Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Your life or your limb” Tweet of the Day

“Your life or your limb” Tweet of the Day

Conservative blogger John Hawkins (Right Wing News and elsewhere) poses the age-old conservative question:

Choose to have your head cut off with a chainsaw (voting for Obama) or just a limb removed (voting for Mitt).

John chooses life and limb (he’s a Newt supporter).

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Given America’s preference for divided government, learned at great cost in a two-party system, the ABO argument has not been made to my satisfaction.

Anthony Kennedy has promised not to die or retire until Dog is gone. On Ginsburg’s demise, a Progressive Executive will certainly bow to pressure to keep the defacto ‘balance’, and who really expects a Senate Judiciary with the only sapient life form represented by Hatch and occasionally ingenuous Sessions to pass along a conservative?

The best I could hope for is gridlock, wherein a Bolshevist Executive is stymied by a Menshevist Congress and government is shutdown on impasse.

    The very same forces, Tea Party conservatives, that are mercifully creating gridlock in the Congress need to be introduced into a brokered convention. It will again produce gridlock where the GOP cannot reach out across the aisle for help. We need to force the issue with the GOP this year. That is our last chance.

      Not that Rick Santorum is a perfect conservative (he is not) but Rasmussen has him tied with Obama today. Just saying, this myth that only Romney can beat Obama is a myth.

        StrangernFiction in reply to EBL. | February 4, 2012 at 1:05 pm

        IF this becomes a trend where Santorum hangs right with or beats Obama and Gingrich trails significantly, Gingrich needs to get out of the way. Without the electability argument the Mittbots have NOTHING.

        ANYONE. BUT. ROMNEY.

        windbag in reply to EBL. | February 4, 2012 at 1:46 pm

        I think that Romney and Paul stand an equal chance of defeating Obama. Santorum and Gingrich stand a better chance of doing the same. Romney’s criticisms of Obama can be reduced to “You’re like I am, only worse.”

      gary gulrud in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm

      Agreed ABR before ABO. Behead the GOP and lime the corpses.

        retire05 in reply to gary gulrud. | February 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm

        Which will only give the Obama, Holder, Napalitano cabal another four years of unfettered abuse of the Constitution.

        And a couple of more years, when the number of Americans on food stamps is then 1 in 4, will you stand bravely and shout “Damn, I showed them GOP elitists, didn’t I.”

    retire05 in reply to gary gulrud. | February 4, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    I believe you’re wrong; it was not Kennedy who said that, but Scalia. And make no mistake, if there is another Obama term, what little we have left of a Constitutional government will be just a thing of memory.

    Romney’s a slug (most of us knew that in 2008) but are you willing to give Obama another four years of ignoring the Constitution to prove the point of your disappointment in the GOP?

    There are four men left standing in the GOP primaries. I make no secret that I have no use for any of them. But the thought of handing the reigns of power over to Obama for another four years, considering the damage he has done in just three, is beyond any rational thinking persons imagination.

    What happened to all those people on this blog that said they would vote for road kill before they would allow Obama to have another term?

As I said the other day on Twitter, I’d vote for Romney over Obama in much the same manner as I’d vote for chickenpox over the bubonic plague.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

[…] of my GOP friends are in a deep well of discontent with their choices. I will refer all of them to Professor Jacobson’s “Tweet of the Day” for comfort. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

So you slowly bleed to death rather than a swift and merciful death. Fits right in with the “slowly boiling the frog” analogy. We will never get to the point where we are willing to fight because we have no fight in us. We are all complacent surrender monkeys. It’s almost too late to do anything but everyone has the cute sayings to take the fight out of us.

LO3E in 2012!
GOP = RIP

That ABO and LOTE mentality is the same “can’t risk failure” and “it’s too hard” mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. We keep kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with and so without confrontation, nothing ever gets fixed so the problems get bigger and bigger.

For instance, the last time we had a real stock market correction that resulted in problems being addressed was 1981-4. Then we entered the “Greenspan put” era where “corrections” were mild and problems never got corrected. So because we didn’t want to be bruised in one correction, we kicked the problems down the road until they resurfaced. Fearing the bone-crushing correction necessary to get the now much larger problems fixed, we kicked down the road again. They have resurfaced again and now we are facing an existential threat and we are pretending that we can kick the problems down the road again.

