Well, we lost.  Mitt Romney didn’t win comfortably.  BUT, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives.  In one of the most ignominious highlights of the night, the GOP lost two senate seats – increasing the Democratic majority by two.  The current makeup is 55 Democrats to 45 Republicans.  In a milestone for the ladies, 20% of the U.S. Senate will be represented by women.  However, the night ended a bit like 2004 in reverse.

While the notions of GOP turnout seemed assured, it was rarely monitored, and turnout for the youth (and voter turnout in general) was unexpectedly high.  To no one’s surprise, young voters broke for the president (60-36), but represented a larger share of the electorate than four years ago.  Romney’s lead amongst independents wasn’t enough to overcome the Latino vote, which he lost to Obama miserably 72%-23%.  Lastly, Romney wasn’t able to cut into the gender gap quite as effectively as he wanted to, with the president winning women, overall, by eleven points.  However, it’s with unmarried women that Romney had a fatal disadvantage with, as they broke for Obama 67% to 31%.

On states, betting on Pennsylvania proved to another catastrophic play.  We haven’t won the Keystone State in almost a quarter century, and it may be time to part company completely.  Concerning Wisconsin, the state may have swung right on recent elections, but perhaps the ‘fairness voters’ – voters who may not agree with Walker’s policies, but are appalled that unions would want to revoke an election result – turned out to vote for the president this time.  In Ohio and Virginia, Romney’s failure to execute the war on coal narrative sooner, and formulating a response to the Bain ads, contributed to his defeat.

Without a doubt, the Bain ads – the Obama campaign’s first official salvo in their ‘Kill Romney’ strategy –  released right after Mitt unofficially clinched the Republican nomination resonated with Buckeye residents, and shame on the Governor’s communications team, who were on the defensive for most of the election cycle.  In short, like with Goldwater in ’64, the Obama campaign was able to define Romney – before Romney could define himself.  It’s another costly misfire.

However, I truly feel that Mitt Romney ran a good campaign, and did the best he could’ve with what he had regarding resources.  It’s hard to be successful when you don’t have a Karl Rove, James Carville, or David Plouffe on your side.  It also hurt that he couldn’t run on health care, since Romneycare served as the blue print for one of the most egregious affronts to the constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration.

Yet, if you looked at the field from the beginning, It was either going to be Mitt Romney or Rick Perry fighting for the nomination.  Newt and Cain treated this serious event in American politics with the maturity of eight year olds at a lemonade stand – with the lemonade being books.  For many Americans, Michele Bachmann failed the threshold question of any presidential candidate, which is do I trust this person with nuclear weapons?  Disgraced former Pennsylvanian Senator Rick Santorum failed the conservative test, in my opinion, by voting for Medicare Part D, which added $ 7 trillion to the unfunded liability of the program. That’s 20% of the entire unfunded liability, which we now have to deal with before the fiscal cliff.  He voted for Sonia Sotomayor for circuit judge. Santo voted against National Right to Work, Food Stamp reform, a flat tax, and Medicaid reform.  He voted for internet taxes, the unionization of FedEx (twice), and No Child Left Behind.  He took that one for the team.

Rick Perry, my choice for president, flamed out in one of the most epic derailments we’ve probably seen in a long time.  Jon Huntsman was too moderate.  Ron Paul was well, Ron Paul. So, we were left with Mitt Romney.  Sometimes the pickings of the field aren’t too stellar, and we have to deal with that.

Again, I don’t blame Romney for the loss.  Yes, Obama’s record of economic pain, which he has inflicted without mercy on the American people, is long, but his political team, along with the media, were able to spin it just enough to trivialize the fallout.  As Ralph Reed, Founder and former Executive Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said at CPAC 2012 last February – we’re about to face “the meanest, toughest, most vicious political team we’ve ever faced.”  He was right, and we paid dearly for it.

Given Obama’s record, and Republicans’ inability to defeat him, it begs the question if the GOP should have any business being in American politics.  Yes, they still do, but renovations need to be made.  We need to do better with women – cough nix the rape talk cough cough – hispanics, and younger voters.  The hispanic vote ruined the California GOP back in 1994 when Prop. 187 established a citizenship screening process and barred illegals from using state services was construed as ‘anti-immigrant.’  It was really protecting the territorial integrity of the United States, a core function of a nation in the international system, but that’s a different debate. Regardless, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and California Republicans have been in the bunker ever since.

We need to find ways to protect our sovereign soil, but in a way that doesn’t come off as nativist.  Hispanics are hard-workers, religious, and pro-traditional marriage.  Or, at least, that’s what was the conventional wisdom at the time.  Heather MacDonald posted on National Review yesterday that:

a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

So, despite Mitt’s shaky conservative credentials, without a doubt, he’s the most hard-lined presidential candidate on immigration we’ve had in the past ten years – and that didn’t hurt him with these voters.  Bain, on the other hand, probably didn’t help.

Nevertheless, I’m not saying we should be for amnesty.  We shouldn’t be.  Amnesty is unfair and unethical – as is the president’s Dream Act light, which requires illegals to bribe the government $465 from doing it’s job enforcing federal law.  However, what 2012 should show all conservatives is that our coalition, which to Paul Krugman’s chagrin truly represents the ‘Real America,’ is static.  It’s more rural, blue collar, and white.  That’s not enough to win elections.  We need to improve outreach with minorities and venture back into the cities, or places where the people are, to make these contests competitive again.  George W. Bush won 44% of the Latino vote in 2004, with increased majorities in the House and Senate.  It’s not impossible. But it’ll be very difficult trying to chip away at the government’s “role in helping people,” which in Democrat speak for getting these people so dependent on us as possible, so they’re a lock when Election Day arrives.

Concerning the ladies, we need to exert a little more discretion when we talk about rape.  While the Democratic National Convention could’ve been Abortion Fest 2012,the senate races in this cycle should have been more appropriately called Rape Fest.  It’s odd that we even have to mention this, and some blame the Tea Party for these mishaps. I don’t.  The Tea Party is the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  As George Will once noted, they’re the best thing to happen in American politics since the Goldwater insurgency.  Republicans would not be where they are now without the Tea Party, but that does not mean we should accept every one of their primary victors as serious candidates.

As Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel wrote in The Daily Caller yesterday:

The tea party believes the GOP establishment is ideologically corrupt. They’re right. But replacing the current leadership with obviously unqualified buffoons is no remedy. Republicans have lost at least five winnable Senate races in the last two cycles because they fielded candidates whose only real qualification was being anti-establishment. Many will argue the GOP can only win going forward with more liberal candidates. That’s not true. But the genuine conservatives they find will have to come with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.

The sad truth is that even if the Republican Party did all this — sent its current leaders home and stopped nominating losers — it still wouldn’t be enough. The country is changing too fast. Most people have the sense that America is different demographically from what it was 20 years ago. But unless they’ve been reading the latest census data, they have no real idea. The changes are that profound. They’re also permanent and likely to accelerate. In order to remain competitive outside Utah, the GOP will have to win new voters, and soon.

That’s the Republican reformation plan, Stage B. They may get there. First they’ll have to tackle the basics, like finding fresh leadership and candidates who aren’t embarrassing.

That will take some serious vetting.  Furthermore, we’re Republicans.  We’re pro-life, and the American people know that about our movement.  In elections centered on the economy, you can easily pivot away from such issues.  Sadly, some of our fellow party members couldn’t help themselves, they shot their mouths off, and got trounced.  There is much intra-party work to do – and it starts now.

Meanwhile, a divided America exists and the government we elected is representative of that partisanship.  Michael Barone wrote also wrote in National Review that Americans on the right, and the others of the left, are no longer becoming culturally cohesive.

Ronald Reagan, speaking the language of the old, universal popular culture, could appeal to both Americas. His successors, not so much. Barack Obama, after an auspicious start, has failed to do so.

As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.

Americans have faced this before. This has been a culturally diverse land from its colonial beginnings. The mid-20th-century cultural cohesiveness was the exception, not the rule.

We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War.

An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster.

Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

It’s sort of like this exchange between President Bartlet and Governor Ritchie.

Right now, Obama is in a good position to increases taxes, which will happen when Obamacare’s fully implemented in 2014, nominate SCOTUS appointments, which threaten to curtail our constitutional rights, and to continue this destructive surge in government spending that only shackles people to the will of the state through dependency.  It’s up to House Republicans to obstruct Democratic plans, and put forward a deluge of alternatives of their own. Granted, we won’t be able to filibuster Supreme Court appointments, but this president’s agenda, and that of the Democrats, is inherently dangerous to the socioeconomic fabric of the country and we must fight them all the way.  Concerning the fiscal cliff, maybe compromise can be reached.  Yet, we should also remember that compromise is how we got Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the first round of federal stimulus under the Bush administration.  Policies that attributed to the near collapse of the conservative movement in this country.

I’m pessimistic that a deal will be reached.  This president’s ego would bust the marble in the Capitol dome – and he exuded poor presidential leadership as described in Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.  Yet, Mr. Will again reminds us that throughout the course of American history there is not a single thing that the American people wanted intensely and protractedly that they did not eventually get from the federal government.

Ronald Reagan

Would you, as a voter with conservative values and principles, vote for a candidate who says  the following?

• I will Raise Taxes 11 Times in 8 years
• I will Increase Government Spending
• I will Double or Triple the National Debt
• I will Increase the Size of Government
• I will Give Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
• I will Negotiate & Make Deals with Terrorists or Tyrannical Regimes

The answer is a John Boehner-esque “Hell No!”.

Ask a group of Conservatives, “Who is your political hero?” Invariably, one name will spring to life as an answer to the question.  That name, like the list of policies above, belongs to the 40th president of The United States, Ronald Reagan.

The problem with so many conservative voters today is that they hold President Reagan as their idol, and their idol did precisely the things that conservatives claim to be against.  These modern “Conservative Principles” are also what gave rise to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich as presidential candidates.  The atrocious record of Romney has been thoroughly placed in the public form, yet conservatives still support this guy.

Something is seriously wrong here.

Let’s start by looking at some of what “Reagan Conservatives” believe in, and comparing that to the actual results of Reagan’s Presidency:

Beliefs of Reagan Conservatives

• American Exceptionalism – The United States is an exceptional nation. No other country in the history of the world has done more to secure liberty and honor God-given rights of individuals. Our government is uniquely of, by, and for the people, not the other way around.
• Secure Borders – Legal immigrants have enriched this country. Illegal immigration undermines American sovereignty and weakens national security. The U.S. has a right and obligation to secure it’s borders.
• Strong Military – A strong military is a deterrent. The U.S. must maintain military superiority to ensure our security. The American military is made up of dedicated and patriotic individuals who deserve this nation’s full support.
• Energy Independence – For national security and economic reasons it is time that we as a nation become energy independent by exploiting all our natural resources responsibly while at the same time encouraging energy innovation.
• Individual Rights – The subjugation of individual rights in favor of groups rights is unconstitutional and has always lead to the trampling of individual freedom.
• Individual Responsibility – Individuals are responsible for their actions and the consequences. It is not government’s place to save individuals from their mistakes. This kind of government intervention only encourages irresponsible behavior and impinges on others’ rights.
• Limited Government - Thomas Jefferson was correct when he wrote: “That government is best which governs least.” Government should be limited to the powers delegated it by the Constitution. Beyond these powers, as government grows, individual freedom shrinks and the economy suffers.
• Low Taxes and Fiscal Constraint - Government redistribution of income through taxation is not constitutional. Individuals have a right to their income and are far better managers of their money than is the government. Free market solutions improve the economy while upholding individual freedoms.

Results of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency:

• American Exceptionalism - The term “American Exceptionalism” was first coined and used by Joseph Stalin – the communist Russian dictator responsible for the mass-death of millions of people – in statements regarding a Communist Revolution in America.  This is the same style of Communist Russian Dictatorship that Reagan battled  during “The Cold War”.
• Secure Borders/Individual Responsibility - Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted Amnesty to illegal immigrants
• Strong Military/National Defense – Reagan used the military as a “world police force” rather than a deterrent to attack on America.  He ordered military action in Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Honduras, Panama, and many actions in the Persian Gulf.  The Reagan government is also reported (but unconfirmed by CIA) to have directly aided and funded Osama bin Laden in the 1980′s.
  Reagan also negotiated a deal with the Iranian terrorists who held American hostages, by trading arms for hostages. 
• Energy Independence – In 1981, Regan’s first year in office, the US imported 2,188,420,000 barrels of oil.  By 1988, Reagan’s final year in office, imports increased to 2,709,140,000, after imports had dipped previously in the mid-80′s.
• Individual Rights/Adherence To Constitution – Throughout the Reagan presidency, the Supreme Court ruled that 9 acts of legislation were unconstitutional in whole, or in part.
• Limited Government - In Reagan’s first year, 1981, the US government spent $1.0518 Trillion.  By Reagan’s last year in office, the government spent $1.7713 Trillion.  Also, The national debt grew under Reagan as well, starting at $1,028,729,000,000 in 1981, and ballooning to $2,952,994,000,000 by January of 1989, when Reagan left office – almost triple what it started at.
  Furthermore, in 1981 there were 4,982,000 government employees.  By Reagan’s final year, 1988, the government employed 5,289,000 people – an increase of over 300,000 employees.
• Low Taxes - Ronald Reagan was not the tax-slashing president that many make him out to be.  In fact, Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his presidency – which is contrary to the view that many purport of him.

Where do the policies of Reagan fall in line with the principles of “Reagan Conservatives”?  Further, where do the policies of Reagan fall in line with Conservatism in general?

If you are seeking smaller government, lower taxes, less government spending, strong national defense, and adherence to the US Constitution – why would you idolize Reagan?

The fallacy of Reagan, I believe, is that people allow the personality and charisma of “Ronald Reagan, The Man” to overshadow the actions of “Ronald Reagan, The President” – much like voters did with President Obama in 2008.

Conservatives must replace Ronald Reagan as their posterboy.  It is time for conservatives to not only ‘talk-the-talk’, but it is high time that we ‘walk-the-walk’ as well.  For Conservatives to truly change this country, things must change with conservatism.  Not only should we support political candidates that actually adhere to conservative principles, but we must apply a face to the movement that does as well – a face that accurately represents the principles of conservatism.

—

ProveMeWrong@tjthompson.com

—

What will it take to wake you up from your trance?

That trance which you have been slowly and easily lulled into by the rhetoric of politicos who speak with a forked tongue, and by the droning whir of commentary by sock-monkey media figures.

That vegetative state where you indulge in the opiates served to you on the small and silver screens, while your cognitive functions are captured in a cocoon of carelessness.

Will it take more dead American soldiers?

The evaporation of economic prosperity?

A complete loss of liberty and freedom?

The ultimate collapse of The United States as we know it?

–
Unfortunately these will not shatter the opaque specimen jars in which many have chosen to store their grey matter.

I know these events will fail to awaken the masses, because these things are already happening – and have been for a long time.
–

The lives of American men and women are in grave peril.  The lives of our children are in great danger, as well.  With a decade of ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, the docile acceptance of new conflict is surreptitiously implanted into our minds by the Muppets in the media, and by the candidates who seek the highest office in the land.

Each of our children are being burdened with the shackles of debt and perpetual enslavement to the holders of the American economic purse-strings.  Living a life of financial prosperity appears to be trekking the same beaten pathways of the Do-Dos and Dinosaurs.  The future generations of this nation are destined to live in debt thanks to our placidity.

Aside from perpetual war and impoverished economic standing, the coming generations are being lied to.  We are lying to our children about the USA being a Free Country.  We are not free.  Not anymore.  We lose more liberty with each passing year.  Americans have willingly allowed the government to determine how much freedom and liberty we need to keep us safe.  And this is our fault.

