Thursday, November 15, 2012

A Presidential Election Post-Mortem Analysis

"These are the times that try men's souls," so wrote the great man from whom I borrowed my nom de plume, Thomas Paine, in his entreaty The American Crisis.  It would seem that we have nearly come full circle once again into trying times that threaten our very liberties.  Instead of King George III though, this time it is in the guise of a  majority of the American  people themselves that are bound and determined to destroy what is left of our nation in hopes of obtaining more of the tax payer's lucre for themselves.

Everybody and their mangy cur dogs have put in their two cents as to why Obama won re-election and why the Republicans faired so poorly.  I decided to wait a week or so before doing my post-mortem on the election debacle so that I could be more objective in my analysis and not let my fear, frustration, and deep concern overly color what would likely have been a much more emotional response from me otherwise had I done so on the day right afterwards.  

That said, I have read what many of the pundits, bloggers, and political insiders have had to say regarding the reasons for the Democrats’ success.  Typically there is indeed some truth in what each one had to offer as for the reasons, and yet nobody quite captured the real bottom line answer; at least not to my mind. 

Was Romney the strongest conservative candidate?  No way!  Did Republicans reach out to Hispanics as well as they could have?  Not even.  Did Hurricane Sandy help Obama by giving him a chance to “look presidential” and thus save the day and cause the despicable Chris Matthews to give thanks for the storm accordingly?  Undoubtedly so.  Did many hard core conservatives and fundamentalist Christians stay home on election day.  For certain many did.  Were Libertarians and disaffected conservatives upset with the “moderation” of our presidential candidate and not vote for Romney accordingly.  Yes, and I know too many friends and acquaintances that fall into this category.  Did Obama and his surrogates lie and demagogue unabashedly regarding Romney and his policies and past.  You betcha, and some of the more candid Democrats even admitted this.  Did the sycophantic statist media all but ignore the highly troubling issues such as the death of four Americans in Libya that Obama could have prevented and the entire Fast and Furious program?  Disgustingly, yes they did.  Did Romney lay out a specific plan that was attacked by the left, while Obama’s platform was more vague and offered just more of the same?  Of course.  Did voter fraud on behalf of the left help Obama.  Almost certainly so; particularly in areas around Philadelphia where in 59 different districts not a single solitary vote went to Romney.  (A nearly 20,000 to 0 edge for Obama was the result there.)

All of the above did indeed play roles in the results of the final tally, but no one issue in and of itself captured the real reason why Obama and the Democrats soundly defeated Romney and the conservatives on November 6th.  I would submit it is something greater and more insidious because the root is now so entrenched in the American electorate.  The real reason that Obama won is because people today are ignorant.  I don’t use that term as a pejorative but rather as a definitive term that describes the root problem.  Most Americans today are not familiar with our history as a nation.  They are unfamiliar with our Constitution and the necessity of the rule of law in abiding by its dictates and defending those rights for us laid out within.  Most Americans are unfamiliar with basic economics.  They are too caught up in their day to day lives to let their own common sense prevail and tell them what they should already know.  Basically it all boils down to the inarguable fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Somebody has to pay for that.  The bottom line is that with a majority of Americans’ overwhelming ignorance comes their desire to get something for nothing.

Romney was scourged during the campaign for decrying the fact that 47% of Americans are dependent upon government and net benefactors of the tax payers accordingly.  The media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) used that comment to mercilessly attack Romney as cruel and uncaring.  Now granted, there are significant portions of that 47% that are retirees living on Social Security, military retirees living on their government pensions, and those small few that are genuinely unable to work that are dependent upon our tax payer funded safety net.  Many of the others though are capable people that are simply wanting to take all that they can get from Uncle Sam.  They want something for nothing… and their chicks for free, I suspect.

John Kennedy famously asked during his inaugural address in 1961, “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”   Nearly 52 years later, a majority of Americans and seemingly all Democrats are asking what the country can do for them, and to hell with what a person can do for the country or their fellow Americans.  The mindset has totally changed.  Government, instead of providing only necessary functions as specifically outlined in the Constitution, is now looked to for support and the solving of nearly any problem one encounters daily.  No longer is there a sense of personal responsibility and rugged individualism.  Instead there is a desire to grow an already overbearing nanny state so that one’s needs and desires can be taken care of by the “greedy and evil rich” in this country.

This means that for this problem to be fixed, Americans must learn exactly what it means to be an American once again.  The progressive and often incompetent teachers unions have done us no favors in this regard.  History and civics have been replaced with revisionist and politically correct diatribes of our past.  The importance of voting for candidates that respect and will defend our constitution is an amusing and archaic notion, if it is even considered at all.  And this has metastasized into the problem it has because parents typically are aloof or disconnected from their kids and the quality of the education they are receiving.  They are unaware or don’t care enough over the last two generations that we are raising a country of whining and ignorant people that want to be taken care of rather than being strong and self-sufficient.

