McCain Endorses Santorum (Losers Endorse Romney)

Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog in the name of truth, justice and the American way despite Skip's SMEARS of me as "piers Morgan", or some other agent of the News Corp 'hackng machine'--paranoid Skip being under the dlusion that anyone cares about his attacks on what he alls the unfair and unbalanced netowrk--when Skip's own mother and daughter don't read his ravings): "I don't know why I bother with tryng to bring sanity to this blog, when Skip has so little influence. But, Skip, you keep getting worse. You know that John McCain endoresed Romney, and not Santorum. You just make these things up."


Skip: Hacker Boy must be Piers Morgan. Who else is so veyryu clueless? And, actually, the whole U.K. has LESS influence than this blog. I digress. Back to the blog, where the very point of the article is what Hacker Boy said.


John McCain is a LOSER. It is not jsut that he lost. it is that he ran a PATHETIC campaign with almost no principle behind it. Now he has SAID he is endorsing Mitt Romney. What better way to help RICK SANTORUM? John McCain is the very essence of "politics asusual"--the very essence of "Washington think", and the GOP (Grand Outdated lParty) establishment. If Hohn McCain had officially endorsed Santorum, I would have had to rethink this blog's endorsement. Already, my main reservation about Santorum is that he is too much of a standard politician, who was in Washington too long. But he has made the right ENEMIES (the media, the GOP establishmetnt, John McCain and the rest). When I say "enemies", I am not talking aobut personal enemies. I am talking about POLITICAL enemies, and Santorum has made the right ones. Taht alone is an indication that he deserves conservative support in this election. Gingrich, in contrast, has made political eneimies from everywhere, including me, which is why this blog has never come close to endorseing Gingrich, and never will.


Thus, the question is whether McCain"really" endorsed Romney, or whether McCain is tryiing to give a boost to ANTORUM. I regard McCain's endorsement as a MAJOR boost to Santorum's campaign. It is further confirmation, if sincere, that I am right that Romney is virtualya CLONE of McCain, despite the bashing Romney got from McCain--and especially the same "moderates" who are pusihing for Romney this time--for being "too conservative". Since 2008, it has been my observation that Romney has sounded more like McCain and OBAMA every single day, and there is no way I could ever vote for Romney. The McCain "endorsement" merely confirms me in that view. You will remember that this blgo REFUSED TO ENDORSE McCAIN, and I did NOT vote for McCain (or Obama). I did promise to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she managed to blow the nomination. I did vote for her in the Texas primary.


The GOP estalbishment remains ready and willing to SABOTAGE any conservative. I return the compliment, in spades. Taht means that I will NEVER again (George W. Bush was the last) vote for a GOP estalbishment candidate. How do I know who is such a cnadidate? Well, endorsements from people like McCain and Karl Rove (who HAS made his feelings clear, without an official endorsement) give you a CLUE. Plus, I know these people when I see them, , as I have everr since this very same kind of GOP estalbishment SABOTAGED Barry Goldwater in 1964 (the first electioon to which I paid close attention, although I had followed the Nixon/Kennedy race at 12-13). Thus, it is ME that represents the conclusive vote as to who is a GOP establishment candidate, in the event there is any doubt. Here, there is NO doubt, an dRomney is such a candidate: sa;ying NTOTHING with any passion or principlle, an dbasically running for Managerin-Chief of the country. This approach actually has NO CHANCE of beating Obama, except that Obama and the Democrats may well beat themselves because of the RESULTS of what they have done. (pulus the arrogant way they have ignored American principles and values). Romney is NOT going to "nspire" anyone to vote for him as a "leader". As this blog often sates, I will vote for a GOP establishment candidate only when Hell freezes over, and probably not even then. IF I KNEW that my vote would dtermine whether Obama or Romney would be President of the United States, I would NOT cast that vote for Romney No, I would probably not casst it for Obama either, but I refuse to ASSIST a GOP estalbishment cnandidate in any way (except the bakhanded way of my attacks on leftist ideology and Obama).


Notice how it is LOSERS who are the establishment endorsers of Mitt Romney. And these LOSERS lost for the very reason that Romney will be a WEAK candidate against Obama. They stood for NOTHING., I am talking here about Bob Dole and John McCain. Both of them never had a chance, because there ws nothing to them. They were BOTH legitimate war heroes, but neither had any other real principle. I acually think McCain may have MORe principle than romney, on isolated things like military policy and earmarks.