In the name of that safety, we allow our government to  grope, molest, and see our children naked (albeit electronically) at airports.  We allow our children to believe that their brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, mothers and fathers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan “for your freedom”, when rational thinking proves this fallacy wrong.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ~Thomas Jefferson~

Again, I ask: What Will It Take To Wake You Up?

I have tried many tactics to break the intellectual hibernation that so many have fallen into.  I have written pointed articles with the sole purpose of stirring logical thought.  I have exposed the politicians that many call “conservative”, when fact and reason say otherwise.  I ran for the United States House Of Representatives in 2010 against Mike Pence on a platform of restoring liberty and fiscal sanity in an attempt to wake people  up.  I hosted an online radio program for 2 years in hopes of educating and informing listeners to wake them up.  With each attempt,  I have been chastised for speaking the truth.  With undeniable facts in hand, I was still called a liar.

Many other people in this country have attempted the same things I have, yet the American people refuse to wake up.

Barack Obama, George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald W. Reagan and a swarm of other Presidents have contributed to the downfall of this once great nation with debt, war, and reduction of liberty, yet the American people refuse to wake up.

Over 6,500 American soldiers have died in undeclared wars since 2001.  Over 120,000 civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.  Now President Obama and Mitt Romney threaten more war, this time with Iran, yet the American people refuse to wake up.

The US National Debt has surpassed the GDP of the United States, yet the American people refuse to wake up.

Three government programs have $118,723,550,000,000 (that’s $118.723 Trillion) in unfunded liabilities (as of publishing date), yet the American people refuse to wake up.

Eighteen US Veterans commit suicide every single day…. yet the American People refuse to wake up….

Niceties have failed.
Bluntness has failed.
Education has failed.  

Again, I ask:

What Will It Take To Wake You Up?

—

What will it take to wake YOU up?  Email your answer to tj@tjthompson.com

—

.

That’s right, I said it.

(send all hate mail to hatemail@tjthompson.com)

And I will say it again: if Barack Obama is re-elected this November, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Conservatives.

WHY?

Two words: Mitt Romney.

Two more words: Rick Santorum.

And even two more: Newt Gingrich.

Real Conservatives have failed miserably at finding, recruiting, and supporting a candidate who is actually conservative.  There is nothing conservative about Mitt, Newt, and Rick.  Not their policies.  Not their records.

The biggest opponent that Mitt Romney faces is Mitt Romney.  His big government record is littered with “flip-flopping” on issues.  (See Video To The Right).

Rick Santorum’s record is pock-marked with ugliness – ranging from a detrimental record on spending in The House, to voting for The Patriot Act in 2001, to ethics violations, and then to being ousted by 18 points as an incumbent in 2006.

And Newt Gingrich?  ….how much time do we have?

How can Real Conservatives allow these things to happen?

We do not have to accept those who the The Establishment Right puts into the race.  It is our duty to realize the rotten crop that is harvested every 4 years, and then go pick our own candidate.  One who has a proven track record of doing what is right for Americans.  One who believes in small government, reduced spending, reduced debt, ending foreign wars, and restoring the Constitution.  We must never let the Establishment Right pick for us.  We must never allow the media to pick for us.

In 2012, Real Conservatives allowed The Establishment Right and The Media to choose the candidates.  With no objection.  With no retaliation.

And we will all pay the price – regardless of who wins in November.

—

.

“Defeat The Left!”

“Get Obama Out!”

“Support The GOP Nominee At All Costs!”

.

These appear to be the battle cries of Republicans – and apparently Conservatives – in 2012.

.

After all, electing whoever ends up being the GOP Nominee is the main goal, right?

.

If you answered “yes” to that question, then you are a part of the problem.

Correction — you ARE the problem.

“Holy crap, did he just say that?”

I sure did.

Why would I say that, you may be asking?

The answer is because conservatives need a wake-up call.  I don’t mean a gentle shaking of the shoulders, either.  Conservatives need a sledgehammer on the ankles, a la Kathy Bates.

Why?

It wasn’t but a few short years ago, I could actually tell you what the differences between a Republican and a Conservative were:

Smaller government, abiding by the Constitution, and cutting government spending are just a few examples.

.

These days… not so much.  

Those self-professed “Conservatives” are out supporting Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.  These same “Conservatives” were, at one time, begging for Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to jump in the Presidential race.

Yes…. The same Paul Ryan who thinks that running deficits for another 30 years is a good thing for America!

But wait… Michele Bachmann?  What’s wrong with her?  She’s VERY Conservative!

Sure…. if you call voting for the TSA Authorization Act in 2009 a Conservative vote.  You know – that bill which gave the government the authority to use machines that, and I quote: “creates a visual image of the individual’s full body, showing the surface of the skin”  In other words, the TSA Nude Body Scanners.  Yep, the “conservative” Bachmann voted FOR it.

….WOW…. How is that representative of a Conservative?

.

I am ‘exposing’ (used very loosely here) the problem with The Right that The Left has known for years: and what they have used to defeat Conservatism in this country.

The problem is that The Right impatiently reverts back to the “any Republican” mentality at the first sign of Leftist advances.  On the contrary, The Left is patient.  Very patient.

That patience – coupled with the severe disdain of the Bush policies (also NOT conservative) – brought about Barack Obama’s path to the White House.  That patience also brought about Republican Leftists like Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney and John McCain.  The Left’s methodology moves at a snail’s pace.  Slow enough that we didn’t see them come into the Republican Party and weaken it from within.

Weaken from within?  How so?

Exhibit A – John McCain
Exhibit B – Mitt Romney
Exhibit C – All Policy since 2000

In 2008, it was Left Vs. Left in the Presidential election.  Should Mitt Romney become the GOP Nominee in 2012, it will once again be Left Vs. Left.  

Regardless of who wins, The Right lost a long time ago.

There has not been a Conservative President since Calvin Coolidge.  That’s right, not even Reagan.  Amnesty, 11 tax hikes, and near tripling of the National Debt (among other policies) disqualify The Gipper from being Conservative.  Sorry folks, Ronnie was just another Republican.

 (send all hate mail to hatemail@tjthompson.com)

.

Before the inevitable, manufactured outrage begins; let’s take a look at what the real difference is between Republicans and Democrats, shall we?

……

Oh, there aren’t any.  Big surprise.

• Both parties have spent taxpayer money like drunken sailors (no offense to sailors), and engaged in inter-generational child abuse by yoking our children with over $50,000 of debt on the day they are born.
• Both parties have started or continued undeclared wars that kill young Americans, and hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries.
• Both parties have violated the Constitution by passing/reauthorizing Unconstitutional laws such as The Patriot Act, The TSA Authorization Act, and The NDAA.  Now, our bipartisan government is pushing bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and the ACTA Treaty.
• Both parties have expanded the National Debt.
• Both parties have instituted policies that sent American jobs overseas.
  (Remember that “Giant sucking sound” Ross Perot warned us of?) 
• Both parties have continued the monetary policy which has systematically weakened the US Dollar. 

These are just some of the most blatant of the similarities.  These do, however, beg one very important question:  How can supporting whoever the GOP nominee is advance the cause of Conservatism, Freedom and Liberty?

…and that is a real question – not rhetorical – to which I want answers.

Any REAL Conservative would tell Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum to hit the road, because we have seen that song-and-dance before – and it is completely counter to the Conservative philosophy.

But instead, we have, what I refer to as, Pseudoconservatives – who must get some tingly sensation in the cockles of their heart when referring to themselves as “Conservatives”.  There is no other explanation for using this term.  These people are liars.  These people are Establishment Republicans.  These are the real enemies of Conservatism.

Real Conservatives would never surrender their integrity to support “whichever Republican”.  

Real Conservatives would not sit back and take whatever candidate is chosen for us – we find our own.  

Real Conservatives would not passively watch their nation crumble and still have the audacity to call themselves Patriots.

This Real Conservative spits in the face of Monopartisan tyranny and fights for liberty – even when I’m one man against an entire army.   Stand On Principle… Or Stand Aside!

.

To the pseudoconservatives, I leave you with the words of Samuel Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

.

To other real Conservatives, remember the words of George Washington as our battle for Liberty continues:

“Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.”    –George Washington–

.

And finally, to those who will undoubtedly spatter me with hate, anger, and vitriol:

“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”   –James A. Baldwin–

—

When:

Where: Streaming Internet Radio

What: Join independent political commentators Rich Mitchell and Michelle Ray as they discuss issues impacting Americans.

Tonight: Santorum is out!, Rosen steps in it, then get’s run over by the bus!

This afternoon, when Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race, my heart broke. As a young conservative, for as long as I can remember, the political landscape has been dominated by corrupt career politicians who ignore the voice of their constituents and vote as they please to gain power and riches. It seemed political efficacy was dead. The only people whose voice mattered were the rich and powerful who had the connections to run for office and buy votes. I’d given up hope for the 2012 election. And then, along came Rick Santorum and his incredible underdog campaign.

Why did Rick Santorum matter so much to me?

He went from being the longest of long shots, garnering one or two percent in presidential polls, to winning Iowa. In every state, he was outspent two or three times by the most prominent candidates. They ran attack ads that Santorum could not afford to respond to, yet people still voted for Santorum.

Time and again, GOP leaders endorsed Mitt Romney. Even conservative and Tea Party leaders, whose views Rick Santorum embodied, gave their endorsement to Mitt Romney. And still, Rick Santorum pulled off seemingly miraculous primary wins.

Rick Santorum had little money. The majority of his campaign finances came from small donations from private citizens, not rich businessmen or corporations. What he lacked in money, he made up in personal campaign stops to spread his message, perhaps most famously by visiting every county in Iowa.

Time and again, his words were twisted by the media-he was a crazy right wing extremist who wanted to ban birth control and drag women back to the dark ages.

Yet, despite the media spin, despite attack ads and trailing in campaign donations, despite virtually no exposure in early debates and despite the media dismissing him at every turn, Rick Santorum drew votes from the people. Something about his message made sense to voters. And his success in the poll was a result of his message, not support from party politicians, not a result of money spent on ads selling him or attacking his opponents.

And that’s why Rick Santorum mattered- he reminded us that a private citizen, with little political party backing, little money and little organization, could get out on the public stage, speak passionately about the principles that moved and motivated him, and inspire people to vote for him.

And that’s why today, I’m deeply saddened by Rick Santorum’s decision to drop out of the race. In my short life, I’ve become frustrated with an America whose political system is dominated by career politicians who sell their votes for personal gain and don’t care about their constituents. Rick Santorum restored my faith that there are still people of character who care about individual freedom and the rights of man. And from the bottom of my heart, I thank him for that.

Gage Skidmore (CC)

If anyone is thinking that Pennsylvania isn’t the end of the road for Santorum, they haven’t been paying attention. He not only needs to win – he needs to win big, in order to justify moving on in the primaries. Suggestions that he drop out before the April 24th primary are not only wise, but also the most logical solution for this campaign.

Newt Gingrich has all but dropped out, admitting on-air that Romney is the man in November. Ron Paul was marginalized shortly after the primary field started thinning out. While there are four choices on the ballots now, it’s been becoming abundantly clear that the bottom three really have no chance to defeat Romney. The only chance they have is to raise hell at the Convention. Any candidate that chooses to do that should be considered finished politically. Whether or not the GOP will stand by that conviction remains to be seen.

As for Santorum, if he does not have a massive showing of support in Pennsylvania, beating Romney by a double-digit spread, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that his political career is over. Now, to be fair, when Santorum lost to Casey in 2006, and broke down in tears at the podium, several campaign consultants figured he was finished, myself included. Bluntly, he should have been. Tears of joy are fine at a victory party. But, breaking down at the podium and crying simply because you lost by double-digits? That’s no better than a baby crying over losing a balloon. When he announced that he was running for President, I nearly choked. That he made it this far isn’t a testament to anything that he has accomplished. It is a statement about the bullshit that people are willing to swallow in the name of putting a fellow follower of the same deity in the White House at all costs. If the people that voted for Santorum were honestly voting for him, and not for his radical religious platform, then the GOP is screwed up far more than anyone can imagine.