The culture as promulgated by many of our movies and music also reflects this ignorance and further entrenches us into this selfish “gimmee mine” nation that we have become.  Unfortunately it has now manifested itself by how a majority of us vote.

I have seen many of the left cheer and jeer that “their side” won the election and that we conservatives should just buck up and deal with it.  To many of them, it was a triumph of party politics.  To me, and I dare say to many conservatives, it was not a loss for the often incompetent or corrupt Republicans but rather a loss of American ideals.  We cannot afford to continue on with the spending that Obama and the progressives of both parties have saddled us with over the last decade in particular.  We cannot and should not be funding more entitlements simply to further entrench Americans in their dependency upon government.  It is not mere political hyperbole when I say that I fear for the end of America in Obama’s next term.  Our spending is unsustainable.  We are foolish if we think we can continue unabated.  There will be consequences to printing or digitizing our currency by the Federal Reserve.  There will be consequences for the usurpation of our God-given rights as codified in our Constitution. 

Many Americans are very afraid what the next few years hold in store for us.  It is not a matter of if we can wait until 2016 to try again with a better conservative candidate for president.  The fear is that there won’t be a recognizable America left by 2016.  I noticed yesterday that petitions for secession from the union have been started in 31 states thus far.  This fear is real and almost palpable.  America has never been so dangerously divided amongst its people.  The only solution is to clearly articulate our philosophies as grounded in our history and constitution, and to do it continuously until it seeps into the very fabric of the American culture.  We must do so NOW in our classrooms, from our pulpits, and throughout our culture so that we can change this seemingly inexorable tide of selfishness and desired dependence that we have fomented within our population.  If we fail to do so starting right now, it won’t be the feckless Republican party that will perish.  It will be far more destructive to humanity and freedom than that.  It will be the end of the United States of America. 

26 comments:

The Heathen Republican said...

"Did Hurricane Sandy help Obama by giving him a chance to “look presidential” and thus save the day and cause the despicable Chris Matthews to give thanks for the storm accordingly? Undoubtedly so."

I disagree on this point. I can't imagine a single vote changed as a result of Sandy.

Anonymous said...

I was told this would happen if I voted for Romney, the fat cats at the top getting richer cause they're Mitt's buddies.

"Despite nearly $16 billion in annual losses announced by the U.S. Postal Service on Thursday, all but one of the top five executives for the nation’s mail service had an overall compensation increase this year, records show.

Unlike past years, when the Postal Service’s politically appointed, bipartisan board of governors awarded executives lucrative deferred compensation deals and incentive bonuses, this year’s compensation increases came mostly in the form of pension plan earnings."

Well I voted for Romney, and guess what, it has happened.

T. Paine said...

For well-informed common sense people, I would be in complete agreement with you, H.R. Unfortunately, I suspect that there were plenty of people that were already predisposed to vote for Obama that were just going to stay home on election day. Obama’s coming out and being embraced by Chris Christie only pushed those people to reconsider and actually go to the polls and cast their votes for Obama. I agree that I doubt any minds were changed. It merely helped get out more of the Democratic base.

Anonymous, I am not sure I am following your point.

John Myste said...

Instead of King George III though, this time it is in the guise of a majority of the American people themselves that are bound and determined to destroy what is left of our nation in hopes of obtaining more of the tax payer's lucre for themselves.

This does not make sense to me. I, a tax payer, also voted for Obama. How do you determine that electing Obama is nothing more than an attempt to get more money from tax payers? I will, undoubtedly, get less.

Most Americans today are not familiar with our history as a nation. They are unfamiliar with our Constitution and the necessity of the rule of law in abiding by its dictates and defending those rights for us laid out within. Most Americans are unfamiliar with basic economics. They are too caught up in their day to day lives to let their own common sense prevail and tell them what they should already know.

So, your position is that you cannot be a liberal and not be ignorant. I don’t think you actually believe this.

The bottom line is that with a majority of Americans’ overwhelming ignorance comes their desire to get something for nothing.

So, two root causes:

1. Ignorance, else why would someone’s philosophy not be yours. Is Burr Deming ignorant? He disagrees with you?

2. Wanting something for nothing. Does Burr Deming want something for nothing? I am sure he makes at least close to what you do?

Could your diagnosis be wrong?

Now granted, there are significant portions of that 47% that are retirees living on Social Security, military retirees living on their government pensions, and those small few that are genuinely unable to work that are dependent upon our tax payer funded safety net.

Let us not forget the millionaires included in the 47%. Romeny had no clue what made up the 47% when he said that. He was way out of touch with reality.

Many of the others though are capable people that are simply wanting to take all that they can get from Uncle Sam.

This is some people, yes, and not a characteristic of liberalism, as your article suggests.

Nearly 52 years later, a majority of Americans and seemingly all Democrats are asking what the country can do for them, and to hell with what a person can do for the country or their fellow Americans.

Almost 50% of America is conservative. Therefore, if a majority is as you characterize, that would mean all democrats. You should about as informed as Romney was when he made is 47% charge. Liberals do not ask “what can the country do for me.” Liberals ask that the “country” represent all of the people. What can the country do for all of us? It seems more republican to ask: “what can the country do for me?”

The mindset has totally changed.

Yes, the post New Deal ERA, nearing the height of liberalism, was different. Since the 80’s we lost a lot of that.

This means that for this problem to be fixed, Americans must learn exactly what it means to be an American once again.

Being American is being as Americans are, I think. The GOP does not get to define what it means to be an American, thank God, if there is a God.


They are unaware or don’t care enough over the last two generations that we are raising a country of whining and ignorant people that want to be taken care of rather than being strong and self-sufficient.

Holy Crap! I am glad I don’t live in that country.

T. Paine said...

Myste: I, a tax payer, also voted for Obama. How do you determine that electing Obama is nothing more than an attempt to get more money from tax payers? I will, undoubtedly, get less.

Paine: John, I am not necessarily trying to pigeonhole you into any particular category or divine your reasons in your heart of hearts for voting for Obama. That said, it has generally been my observation over the decades that progressives usually vote for their candidates based on one of two underlying principles. One is that they expect to have their entitlements or special interests protected or advanced. Two is that they suffer from liberal guilt and vote to help the poor and “oppressed” accordingly. Of course you will just say that they are voting their values, but it really is just liberal guilt and an “attempt to right the wrongs of this historically conservative nation”.


Paine; Most Americans today are not familiar with our history as a nation. They are unfamiliar with our Constitution and the necessity of the rule of law in abiding by its dictates and defending those rights for us laid out within. Most Americans are unfamiliar with basic economics. They are too caught up in their day to day lives to let their own common sense prevail and tell them what they should already know.

Myste: So, your position is that you cannot be a liberal and not be ignorant. I don’t think you actually believe this.

Paine: That is perhaps an oversimplification. I do believe that there are indeed many (probably most liberals) that are ignorant and uniformed voters who reflexively vote liberally accordingly. I failed to add that there are also well-informed, articulate, and bright liberals that simply don’t think the Constitution should be the end-all and be-all of our nation’s governing principles. They think it is an archaic document that should be a living, breathing thing that means whatever the current majority thought says it does. Further, while history provides cautionary tales, some brilliant liberals take away different conclusions from our past. You and Burr are far too brilliant and informed to fall into the first “ignorant” category. Whether you fit into the second category, I will leave up to you to decide.


Myste: So, two root causes:

1. Ignorance, else why would someone’s philosophy not be yours. Is Burr Deming ignorant? He disagrees with you?

2. Wanting something for nothing. Does Burr Deming want something for nothing? I am sure he makes at least close to what you do?

Could your diagnosis be wrong?

Paine: I would hardly call you or Burr ignorant, nor do I suspect you two of wanting something for nothing. I suspect he, along with you, are the category two types. You vote based on your principles of what you think is right to help the poor and those you see as “oppressed”. You are wrong, of course, but you are principled in your voting. That said, there are millions and millions of people that do vote for expanded entitlements and newly invented rights to abortion or free phones or housing loans with no collateral or way to pay them or the right to redefine marriage in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act which Obama fails to enforce etc. etc. etc.


Paine: Many of the others though are capable people that are simply wanting to take all that they can get from Uncle Sam.

Myste: This is some people, yes, and not a characteristic of liberalism, as your article suggests.

Paine: I would submit to you that it has become a characteristic of liberalism now. With 47 million people on food stamps and 23 million people out of work, I guarantee you many are voting to sustain that entitlement and expanded unemployment checks rather than take a “lesser job” in the interim.

T. Paine said...

Myste: Almost 50% of America is conservative. Therefore, if a majority is as you characterize, that would mean all democrats. You should about as informed as Romney was when he made is 47% charge. Liberals do not ask “what can the country do for me.” Liberals ask that the “country” represent all of the people. What can the country do for all of us? It seems more republican to ask: “what can the country do for me?”

