NSA Spying and French Republicans – Any Connection?
What’s a “French Republican?”
“French Republicans” is a term coined recently to describe Republicans who appear to act like Democrats.
These conflicted individuals are also referred to as “Establishment,” “Republican in Name Only” (RINO), and “Country-Club Republicans.”
There has recently been a rash of such abandonment of conservative values among Republicans, resulting in a serious split in the Republican party. A split so serious that many serious conservatives are considering abandoning the Republican party altogether, and are considering extreme measures such as U.S. citizens overriding their Senate and their Congress, using Article V of the US Constitution. (Details at Political Puzzle Pieces Falling into Place.)
Motivations of “French Republicans”
Some imply that “French Republicans” fail to fight for conservative values because they don’t want to risk their comfortable, elegant, luxurious, “French” Washington positions and lifestyles.
The name “French Republican” could also refer to the relative failure of the French Revolution, which failed to achieve its goals and at times degenerated into a chaotic bloodbath. The French Revolution quickly gave way to the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte, and new despots replaced old despots. So the term could also refer to the disastrous strategy of continual compromise that is now being used by “French Republicans.”
Possible New Motivation
Today, the Wall Street Journal revealed a much broader National Security Agency (NSA) Surveillance Reach than previously acknowledged. .
This recent climate of government scandal,which has exposed the extent of government spying on innocent US citizens without warrant, combined with the Obama administration’s growing reputation for the use of intimidation and “Chicago tactics,” now makes it reasonable to wonder whether there could be a connection between NSA spying and “French Republicans.”
In other words, we wonder whether “French Republicans” could be acting “French” not because they want a spoiled lifestyle, nor because they fail to recognize that continual compromise is a bad policy, but because they or their families are being blackmailed and/or threatened by a corrupt Obama administration.
shows that 56% of Americans want the border secured before a path to citizenship is established for illegal immigrants.
Only 37% of Americans want “status of illegal immigrants” addressed before the border is secured.
So Republicans appear to be pushing for what Obama wants in opposition to what voters want.
There was the chaotic bulldozing of the Republican nomination in August 2012, during which John Boehner made an apparently intentional bad call on a rule change vote, enabling the nomination of Mitt Romney and the elimination of other candidates. Boehner’s vote call was clearly erroneous, and Boehner was booed.
Aside: American politics ironically begins to resemble the upside-down room from Alice in Wonderland. Was the White House’s secret 2009 Halloween Costume Ball, held while America sank into recession, actually more of a policy announcement? The extravagant “over-the-top” Hollywood-created party followed a $4 million Hawaii vacation for the First Family, during a year in which Michelle Obama spent $10 million on vacations.
It’s like there was a virus going around that turned conservatives progressive, or a magic potion that Obama has which makes people do his bidding.
Are Chicago-style persuasion tactics at work?
Putting Together the Pieces
Snowden’s recent revelations about systematic NSA snooping on citizens without warrant, and IRS involvement in the harassing and suppression of conservative groups, combined with the growing number of other Obama administration scandals, is revealing that the comprehensive amassing of detailed information on American citizens, as well as strong-arming, have become routine practices used by the Obama adminstration. The pursuit and attack of consevatives by liberals has been implemented to an exhaustive degree, down to small individuals like me, whose conservative website was under D0S (DDoS) attack for the third time this summer by “unknown” sources.
These surfacing facts paint a picture of an extremely active left wing “culture” very busy implementing illegal and unethical Alinsky tactics in an underground war against democracy and against Judeo-Christian ethics.
Meanwhile, all of Obama’s opponents are surprisingly reversing their positions or falling like flies. scandal
Is there a connection?
In this Benghazi scandal–IRS scandal (Internal Revenue Service)-NSA scandal (National Security Agency)-DOJ scandal (Department of Justice) –DHS scandal (Department of Homeland Security) scandal climate, the picture emerging is one of indiscriminate and unethical abuse of power of historical proportions by members of the Obama administration.
What radical “progressives” cannot achieve by democracy, they seem determined to get by hook or by crook, or by Alinsky tactics.
Left wing ideology is so important and so faultless in the radical narcissistic mind, that it justifies sacrificing law, order and democracy, to achieve desired results.
