Only if you have no life, and have read this blog for four years, do ou know that I BLAME Rush Blimabugh for the disaster of John McCain in 2008. In 2008, this blog endoresed Mitt Romney as the OHNLY realistic candidate to stop John McCain, and this blog did so in DECEMBER of 2007, BEFORE the Iowa caucuses and at a time when McCain would still be stopped. Limbuagh would not come out for Romney until after New Hampshire, and it ws TOO LATE. Make no mistake about it, and I have heard Limbaugh deny it (his major DIHONESTY being this habit of being way too "cute" about what he has done in the past and why), but Limbaugh LOST in 2008. In the process, he betrayed conservati es, and I siad so IN FORESIGHT (before Iowa). Notw Limbaugh (too cute, again) will tell youy that he can't really determine who will be elected, and I agree with that. Limbaugh, unfornately, cannot make up for lack of a conservative POLITICAL leader (which we don't have--and I include Santorum in that assessment). But that misses the point, and Limbaugh (deliberately) misees the pint. If Limbaugh is going to set himself up as a vocie for conservatives, as he does, then he has an OBLIGATION to fgiure out what is goign on IN TIME, and let his audience know what conservatives should be considering in tringt o advance their cause in the unreliable GOP. No, it is not just ME that says the GOP is unreliable. LIMBAUGH (again copyig me LATE, and without really following through on what it means) is saying things just as harsh agaisnt the GOP estalbishment--including the "conservative" estabilshment--as anything this blog is saying. The difference is that this blog tells you that you cannot let the GOP establishment get away with it. Limbaugh, in contrast, is a PARTISAN first, which means lthat he NEVER ultimately holds the GOP establishment to account for what they do (even while telling his audience what they are doing). McCain is a prefect example. Not only was Limbaugh LATE in coming out firmly for Romney as the only real 'conservative" alternative to stop McCain, even though we all knew Romney was not really a conservative, but Limbaugh SUPPORTED McCain in the general election. This blog continues to maintain that conservatives would be WORSE off if McCain had been electged, and that the country would be NO BETTER OFF. It was this blog, by the way, that FIRST suggested that the way to STOP OBAMA in the DEMOCRATIC primary wsa for conservatives to vote FOR Hillary Clinton (as the blog author did in Texas). Limbuagh would eventually come around to this "strategy"--without giving this blog credit (lol)--although Limbuahg never went as far as this blog (where I promised to vote FOR Hillary Clinton in the general election against McCain--having said that the obvious strategly for the GOP was to vote FOR HILLARY CLINTON, but that I was not interested in a GOP win for John McCain).
Yep. this blog endorsed Romney in 2008, despite RomneyCare (which never bothered me that much). That was because Romney is right that RomneyCare was a STATE plan--bad as I think it is. In 2008, Romney SOUNDED conservatvive, against the hopless McCain. No, and this blog said so, I never quitre believed Romney, but I had hopes he would STAY BOUGHT (and understoodd the principles he said he had adopted). Every day since 2008 has proven to me that I was wrong about Romney. Foool me oncdee cahme on you. SHAME ON YOU, MITT ROMNEY. Fool me twice, shame on me. Mitt Romney will not fool me twice. From bailouts to debt to "global warming", Romney has been a disaster since 2008. See the previous article on the fraudulent payroll t"tax cut". Thus, this blog endorsed Rick Santorum as the CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE to John McCain clone Mitt Romney, and did so before Rush Limbaugh yet again. No, Limbaugh has not "endorsed" Santorum, but Limbuah--for two weeks or so now, which is about 3 weeks after this blog said thse same thing--has been sahying that Santorum is the only "solid conservative" left in the race. Limbaugh has correctly said that Santorum's record over decades has been SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE, with many fewer BETRAYALS than Romney or Gingrich (Ron Paul always being Ron Paul). That is why this blog corretly stated, at the time of the Iowa caucuses 9before the actual caucus) that Santourm was the ONLY credible conservative left in the race (Ron Paul being more libertariian and isolationist than a conservative of my ltype, although I have libertarian leanings, and would still vote for Pual agaisnt Obama, while I will not do that for Romney). In 2008, I actually sent my articles to Limbuah--incuding the accusatin that he was BETRAYING conservatives. I did not bother to do that this time. Stil, history has repreated, with Limbaugh jumping on this blog's bandwagon eventually, just like in 2008. Again, as in 2008, this bolg has been PROVEN RIGHT. Tuesday's Santorum "seep" shows that Santorum is, indeed, the only CREDIBLE conservative alternative to Romney. No, Santorum is by no means perfect. But he IS solidly conservative, even if not consistently "inspiring" and persuasive. I have no prolbem voting for Santourm, even if I don't consider him a Reagan-type savior. But there has been only ONE Reagan in my lifetime--and I am now 64 years old. Even Goldwater--my nitial conservative hero--was never the kind of conservative leader that Reagan was. Contrary to what readers of this blog might often think, I do NOT insist on "perfection". What I inisist upon is PRINCIPLE. LYou can be wrong and not lose my support. You can't be wrong on the BIG things, and then act like ou have no clue as to what princiiples we are even talkng aobut (even as yhou mouth the words that you think will FOOL people into voting for you as a "conservative"). Thus, I can vote for Santorum, even though he was wrong on earmarks and even though I don't like his "gimmick" BRIBE for "manufacuring". He is at least right on the payroll "tax cut" BRIBE, and really has been solidly conservative his whole public career.
No, this blog was NOT clairvoyant enough to PRFEDICT the 3 state seweep of Santorum. This blog has made lpredictions as prescient as that in the past, but not this time. Again, however, this blog was proven right that Santorum is truely the only conservative alternative to a totally unprincipled Mitt Romney (except in his personal life, where he really seems to have a spotless life). The reason that this blog did not endorse Santorum even sooner was that he simply could not seem to CATCH FIRE. That is why I don't blame Limbuah so much this time as in 2008 Realy,k Santorum could never quite seem to get any kind of tractino (depite the showing in Iowa). This blog still endorsed him, since it was obvius he was the only conservative with any kind of credibility left int hte race. But even after Santorum WON the two debatges in Florida, and seemed to be getting much bvetter at delibering his message, he still seemed to gain little traction. No, it was NOT a "surprise" taht Santorum won ONE of the three contests on Tuesday. He especially seemed set up for Missouir, as Gingrich was not even on the (non-binding) ballot. Still, this blog simply could nto see Santorum SWEEPING all three states, after the debacles in Florida, Nevada, and even South Carolina. It looked like the GOP establishment had WON, which actually depressed me. Romney was NOT winning with conservative ideas. He was winning with MONEy and ATTQACKS. Rick Santorum got it right in his speech on Tuesday night. Romney will NOT have the advantage of money and an opponent unable to respond to attacks in November. If Romney does not have more than that, he will LOSE in November. Simply referrng to himself as a "businessman" is not gong to do it either, even if it is a desirable thing to be considered in his vaovr. Romney DOES know how the private sector "works'. But so does WARREN BUFFETT (big Obama supporter), and a lot of other Wall Street leftists. I have come to believe that Romney has more in common with THEM than he does with any principled conservative.
Thus, this blog--having picked the only credible conservative left in the race--continues to endorse Rick Santorum. A solid conservative record, and conservative principles in which he appears to reall believe--as shown by DECADES of only occasioinally "straing" (as with "No Child Left" Behind" and--I think--the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. Those, ou will remember, were BUSH iniatives--very hard for a GOP lawmaker to actively oppose. As I said, sSabntorum is hardly perfect. But perfecton is not what I require. Wht I require is at least some indication of HONESTY (on principles) in actually BELIEIVING in SOME of the things I believe in (includig the main principles). Romeny simply does not qualify. Santorum does, even if not as the inspiring conservative leader I would like to see.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment