney Presidency. Of course, no one, including my good friend "knows" who will garner more electoral votes this November and be inaugurated next January; but what inspired this missive was this past week's recent additions to his divergence away from the obvious and stark differences between the parties' respective policies of the past 30 years and today as my friend volunteered that he was, after all, a "bleeding heart" as a result of his stronger Christian commitment over the past decade.
Your humble Southern Baptist correspondent was floored as thoroughly as if he he were Dracula exposed to the Cross!
After all, my Summer of 2001 "conservative epiphany" after 20 years of liberal activism as a South Carolina Democratic Party official was inspired by my own bleeding heart Christianity as I saw the poor and middle class actually become less poor when Reaganite conservative economic policies were employed by Reagan himself and a Newt-tamed Bill Clinton.
Don't bleeding hearts want the ranks of the poor to shrink? Or are they narcissists driven to stanch the bleeding of their own guilt-riddled hearts with class-envy-driven tax and regulatory punishments of the rich?
Shouldn't we judge politicians by the results of their policies and not our amusement with their clever rhetoric and whether we "like" them as persons? Obviously, and on that score can there be any more stark comparisons than the contrasts between the failed Carter/super Dem-majority policies of the late 70s and Obama's super Dem majority policies of the past three years as compared to the 25-year Reagan Recovery from the mid-80s thru 2007? I think not.
And what has Campaign 2012 made clear if not that Obama will impose more of the Big Government, shrinking economy same and that the GOP nominee will unleash job creators?
Yes, the Republican Party of the past decade did not meet expectations of conservatives or the average American on the size of government, the debt and standard of living measurements, but does that mean we double and triple down with a party whose main criticisms of Reagan and the Bushes was that they didn't spend more of other people's money. Again, I think not.
Since Eve bit the apple, life has been about choices among the imperfect. The Party of Lincoln is not the party of the one that put Eve in the garden, but its a hell of a lot less east of Eden than the party that would consider my good friend a "bitter clinger".
The only chance America has to right the ship of state is via a conservative tea partier takeover of the Grand Old Party. It is the height of "See no evil, hear no evil monkey" irresponsibility to do as Reagan described in another context and succumb to "...the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault."
Both sides are not equally at fault, which a glance at Obama's $5T debt amassed in 3.5 years, as compared to the respective debts of Bush's eight years, attests; and only one party seeks a reversal of our disastrous road to Greece.
So friends, both personal and tea partier, the next time someone close by commences to bash Obama and the democrats, please join in and work towards making Romney's election inevitable.
Atlanta Law & Politics columnist – Examiner.com
Editor - Hillbilly Politics
Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson