A couple of weeks ago, I was ruminating on the Republican candidates and figured wow, we really have a strong slate of candidates. Every one of them has some weaknesses, but their strengths should easily overcome those weaknesses and be more than enough to beat a tyrant like God-King Barack.
I really liked Rick Perry initially, but moved on to Herman Cain after Perry faltered badly early on. Even before Cain's so-called scandals, I had looked at Newt Gingrich and thought, this guy would crush Obama, provided he didn't go crazy. As far as Mitt Romney, I always felt he was a decent enough candidate and just conservative enough to be able to beat Obama, and I'd vote for him if he was the nominee (I voted for Romney over McCain in the 2008 Illinois primary). In fact, save Ron Paul, I believed all of the candidates were strong enough to beat Obama and I'd be happy to vote for any of them.
Then, seemingly all of a sudden, and as Romney really began leading by larger amounts in the polls, I saw Republicans acting like Democrats, attacking free enterprise. Worse, I saw Romney being nice about Barack Obama. And on top of that, Romney somewhat equated what he did at Bain in the private sector with what Obama did to Government Motors. Now, I'm worried. Very worried. Here is my vent (please excuse the length, but I have a lot to say).
Back in 2008, I knew Barack Obama was a corrupt, no-good radical. Four years later, Barack Obama is still a corrupt, no-good radical, who now happens to be President. He's also become tyrannical as his term in office has gone on; his recent illegal appointments to the CFPB and NLRB prove that. Despite Obama deciding to run against the obstruction of Republicans in Congress, he is known not to work well with anyone but a select few sycophants within his administration, his toadies. Along with Republicans in Congress complaining about this, Cabinet secretaries have complained he doesn't meet with them, and Democrats in Congress have complained about the same thing; nor does Obama appear to listen to any of these people. Again, except for a select few. Although I have no evidence, it seems that Bill Daley left as Obama's chief of staff for these reasons.
As far as Obama's record, the only thing he's done well is kill terrorists. That's it. His domestic policy is a combination of Marx and Mussolini. His foreign policy is a joke. His military policy, when married with his foreign policy, will leave this country vulnerable, just as Carter's and Clinton's did. Obama's Justice Department, with the exception (for the most part) of the FBI, seems to have violating the Constitution as their primary mission; not only do they not treat Americans equally, as required by law, the members of the DoJ appointed by Obama are thoroughly corrupt (just look at Operation Fast & Furious).
And then there is Obama's so-called economic policy, again a combination of Marx and Mussolini, and an utter failure. I remember back in 2007, after the Democrats took Congress and President Bush was pushing the "surge" in Iraq, how Democrats, including Obama (and Biden), kept saying how Bush needed to "change course"; this meant withdraw completely from Iraq, but they couldn't say that directly lest people discover Democrat cowardice. Has anyone noticed how a) Obama hasn't "changed course" in regards to his domestic and economic policy (in fact, he keeps doubling-down on them), and b) Republicans aren't screaming for Obama to "change course" in every other sentence?
So what we have as President is an incompetent tyrant, one who should be easy to kick out this November. Obama has moved below Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon on my unofficial "Rate-the-Presidents" list and is approaching the nadir where Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan reside. Democrats have to contest 23 U.S. Senate seats, a large number of which will be open due to Democrat retirements. Even with the vast majority of the media in the tank for the Democrats and Obama, Republicans should be able to sweep these elections, even gaining a supermajority in the Senate.
But they don't call the Republican Party the Stupid Party for nothing. I don't believe Republicans will lose the House, but now I hope they can just take the Senate with a simple majority. The only good thing about that is a simple Republican majority can use Harry Reid's tenure as Senate Majority Leader as precedent, run with it, and tell any whiny Democrats to shut the hell up. And as far as the Presidency, an easy win is now up for grabs. Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Romney is our front-runner. But look what he's doing. He still pays deference to Obama, probably out of respect for the office; but the problem is, Obama has no respect for his office and therefore doesn't deserve any kind of "nice" treatment from Romney. I have no doubt Obama won't reciprocate in kind since he's never done it before. I firmly believe Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and Cain, if any were the nominee, would not be so "nice" to Obama, nor should they be. Nor should any Republican to any Democrat, especially after the harpy running the DNC opened her big, fat, lying maw about Tucson. She won't suffer any consequences for her sliminess; in fact, the Democrat media will barely mention it or if they do, won't criticize her and may cheer her on. So why is Romney being "nice" to Obama now?
And if Romney is so damn smart, what the hell is he doing equating his private sector experience with how Obama is doing things? How does that help him or an America that needs to get out of the Obama yoke? From the limited information I've seen, Romney's time at Bain was more about success than failure, whereas Obama is a miserable incompetent, only succeeding at winning elections and killing terrorists.
Nor has Romney disavowed Romneycare, the forerunner of Obamacare. At minimum, Romney could take smacks at his Democrat successor for what Gov. Patrick has done with the program. But no. Romney is all set to take Obamacare off the table as an issue. He could use a health care argument similar to an argument Perry used effectively regarding immigration; pre-Obamacare federal government health care requirements were bankrupting Massachusetts, and Romneycare was a way to comply and avoid breaking the Massachusetts treasury. First, he could prove this argument is true, and second, he could then attack Obamacare for making things worse. Instead, he weakly throws around how it was something he could do as a governor but not for Obama to do as President, but Obama would be able to nuance this to his advantage. About the only thing Romney needs to pray for is to have the Supreme Court render unconstitutional either the mandate or the whole Obamacare travesty, which is in doubt as it is (for the record and as far as I'm concerned, even if a majority of the Supreme Court finds the mandate Constitutional, it won't be due to what's in the actual Constitution). Romney could then bludgeon Obama if at least part of Obamacare is overturned.
So right off the bat, the Republican front-runner is being confirmed as the leader of the Stupid Party. And the other Republicans are doing no better. You have Gingrich, who had a great record as Speaker of the House. Perry is an excellent governor. And as well as they have been about rightly attacking Obama, they attack the free enterprise system when attacking Romney, instead of attacking Romney's government record, which is fair game. Are they nuts? It has been noted by many that Gingrich has a bad habit of running off at the mouth; now he's done it. At least Rick Santorum and Ron Paul haven't done so. But neither Santorum or Paul are close to my ideal of a Republican President. Santorum seems to me to want a rebirth of the failed "compassionate conservatism", which should have died with the Bush administration. And Paul? Oy. Yet, I'm even considering supporting Paul if he is the nominee, only to make sure the tyrant is gone. That's how worried I am. And my biggest worry with Paul is not that he's nuts but that he gets a lot of support from the so-called "antiwar" crowd; I have a bad feeling that these "antiwar" "supporters" are actually Obama Democrats who will turn against Paul on a dime to see their Dear Leader God-King re-installed as President.
Worse, none of the remaining Republican candidates or Republicans in Congress are framing the upcoming election correctly. More than anything else, Republicans need to be framing their campaigns as a true freedom campaign against the corrupt and incompetent tyranny being perpetrated by Obama and the Democrats. They have plenty of ammunition with which to choose from: Porkulus; the illegal GM and Chrysler takeovers, which harmed bondholders who were everyday Americans, along with non-union pensioners; the ongoing bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, including Obama paying bonuses to the failures running them and the SEC lawsuit against both (which can be used by Republicans to tie the two to for the reason for our economic mess); the thoroughly corrupt method Obamacare passed Congress; over-regulation by the various agencies, especially the EPA; the illegal collusion of the NLRB with the IAM union against Boeing and its workers, along with illegally supporting union workers over non-union workers; Operation Fast & Furious; Obama's unconstitutional attempt to have his administration determine who are the clergy in the various religions; the unethical Gulf drilling moratorium; Obama's use of the corrupt Democrat Jon Corzine as an economic adviser Obama sought out, and include how the Obama administration allowed Corzine to "lose" over a billion customer dollars while at MF Global (Corzine got the SEC to delay the implementation of a rule, a rule that would have prevented some of the things Corzine and MF Global did); and, of course, Obama's recent illegal appointments to the CFPB and the NLRB. This is an election that determines whether Americans remain a free people or serfs under the control of Obama and Democrat bureaucrats.
You know, there is something Obama has never figured out in his political life: Americans love, with an almost irrational passion (and I mean that in a good way), their freedom. It's why they hate Obamacare. They hate it. They hated it with the corrupt method used by the Democrats to pass it. They hate it with the way Obama and his minions are administering it, especially with the politically-motivated waivers given to select campaign contributors. Republicans can espouse their support for Americans' freedom, back it up and expose Obama as a freedom-hating tyrant (which is true), and coast to a sweep. The 2010 election should have been a precursor and a wake-up call to Republicans on how to win. There are nearly 10 months before the election, so there is time for Republicans to get out of being stuck-on-stupid and really take it to Obama and the Democrats.
One other thing. I'm not a big fan of Sean Hannity's radio or TV show, although I don't doubt his conservatism. I'm also not a fan of a frequent guest of his, pollster Frank Luntz. But Luntz said something the other day that I believe was right on the mark. Republicans really should get away from using the word "capitalism" when discussing the economy and economics. It's not that capitalism is a bad thing, or that it shouldn't be promoted, especially market-based capitalism. Luntz believed, and I think he's right, there are too many people who have, rightly or wrongly, a dim view of capitalism. What needs to be promoted is free enterprise. I believe this is correct for several reasons (these are mine, not anything I got directly from Luntz). First, free enterprise is an apt synonym for market-based capitalism (if you hadn't noticed, I haven't used the word "capitalism" anywhere prior to this paragraph). Second, it could be shown that the Obama regulatory regime is a severe threat to free enterprise, which it truly is. Third, free enterprise takes away the invalid class war rhetoric used by the Democrats. And lastly, use of the phrase "free enterprise" promotes what the Republicans need to promote, freedom. I mean, that's the point, ain't it?
I just hope there is time to turn this whole thing around. There is no reason why Obama and the Democrats shouldn't only lose the upcoming election, but lose big. So Republicans still have a chance to change their course and their narrative to take it all. As I had said above, Republicans in Congress should throw the words "change course" right back at Obama. They can hold the conservative line by saying they are doing so in the name of freedom, and that the recalcitrant do-nothing Democrats in the Senate are promoting Obama's incompetent and unconstitutional anti-freedom policies. Doing these things will show us and America that Republicans mean business. And while the primaries are still going on, Republican Presidential candidates need to get smarter on their attacks to each other, all the while remembering they need to promote freedom and free enterprise. Because that is how the Republican nominee can beat Obama.
P.S.: I believe it would be a HUGE mistake for Republicans to attempt an impeachment of Obama right now. The degenerate Bill Clinton was able to garner a lot of sympathy when it happened to him, to the point where he is now respectable instead of disgraced. Obama would easily be able to portray himself as David against the Republican Goliath, and get away with it. Republicans should be calling Obama tyrannical every chance they can, and they should hold Obama's illegal appointments over everything Obama and Senate Democrats bring forth, especially nominations to various positions (possibly even potential Supreme Court nominations). But that's as far as they can take it. Any work done by the CFPB and the NLRB needs to be handled in the courts through private sector lawsuits; there is an excellent chance the courts would slap injunction after injunction on these agencies, thus shutting them down completely (see New Process Steel v. NLRB).
If, however, Obama is re-elected to a last term, and provided Republicans retain the majority in the House, then impeachment resolutions against Obama, Holder, Chu, the CFPB's Richard Cordray if he enacts any rule, the three illegal NLRB appointees if they enact any rule, and I'm sure others, should come out fast and frequently. It doesn't matter if there aren't any convictions in the Senate; the criminal and tyrannical behavior of the Obama administration needs to be exposed.
Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.