Pennsylvania is not an evangelical state. We have pockets of these sorts of voters sprinkled throughout, between the major cities. But, given the economy, it’s a fair guess that the people here will be more concerned with getting a handle on spending. We already know about Santorum’s love affair with earmarks, and have been made aware of the financial situations he has been mired in since his 2006 loss. We know that he collected large sums of money for non-profit work, and that the vast majority of those funds went to pay his friends to administer those organizations, instead of actually helping people. It was a microcosm of bloated government, something we know we can’t afford anymore as taxpayers. Santorum’s only “base” are the single-issue voters that won’t vote for anyone that even whispers that they are pro-choice. The fact that the majority of them are registered Republican works to his advantage, however, it probably won’t make a difference anyway. This is a beauty contest. Electoral votes from Pennsylvania are not determined by the popular vote. Santorum hasn’t seriously courted delegates here – Romney has. That is why it’s being suggested that Santorum drop out before this primary – save face, and live to fight another day. Personally? Bring it Rick! I want to watch you go down, and hopefully end up with no chance in 2016, 2020, etc.

Can Republicans afford for Rick Santorum to stay in the fight? A new PPP poll has Romney overtaking Santorum in Pennsylvania.  How much damage will a Pennsylvania loss do to Rick Santorum’s future aspirations? We are reminded that he is a young candidate and looking towards the next one or two election cycles will have time to form a stronger political machine necessary to run for president.

Many are asking why Gingrich is still in the race. He did demonstrate that one can be out of the public eye for twenty years and yet still remain relevant. But to what end? Santorum supporters believe that Gingrich is splitting the ‘true conservative’ vote; that the race would have been much closer if Gingrich had bowed out earlier.

The blog-o-sphere is rife with opinions and questions. How much damage are Republican candidates doing to the party? To the final nominee? Can the GOP come together with enough support to win in November? Even with a poor record, an incumbent president will be difficult to beat.

The ‘Anyone but Mitt’ group still seems to be looking for their candidate. Is the anger towards ‘ObamaCare’ so powerful that the Anti-Mitt crowd will lose sight of the bigger prize? Or are conservatives willing to believe when Romney says emphatically that he will repeal the Health Care law? The strong showing in Wisconsin and possible surge in Santorum’s home state seem to indicate that more are seeing Romney as the likely candidate and one who might beat Obama.

For many conservative voters Mitt Romney was not the first choice. But they could remember he was seen by many as the more conservative candidate when running against John McCain in 2008. He might not have all the social conservative views that the religious right espouse but he his business background and fiscal experience are causing many to lean his direction. Recent endorsements by Tea Party favorites Marco Rubio (FL), Ron Johnson (WI) and even Jim DeMint (SC) should be worth review by fiscal conservatives.

There are rumors today that Santorum and Gingrich may unite. But is it too late? To paraphrase the colloquialism, the fat lady might not yet be singing, but she may be warming up.

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Beyond the Keystone State, it’s doesn’t bode well for Santorum that Newt Gingrich met with Mitt Romney. While there wasn’t an agreement made, it would be foolish to rule one out entirely going forward. Gingrich is already running in the red, and if he is realistic about his options, he is not going to be looking very kindly on an alliance with the relatively cash-strapped Santorum. Romney is the most likely candidate to be able to offer Gingrich a deal that would clear his campaign debts. And all of these problems are not taking into account the increasing number of endorsements for Romney coming from heavy-hitters in the GOP.

Off the cuff prediction: Look for more endorsements for Romney, of course. Also, don’t be surprised if there are more “secret meetings” between Gingrich and Romney, particularly after April 24th, if not sooner. Also, expect a close race in Pennsylvania, but don’t expect the delegates to follow those results, at least not if it falls to Santorum’s favor.