We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Another Samizdata quote of the day

The Republican party fucked this up all by themselves – they could have made clear points to rebut the arguments that led my family members to making rational decisions to vote Obama. But they didn’t.

How hard would it have been to say “OK, we all know that entitlement spending is unsustainable. We also know that whole generations have made retirement plans that depend upon those entitlements. So we’ll guarantee to maintain them for anybody over (whatever age) but things must change for people who are younger.”

How hard would it have been to say “Abortion is a divisive issue, but the law is settled. America faces far more pressing challenges, right now, so I pledge not to mess with abortion – there are more immediate matters that demand my attention.”

Apparently, it was too hard. That’s what happens when a political party becomes nothing more than a cynical, office seeking, machine. It tries to pander to too many special interests and ends up satisfying none sufficiently

– Commenter ‘The Other Rob‘, discussing why the Stupid Party (USA branch) lost to the Evil Party (USA branch)

50 comments to Another Samizdata quote of the day

  • Jaded Voluntaryist

    Rob I believe that this could in fact be construed as the electorate having some principles in that they demand clear positions on moral issues. If anything I’d have said Romney want clear enough.

    There is nothing honourable about jettisoning your principles to get elected.

    There is also nothing that says that women must be pro abortion. If for a moment you consider that those who oppose abortion usually do so on the grounds that they consider the unborn human, you can perhaps appreciate why they’re not willing to vote for a candidate who wants to put the issue to one side in order to win an election.

    From their perspective several hundred thousand Americans are being murdered every year. If you thought that would you be willing to drop it?

  • He did say the first thing.

  • There is nothing honourable about jettisoning your principles to get elected.

    Agreed. I would much rather candidates just ran on a platform they believed in and triumphed or failed accordingly, than “try” to get elected. As soon as they start trying to get elected, they start lying.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    The problem is a failure of nerve. For instance, when MR was quoted as making disaparaging remarks about the 47 per cent of the populace that pays no federal income tax, he was treated like King Herod. Sure, some of his facts may have been wrong, but the essential point was correct: a huge chunk of the US electorate don’t have a stake in supporting limited government. And he was hammered for it.

    The trouble with far too many on the “right” is they lack balls. Instead of tolerating the Obama BS about his career at Bain, Romney should have come out swinging from the start, asserting the value of what he did for a living, and daring his opponents to prove otherwise. And instead of apologising for his Swiss bank accounts, or whatever, he should have said that under his administration, the US will radically reform the appallingly complex and intrusive tax code so that entrepreneurs and others are not persecuted. (The US should, by the way, stop its worldwide system of tax, which is punitive on US citizens who have hardly ever lived in the States).

    So many on the “right” seem to lack the courage of their convictions, or seem to know how to articulate their views without sounding smug or mean. It is hard, I know. The MSM is, apart from some exceptions, in the tank for the left. Academia is lost. But the effort must be made. And that does not mean having to sound like crazed extremists.

    On those few occasions when Romney found a genuine voice and talked sense, he rose in the polls. He actually rose in my estimation. None of this stuff is rocket science.

    And frankly I am appalled that Obama, given his record, has been given a second term.

  • Tedd

    Simon’s right, that first argument was very clearly articulated.

  • Jaded Voluntaryist

    Tedd it was me who didn’t make himself clear.

    Rob seemed to be arguing that Romney did a poor job of showing that he wasn’t really going to act on his principles, whereas I’m arguing that he did a bad job of showing not only that he had principles, but that he had the courage of his convictions to act on them.

    In this regard “Santorum” would have been much more electable in my view.

  • Laird

    That’s precisely what Romney said about Social Security and Medicare, loudly and often. Weren’t you listening?

    Abortion is a very divisive issue in this country (difficult as that might be for the rest of the world to understand). I agree with your position on it, but anyone taking that stance could never get the Republican nomination. And if you took a more hard-line anti-abortion stand in order to win the nomination, backtracking on it later would only lead (fairly) to charges of waffling and flip-flopping.

    You say this is what happens when you try to pander to too many special interest groups. But that can’t be correct, because the Democratic Party is nothing but a collection of disparate interest groups. Perhaps the problem is that the Republicans didn’t try to pander to enough of them, not too many.

    Romney was not an exciting candidate, but he was probably the best the Republicans could have offered. Certainly he had the best chance of attracting the independent and moderate votes. If he couldn’t win against as weak an incumbent as Obama no one could have.

    I think it’s gotten to the point where Republicans simply cannot win a national election; the coalition of leftists, unions, minorities and transfer payment recipients is unstoppable. They can win local and state elections, and even congressional seats, but not the presidency. And with the shifting demographics in this country (hispanics becoming increasingly important) I don’t see that changing. They are doomed to permanent opposition status, relegated to the role of mere obstructionists to the ever-advancing tide of omnipresent government.

  • I have found that speaking truth — or speaking verifiable data in many cases — is almost universally punished. “47%” may be the one that did Romney in.

  • the other rob

    I think that my argument (if, indeed, I have one) is that the Republican Party spectacularly failed to either be sufficiently principled or sufficiently venal. I don’t often quote the Bible, but it’s like that line in Revelation 3:16 – “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Jaded Voluntaryist and I may be more in agreement than we might suspect.

    On the first point, perhaps media bias plays a role, but whatever Romney may have said, he failed to communicate it to my father in law, who remained convinced that a Romney presidency would destroy his retirement arrangements.

    On the second point, Laird is quite correct. Nevertheless, the truth is that no president is going to overturn Roe vs Wade and until the Republican Party stops pandering to religious extremists and publicly acknowledges that fact, it will continue to drive voters to the Democrats.

    Lastly, like JP, I am appalled. But one reason that Obama got a second term is that the Democratic Party was spectacularly successful at being sufficiently venal to win. The story that broke today about United Healthcare illustrates this nicely.

  • llamas

    Laird wrote:

    ‘You say this is what happens when you try to pander to too many special interest groups. But that can’t be correct, because the Democratic Party is nothing but a collection of disparate interest groups. Perhaps the problem is that the Republicans didn’t try to pander to enough of them, not too many.’

    But the Democrats have an Alice-like ability to have their supporters believe and accept that they support two entirely-opposite positions – at the same time.

    Gay marriage – sure, except when we don’t, because the black churches are absolutely rock-ribbed against it.

    An exuberant, unrepentant dope smoker, whose DOJ took attacks on state-legal marijuana to a level previosly unheard-of.

    Crazy for reductions in Medicare rates – but passed the ‘doc fix ‘every year, regular as clockwork.

    And their supporters accept this. It’s almost like the party taunts their supporters – look, we promised you this, but now we’re trying to see just how far we can screw you over and still have you support us. Tee-Hee!

    African-Americans are just absolutely bat-sh*t crazy to support the Democrats, because every single economic negative of the last 4 years – unemployment, energy prices, gas prices, home prices, interest rates, you name it – have all impacted them far-more negatively than any other demographic. And the Democrats virtually waved their losses in their faces – and still they all lined up obediently to vote for them, 95%+.

    Latinos – same way. They actually believe the promises of immigration reform that the Democrats parade before them, even as the rates of apprehensions and deportations goes up, not down.

    It’s as if what they say, and what they do, are just two entirely different things, that are unconnected in the minds of their supporters.




  • llamas

    “And I heard, as it were, the sound of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, ‘Come, and see’,
    And I saw, and behold, a white horse . . . .

    There’s a man going around, taking names
    And he decides who to smite, and who to blame
    Everybody won’t be treated, all the same
    There’ll be a smitin’ hammer, reaching down
    When the Man comes around . . . .”

    John R. Cash, 2002.



  • Laird

    llamas, that “smitin’ hammer” is going to get all of us, not just those responsible for the mess we’re in.

  • Antoine Clarke

    Apparently, it was too hard. That’s what happens when a political party becomes nothing more than a cynical, office seeking, machine. It tries to pander to too many special interests and ends up satisfying none sufficiently

    It seems to work for some political parties. No?

  • Jacob

    America has changed, demographically and ideologically. The 1980’ies are over.
    The chances to get a half-libertarian elected there are nill, the same as in the UK.

    As to Romney – he wasn’t even a quarter libertarian. I don’t know if he has any convictions of his own, if so he hid them well. He was not an inspiring candidate. I don’t think that, being elected, he would have acted differently from Obama.
    So, this election didn’t really matter.
    Still, it would have been fun to watch the reaction, had he won. Alas, no fun.

  • Jaded Voluntaryist

    On the plus side, governments can’t keep getting bigger forever.

    They’ll stop growing once this chart reads 100……


  • John R. Cash, 2002.

    Hrrmph! Leadbelly or Alan Lomax, considerably earlier.

  • llamas

    @ Tim Newman, who wrote:

    ‘John R. Cash, 2002.
    Hrrmph! Leadbelly or Alan Lomax, considerably earlier.’

    Er – no. While the Johnny Cash tune ‘When The Man Comes Around’ and the venerable Huddie’s tune ‘There’s a Man Going ‘Round Takin’ Names’ share the same first line of the lyric, the rest of the lyrics and the melodies are totally different.

    While I have no doubt that the dying Johnny Cash was paying proper tribute to Leadbelly when he used the same first line, you can’t attribute one song to the other.

    So Hrrmph me no Hrrmphs.



  • Bill

    Part of me is afraid this will end in violence.
    Part of me is afraid it won’t.

  • lucklucky

    The Republicans failed when they didn’t made a line in sand concerning debt.

    They let Obama spend more, hicking the legal debt limit.

    So how anyone can take them seriously?
    How the can transmit to people the importance of the issue?

    The Republicans are so afraid of a crisis they go along Democrats.

  • Bruce

    Shorter The Other Rob: “Why can’t the Republicans be like the Libertarian Party” (and typically poll less than 1%)?


    Romney did better than I expected. Obama received less than 39% of the white vote, but won because minorities strongly support the nanny state. Abortion wasn’t a major issue.

  • Some have invoked what Roger Kimball called the Republicans’ Pauline Kael moment. She was the movie critic who famously exclaimed how she couldn’t understand how Nixon won in 1972, the most lopsided victory in American history, because she didn’t know anyone who voted for him.

  • All politicians know how to solve our fiscal crisis. They just don’t know how to get re-elected after they do it.

  • Julie near Chicago

    First, the point llamas, Simon, and others keep making is absolutely true. R&R said it over and over:

    “OK, we all know that entitlement spending is unsustainable. We also know that whole generations have made retirement plans that depend upon those entitlements. So we’ll guarantee to maintain them for anybody over (whatever age) but things must change for people who are younger.

    When even people here on Samizdata cannot absorb this simple fact, it’s no surprise that 5.00009% (or even 51%) of the voting public also somehow had wax in their ears when the Pubs said it.

    First problem: Far too many of us have Been to College, or associate closely with those who have. (Simply dwelling in a University town seems to be toxic to the capacity for independent observation and analysis.)

    Second: Of the rest, a huge number are “inner-city non-Caucasian, non-Asian persons” who are by now in a second- and third-generation culture of believing they are put-upon and only Dims will save them. “Obama gonna buy me gas!” and “We all getting free phones!” and the like. The rational, intelligent people stuck in this milieu aren’t able to make much, if any, headway against “the ravening mob” (what an absolutely great description!).

    The rest of us vary in how deeply attached we are to this or that One Little Program or One Little Policy that we just can’t–literally–imagine “giving up.”

    And the News Media are not about to tell the truth about any issues, or where any of the candidates stand, neither what they say nor what they’ve done. Although there was a slight hiccup a few weeks back over the Sith.

    Of course the Entertainment Media also incubate the garbage for us.

    The fact remains, that people who keep saying “not a sliver of light between them” when discussing the differences between the Romneys and the Obamas, between the Democrats as the Party has become and the Republicans, help ENORMOUSLY in making sure that the sliver of light grows ever SMALLER.

    The Republicans need, for one thing, to be shown that it’s for their DIFFERENCES in policy and action from the Dims that people are drawn to them. –But they also need to be good teachers. Good teachers do not “pounce” on a student’s error–an appalling idea I once heard touted as practically the very point of pedagogy from one who was pursuing a degree in education so as to teach high-school biology.

    And, they need to relearn, as individuals, PRIDE in shown MORAL COURAGE. Continuing to beat them with baseball bats because they’re not “better” is not helpful. “Daily beatings will continue until morale improves….”

    At the same time, they DO (so many of them–but far from all) need daily classes in Moral Development, not to mention History, Economics, and Observation of Practical Reality.

    And then, they need to conduct (informal) seminars and workshops covering all that, out in public, one way or another.

    They can’t depend on The Media to do it for them…they’re going to have to do it themselves.

    That’s exactly what the Tea Party movement was all about.

    I will now retreat back into my corner and lick my (not-unexpected) wounds some more.

  • Julie near Chicago

    By the way–Jaded, in the very first comment, is 1000% right.

    In an election like the ones we have, I don’t see any way around the dilemma faced by a candidate of either position, except to keep attention off that particular issue–or else to state, over and over and over, that the issue is not pertinent to the position for which he’s running, without speaking to his own position on it at all.

  • Alsadius

    Saying that abortion is settled law would literally destroy the Republican Party – there’s too many single-issue pro-lifers in the party who will simply never give up on the issue. Agreed on entitlements, though.

  • joel

    I am not sure what planet you guys are on, but this election simply showed that America has gone around the bend. The long (I can only hope) slide into a brown 3rd world country is now official.

    Obama should have been crushed in this election, but he won it handily.

    Obama won with the blacks, the browns, the single women, and the single mothers, and the gays. And, the public service unions. 41% of children in this county are now born to single women. That fact alone is cause for extreme pessimism. We now have so may social parasites and special interest voters (eg. amnesty for illegals, and all their relatives) nothing any reasonable Republican could say or do can win now. I probably wouldn’t vote for any candidate appealing to those groups. The demographic tidal wave is here.

    This is why everybody (almost) at work today was very subdued, even the blacks. Their man won and they have won nothing. We all realize this is a big milestone, and not a good one.

  • A cowardly citizen

    Two thoughts, one on abortion, the other on ethnicity.

    1/2) If a person believes abortion is infanticide, then that person cannot drop the issue as “settled,” any more than a person who thinks slavery is inhuman can drop the issue, regardless of political cost.

    For that reason, the choices are to persuade anti-abortionists that their views are mistaken and need revising, or exterminate all the anti-abortionists, or never rely on them for support in a campaign, or accept their point of view.

    I don’t know how to persuade them, oppose extermination, the Libertarian Party demonstrates how well doing without anti-abortionists works. So I accept their views.

    FWIW, polling suggests that “The Economy” was the number one issue, so blaming anti-abortionists is playing into the game that David Plouffe and David Axelrod have set for you to lose. In fact, if I were a socialist I would use abortion and the idiotic “fear” of Christians (“Sarah Palin would force Bible teaching in school”) that some libertarians have to split my opponents.

    2/2) A political party that gets less than 5% of African-Americans and less than 30% of Latinos/Hispanics AND a minority of Asians and Jews might as well not contest a nation-wide election in the USA.

    The Economy was the main issue, but for African-Americans, a majority surveyed by the NAACP found 90% support for a “Federal Jobs Plan” instead of private investment as the solution to unemployment. The failure of socialism is not apparent to millions of people who are being exploited. That needs to change.

    Immigration is the unforgivable compromise for so-called libertarians. How can people such as Ron Paul support the persecution of immigrants and be called advocates of liberty?

  • the other rob

    Some very good points are being made (as is usual here), but I think that it might be helpful to revisit the context of my little rant.

    I was discussing the reasons that members of my own family, at least one of whom is politically an almost perfect fit with Johnson, chose to vote for Obama.

    The fact is that, whatever the Republican campaign may have said on entitlements, it failed to convince my father in law that a Romney victory was not going to plunge it into poverty.

    Similarly, while my wife voted Libertarian for many positions further down the ballot, the religious extremists associated with the Republican party scared her so shitless that she voted Obama for President. Some commenters have argued that without those extremists the Republican Party would be doomed to loose: guess what? The Republican Party lost with them and, in the case of at least one voter, lost because of them.

  • the other rob

    I apologise for the execrable typing in the above post. It should, of course, read “him” rather than “it” and “lose” rather than “loose”.

    I blame the two party system, since it’s the proximate cause of my hangover.

  • Julie near Chicago

    @ the other rob:

    WHAT “religious extremists”?

    The only ones I know of that have any effect on much of anything are on the team of some dude called “Allah.”

    I don’t think he pulls a lot of support among Republicans.

    By the way–I’m an atheist. (Or agnostic, depending on your EXACT definition of “Supreme Being.”)

    PS. Symps with your current, um, malaise, given the cause. Only understandable. :>)

  • the other rob

    Thanks Julie. As somebody on Popehat said “If you voted for Gary Johnson: You should already be drunk, and I salute you.:

    As for the religious extremists, the woman who commented thus on a Fox News article would be a good, if (hopefully) outlying example: “I love Jesus and the cross, and if you don’t I hope someone rapes you.”


  • Bruce

    WHAT “religious extremists”?

    You know, the scary ones the Democrats are always telling us about. Like, Republican War on Women: Prelude to Christian theocracy.

    It’s crap, of course, but it’s amazing how many Democrats I know who actually believe the GOP wants to impose a theocracy.

  • the other rob

    Any generalization tends to be flawed – including this one.

    Of course there are non-extreme religious folks. A business acquaintance of mine tells a story about his Baptist minister, upon being asked for religious guidance on voting, replying with a defence of the separation of church and state and using as an example “If you were on a jumbo jet, would you rather have a Moslem pilot who was fully qualified or a Baptist who had had one lesson in a Cessna?”

    Sadly, there are also extremists in all religions and an uncomfortably large number of them have attached themselves to the Republican Party.

  • Jamess

    “If you were on a jumbo jet, would you rather have a Moslem pilot who was fully qualified or a Baptist who had had one lesson in a Cessna?”

    I guess it depends on whether the muslim pilot wants to land the plane or not…

  • llamas

    As lucklucky observes, the House Republicans are already going soft – looking for a new and innovative way to kick the can down the road some more.

    Democrats have been reassured by this election – they can do just-about anything they like with income taxes because their core majority (which doesn’t pay income taxes, either because they’re too poor or too rich), just doesn’t give a sh*t how high income tax rates go.

    So the cure for the looming ‘fiscal cliff’ will be – surprise! massive income tax increases (expiration of the “Bush tax cuts”) plus significant additional income taxes) and no cuts in spending what-so-ever.

    Oh, sure, they’ll eliminate the mohair price support program, and close a post office or two – reducing spending by 0.00000126% – and this will be presented as brutal, inhumane cuts to the very fabric of our society. But the Federal juggernaut will continue unabated.

    President Obama said so. He said it right in the second debate – the sequester isn’t going to happen. Why would we not believe him?

    The Democrats have secured a reliable base of support by crafting a coalition perhaps unique in the annals of democracy – a combination of the poorest 47% and the richest 1% in our society, plus a small %age of highly-specific single-issue voters (all Federal welfare recipients) such as farmers, all aligned against the middle. Their support is so reliable because Democratic policies have been carefully crafted so as not to have any meaningful impact on these voters at all.

    What do the 47% care if income tax rates double? They don’t pay any. What do the richest 1% care if income tax rates double? Little or none of their income is ‘earned’ income, and so most is not subject to income taxes. Why would a corn farmer care if income tax rates double? The minor additional amount he might pay is dwarfed by the tidal wave of Federal subsidies that wash over him, never mind all the other madcap Federal mandates that artificially increase the price of his crop – funded, naturally, by income taxes paid by the middle class.

    My prediction for the day – in the ‘solution’ to the ‘fiscal cliff’, you will not see one single increase in any Federal excise, sales tax or fee. Gas taxes, cigarette taxes, liquor taxes will all be absolutely untouched, and FICA rates (social security and Medicare) rates likewise. There will not be so much as a penny cut from ag subsidies and supports, nor from the insane biofuel mandates that artificially-inflate corn prices. Because changing any of these things would actually impact the Democratic base – and we can’t have that.

    And the Republican House will go along with all of it. Any true fiscal conservative who stands firm against tax increases, for spending cuts and against raising the debt ceiling, will be whipped into line by his own party.

    As another observed, part of the outcome will be the defintion of a scapegoat class, except it has already been defined – it is the income-tax paying portion of the middle class, and the Democrats intend to squeeze them dry. They’ve earned enough already. The President said so – why would we not believe him?

    We are so screwed.



  • llamas

    “And I heard, as it were, the sound of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, ‘Come, and see’,
    And I saw, and behold, a white horse . . . .

    There’s a man going around, taking names
    And he decides who to smite, and who to blame
    Everybody won’t be treated, all the same
    There’ll be a smitin’ hammer, reaching down
    When the Man comes around . . . .”

    John R. Cash, 2002.



  • Gareth

    Jaded Voluntaryist said:

    There is nothing honourable about jettisoning your principles to get elected.

    The only principle that needs jettisoning is the one that says being President means you can tell others what they must or must not do with their own bodies.

    Would it really be to go against the grain too much for a politician to have a personal view on abortion (or any other issue) but also to say that even the position of authority they seek, no matter how high, should not grant them power to dictate to others on that matter?

    They wouldn’t be abandoning a sincerely held pro-life belief but they would be recognising a limit to their authority. Whether anyone would believe them is another matter.

  • Rhukatah

    @ Gareth,

    Flip it around to the view of pro-life voters: The only principle you’re jettisoning is that the president can’t stop people from murdering children.

    And that’s what it’s about to pro-life Republicans. Controlling peoples bodies has nothing to do with it from the pro-life point of view.

  • I left this at Power Line:

    “Obamacare, the explosive issue of 2010 ignored. ”

    ABSOLUTELY! Obamacare was the ultimate wedge issue. Remember the “Harry and Louise” ads against Hillarycare? Each ad focused on a different set of elements of the Rube-Golbergian scheme. They were a crucial element to Hillarycare’s defeat. (And they were a product of the private sector – the Health Insurance Association of America – not Republican leadership.)

    Mitt should have taken that cue. Identify the most noxious elements of Obamacare (like the Independent Payment Advisory Board provision) and have an ad focusing on each. When Democrats offer pie-in-the-sky promises, voters will be swayed by tangible criticisms, not vague sound bites.

  • Amy

    Mitt should have taken that cue. Identify the most noxious elements of Obamacare (like the Independent Payment Advisory Board provision) and have an ad focusing on each. When Democrats offer pie-in-the-sky promises, voters will be swayed by tangible criticisms, not vague sound bites.

    Posted by Alan K. Henderson at November 8, 2012 06:20 PM

    Alan… kinda hard for him to do that when Obama could just point out he was following Romney’s example in Mass. That is the reason I had to hold my nose to vote for Romney.

  • Alan… kinda hard for him to do that when Obama could just point out he was following Romney’s example in Mass. That is the reason I had to hold my nose to vote for Romney.

    Indeed. There is not escaping that White Bush III was really no better than Black Bush III.

  • Paul Marks

    I do not have time to read all the comments – so I will just deal with the post.

    The Romney campaign did NOT campaign on abortion – just a general pro life statement (no speeches or whatever). Pro abortion Scott Brown lost in mass (in case anyone has a Atkin and Mourdoch obsession).

    And Romney-Ryan they not a least paid lip to a pro life position most Republicans would have stayed home and Obama would have won EVERY STATE.

    Sorry people but a Republican who does not oppose Roe V Wade might as well stay home. Such a candidate is not going to be get close to being President (will not get within a million miles of being President).

    Gary Johnson did real well on Tuesday – accept he did not. Ron Paul (for all his faults) at least understands that a candidate has to oppose Roe V Wage (or there is no point in him or her running for office). Rand Paul understands the same basic point.

    Abortion is not a Federal matter – Roe V Wade makes it one. Roe V Wade must go.

    As for the entitlement programs.

    Romney-Ryan took an ultra moderate position.

    Any claim that they campaigned (or even implied) that they would take established benefits from the elderly (or whatever) is false.

    In fact I will go further than that – it is a lie.

    So whatever defeated Romney-Ryan it was neither abortion (or any “social issue” – because they did not campaign on social issues).

    And it was not a hard line on the entitlements either.

    Indeed (if serious about the one trillion Dollar deficit) they should have taken a much tougher line than they did.

    Vastly tougher.

  • kentuckyliz

    The so-called “War On Women” was an Alinskyite tactic to get the Vagina Vote. Protestors showed up at the RNC and other R/R events dressed up in vagina costumes.

    Obama campaign actually had an internet ad that said vote as if your lady parts depended on it.

    PPACA violates the First Amendment (free exercise of religion), and a growing number of organizations are joining the lawsuits that are challenging the mandates for coverage of things certain religions teach are inherently, gravely evil. I’m optimistic that SCOTUS will take the case next year and rule in our favor. (I’m a pissed off RC.) Roberts and Bader-Ginsberg included dicta in this year’s decision that said basic constitutional rights could not be violated in the implementation of PPACA, including religious freedoms.

    I worked for a Catholic employer that did not have those objectionable things in its health insurance policy (as a self-insured group), and I had no problem with that–they were being true to themselves. I now work for a nonreligious employer that includes coverage of those things in its policy, and I have no problem with that–they are being true to themselves.

    But…people really hate freedom and want to use the government to force others to behave the way they want. They want to force Catholics to pay for birth control pills, IVF, sterilization, abortion, gender reassignment surgery, and euthanasia/PAS. Damn your conscience; I’m here from the federal government, and I know better what’s good for you.

    Just as faithless Catholics like Sibelius and Pelosi are behind making this happen, I have a script forming in my head for a drama about faithless electors. You know the electoral college doesn’t vote until December, and that’s the official election.

    Our state representative in my district was a delegate to the DNC and refused to cast her vote for Obama because of the War on Coal. In effect, she voted present.

    I would just love to see some faithless elector drama upend the election and cause a serious crisis.

    What kind of disclosures between now and December 17 might inspire such a bold move?

    Benghazi related treason?

    That cover-up was worse than Watergate. And no one died in Watergate.

    The transfer/release of the Blind Sheikh?

    Obama could have done that in his lame duck time whether he was re-elected or not.

    Sequestrations and PPACA related layoffs/downsizing and fiscal cliffs?

  • Paul Marks

    Agreed kentuckyliz – and so would your Senator Rand Paul.

    As for the post.

    The Other Rob says that the Romney-Ryan campaign should not have concentrated on social issues.

    They did not, they hardly covered them, it was a campaign dominated by economic stuff.

    The Other Rob also says that that the Romney-Ryan campaign should have made clear that any reforms to entitlements would not hit the old and sick already on them.

    They did make that clear – AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

    Sorry people – but one can not face the future on a foundation of lies.

    For all their (many) faults Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan did not do what The Other Rob says they did, and they did do what the The Other Rob says they did not.

    The post is false history.

  • the other rob

    The PMO is doubtless correct about the Romney Ryan campaign, within limits. We’re speaking about different things, however.

