A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Oh My Word: Chris Matthews says that Mitt Romney’s support is due to “Racial Hatred”

I am going to tell you all something. I do believe I have seen it all now. I have been blogging since 2006. I have been around this political stuff for 6 long years, and this is the first time, that I have ever seen a progressive talking-head accuse the American people of being racists for not supporting a President. This, as they say, is absolutely unreal.

The Video: (H/T to HotAir.com)

Quote via The Hill:

Liberal pundit Chris Matthews explained Mitt Romney’s support among conservatives, despite the candidate shifting toward the center on a number of issues, as a product of “racial hatred.”

Speaking after Thursday night’s debate on MSNBC, Matthews accused Romney of “pulling back” from many of the foreign policy positions he had taken during the primary. When host Rachel Maddow wondered why Romney might be “reversing himself” from his stated positions during the primary and whether that could dampen his support among his conservative base, Matthews dismissed such a possibility.

“I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their No. 1 enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the South and looking at these numbers we’re getting the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases … this isn’t about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president,” he said.

Matthews also dismissed Romney’s position on potentially taking military action against Iran if the nation acquires nuclear weapon capabilities.

“Any jackass can talk about bombing Iran, but they never talk about the consequences,” he said.

First of all, I do believe that Mitt Romney said that he would only use the Military as a last resort. Which is a very large departure from the Bush Administration’s insistence that we just had to go into Iraq to stop the WMD’s. As for calling Mitt Romney a “jackass,” any jackass can support a Presidential candidate because of his skin color too, as it seems that Chris Matthews did. Furthermore, any jackass can run for President as a community organizer; but if you are black, you have better chance of winning! So there! Phbbbttt  Mr. Matthews, you make a mockery of the Progressives and the Democratic Party! You should be kicked off the air for good.

I like what Ed Morrissey wrote about this:

I’m certain that this is what makes Matthews feel more comfortable about an election that clearly is being lost by Barack Obama.  It’s not about median household income dropping faster during the Obamanomics recover (4.8%) than during the recession (2.5%).  It’s not about having the lowest civilian population participation rate in the last 31 years (63.5%, down from 65.7% at the beginning of the recovery).  It’s not about 1.3% GDP growth.  It’s not about skyrocketing deficits and budget proposals so ridiculous that no one in Obama’s own party would vote for them.  No, Matthews can’t bring himself to it’s about America rejecting the President who delivered this economic performance not because of his failures, but because of the color of his skin — even though the same electorate made him President despite a lack of experience over a long-known and long-serving politician four years ago.

That says nothing about America.  It says everything about Chris Matthews.

Agreed. My friends, as I have written on this blog, and on my old one many times. I am a former Democratic Party voter, I left that part for this very reason right here. Because I knew that this sort of stupidity would be coming down the pike, once President Obama was elected. It is a sad state of affairs for the Democratic Party, their leader has failed horribly and now, they are trying to hold on to the “dream,” if you want to call it that and they will be dragged into the dustbin of history, kicking and screaming all the way.

Again, it is sad to see; but I knew it was coming, long ago.

Related:

Moderator-gate…..again?

As much as it is going to sound a bit funny coming from my side of the political fence. I actually feel sorry for these brave idiots people, who volunteer to moderate these debates. I mean, as morbid as this might sound; I liken it to a cow that volunteers to go the slaughterhouse for the rest of the herd. (…and no that is NOT a crack at Crowley’s weight! DON’T….EVEN….GO….THERE! SurpriseNot talkingNot listening)

Anyway,  it seems another Moderator is under the….gun?

Via Time:

Quote:

In a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of this Tuesday’s town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.

While an early-October memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns suggests that CNN’s Candy Crowley would play a limited role in the Tuesday-night session, Crowley, who is not a party to that agreement, has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested that she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”

In the view of the two campaigns and the commission, those and other recent comments by Crowley conflict with the language the campaigns agreed to, which delineates a more limited role for the debate moderator. The questioning of the two candidates is supposed to be driven by the audience members — likely voters selected by the Gallup Organization. Crowley’s assignment differs from those of the three other debate moderators, who in the more standard format are supposed to lead the questioning and follow up when appropriate. The town-hall debate is planned for Oct. 16 at 9 p.m. E.T. at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.

According to the debate-format language in the agreement, after each audience question and two-minute responses from the candidates, Obama and Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by Crowley. Yet her participation is meant to be limited. As stated in the document, “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.” The memo, which has been obtained by TIME, was signed by lawyers for the two campaigns on Oct. 3, the day of the first presidential debate in Denver.

First Jim Leher, and now poor Candy Crowley. Rolling Eyes Sheep for the slaughter… or something. Tongue

Others: American Prospect, Michelle Malkin, BuzzFeed, FP Passport, TVNewser, The Caucus, The Hill,Examiner, The Daily Caller, NationalJournal.com, New York Magazine, ABCNEWS, The PJ Tatler, Hot Air,The Fix, The Daily Dish, Newsy, Poynter, The Raw Story, Wake up America, The Gateway Pundit, Mediaite,Taylor Marsh, ABCNEWS, Booman Tribune, Media Decoder, NewsBusters.org blogs and Shakesville, more at Mediagazer »

More Fibs by Biden During the Debate

This looks like a pretty regular thing here. First there was the one about the Iraq War and now this one, as pointed out by The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement, October 12. Full text follows:

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

"With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact."