That ws the big McCain attack on Santorum: earmarks. I, myself, do not agree with Santorum on earmarks. The idea that earmarks put control of spending more in Congress than the President and the bureaucracy merely emphasizes lthe SLUSH FUND theory of government. What can it possibly mean to say that eliminating earmarks does not reduce Federal spending, because then the executive branch and the government gets to spend that same money the way they want to? If that moneyis NOT spent on earmarks, then IT SHOULD NOT BE SPENT. That is because it is obviusly NOT NEEDED to fund other items, or otherwise there would have been a battle over the "earmarks". No, McCain is right on this: Earmarks represent Washington at it sworst.


However, look at what McCain (stupid hypocrite and establishment guy that he is) is highlighting. Earmarks have always been a SMALL, although irritating, part of the Federal budget. Sure, they represent BRIBES to get members of Congress reelected, but SMALL BRIBES. You can validly say that Santorum, like OBAMA and so many others, bought into the way Washington worked to this SMALL EXTENT. Obama said he would not sign bills with earmarks,, and promptly DID when Democrats controlled Congress. But these are the SMALL BRIBES.


The 800 BILLIION dollar Obama "stimulus" bill was a series of BIG BRIBES--a SLUSH UND that invited and created corruption. It was not even used for what it was promised it would be used for (those "shovel ready" infrastructure projects). But the GOP voted AGAINST that boondoggle, while at the same time proposing BRIBES of their own. No, I don't include general tax RATE cuts as "bribes", becuae they just alow peoplle to keep their own money. But TAX GIMMICKS are bribes.


Look at what McCain voted FOR, and what Santorum has OPPOSED: this fraudulent Social Security tax "cut"-really a temporay "stimulus" BRIBE. That BRIBE--a MCCAIN BRIBE--cost us 150 BILION dollars in 2011, and will cost us 150 BILLION dollars in 2012. Those numbers DWARF any "earmarks" of Santorum. The HIGHEST number I have seen on Santorum "earmarks", most of whcih may be perfectly worthy things in isolation, is ONE billiion dollars. In other words, McCain has OUTBRIBED Santorum 300 to 1, and that is true of essentially EVERY GOP estlablishment figure. Romney, for example, favors this BRIBE. Santorum is proopsing to cut the Federal Government 5 TRILLION dollars in 5 years (or something like that, as the media seems uninterested in actually looking at the facts). Romney, in contrast, merely makes the SAME promis made by Barack Obama: "I will go through the budget line by line, and eliminate those things that cannot be justified." Tme after time, Romney ECHOES Obama. That is what makes him such a WEAK candidate against Obama, although it is possible he can win so long as the election is about Obama.


No, a McCain endorsement does nto help Romney. It should HURT Romney That is why my headline suggests that McCain really wants Santorum to win, and that his sTATED endorsment is really an endorsement of Santorum.


Now for the Tea Party. This blog has called the Tea Party a FAILURE--correctly. The Tea Party, because of a lakc of ledership, and a leadership now appearing to be looking for PERSONAL POWER, is becoming LESS and LESS impressive every day. The rank and file remain mostly peopleof principle But the "movement" no longer has a COHERENT message, after going along entirely too much with the GAMES of a GOP Congress that has CUT NOTHING (not one thin dime) from Federal spednign so far-in fact ADDING to the defict with both spending and things like the "payroll tax cut" and extension of extending unemployment benefits). The goverfnor of Sourth Carolina, supposedly a "Tea Party" politician, has even endorsed ROMNEY (more helpful to Romney than McCain). Blunt statement: If you are a Tea Party "leader", and endorse Romney, then you are NOT doing so on "principle". The kindest thing that can be said about you is that you think i is so improtatn to defeat Obama that we need to abandon principle. Suffice it to say that the 'Tea Party" (as a bunch of ORGANIZATIONS) no longer has my support (as ti once did). Over this sumer, the message has been lost, or rather the GOP KILLED IT. This WILL have consequences, beyond just the withdrawal of supoport from this blgg (although this blog never was part oft he Tea Party movement). WHY did this blog not actively push the Tea Party movement, even while sympathizing with the stated policy goals? It is because I SUSPECTED something like this would happne, unless a LEADER (or leaders) arose to LEAD the Tea Party principles to victory. That has NOT hapened. The supposed Tea Party politicians have FAILED.


That is hwy I hanker now for a REAL third pary based on CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. I think the "foot solides" are out there. What is MISSING are the GENERALS, COLONELS, and even CAPTAINS. Whether in or--more likey-out of the GOP, the "movement" awaits LEADERS.. Sarah Palin is probably the best of the current crop of wannabe leaders of Tea Party principles, but I doubt sehe is good enough. I can, and do, support Santorum as a solid conservative, but he is NOT the "leader" we really need. But you can't just order up a "leader". Santorum is the best that is running, and really is pretty good (especially for a guy that was in Washington as long as he was), I am happy to supoport Santorum. I will NOT support Romney, under any circumstances.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).