Paine: First, I strongly disagree that 50% of America is conservative – unfortunately. I would say it is closer to 30 to 35%, and liberals constitute probably another 35%. The independents, moderates, and apolitical make up the remaining 30%. I, as a conservative, want the country to represent all Americans. Liberals, in general, seem to be a collection of sometimes overlapping and sometimes wildly disparate special interest groups. They are far more interested that their special interest is promoted by the government rather than what they can personally do to take responsibility and bring about the changes they want through lawful means. They want the expansion of government power. I see that as a far greater evil typically.


Myste: Yes, the post New Deal ERA, nearing the height of liberalism, was different. Since the 80’s we lost a lot of that.

Paine: With the gigantic growth of government programs and special interest rights, often at odds with the constitution, how do you not think that today is the very height of liberalism? Especially with the reelection of the most liberal president since Woodrow Wilson or FDR?



Paine: They are unaware or don’t care enough over the last two generations that we are raising a country of whining and ignorant people that want to be taken care of rather than being strong and self-sufficient.

Myste: Holy Crap! I am glad I don’t live in that country.

Paine: Wow! Did you move to Canada out of fear that I was going to be right about Romney winning?

John Myste said...

MR. Paine,

It would seem that you accept that one can be intelligent and informed and still be liberal. Therefore, a knowledge of history and an intelligent viewing of it, would not be incompatible with such voting. The problem must be elsewhere.

You imply that you suspect those voting out of ignorance are democrats. You say, this, of course, because they are voting against your philosophy. I tend to suspect the opposite, and I have to check myself often. Probably about 80% of the voters are completely ignorant and this fact has absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation. Of the 20% remaining, the informed voters, probably close to half are more conservative and half more liberal. If you see the voting pattern as a problem, self-deception is certainly not going to make anything better. Until you are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge this, you will mentally battle a root cause that does not exist in the real-world. Conservatives are all too often type-casted with such a mentality. Surely you don’t wish to do anything to lend validity to the liberal view of conservatives?

With 47 million people on food stamps and 23 million people out of work, I guarantee you many are voting to sustain that entitlement and expanded unemployment checks rather than take a “lesser job” in the interim.

The people with food-stamp mentality, the gross minority whom you reference, are also the people with non-voting mentalities. They are withdrawn from participation in American society, and they don’t tend to be the voters. You mistake them for the majority and then again mistake them for a voting majority. They are not bright or ambitious and they don’t pay attention to politics.

The liberal movement is not sustained by them. Until you and Mitt Romney learn this, you will continue to fight against the wrong targets. It is people like me and Burr, those you consider the exception, whose mind you must change in order to abolish liberalism. As long as intellects embrace liberalism, liberalism will survive. As soon as intellects abolish it, it will slowly fade away.

The masses, both liberal and conservative, don’t form their own opinions. They follow the one-liners from those whom they respect. Targeting the masses is pointless. They are not targetable by you. You see intelligent conservatives and foolish mindless liberals. You only see this because the liberal side embraces a philosophy that is you find repugnant. People are not unintelligent for not thinking like you.

Most conservatives cannot even articulate the conservative position, much less defend it. If you mention anything beyond a one-liner, you talk over their heads. You have identified this phenomenon as a cause, when you see it on the liberal side. However, you are blind to the fact that this phenomenon has nothing to do with party affiliation. Again, you are not looking to the real world for your assumptions of cause and effect.


[Continued...]

John Myste said...

Romney is a good example of wrong-targeting and not understanding the real world. Even when the electoral map completely favored Obama, a fact conceded by FOX News (and just about everyone), Romney looked outside the real world and did not consider the possibility that he would need to concede. In denouncing the 47%, he looked at a statistic that he did not understand and summarily attacked half of America. In the real world, the 47% of people who only want things handed to them, did not exist. Many of them had worked hard and were simply no longer working, served their countries or were wealthy and using tax loopholes to pay no taxes, some millionaires. Romney targeted half of America without looking at the real world to make his decisions.

You have zeroed in on an American, probably human, phenomenon and then just attributed it to liberals. Being liberal has nothing to do with it.

I like the conservative tendency to fight targets that don’t exist in the real-world, even though it irks me. It helps keep conservatism to be viewed as illegitimate, which is good for my cause. Some conservatives are very intelligent and capable. God help us all if they ever turn their swords off the unicorns and on us. They would be a most formidable enemy. I have seen it. They have slain the unicorn almost to extinction.

John Myste said...

Paine: Wow! Did you move to Canada out of fear that I was going to be right about Romney winning?

I almost missed that one. I was going to move to Canada, but then I found out that they have publicly funded healthcare.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why republicans keep threatening to move to Canada. Canada does not want them either :)

The Heathen Republican said...

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with John on one point: political ignorance is not a liberal trait, it's an American trait. Too many on the right are ignorant of why they are on the right. I'm remembering the cringe I felt when one my in-laws described Obama as the next Hitler. Sheer ignorance.

John Myste said...

That said, there are millions and millions of people that do vote for expanded entitlements and newly invented rights to abortion or free phones or housing loans with no collateral or way to pay them or the right to redefine marriage in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act which Obama fails to enforce etc. etc. etc.

The Defense of Marriage Act, curtailed the right to marry. With the incorrect name of the Act, I can see how you got confused about it.

John Myste said...

Paine: With the gigantic growth of government programs and special interest rights, often at odds with the constitution, how do you not think that today is the very height of liberalism? Especially with the reelection of the most liberal president since Woodrow Wilson or FDR?

The nation has grown conservative. Look at GA, TX, FL, nations that were run by democrats until the Conservative Revolution, turned them blood red. Look again at the Supreme Court, historically and now. Look again at the fact that Reagan was a deep Conservative in his day and now is a moderate. Look at Harvard itself. The Conservative Movement has taken hold and is in full thrust. The good ole days you remember was a time when liberalism was on a steep ascent. Liberalism continued to gather steam, virtually unchallenged, until the Reagan era, at which time the Supreme Court started turning red and states that had had democratic governors for a 100 years fell to conservative control.

Join me, MR. Paine, in the real world, and together we will fight evil.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Myste, I fully acknowledge that there are many Republicans that are ill-informed and ignorant too, but I am far less concerned with them, because in the end they still tend to vote in a manner that is more in line with a constitutional representative republic. In other words, yes they vote like I want them to, so I don’t really care at how they arrived at that decision. I would prefer that they understand the reasons why they are right, but in the meantime, I am more concerned with explaining my reasoning to uninformed or misinformed progressives of why their intended voting patterns are detrimental to our republic and the liberties that are supposed to be protected by it.

As for the food-stamp mentality people of that 47%, you may very well be correct that many of them do not vote. That said, I think there are not an insignificant amount of them that do vote to protect their interests. The remaining people voting for progressive measures and candidates are often those folks with good intentions that feel sorry for them or suffer from liberal guilt and want to make things right through government programs. What these well-meaning progressives fail to understand is that they often are only helping to further entrap and make these people dependent upon government rather than on their own abilities and talents. Have you ever known a person that has lived on welfare all of his life that has been successful financially, if not in most other aspects of his life too?

The fact remains that 49% of Americans pay no net federal income taxes, and yet they decry that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share of the taxes. I agree with you that it doesn’t do any good politically to demonize these people. It is incumbent to explain to ALL Americans why this is unsustainable for our nation, and why we cannot continue to spend as we do and have damn close to a minority of Americans paying for it. Continuing thusly will indeed lead to our economic collapse. My tendency to blame this issue more so on liberals is because by definition of the philosophy of conservatism, depending upon the government is incompatible with a conservative’s beliefs. Either that, or the conservative is not being true to what he proclaims to believe.

H.R., as I mentioned previously, I agree that there are plenty of conservatives that are ignorant also. Unfortunately the left doesn’t have a monopoly on ignorance. It just seems like it sometimes.

John, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t curtail the right to marry, by definition. Our gay brothers and sisters simply want to change the definition of marriage to include them. Regardless, it is the law of the land. It is incumbent upon the president to enforce all duly passed laws accordingly. If he disagrees with it, he should work with congress to repeal it. Ignoring a law simply because one doesn’t like it sets a very dangerous precedent, wouldn’t you agree?

John Myste said...

As for the food-stamp mentality people of that 47%, you may very well be correct that many of them do not vote.

47% of Americans do not have a food stamp mentality, as Romney now realizes, much to his chagrin. He helped ruine his career making that false assumption. A minority of Americans do have that mentality, a small minority, so far as Romney knows.

What these well-meaning progressives fail to understand is that they often are only helping to further entrap and make these people dependent upon government rather than on their own abilities and talents.

If you are right about the food stampers, then they have no real talent. They are a lost cause, as Romney mistakenly said about 47% of Americans.

Have you ever known a person that has lived on welfare all of his life that has been successful financially, if not in most other aspects of his life too?

I have never known a person that lived on welfare all of his life, period, and I grew up impoverished and among impoverished people. I know there are some such people, and they are successful in nothing and certainly don’t pay attention to politics. You are battling unicorns again, my friend.

The fact remains that 49% of Americans pay no net federal income taxes, and yet they decry that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share of the taxes.

The 49%? of those not paying taxes are not the ones complaining. Some are rich and many others well-off. Those complaining the loudest about the rich not paying their fair share mostly pay taxes and many of them are rich. I make a six figure income and I am one of them complainer people.

I agree with you that it doesn’t do any good politically to demonize these people.

You mean because the half of America that pays no taxes and lives off food stamps don’t exist, so we should not demonize them or for some other reason? I think we can demonize our myths at our discretion.

It is incumbent to explain to ALL Americans why this is unsustainable for our nation, and why we cannot continue to spend as we do and have damn close to a minority of Americans paying for it.

I agree that our budget should be balanced. Let me do it. I promise you, I will balance it. You on board?

John, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t curtail the right to marry, by definition.

By definition, it limits who can marry. Limit = curtail.

Our gay brothers and sisters simply want to change the definition of marriage to include them.

Marriage is a legal contract. They want to be able to participate in the legality.

It is incumbent upon the president to enforce all duly passed laws accordingly.

I agree.

Ignoring a law simply because one doesn’t like it sets a very dangerous precedent, wouldn’t you agree?

Mostly agree. Do you think Obama established this as a precedent, my historian friend? If not, then Obama did not set the precedent.

FandB said...

"As for the food-stamp mentality people of that 47%, you may very well be correct that many of them do not vote. That said, I think there are not an insignificant amount of them that do vote to protect their interests."

If you look at a county-by-county breakdown of the presidential election results, it is clear that the areas that voted democratic are primarily concentrated in the largest, most densely populated urban areas of the country. These are also the areas that receive the most in terms of food stamps and other welfare. While this is anecdotal (as is your argument Mr. Myste), it does tend to support Mr. Paine's position. The areas with the highest concentrations of welfare recipients tend to vote heavily democratic.

The "47%" comment by Romney, having been permanently taken out of context, has been used extensively by the left in order to demonize Romney. The election is over and the left is still using it. What this proves more than anything else is that the left-wing is much more skilled at the politics of personal destruction than are those on the right.

Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, if put into the hands of the liberals' personal destruction machine, would have ended Obama's career. The republicans were not able to take advantage of it in that way. Just as Romney missed many opportunities during the debates to slam Obama on his actual policies and results, republicans' sense or morality and responsibility prevent them from taking these incidents to their extremes and using them to try to end the careers of their opponents the way liberals do.

The liberals' lack of moral integrity and personal responsibility allows them to lie, to cheat, to mis-represent, in order to destroy political opponents' careers with impunity and without the burden of a conscience. A perfect example of this is the underhanded methods Obama used to gain his first State Senate seat in Illinois.

Fasten your seat belts, the next four years will be an extremely rough ride.

John Myste said...

If you look at a county-by-county breakdown of the presidential election results, it is clear that the areas that voted democratic are primarily concentrated in the largest, most densely populated urban areas of the country. These are also the areas that receive the most in terms of food stamps and other welfare.

Urban areas are where the liberals tend to hang out. Intellectual liberals don’t tend to like the country and its hickfolk. You are confusing cause and effect.

While this is anecdotal (as is your argument Mr. Myste), it does tend to support Mr. Paine's position.

Not if you admit that this is where the intellectual liberals, those who vote the most, hang out. I think any honest person would admit that.

The "47%" comment by Romney, having been permanently taken out of context…

No, I believe the context was also recorded and released. Romney does not know who those 47% are, and he made it clear that he was very confused.

What this proves more than anything else is that the left-wing is much more skilled at the politics of personal destruction than are those on the right.

Romney betrayed the fact that he does not understand the real-world America. He demonized himself.

Obama's "you didn't build that" comment

Now that is an example where the right intentionally took this out of context, and DID NOT release the context. You are refuting yourself, my friend. The right tried to lie about Obama, the left released the full context, making the right look foolish, just as the left released the context of the Romney line, again making the right look foolish.

The liberals' lack of moral integrity and personal responsibility…

Unicorn. Both sides use whatever ammunition they have. Anyone who claims that one side is primarily doing this is politically oblivious or dishonest.

A perfect example of this is the underhanded methods Obama used to gain his first State Senate seat in Illinois.

As I recall, Obama had two challengers, one in the primaries, who was caught with his pants down, and the one in the general election, who was also caught with his pants down, and so he won. Was this the IL race? I don’t remember, but I do remember the scenario. It seems like you would not have wanted the pant-less competitors to win, as you are all about integrity, right?

Fasten your seat belts, the next four years will be an extremely rough ride.

I see no reason to believe that the economy will not continue to recover now that the rapid decline of the GOP White House is curtailed.

T. Paine said...

Myste: Intellectual liberals don’t tend to like the country and its hickfolk.

Paine: This is true. They think they are better and more enlightened than those “hickfolk”. Intellectual liberals often have great disdain for these folks, unless they are the rare breed of liberal hickfolk, then they feel sorry for them and want to increase their entitlement programs via our tax dollars. Next, regarding Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment, FandB is correct and you are not, my friend. I don’t understand why the left thinks that additional “context” proves their case. If anything, it makes it more damning. Obama was basically saying that you didn’t build anything without help from others, and many of those others were paid for with tax dollars; in other words, the government helped you build that and you would not have been able to do so without the government. It is basically a great big pile of horse manure.



FandB: The liberals' lack of moral integrity and personal responsibility…

Myste: Unicorn. Both sides use whatever ammunition they have. Anyone who claims that one side is primarily doing this is politically oblivious or dishonest.

Paine: Sorry FandB but I have to sort of agree with Myste on this one. Granted, the left is more slimy and has seemingly less scruples about dissembling and getting into the mud, but the right is definitely quite guilty too.


Myste: I see no reason to believe that the economy will not continue to recover now that the rapid decline of the GOP White House is curtailed.

Paine: Indeed! That must be why the stock market tanked over 800 points in the week following Obama’s reelection. It was a vote of confidence! And how about all of those companies that have come out and said they will be cutting more jobs now or adding additional charges to their customers in order to offset the cost of implementing Obamacare. Yeah, that recovery is gathering steam now! ;)

John Myste said...

Obama was basically saying that you didn’t build anything without help from others, and many of those others were paid for with tax dollars; in other words, the government helped you build that and you would not have been able to do so without the government. It is basically a great big pile of horse manure.

Obama was pointing out that know lone ship survives. It takes cooperation to succeed in America. We all benefit from the government in one way or another and we all benefit from the contributions of each other. Our relationship is symbiotic when it works. I think that concept is a bit of the head of the average republican, so they reinterpreted Obama’s meaning for him. Alas, they do not get to choose what Obama thinks.

Granted, the left is more slimy and has seemingly less scruples about dissembling and getting into the mud, but the right is definitely quite guilty too.

I don’t see more sliminess on the left. Let me find an objective pundit to help me with this. I will consult Dave Dubya.

Paine: Indeed! That must be why the stock market tanked over 800 points in the week following Obama’s reelection.

You forgot to mention the historic recovery of the stock market following Obama’s election in the first place. You also failed to mention that the stock market generally does well under democrats. You also failed to mention Greece, and the fiscal cliff and the Bush tax cut issue. I read Yahoo Finance every day (not for their scholarly treatment, but because they are a quick snapshot). They mentioned all of these things, and not a word about Obama. The stock market collapsed under Bush and made a remarkable recovery under Obama. Most people who kept their 401k in the market after the GOP collapse, got their money back when Bush was elected.

The market does not always mirror the economy exactly, but using the market to prove your point will not serve you well.

Oddly enough, both sides indicated a deal was possible the other day, and the market surged 200 points. If Obama’s election had been the problem, and not these other things, that would not have happened.

One more thing: I have traded in the market (lightly) for several years now. Regardless of the economy, I have made money every single year. I have made money since Obama was re-elected. I took long positions, not short. Once again, you have misconstrued cause and effect, my friend.

And how about all of those companies that have come out and said they will be cutting more jobs now or adding additional charges to their customers in order to offset the cost of implementing Obamacare.

They should not listen to FOX. Republicans say things like this. The Heathen Republican said he was going to drop cable television and go into personal austerity if Obama was re-elected. I doubt he will, but Republicans are easily fooled by their media: as proof, they thought Romney would win, even though the electoral map and all major statistics completely suggested otherwise. Even FOX said the electoral path for a Romney victor was almost non-existent, but data did not get in the way of their faith. I freely admit that some business men are republicans and do act partly on faith in republican spin.

Yeah, that recovery is gathering steam now!

How many jobs were we losing per month under the GOP again?

The Heathen Republican said...

"The Heathen Republican said he was going to drop cable television and go into personal austerity if Obama was re-elected. I doubt he will..."

Don't doubt me, it's already done. I trimmed our cable bill by $50 a month (never said I'd drop it). Had a house cleaning service, it's gone. Other home services... gone. Canceled all but one of my podcast subscriptions. All but one of my magazine subscriptions. We're going to eat out no more than once a month. My wife and I have cut our cash budgets in half. I've made other changes to improve our cash flow and reduce our debt.

All of this was done on the Wednesday after the election. In all, we're now saving an additional $500 per month, which is going right into savings for a rainy day. And don't doubt that the rainy days are coming sooner than you want to believe.

General Urko said...

The Republicans lost for one reason and one reason only. That was they ran a Democrat. Romney was the worse possible candidate and he never polled above Obama during the primary season. There was only one man in the Republican and Democrat primaries this year that proposed a balanced budget and following the Constitution. That man was Ron Paul.

Romney had no plan to balance the budget. He kept telling you deficits mattered while telling you that we need to spend even more money on the military. He was saying this even though America spends more money on the military than the whole world combined. That was outrageous and he should have proposed a plan to cut it in half by pulling out of Europe, Asia, Iraq, and Afghanistan along with our other little outpost all over the world. America can't afford to police the world nor do we have a moral duty to do so. No! Romney was trying to get you to believe that we have a gutted military when it spends 800 Billion Dollars a year. That is amazing and no one was stupid enough to believe it.

Romney also castigated Rick Perry when he said Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme. It is a Ponzi Scheme, but he ran around promising no changes to the system. The same with Medicare and Medicaid. Romney said in a debate when asked about the constitutionality of one his actions he said I defer to our local expert on the Constitution, Ron Paul. No way! He wanted us to believe that he would balance budgets and follow the Constitution when his budget didn't balance for ten years. Nor did he know anything about the Constitution. People were not dumb enough to believe it.

The bottom line is if we want change it can only be accomplished by forming a new political party. A party that follows the Constitution. There should be 5 year plans to phase out unconstitutional departments of government. Five year plans to pull out of most of the world and put 50,000 soldiers on the southern border. We should phase out all unconstitutional social programs and follow the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution. That is a real candidate different from the Democrats. Not this Big Government Republicans for President that we have been running since Calvin Coolidge left office in 1929, except Reagan. Otherwise, the current parties will collapse this nation as they spend more and destroy the currency.

Anonymous said...

This is what is coming, and you who hate and fear and threaten conservatives for their beliefs have no one to blame but yourselves. Your belief system has leveled the playing field alright, now every one is equally bad off.

You now own it and you can't blame Bush.
The next terrorist attack you own it.
Can't get a job after graduation, you own it.
Sky rocketing energy prices due to Obama's EPA shutting down the energy producing states, you own it.
A nuclear Iran, you own it.
Bowing to Russia, you own it.
Another severe recession, you own it.
A volatile border with Mexico, you own it.
Trouble getting good health care, you own it.
Higher health insurance costs and health care costs, you own it.
No budget, you own it.
Our allies mistrust, you own it.
Another trillion of debt, you own it.
More Benghazi situations, you own it.
No one willing to join the military, you own it.
Trouble getting a loan to buy a home, you own it.
More dependency on food stamps, you own it.
Trouble finding good employment, you own it.
Several part time jobs instead of a good job, you own it.
A World Government, you own it.
The UN governing the United States instead of ourselves, you own it.
A Senate that will not bring any legislation to the table even if it is "Dead on Arrival", you own it.
China controlling our world trade trampling all over us, you own it.
Loss of our freedoms as we have known it in the past, you own it.
A dictatorship instead of a democracy that follows the Constitution, you own it.
Less take home pay and higher living costs, you own it.
Driving a car that looks like a toy, you own it.
More government corruption and lies, you own it.
More toleration of extreme and fanatical Islamists, you own it.
Terrorist attacks called work place incidents, you own it.
Your revenge instead of love of country, you own it.


ENJOY! you own it!

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr Myste.

"Most people who kept their 401k in the market after the GOP collapse, got their money back when Bush was elected."

Even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while.

T. Paine said...

General, I concur with almost everything you said about Romney. He is another example of a RINO as our candidate. There is a reason why we have lost with “moderates” like Dole, McCain, and Romney. Bush Jr was the only aberration where a “moderate” won for the GOP. Given the choice between the Democrat and a Democrat-lite, the real deal wins nearly every time though. That said, there was still significant difference between Romney and Obama to warrant voting for Mitt.

I disagree about the people not being fooled about balancing the budget or following the Constitution. Most Americans, as I stated, are completely ignorant on such matters. The fact that the worst president we have ever had by any objective standard was just reelected only goes to prove this fact.

I think many of your proposals for solving this mess are excellent, especially phasing out unconstitutional departments of government. Too bad it will never happen. Now, we will go over the fiscal cliff. Our currency and government will become insolvent and more of our freedoms will be curtailed. While Romney was not the best answer to mitigating this, Obama exemplifies these problems.

T. Paine said...

Anonymous 1, you are absolutely right. You own the truth there!

Anonymous 2, you are absolutely wrong. Truth must be a relative thing there.

John Myste said...

The fact that the worst president we have ever had by any objective standard was just reelected only goes to prove this fact.

I think he was reelected because we were still in the middle of his wars and the populace worried that a democrat, if elected, would make too radical of a change at that crucial time.

T. Paine said...

John, you have an uncanny ability to crack me up at just the right time. That was truly funny, sir!