This is where reality re-imposes itself onto unsustainable fantasy. Reality always wins. Let’s all hold our noses one more time hoping that if we wish really really hard, THIS time it will work.

“Choose to have your head cut off with a chainsaw (voting for Obama) or just a limb removed (voting for Mitt).”

Yes, but of course you can bleed to death either way.

    Hope Change in reply to Aitch748. | February 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Plus, these guys cut our other arm off with McCain in 2008. And other body parts in 1996, with Dole. And hey, with Gerald Ford, in 1976. We’re already bleeding!

    The problem isn’t just this year.

    The problem is the ongoing pattern wherein the conservative “country class” is held hostage by the Establishment “Ruling Class” at election time.

    I you haven’t seen it yet, this article by Angelo Codevilla, “AMERICA’S RULING CLASS,” is directly on point. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Anything Obama does, Romney did earlier; Romney did everything before Barack.

Force your church; yes he did
( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1951/20/5120905 )

Attack your energy; yes he did
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgLYryI8g )

Amnesty for all; yes he did, yes he did!
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjo6GXSqIN8&feature=related )

StrangernFiction | February 4, 2012 at 1:02 pm

A vote for Romney is a vote to enable the GOP establishment, and there is no saving America as long as the GOP establishment is in the way. This is all the reason a conservative should need to not vote for Romney in the general.

I thought I would a couple months ago, but that is no longer my position. I will not vote for Romney.

It seems to me that if the Republican power brokers and media pushing Romney think they can do so cavalierly because, oh well, in the end the chickadees and unwashed will just get in line and vote for him, they need to be disabused of that. This nonsense will continue so long as many folks keep saying that when push comes to shove would, ugh, vote for him.

I won’t. Message to the establishment and media: don’t try to call my bluff.

So the choice is certain death or just the possibility of bleeding to death slowly. Hmmm what a choice. Remember your brachial artery is in your arm.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | February 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm

It’s clear to me the “establishment” is the rich RINOs and much of the “conservative media”. Much of Romney’s campaign donations and SuperPac money has come from Wall Streeters who financed Obama heavily last time. But Dodd-Frank is going to hurt their business models, and they are tired of Obama using them as the sole scapegoats for the financial crisis. So they are changing sides now.

These people are true RINOs. They can flip between parties at the drop of a hat. They do not believe in the most basic conservative principle of limited government because they benefit so much from the corporate welfare and crony capitalism that Washington doles out. Screw them and screw Willard.

We need a new party.

    Since Senate Republicans allowed the Independent Senator from Alaska, Princess Lisa Murkowski, to keep her committee positions, you might have a point. Establishment Republicans are just Not Getting It.

      StrangernFiction in reply to Milwaukee. | February 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm

      It’s not that establishment Republicans don’t understand the problem. They ARE the problem(ie they are statists).

    The Republican Party IS our party.

    Let them, the Establishment RINO Corruptocrats, go join the Democrats and the Left.

    That is why I’m supporting NEwt. Together, we can restore and revitalize the Republican Party and our country.

    Three parties create chaos in elections. Create hostage situations. Extreme elements hold the body politic hostage. Look at France. That’s how Bill Clinton won, right?

    (Although I am in a state of profound reassessment about my opinion of H. W. Bush. So maybe that was less of a loss than I thought at the time. The man has endorsed Romney, for crying out loud.)

      Darkstar58 in reply to Hope Change. | February 4, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      “Three parties create chaos in elections. Create hostage situations. Extreme elements hold the body politic hostage. Look at France. That’s how Bill Clinton won, right?”

      The “hostage” part only comes if the three parties have almost equal support. If one of two parties is split in two though, you have a drastically different outcome – in that instance you have a party that must reform or retreat into history.

      Which is why I will be voting for (*gulp*) Rosanne Barr in 2012 if Mitt wins the nod.

      If the Green Party gets to 5% then they will get Federal Funding for campaigning, National Debate spotlight and Mainstream coverage.

      Those three things will mean the Democrat Party would need to completely rethink their position as they watch their base literally splinter into two for 2016 and beyond. When it all ends up playing itself out, you will either have a Democrat Party which distances itself from the Progressive agenda to sustain itself by appealing better to the middle, or is forced to give up completely allowing the Green party to take it place.

      Better to play divide and concur on your enemies, then split our very own “Republican Party” platform into two…

As a masochistic conservative Republican, both these outcomes point to four years of exquisite pleasure.

We need a new part, a party dedicated to conservative ideals, the constitution, fiscal sanity, and a strong defense. We need an alternative to the Marxist Democrats and the socialist plutocratic Republicans. How do we get this need fulfilled?

    Hope Change in reply to ldwaddell. | February 4, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    We reclaim the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln.

    Just as Newt says, in Poland, the Pope visited and some millions of Poles came to the center of town to see him. And the people looked around and said to themselves that there are more of us than there are of them. Why are we afraid of them? They should be afraid of us.

    There are more of us than there are of them.

    It took the people in Poland 10 years to reclaim their country after the Pope’s visit.

    I hope to heaven we don’t have to wait until there is the danger of incarceration and death to reclaim out freedoms.

    We are surrounded by a deceptive media culture that makes everyone feel that he or she is the only one who feels this way.

    With the combination of the internet and decent leadership for once, like Reagan, we can channel our energy and intelligence into restoring Lincoln’s party to its true origins within the Constitution.

    You know what? Brietbart became a hero to me when he yelled, in New Hampshire I think, “These decadent bastards are going down!” Remember that? It was thrilling.

    The fault lines now, between who’s trying to destroy Newt’s candidacy and who’s standing up to support Newt, show more than I wanted to know about who’s on which side. Some of my most cherished favorites are standing on the other side.

    IMO, Newt is the one who can help us break up the Establishment gravy train, and that is why they want to end his candidacy at all costs.

    Why people I thought were the hippest, most cutting-edge and most savvy of all, like Drudge, would be suckered into shilling for Romney, is a mystery to moi.

Our oligarchical plutocratic leaders have abandoned the constitution for power. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” – Declaration of Independence, JULY 4, 1776

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.” Thomas Jefferson

I. will. never. cast. a. vote. for. Willies. Period.

The problem is this

(Establishment) Republicans are worried about the “center” – they obsess over those who line up between the two parties (and generally vote whatever is trendy), as if they will ever change the ideals of people who for the most part could care less about Politics.

What they fail to do is define the “center”, and stick with that target.

The Progressive Party (pure evil) has infested the Democrat Party (not bad, just with different ideas from us) to the point where the (D) side of the scale has been drastically moved Left. In turn, what else has happened?

Oh yeah, the “center” got pulled Left with it.

Now all of a sudden they are pushing straight RINOs and “Moderates” (who would actually better line up with “Blue Dogs” or “Reagan-Democrats” if the Dems weren’t pulled so Left) who often even were ex-Democrat Blue-Dogs or Reagan-Dems themselves, because they line up with the “center” as it is today.

and there is you problem – the Republican Party in effect is trying to replace the Democrat Party of old because that is closer to the “center” now, while the Democrat Party has become Progressive-Communism. Leaving no true Conservative alternative.

Enter the Tea Party and the real threat of Conservatives taking back the party or sending them the way of the Whigs. That is the War we are in right now…

If we don’t pull the scales back to the Right by taking the Republicans over or pushing them aside, the Progressive Left will just keep tugging and tugging until they make sure their constant “Conservative is extreme” narrative is a reality.

If you are in a world where you have only two options, Progressives (called Democrats) and Democrats (called Republicans), you are in a world where Conservatives are extreme. That is what the Progressives are trying to do, while the Republicans are going right along with it by chasing the “center”…

    There are two things wrong with your post.

    First, labeling people is mainly in the eyes of the beholder. That term “progressive” is being thrown around handily for anyone people deem as unfit, or not fitting a pigeon-holed idea of a conservative. It’s way over-used and misused, IMO.

    Second, the tea party is often considered a political firewall for stopping anyone categorized, or mischaracterized, as a progressive from attaining office. However, the tea party is a much more broad-based group than many give them credit for. For instance, Romney won the vote of those calling themselves tea partiers in Florida. Whereas, Newt won the vote of people calling themselves very conservative. However, very conservative people only make up one component of this group, because the tea party is not a monolithic group.

    In the end, you can disagree with the numbers, ignore the data, and be “mad as hell.” But the Tea Party movement is clearly not a monolithic movement. As Senator Jim DeMint said in his interview with S.E. Cupp when asked if he thinks that the Tea Party’s credibility will be tested this election, “[t]here is no one candidate that fits the Tea Party because the Tea Party comprises so many different small groups around the country — from Libertarians to disaffected Democrats to conservatives and Independents.”

      tsr in reply to tsr. | February 4, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Just as a follow-up about how ‘conservative’ may be judged differently by different people, here is an article from the NYT going deeper into Gingrich’s Freddie Mac dealings. Yes, it is the NYT. But, as the Speaker appeared to see this publication as worthy to bring out some Bain problems for Romney, I guess it’s ok to also use it to point out Gingrich’s incongruent conservative background, as well.

      While Mr. Gingrich has minimized his past connections to the two closely related companies on the campaign trail, his Congressional record shows that his political and financial ties to the firms run deeper and farther back than he has acknowledged publicly and, in fact, set the stage for the lucrative consulting work that followed.

      For all who distrust Romney on this blog, I just don’t see how you can continue to turn around and legitimately compare and contrast Newt as being so much better. The Contract with American was decades ago. And, since that time Gingrich has been nothing but a well-paid political hack in DC.

      The truth is that there really is no candidate in this race who fits the bill of being very conservative.

      Darkstar58 in reply to tsr. | February 4, 2012 at 6:10 pm

      What you’re apparently unable to grasp is the fact that I specifically separated out the “Progressive” agenda from the “Democrat” ideals. I even differentiated between Democrats, who I stated were “not bad, just with different ideas from us”, and Progressives who literately preach varying degrees of the Communist Agenda. But if you can not recognize the Progressives hijacking of the Democrat Party, then you are delusional or in denial.

      And as far as your “Tea Party is Diverse” stance – while true in some aspects, they all preach the Conservative platform of small government and individual freedom.

      As far as your trying to insist Tea Party support into a Newt v. Romney argument, I can only call it desperation.

      I mean sure, Newt isn’t an ideal candidate with some of his words or actions since last being in office; but when put up his actual in-office actions and identical platform today against one of the most extreme Liberal agenda Governors of the last 50 years…

      Slander Newt all you want, it still doesn’t make Mitt any more desirable to anyone.

I would vote for Romney for one reason. To get obama out of the WH. He may be like obama in many ways but he doesn’t hate this country and would not try to bring it down. Also, obama has done such a super job with our foreign politcy . The world is in flames. Do we want to add gasoline to the fire. That’s what we would be doing if we let ob ma get anothe term. Being a dictator in the US is small potatoes to him. He wants a world order with him at the top. That’s why he has incited the arab countries to riot. And since the European countries have so many arab immigrants, them too.

    Jake Blues in reply to BarbaraS. | February 4, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    Exactly my take. I think that’s the only sensible stand. Assuming Romney wins, if conservatives don’t like the way he runs things, we have four years to put together a primary challenger, and that sends a message. Someone sitting it out or sanctimoniously declaring they “will not vote for ….” is not sending any message; nobody cares. Romney on his worst day could not be worse than the current occupant.

And while I addressed it in a bigger way in the other post, still:

The truth is that there really is no candidate in this race who fits the bill of being very conservative.

so vote for the guy with the Extreme-Liberal Governors record who changes every possible position he ever takes, depending on what it will take to get elected that day, over the guy who was an extreme Conservative “decades ago” preaching nearly the same exact agenda today?

Like I have said since the beginning; easy choice there…

Romney’s favorite color is plaid.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend