The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

“Lack Of A Coalition. . .Is Nature’s Way Of Saying Something’s Wrong”

Posted on | December 1, 2011 | 17 Comments

by Smitty

I don’t know if Quigley’s sad little attempt at divide-and-conquer in The Hill is worth a RTWT, but these lines are a hoot:

Because right now the hard-hat Republican base has commandeered the party. It retreats to a degenerative state and doesn’t have a chance against President Obama. The varying support and lack of coalition around a candidate is nature’s way of saying something’s wrong.

There had been an allusion to the 70’s distinction of “hippies v. hard hats” earlier in the article. Quigley seems so scared of saying Tea Party, in his attempt to goad Sara Palin into declaring a run:

Sarah Palin, still a paid commentator I believe for Fox, should go direct on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show — he the honest, courageous dean of free comment today — and say this: “I am thinking of entering the Republican primary campaign.”

A sentence so tortured, it looks like one of mine.

The Left cannot seem to grasp that a vocal chunk of Americans really care more about liberty than this or that personality. You read the news: the Attorney General is a thug, the Federal Reserve is expending the last of our economic vitality on Europe, the Middle East is on the brink of a full-on regional war, the welfare state entitlements are strangling any future hope. You realize that statesmanship is more about having the correct principles and being committed to them than it is about having excellent sound bites and a swell personality.

I’m writing Sarah Palin in during the primary, and I hope she doesn’t declare until the last legally possible moment, mostly in protest and rejection of the existing, defunct political system.

via Ginthegin

Category: Sarah Palin

Comments

17 Responses to ““Lack Of A Coalition. . .Is Nature’s Way Of Saying Something’s Wrong””

  1. richard mcenroe
    December 1st, 2011 @ 11:41 am

    Lack of a coalition?  70+% of the GOP don’t want Romney.  The rest is details.

  2. Andrew Patrick
    December 1st, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

    Gingrich is a hard hat?

    That’s the lamest political dig in recent memory.

  3. Tennwriter
    December 1st, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

    What we have is an attempt at shuffling the chairs at the power table.  A new guy, strong, sensible, and patient has lost a lot of cool, and is telling the old busted guy to get up from the head of the table, and go sit at the foot of the table. OBG aka RINOs are clinging to their chair with all their might, trying to force things to stay the same, or at least get a goody gift out of the change.

    Thus…lack of a coalition.  That is the threat hanging in the background.  Someone might storm out of the room and walk away.  Problem is, the RINOs always used that threat, and now it looks like the Conservatives are A. Willing to call their bluff. B. Don’t care if its not a bluff.  C. Downright tempted to do the same if they have too Real Soon Now, in electoral term terms.  To say, if we get too totally messed over this time, the chances of a third party next term with say Sarah Palin/Rick Santorum for Constituitional American Party rise dramatically in 2016.  Which is to say, the GOP better do right…now…or kiss theirselves goodbye.

  4. Joe
    December 1st, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

    This is about as stupid as claiming Ginrich is a tea party candidate http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/30/so-what-would-happen-if-obama-won/ (Yes Hot Air goes there)

    Richard nails it, Perry and Cain has imploded.  Gingrich is more of a reaction to not wanting Romney than love of Newt. 

  5. Joe
    December 1st, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

    And I hope Jazz Shaw was intending in that HA article that Gingrich is a “tea party” candidate due to tea party opposition to Romney.  The tea party opposition to Romney is true, but Gingrich is NOT a tea party figure.  Not at all. 

  6. Steve in TN
    December 1st, 2011 @ 12:56 pm

    Response to Joe:

    This is about as stupid as claiming Ginrich is a tea party candidate http://hotair.com/archives/201… (Yes Hot Air goes there)

    Richard nails it, Perry and Cain has imploded.  Gingrich is more of a reaction to not wanting Romney than love of Newt.

    I don’t know about that…  There seems to be a real sense of a coalition coalescing (heh) about Newt.  Here’s one example in Florida from William Jacobson:

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LegalInsurrection/~3/GboHkjwNNc0/

    As he says, GOP voters have been looking for a fighter – beyond that, a competent fighter – to battle Obama (how’s that for torturing the sentence).  Newt has been fighting the proper entities, too (media, moderators, Obama, on occassion the foolish co-debater like Paul).  Lot’s of folk who once backed Palin or another candidate are now behind Newt.  I must confess that I’m very tempted.

  7. Adjoran
    December 1st, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

    Have a tissue, Buttercup.

    Conservatives haven’t held all the reins of power in Washington yet.  In 2008, a neo-Marxist (albeit in sheep’s clothing) won the most votes ever for a Presidential candidate and Democrats maintained their majorities in both House and Senate.  Pundits were writing about the “emerging Democratic majority” in the country.  One good midterm doesn’t signal a New Era by itself.

    Not satisfied with the GOP field?  Keep the box of tissues.  We’ve had ONE Reagan, ever.  Was the field so impressive in ’88 or ’96 or ’00 or ’08?  One of the frequent complaints this time in 1979 was that the field was weak and unimpressive overall – and that included Reagan, who was thought too old by many.  The conservatives in that field were Phil Crane and Bob Dole, and John Connally was a Wall Street conservative, too.  Reagan had raised taxes and spending in California as Governor, the RINO.

    Nobody promised this would be easy, and there never has been a guarantee the nominee would be conservatives’ first or even third choice.  Cowboy up – or if politics is just too mean for your tastes, too emotional draining for your delicate sensibilities, join a sewing circle.

  8. serfer62
    December 1st, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

    I remember The Lizard as Speaker & cannot imagine him as POTUS because of his speakership.
    ORomneys boats sailed & sank.
    I will not vote another Dole, McNasty, rino, DC GOP EVER.
    Go Green, recycle congress with newbies

  9. DaveO
    December 1st, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

    Folks focus on the POTUS because it’s genetic to look for a single king/savior/messiah. Folks tend to forget it’s the down-ticket elections, including the Judiciary that truly matter.

    Obama, for good or ill, hasn’t done a damned thing to any of us. Congress, under PelosiBoehner and Reid, along with a Federal bench with the jurisprudence of Neitsche at his craziest, and the czars behaving all czaristically – those folks have well and truly destroyed the America we once knew.

    Obamacare – product of Congress. Obama doesn’t know the mechanics of law-making, whether in the Illinois or the US Senate. Stimulus, TARP, GM heist: PelosiBohnerReid, czars, aided and abetted by judges. Today nothing can be repealed, stopped, or even slowed down, even if Obama wanted to, which he doesn’t because he hasn’t been told to want to stop it. 

    Obama by himself couldn’t order lunch without an aide.

    The prevailing philosophy of President as Superman is the cruelest myth we foist on voters.

  10. edward royce
    December 1st, 2011 @ 3:25 pm

    The question isn’t whether or not Gingrich can be elected President.

    The question is how much, how often and to what degree would Gingrich totally fcuk things up as President because of his tendency to be all over the map.  Gingrich simply does not have actual core principles.  Instead he has flexible principles that let him say whatever it is that people want to hear that will get him stuff.  This is why people can look back through history and find Gingrich being on every side of every issue.

    Gingrich’s thing is promoting Gingrich.  And surer path to absolute disaster there never has been.

  11. Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
    December 1st, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

    “You read the news: the Attorney General is a thug, the Federal Reserve is expending the last of our economic vitality on Europe, the Middle East is on the brink of a full-on regional war, the welfare state entitlements are strangling any future hope. You realize that statesmanship is more about having the correct principles and being committed to them than it is about having excellent sound bites and a swell personality.”

    Awesome, Smitty.  You are sounding more and more like a fellow Paul supporter.  Welcome to the club!