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to "Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital," or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional "accommodation" for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as "non-exempt." That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation "to pay for contraception" and "to be a vehicle to get contraception." They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

Oopsie! Looks like Biden was wrong again. But as I wrote in that other Biden post; that is what the Democrats are all about today. This sort of half truths and such. Should not be considered anything out of the ordinary with them.

But I still say it was wrong to call him a “Jackhole.”  Fibber maybe, but JackHole?Confused Raised EyebrowSurprise That’s just rude. Not talking

Others: CNSNews, The Heritage Foundation, National Review, Weasel Zippers, Wake up America,The Gateway Pundit, The PJ Tatler, protein wisdom, Washington Examiner, FREEDOM EDEN,LifeNews.com

Video: New GOP Ad: “Joe’s laughing at the issues, are you?”

As I wrote in my take of the debate last night, Joe Biden’s laughing and smirking as not a good thing.

Well, as I expected, the GOP went after him on that and here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCtemaHgjyA&hd=1

It is a very effective ad and one that the Democrats and Joe Biden brought on themselves. Laughing at your debate opponent is never a smart thing to do.  especially seeing that Ryan was correct about everything he was saying about the Obama Administration.

At least Ryan did not call Biden a “Jackhole,” unlike some people. 🙄

(H/T Jeff G.)

Mark your calendars: I actually disagree with AllahPundit

I hate to say it, but AllahPundit is full of crap!

He says that Biden acted like a “Jackhole.” Which is a bunch of malarkey.

Biden no more acted like a “jackhole” than Ryan acted like a smug smart mouthed little punk.

I suppose that making up stuff about Mary Mapes during the Bush era and saying untrue stuff about Ron Paul is not being a jackhole?

Pot meet kettle.

….and, yeah, he gets paid — by Salem Communications to print that tripe. 🙄

AllahPundit so needs to be outed and badly, he is getting too cocky and too sloppy anymore.

Just sayin’

Go here to read a fair and balanced review of the VP Debates.  

Update: I’ve removed the swear words out of this posting. I apologize to my Christian readers; but I was very highly and still am, very highly ticked off about AP’s posting.  I stand by my feelings towards AllahPundit. The man has gotten too sloppy and a bit arrogant. Sorry, but disrespecting a 69 year old man and calling him a “Jackhole” is just unacceptable. I was raised better than to do such stuff. His blog posting is highly partisan and is not even a true reflection of what really happened. I guess that is what happens, when you become a corporate blogger. He should be outed and made to face the music on what he posts.

My verdict on the Vice-Presidential Debate

Here is my official opinion or verdict on the Vice-Presidential debates. Unlike the last debates, I actually watched this debate, in its entirety.  I also have an opinion on them and it might actually shock you about how I really think about them. If you were are following me on twitter, you already know; so, this is for the regular blog readers who actually come here.

Unlike the last debate, which from what I have read and seen in the clips, Obama stumbled, while Romney get the upper hand. This debate was different, and it seemed that the moderator had better control of the debate.  Biden and Ryan both were fully prepared and both represented their positions and their own set of facts very well.

At first, Biden kept snickering and making guffaws at Ryan’s statements, which I felt made him look horrible before the American people. Somewhere in the debate, Biden figured out that this was not helping him at all, so he stopped doing it. I felt that doing this, helped him out a good deal.

Biden did have a few stumbles and memory lapses  which is understandable seeing the man is 69 years old and debating a young man who is only two years older than me! (Ryan is 42.) But for the most part, Biden was on his game. To be quite honest, Biden did better than I and many other bloggers thought he would. There was on funny moment, when Biden wanted to swear and said “stuff” instead of the word, for which farmers normally call fertilizer.  Biden also used the word “malarkey” quite a bit too, which really does date Biden.

Ryan was wonky on policy and really did stand out, he never got angry at all. Biden was never angry, but did defend his policy positions very well and sometimes with a bit of force.

Alright, How did you feel about the Democratic Positions?

Well, obviously as someone who does lean a bit to the right, I would disagree with most of the Democrat’s positions. I did feel that it was good that the moderator started out with Syria and I was very much not impressed with Biden’s excuses for the failure over there with our embassy. Biden seemed to be wanting to place blame on the State Department and not on the White House where it belonged.  Furthermore, I found the scaremongering by Biden on Social Security and Medicare to be quite predictable and typical for the left. I was not really surprised or shocked about anything that the Vice-President said at all.

So, my bottom line on the VP Debate: It was a draw;  neither side scored a knockout blow. Both sides fought and counter punched very well. Points to Biden for defense, and points to Ryan for substance and articulation. Now, as for the impact; I really do not see this debate really making much difference in the polls at all. There really was no really impact event in the debate at all to case a big jump in the polls. Snap polls aside, I really do not predict any sort of long-term poll change at all.

I believe that if Romney or Obama comes out in the next debate swinging and does engage Romney that things could look for him. However, if he does what he did last time, the Democrats had better start planning for 2016. Personally, I predict that Obama is going to be tougher in this next debate. I think he was preoccupied with something else or possibly worried about coming off sounding like an angry black man. Either way, it will be interesting to watch.

There are my thoughts, how did you feel about these debates?

Update: Here is the round up of blogger reactions to the debate.