This radical philosophy espouses “the ends justify the means (consequentialism), a classic error made by narcissists and totalitarians throughout history.
This method is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ and of Judaism, and is in opposition to any absolute moral code, like the Ten Commandments or the Constitution of the United States.
New Modus Operandi (Method of Operation)
In this Gangster Government climate, it becomes eminently reasonable to suspect the dishonest Obama administration, with it’s ever-expanding list of agencies and czars, of simply dipping into the Utah treasury of information every time it needs to “persuade” an opponent.
Most people, even good people, have made a mistake or two in their lives which they do not want publicized, and if they have not, their child or their spouse or their grandmother probably have. That failing, evidence can be planted, accusations can be manufactured, and lies can be constructed. All is fair under Alinsky tactics or under totalitarian rule.
What Can an Ethical Population Do to Combat Such Tactics and This Level of Corruption?
One previous challenge of this magnitude and nature was the Soviet Union dominating and abusing its citizens with iron hand and iron curtain, utilizing the KGB as enforcers, and making desperate attempts to eradicate the power of religion in the 20th century.
And it was religion that brought down the Soviet Union.
Religion, plus transparency.
It was Catholic Poland’s Solidarity, Catholic Pope John Paul the Great, and Christian Evangelical Ronald Reagan, who brought down the Soviet empire virtually without violence and without battle through what TIME magazine called a Holy Alliance.
The transparency was provided by communications; in the internet era, real-time video of Soviet government atrocities such as the crushing of 11 Lithuanian citizens by Soviet tanks kept the autocrats accountable for their actions. Reports of these events echoed across the globe in real time, with reports appearing in local American news.
Point:The battle against the Soviets was not won by using Soviet tactics.
The solution, the key to the puzzle, is simple:
Don’t use the enemy’s tactics
Use religion and use transparency
Religion: Aim for justice, stick to the rules, follow your conscience, and ask God for help and for guidance.
Transparency: Use modern communications to keep your opponents accountable
In 2013, the victory is likely to be surprising, as it was with the Soviet Union:
It will be a surprise, like many victories in history.
It could involve a restructuring of the Republican party, to return to true Judeo-Christian conservative values.
It could involve a third party which suddenly receives surprising support from a nation that has been burnt enough by 8 years of Imperial rule and by several years of unfolding Obama administration scandals and ObamaCare catastrophies.
It could involve something completely unexpected, like the unorthodox but constitutional use of Article V of the Constitution, to amend the Constitution via state legislatures, circumventing the now-corrupt Senate and Congress, as suggested by Mark Levin, whose book The Liberty Amendments, just shot to #1 bestseller on Amazon this week.
And, of course, it most probably will involve an as-yet-unimagined mechanism that exists only in the mind of God, and not in our minds at this point in time.
The unraveling of the crooked and imperial Obama administration’s reputation has begun, and continues every day. Obama’s approval rating has slipped from 64% in 2009 to 41% today.
Even the Republican Party, which gets the main modern issue, abortion, right, but neglects other important Judeo-Christian values, is undergoing an internal struggle which may (or may not) purge it of its recent ineffective spinelessness.
Predicting the Outcome
All predictions are tentative and are subject to the test of history.
But we have great faith in God, and today we see Americans returning increasingly to prayer and to Judeo-Christian values. .
I don’t believe that God will allow Godless progressives who idolize indiscriminate promiscuity and the killing of children, to triumph. .
I believe that God will help good people to win. .
The victory will undoubtedly, like the victory over the Soviet Union, reflect the quiet, surprising, and powerful signature of God’s assistance, who is ever at our side, leading us quietly.
The victory could also, like David’s victory over Goliath, and like the parting of the Red Sea, be spectacular and miraculous.
Presumptive: based on presumption or probability; affording reasonable ground for belief.
Presume: take for granted, assume, or suppose; assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary; undertake with unwarrantable boldness; undertake without right or permission; take something for granted; act or proceed with unwarrantable or impertinent boldness; go too far in acting unwarrantably or in taking liberties.
Finally, the mass media, with a few exceptions, certainly seems to be on board with calling Romney the presumptive nominee.
Doesn’t that make Romney a clear winner?
The fact that the conservative Wall Street Journal and Drudge Report did not jump to presume Romney to be the nominee gives us a clue that there may be some doubt about the security of Romney’s position.
Problems with Counting Chickens Before They Are Hatched
There are a number of reasons why Romney should not count his chickens before they are hatched, particularly in this 2012 election:
In 2012, a huge conflict is going on within the Republican Party between moderate “establishment” Republicans and the new more conservative “tea party” members, and has motivated a number of conservative groups to attempt unseating Romney, who is way too liberal for their taste. There is a secret insurrection going on.
In 2012, there seem to be new strategies emerging that involve changing delegates’ minds after the primaries, effectively nullifying the results of the primaries and challenging the concept of “bound” candidates.
Probability tells us that presumptive candidates are often displaced during the Republican convention– about 43% of the time. Romney is not immune to this possibility.
History also shows us that whenever the presumptive nominee was displaced in the past, the replacement nominee was more likely to be successful in defeating the Democrats in the general election.
Delegate votes at the Republican Convention do not reflect the popular vote directly, so delegate votes at the convention may surprise us despite Romney’s 52% of the popular vote.
Delegate counts such as AP’s are only estimates, and these have been challenged, the media has been accused of misrepresenting them, and the numbers are under constant change, particularly in 2012.
The Republican Internal Conflict: Why Romney Might Be Challenged
Romney has struggled to inspire a passionate following among conservatives because of his liberal leanings, and much of his early success in primaries was attributed to his campaign’s prolific spending.
Romney’s early struggle in primaries
Prior to his eventual accumulation of 52% of the popular vote in the primaries, Romney struggled to compete with the conservative candidates opposing him. Lean economic times often cause more voters to be conservative. Most people have the common sense to realize that during a shortage one must conserve, not spend or waste. Conserving is the root of conservatism.
Although Romney was the front-runner during the primaries, he was also the only liberal candidate. Since the conservative vote was split among numerous conservative candidates, Romney appeared to be leading, but in actual fact, the total number of conservative voters was outnumbering Romney supporters. Many of these conservative supporters voted for Santorum in the primaries. When Santorum suspended his campaign due to his daughter Bella’s illness, these voters were left with nowhere to go other than Romney or Ron Paul. And Ron Paul’s extreme attitude towards foreign policy, defense budget, and legalization of drugs scared many voters off. Many voted for Romney because their favorite conservative candidates had suspended their campaigns. They voted for Romney despite their lack of enthusiasm for Romney. Romney was the not-Obama.
Ron Paul – Mitt Romney
Things were also complicated by the fact that Ron Paul has refused all along to withdraw from the campaign, and still remains in the race, so Romney cannot claim victory officially. According to Convention rules (and depending on who is counting or estimating the delegates), Ron Paul still has a plurality of delegates in five states, and his name can be presented for nomination at the Convention. Romney is still taking this threat very seriously; his supporters are still attempting now in August, to unseat Maine’s Ron Paul delegates – Maine Public Broadcasting Network. Romney supporters would not be wasting their time if no threat existed.
In fact, three candidates have enough delegates (a plurality of delegates in five states) for their names to be presented for nomination: Paul, Romney, and Santorum. This opens the door for at least several people to challenge Romney.
What About Paul Ryan? Isn’t He Going to Save the Romney Team?
Paul Ryan joins the Romney ticket
Romney was lagging in some polls against Obama, making establishment Republicans nervous about his ability to carry the election against Obama. A rightful concern, with so many conservatives still unhappy with the “un-Republican” Romney, who has in the past virtually admitted himself that he was Republican in name only (RINO).: “My R doesn’t stand so much for Republican as it does for reform.”
However, something will eventually dawn on people- that if Paul Ryan is so noble in character, intelligent in policy and charismatic in personality that he can transform Romney’s campaign overnight, why is Romney, and not Paul Ryan at the top of the ticket?
It would be tempting for conservatives to rearrange the ticket, putting Paul Ryan at the top, if that is at all possible at the convention. As Vice President, Paul Ryan’s position and power are not secure. Ryan could swiftly be demoted by Etch-A-Sketch master Romney into a powerless and peripheral position immediately after the general election. Already, Mitt Romney is distancing himself from Paul Ryan, claiming that he, Romney, has an economic plan that is “not Paul Ryan’s.”
Mitt Romney would be naïve not to realize that Paul Ryan is a threat to him; not by design, but by Ryan’s inherent likeability, charisma and character; characteristics Romney is lacking.
The fact of the matter is that numerous conservatives like me, who have never committed to one political party, yet who are devoted to unseating the anti-colonialist Barak Obama, are sitting out the Republican internal insurrection to see who wins. We will support any candidate produced by the GOP convention by virtue of his/her being not-Obama, including Mitt Romney. But we do have our favorites, and Romney is not one of them.
Is Paul Ryan Enough to Placate the Republican Insurrection?
Many non-Republican conservatives (such as the Tea Party) are not sitting out the insurrection as I am. They are actively trying to unseat Romney as the presumptive nominee. (More on specific efforts below.)
Ryan has certainly energized Romney’s campaign, and will help Romney do better in polls against Obama, but Ryan may have little effect on internal Republican battles before the convention, because people realize the “demote-ability” of a Vice President.
If Romney survives convention attempts to unseat him, then Paul Ryan’s presence on the ticket will definitely help Romney against Obama in the general election. Let’s just hope Ryan does not get demoted to a position of little power and influence after the election, as some Vice-Presidents have been in previous administrations, including George Washington’s, who did not include John Adams in cabinet meetings. The current Vice President, Joe Biden, has virtually been assigned the role of court jester. In this case, however, his own behavior has contributed to his undignified position; presumably Paul Ryan would fare better than Joe Biden has.
The Case for Nominating Romney Versus Not Nominating Romney
The Republican Party has found its success during previous increasingly liberal decades by compromising repeatedly with liberals. They have thus slowly drifted away from staunch conservatism. The seasoned “establishment” Republicans want to continue this trend with the nomination of Mitt Romney, arguing that he will help to capture moderate votes, and perhaps even some liberal votes, helping Republicans to unseat Obama in the general election.
However, the tide of history can change, and has changed in the past. The Tea Party movement is one indication of a possible change of heart in the American people, driven by economic problems and by the need to face reality. Economic austerity often motivates philosophical corrections and a shift toward conservatism. The Republican establishment agenda of compromise and of seeking moderate votes will not attract votes when Americans are drifting towards conservatism. Instead, it will frustrate people who want true change. When the base gets alienated, they will not go to the polls, and the reduced voter participation will cancel out any gain that was made by compromising to get moderate votes.
Do We Court the Moderates, or Do We Go For a Bold Course-Correction?
The History of Republican primaries and conventions also indicates that the nomination of moderates or liberals (like Romney) often disappoints the Republican base, and leads to defeat in the general election. Republican Convention historian Dr. Barbara Haney, a RNC convention delegate from Alaska herself, discusses the surprising history of Republican conventions, a history which seems to indicate that the unseating of a lukewarm presumptive nominee by a more conservative alternative during a convention actually improves the chances of winning the general election against the incumbent Democrat.
The enthusiatic rally of support observed this week for Paul Ryan indicates that America might be ready for such a course correction towards conservatism. A moderate candidate like Romney gets half-hearted, lukewarm support, while a strong, principled conservative like Paul Ryan reenergizes the Republican party overnight.
What Hands Can True Conservatives Still Play?
Can We Learn from History?
The new energized conservatives, including evangelical Christians and the Tea Party, may play any hand available to them at this convention, to nominate a true conservative in place of Mitt Romney. This might actually be a good idea, based on Barabara Haney’s historical analysis, which showed an 88% chance of success in unseating an incumbent Democrat following the vetting process of a brokered convention, compared with a paltry 31% chance of success in unseating the Democrat incumbent following an uneventful first-ballot nomination of a presumptive nominee like Romney.
Lincoln and Reagan, products of the “brokered convention;” NOT “presumptive nominees.”
Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln are examples of the 88% successes, which illustrate Barbara Haney’s historical analysis and theories, on the beneficial nature of brokered conventions.
So it boils down to: do you play chicken, compromise, court the moderate vote, and risk having only a 33% chance of defeating Obama, or do you boldly embrace the uncertainty of the brokered convention, nominate a candidate capable of energizing the general election (like Reagan or Lincoln), and go for the 88% chance of defeating Obama? And do you put your energizing candidate in the Vice President slot, or in the President slot?
“Establishment” Republicans are making a fallacious assumption in promoting Romney; they are assuming that a conservative candidate of strong character will not attract liberal votes. Abraham Lincoln disproved that fear, Ronald Reagan disproved that fear, and, incidentally, Paul Ryan has already disproved that fear in his home district of Janesville, Wisconsin, which is liberal, yet has elected conservative Paul Ryan for seven consecutive terms, because of his integrity, his character, and his reliably.
Jim Thorpe testimony on Paul Ryan’s character and popularity:
Incidentally, Paul Ryan is not the only Republican with the character and integrity capable of attracting liberal and moderate votes; add to that list Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachmann, among others.
The Romney campaign chose him (Paul Ryan) to deliver the Republican base vote amid fears that die-hard conservatives could cost him the White House by staying at home on election day rather than turning out for a candidate they are ambivalent about….
But that strategy was not working. The US is so polarised that there are, according to the polls, few undecided voters left. Compared with 2008, when about 25% of the electorate had still to make up their minds at this stage in the election, only about 5% are undecided. Both the Democratic and Republican strategists have concluded that the winner on 6 November will be the campaign that fires up its own supporters, that gets its base out, rather than the one that wins over the independent swing voters….
Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, said: “It is base v base. There are hardly any independents.” At the cost of winning over a percentage of that small group in the centre, the campaigns risked alienating their core support, he said.
This analysis supports my arguments and the historical findings of Barbara Haney; that a conservative candidate may secure more votes than a moderate at certain times in history. 2012 is one of those times.
Is It Too Late To Change Our Minds?
Aren’t Delegates Committed to Voting for Romney?
Apparently, it’s not too late to change our minds, and Republican historian Barbara Haney indicates that in the last 21 Republican conventions where the nominee, like Romney, was not an incumbent President, 43% of presumptive nominees were unseated at the convention. Romney, too, can be unseated. There is historically a 43% probability of that.
How Can Somebody Who Has Over 51% of the Delegates be Unseated?
Here comes the next surprise: RNC convention rules contain some surprises.
Whether it is by the wisdom of our predecessors or by fluke, RNC convention rules appear to allow for delegates to change their minds about candidates between the primaries and the convention. Although there has been some dispute over this, the 2008 convention raised this issue for a delegate from Utah, and the RNC Legal Counsel Jennifer Sheehan upheld the freedom of delegates to change their minds, writing:
The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.
and The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.
More details on this controversy on Rule 38 at Rule 38.
Why would the architects of democracy allow such uncertainty and reversibility in RNC primary and convention rules? Presumably they assumed that delegates will be honorable and will not to change their minds frivolously; that they will make a serious effort to vote (in the first ballot) for the candidate they were “bound” to by the primaries. But ultimately, they are allowed to consider events and developments prior to the Republican Convention, and are allowed to change their votes, or to abstain from voting, if they feel it is in the best interests of their constituents. It could be argued in 2012 that the majority of primary voters wanted a solid conservative to represent them, and Mitt Romney is not that solid conservative. We have the unusual case where delegates could honestly believe that they will be more faithful to the wishes of the people if they abandon Mitt Romney. It is such an eventuality that would motivate the architects to include some flexibility into the system. After all, our elected Representatives and Senators are not bound to vote the party line after their election either, and are allowed to use their best judgment in response to developing events.
What Could Motivate a “Bound” Delegate to Change Their Vote or to Abstain?
Internal tension within the Republican Party is undermining the security of Romney’s projected victory.
Ben Swann, a Fox News anchor from Cincinnati, Ohio, produced a segment of Reality Check, explaining why he believes that internal tension within the Republican Party may be undermining the security of Romney’s projected victory. According to Ben Swann’s Reality Check, The Liberty Movement (conservatives who support Ron Paul) is taking over the GOP. Reality Check suggests that the Republican Party might be winning the Texas battle at the moment, but could actually be losing the primary war to conservatives. Some claim that Ron Paul may have recruited as many as 1,000 delegates going into the Tampa convention, reducing the support Romney thinks that he has:
Ron Paul’s not-so-secret plot for the GOP convention– ABC News
Fox Reality Check is not alone in their suspicions. Newt Gingrich also acknowledged that Ron Paul is the “biggest danger” for Romney in Tampa. As Ron Paul wins over delegates Romney thought he had, it becomes difficult to make any projections about the convention at all. For example, 1,144 delegates become only 144 delegates if somebody wins over 1,000 of them. Extreme example, but illustrates the point.
Very recently, a conservative movement has surfaced issuing an appeal to 20,000 RNC members and delegates at the Convention called DumpRomney. They propose that dumping Romney would be accomplished by “bound” delegates conscientiously abstaining from voting in the first ballot. When Romney does not get the required 1144 votes in the first ballot, then all delegates are released to vote their conscience in subsequent ballots, and new candidates can be added to the list of contenders. Not only can previous contenders like Santorum, Gingrich, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann be added, but new names can also be added. Sarah Palin? Scott Walker? Paul Ryan? Anybody’s guess. DumpRomney does not advocate any particular candidate; they simply advocate the dumping of Romney at the RNC convention.
Ron Paul’s campaign has claimed to have won over 500-1,000 delegates. The DumpRomney folks may or may not have success in persuading delegates to abstain in the first ballot. This split in the Republican Party makes Romney’s nomination in the first ballot very uncertain.
The Battle Is Still On
The present battle for delegates is (not surprisingly) not covered by the mainstream media, who would love to see liberal Romney as the Republican nominee.
The Republican Party is also not advertising the conflict. Public show of division is rarely wise.
Most of the Media is liberal and would love to run against Mitt Romney, who would be challenged to offer anything different from what Obama has offered.
“Establishment” Republicans are not in a rush to advertise disunity to their opposition.
Conservatives hoping to make a course correction in the Republican Party are not in a rush to advertise their plans and their tactics.
But now, for those of us who are rooting for a brokered convention, for a replacement of Mitt Romney with a true conservative, for the election of the next Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln, this, 1 week before the Republican Convention, when the plans have been laid and the agenda is set, is a good time to remind everyone to have an open mind and a positive attitude toward the possibility of a brokered convention.
This Convention is Bound to Be Very Exciting
There is no question that this Republican Convention is bound to be very exciting.
It also holds the potential to alter the course of history dramatically.
Let’s presume little: historically speaking, Mitt’s odds are 57:43.
Much is going on behind the scenes that the media is not telling us about.
However, if Mitt does get the nomination, our chances of beating Obama are reduced by a factor of about three.
Can Romney Still Redeem Himself?
Can Mitt Romney convince Republican conservatives that he is capable of the kind of leadership that the fiscal and moral challenges of 2012 demand?
There was a time when political promises carried more weight. But a new era of political dishonesty has been inaugurated with Obama’s demonstrated ability to about face, and to thumb his nose at his own previous promises.
The lies, reversals, security leaks, and imperial mandates characterizing the Obama administration have led many into shock and disbelief that so much could transpire in less than four years. Obama rules by issuing mandates each time Congress and the Senate fail to approve the legislation he wants. No FBI, police, or security force has materialized to challenge Barack Obama on his actions, to label him a traitor, or to drag him off in chains.
The Department of Homeland Security similarly neglects it’s duties, and seems to be headed by a “liberal sisterhood of plundering hacks” who are consumed in an Animal-House style sexual harassment scandal.
In the past, the news media would also have kept presidents and politicians accountable for their promises. In 2012, they don’t. The media clearly has a political agenda, an extremely liberal one not shared by the majority of Americans, an agenda which 2/3 of America opposes, and the media misuses their profession to misinform the public, attempting to steer them towards liberalism. Liberal Presidents and politicians get away with more and more lying. No behavior on the part of liberals shocks the media; neither lies (Obama) nor incompetence (Biden) shock anyone. Media now actively covers for the liberal politicians whom they favor. They excuse any behavior by candidates who continue to advocate lower and lower standards of morality and accountability in our society.
In this atmosphere, it will be difficult for Romney to acquire the credibility to energize the Republican base and to get them to the polls. His recent statements in support of gay adoption and gay Boy Scout leaders do little to improve his credibility as a conservative or as a Republican.
Previous to 2012, Romney might have had a better chance to redeem himself.
But today, an alternate, more principled nominee with a history of strong character is more likely to be believed, and would serve both the Republican Party and our nation much better in 2012.
May God Bless, Help, and Direct America!
May God bless, help, and direct America… starting with the Republican Convention on August 27- 30, 2012.
Numerous moral and ethical leaders have indicated that this election is the most important election of a lifetime, an election which will determine the future character of America; strong, responsible and autonomous nation, or bankrupt dissolute welfare state. The movie 2016 predicts disaster for America if Barack Obama is re-elected on November 6th.
What’s at Stake: Can the People (2/3 of America) Be Highjacked by Media and Politicians (Democrat and Republican), or Does Our Democratic System Still Work?
This is your day to call the shots, so you should.
O.K., if I had an ounce of self-restraint left before the Wisconsin primary coming up this Tuesday, this fortune cookie just eliminated it.
I’m going to call the shots.
What shots would I like to call today?
The 2012 Presidential election, of course.
Something I have little control over, so the results are bound to be amusing.
Calling the Shots
If you call the shots, you are in charge and you tell people what to do.
But calling the shots can also mean using a psychological trick: you “call the shot” in advance, forecasting a result, hoping to influence people’s choices, so that you encourage your favored result.
Calling the Shots in Advance
And that seems to be what the Republican Party is doing right now- calling the shots in advance.
The Republican establishment probably never planned that Mitt Romney would get serious competition from any of his running mates, and now that he’s getting some serious competition from Rick Santorum, they are scrambling to discourage that. They are bringing out the big guns, party leaders who are endorsing Mitt Romney prematurely, when Mitt has only 565 of the necessary 1144 delegates to win the primary.
Republicans have not bargained on an awakening of the American people, a scenario in which politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle would have to become more responsive to their electorates (and responsive to Tea Party supporters) than they previously had been. It’s a lot easier to sit in comfy chairs making small polite concessions to opponents followed by socializing after work, than to implement the big changes and make the big cuts that many Americans want in 2012, and which will cut some of the frills in Washington, too.
So many Republicans are rallying behind Mitt Romney prematurely, hoping to discourage Rick Santorum, and hoping that Rick Santorum will concede and quit. This would avoid a long, drawn-out primary, followed by a “brokered” or “contested” convention, during which the Republican establishment will have less control over the results, and the American people will have more control over the results.
Calling the shots in advance did not work so well 4 years ago, when everybody was forecasting that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee. Obama was a nobody. Yet we have President Nobody issuing mandates today, and the Supreme Court struggling to read the 2700 pages of his NobodyCares for ObamaCare. Calling the Shots in advance backfired on the Democrats in 2008.
Then there was President Harding in 1920, who was a nobody with only 20% of the candidates compared with his opponent (General Leonard Wood) in the primary. If anybody were calling the shots in advance back then, he would have lost the primary. But what happened? Nobody won the initial race, and they went to a contested or brokered convention, where Harding got 70% of the votes and became President.
Now, for the first time since 1920, we could be heading for a contested or brokered convention again. Although Mitt Romney unquestionably has the most delegates at this time, it is not clear whether Romney will be able to reach the 1144 required to win.
Everybody wants to forecast events before they occur. I will join them.
Santorum is rapidly gaining on Romney: Gallup Polls indicate that Romney and Santorum are competing closely, and are alternating in the lead during the last two months.
Santorum plans to stay in the election. So, there could well be a brokered convention.
Santorum is a true conservative. Tea party likes him. Evangelicals like him.
Gallup also says that most Americans are conservative: 40% conservative, 35% moderate, and only 21% liberal. Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Romney is a question mark. Romney has a shifting record that does not guarantee his sticking to promises any better than Obama has done. He takes direction well and changes direction well. He would be better than Obama, but not better than Santorum.
Syte Reitz grew up in Queens, New York, in a family of Lithuanian immigrants who fled Nazi and Soviet domination during World War II. Her education includes a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, and post-doctoral work at Princeton University. Syte left her job as an Assistant Professor at Oakland University, Michigan, to devote herself to raising her children, and ultimately homeschooled them through the end of high school. She is a member of Madison's Cathedral Parish.