    What does it matter if a campaign soft-pedals social issues, while others in the same party play into the hands of a statist media by raising spectres of rape-babies, while the party is – at best – seen as too beholden to such extremists to oppose them?

    Why should any retiree believe a campaign’s assertions on entitlements, when that campaign has failed to propose anything remotely resembling a coherent economic strategy? If everything else that it’s saying is bullshit, why believe that entitlements would be different?

    Whatever the campaign set out to do, it failed to convince the electorate. If anything, it alienated it further. Somebody in the Republican party should have realised that – so why didn’t they?

    When I lived in England, I had to to fire a head teacher (in my role as chair of governors) as part of turning around a failing school. The head had been provided with many plans, all of which were implemented to the letter – but never in the spirit. The one element that was always missing was critical review – at no point did this person ever ask “OK, I did that, did it work?” It was enough that it had been done – success could be assumed to follow; like magic, or a plane full of goodies landing next to a pile of straw that looked like a control tower.

    Similarly, this was a Cargo Cult campaign by a party that, unless it drastically reforms itself, has forever become unable to attain the highest office on its own merits. Sure, a Republican may win, if a Democrat president goes magnificently beyond what even the most degraded might consider to be the pale, but that’s it.

    If the Republican Party was a plc, the shareholders and creditors would be demanding restructuring or breakup – even if that meant replacing the Board. I think that it’s past time: the coalition game has been played long enough that it’s become ossified, with the Democrats holding a permanent winning hand. Time to change the game.

  • Paul Marks

    The Other Rob.

    On social issues you are now moving the discussion to Atkin and Mourdoch (or however it is spelled).

    Actually neither man “raised” this stuff – they were trapped into it by endless media questions.

    Neither man seems to have been taught the first rule of the modern media relations – for any conservative or libertarian.

    The msm are part of the ENEMY – only talk to them live (never recorded) and only answer the questions you want asked – if they msm do not ask you those questions answer them anyway.

    If they then say “you are not answering my questions” simply reply “I am talking about the things that ordinary people are interested in – it is not my problem if you are not prepared to talk about the debt and …. and just persist in “gotcha” questions”

    In short treat the enemy – as the enemy.

    However, the idea that Romney-Ryan lost, for example, New Hampshire because of Atkin and Mourdoch (who Romney condemned) does not seem very likely.

    As for the idea that Paul Ryan did not present ideas for entitlement reform – The Other Rob – that is false.

    The ideas were far too timid and long term – again your position is the exact reverse of the truth. You say that Romney-Ryan should have said “we will leave existing claimers alone – but future claimers in future years…” THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID SAY AND HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS. They said exactly what you claim they did not say.

    You claim that the old (and others) believed that their benefits would be cut.

    In spite of all the statements to the contrary – and the fact that neither Romney or Ryan had ever voted for any such cuts in their entire lives.

    Indeed a “rational economic plan” to deal with the TRILLION Dollar deficit would involve such cuts.

    Not cuts for people who are not yet claiming food stamps or whatever, but cuts right now – for people who are.

    So if your relatives would not vote for Romney-Ryan because they were under the mistaken impression that they would cut benefits. They certainly would not vote for Romney-Ryan if a rational economic plan had been presented.

    Because, I repeat, a rational economic plan would indeed cut benefits – right now and for people already on them.

    Sorry but “long term reform” does not really help when the economy is going to fall off a cliff in 2013 (which it is).

    The “long term” is now.

  • Paul Marks

    The United States Federal government borrowed 120 billion Dollars in October.

    Not spent – borrowed, on top of tax revenue.

    This is 22% more borrowing than for October 2011.

    The Federal government needs to cut the benefit bill NOW – not with “long term reform” over years (Romney-Ryanb style) the money spent has to be reduced RIGHT NOW.

    This is not going to happen.

    So the United States is finished.

  • Paul Marks

    And the “fiscal cliff”?

    Four Dollars of tax increaes for every one Dollar of “spending cuts”.

    There is no hope from the “fiscal cliff”.

    I repeat my previous conclusion.