  12. richard mcenroe
    December 1st, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

    Let’s see, I’ve got Joan Crawford and Norma Desmond trying to outbitch each other online and a documented serial philander taking time off from his busy schedule of schmoozing the K Street lobbyists to give him money to, um, not be one of them to meet with a documented serial bankruptcy reality TV host, and this is the dialogue for the future of my country.

    Time to go back to porn, I think…

  13. ThePaganTemple
    December 1st, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

    Take a good close look at Obama’s Cabinet Secretaries and agencies like the EPA, the NLRB, etc., and then come back and tell us Obama hasn’t really done anything to us.

  14. elaine
    December 1st, 2011 @ 11:14 pm

    Smitty, I’m right there with you voting Palin in my primary.  I want the GOP establishment to know they don’t have my support.  I’d rather “throw away” my vote on someone not in the race than give it to any of the odious jerks who’ve announced.

    For everyone who says we have to settle for the least worst candidate, I’ll simply add: that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in, where republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives get to DC and immediately climb on the spending train with their democrat brethren.  We keep electing the “least worst’ candidate, and how does it work out for us?  Last I checked, we’re at $15 trillion in debt and climbing, and no one in the GOP has the cajones for actually cutting spending.  There’s plenty of waste, fraud, and graft to cut, yet they can’t seem to work up the nerve.  Any time they talk a little too loudly about cutting anything, the dems play the same demonization game, and the republicans cave.

    Americans had to draft Washington to serve.  I’m hoping we can make it work again… 

  15. Bob Belvedere
    December 2nd, 2011 @ 8:23 am

    From your lips to God’s ears.

    As I have stated before, I will be voting for Mrs. Palin in my state’s primary.

    And I’m thinking seriously thinking of not voting for the GOP nominee if it is Newton or Willard, even though I know that I may contribute to the re-election of the Marxist-In-Chief.  I may do this, knowing full well that Adjoran’s predictions may come true, because it may be time to let the whole  thing come to a head and squeeze it. 

    We cannot let the situation as it is continue.  That situation is a slow ride down The Road To Serfdom towards Totalitarianism.

    The time for excepting the lesser of two very clear Evils may be over, as it was for The Founders in the early 1770’s [Loyal Tory or John Dickinson’s way].

    The American System may be so corrupted that it can no longer be hammered back into shape.  A new version may have to be manufactured – this time with more checks and balances built-in.  Of course, achieving that will not matter in the long-run if we fail to reprogram our way of thinking and reject all aspects of Leftism.  Perhaps the trauma of disunion will reboot our brains.

    While I haven’t decided this is the way to go, I am certainly leaning towards this strategy.

    WOLVERINES!

  16. richard mcenroe
    December 2nd, 2011 @ 11:01 am

    Bob, as long as there’s one candidate on the ballot who is not Newt or Mitt, I cannot see doing that.  But I will NOT be a willing accomplice to the RNC again.  I watched them DESTROY candidacies in California by forcing local party volunteers to push Fiorina and Whitman long after they both were patently dead in the water.  I was one of those volunteers, and the RNC cost the House at least one and maybe three GOP Congress seats from CA.

    If it’s Newt or Mitt I’m with you, and I’ll keep on working for my local candidates, good men and women all.

  17. Bob Belvedere
    December 2nd, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

    Disqus generic email templateSpoken like a true WOLVERINE!
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Disqus
    To: robert.belvedere@gmail.com
    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:01 AM
    Subject: [theothermccain] Re: “Lack Of A Coalition. . .Is Nature’s Way Of Saying Something’s Wrong”

    richard mcenroe wrote, in response to Bob Belvedere:

    Bob, as long as there’s one candidate on the ballot who is not Newt or Mitt, I cannot see doing that. But I will NOT be a willing accomplice to the RNC again. I watched them DESTROY candidacies in California by forcing local party volunteers to push Fiorina and Whitman long after they both were patently dead in the water. I was one of those volunteers, and the RNC cost the House at least one and maybe three GOP Congress seats from CA.
    If it’s Newt or Mitt I’m with you, and I’ll keep on working for my local candidates, good men and women all.
    Link to comment