Comments

Election Day in one week — 51 Comments

1. I am very nervous too.

   I am worried about massive voter fraud in NC, IA and CO.

2. What villainy would more frazzle the nerves? The villainy of the Democrats winning, or, intraParty villainy?

3. Or… intraParty villainy:
   http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/tension_flares_between_scott_walker_and_chris_christie.html

4. I’m not nervous. I just realize dems and rinos have the game locked up, through mostly nefarious means. Any truly honest politician that happens to make it through will be destroyed, or broken. Most of it is just a dog and pony show. I can’t allow myself to be made nervous by a fiction.

   Is there hope? Of course. I hope my faith isn’t outlawed through unconstitutional pressures to force priests to “marry” gays and lesbians, among many other infractions. I hope I am not arrested, or shot, for believing in the constitution or bill of rights. I hope leos and the military don’t become tools for the American hating activists in control. Sure, I hope.

5. I am still anticipating an “October Surprise” and really dreading just what that might be.

6. The Georgia senate race is really neck-and-neck, with tons of money being thrown into ads

   The Dems’ get-out-the-vote effort is in high gear and lots of early voting is taking place. God only knows what the donks’ ground game is this year, or how much “street money” they’re passing around….

7. These close elections remind me of Hugh Hewitt’s book, “If It’s Not Close They Can’t Cheat”. Close races remind me of Senator Al Franken.

   http://www.amazon.com/Its-Close-They-Cant-Cheat-ebook/dp/B007V919OE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414526811&sr=8-1&keywords=If+it%27s+not+close+they+cant+cheat

8. with Obama as president, and lacking enough votes to override a veto, their hands are somewhat tied.

   It’s not the obvious superficial limitations and opponents they need to worry about. It’s the invisible ones in DC.

9. Neo: It seemed that even the candidate I didn’t like wasn’t going to do all that much damage

   thats only because you didnt know what they were doing and your memory was such (as is most peoples) that you forgot things that would have informed you more of such things.

   examples: Bill Clinton pardoned lots of people, remember this name from Clintons pardons? Do you remember what Eric Holder had to do with the Rich pardon?

   there is also the point that when doing things, as in chess, you hide things in front of people. but there comes a time when the remaining moves no longer seem obscure, and so, you see the current moves as a certain way, but forget the past moves that set it up.

   it takes either research going back, or it takes a memory that doesnt forget. most people forget, which is not a negative, as that is the normal thing, but some dont forget.

   remember when we had the discussions as to the missile fired off the coast of california? how many contrails before AND AFTER did we mix up with missile launches? its the only one in history, yes?

   the game is like reading a mystery book where little things matter, but are buried in a sea of other little things that dont matter.

   Neo: Despite their differences, everyone running seemed to have our interests at heart, and although they might disagree on how best to meet those interests, there were some basic assumptions on which we all agreed, including the need to protect this country and the free world.

   that is untrue… it all depended on whether you were looking at the surface, or looking at things in depth and doing some research.

   if you think that open borders are bad now, did you think so when Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was passed?

   its just that then, you did not know enough to realize how bad it was, or is. or that its purpose was to cover the massive decline in births for people of european lineage… ie. you as everyone else, looked at total populations, and total births, not a breakdown of each, so that you would realize that the european lineages were being exterminated by ideas rather than ovens… like convincing someone to commit suicide, but easier since you convince them to take actions that create the desired end result, but seem innocuous, or ok as they were wrapped up in the false doctrines of liberation, and or freedom, etc

   in fact, you as most others did not look at this as what it is, the communization of the US…

   would you look at the fall of the soviet union as the end of communism? or was it a caterpillar becoming a butterfly? it was the domain of tin hats to look and realize the great game was still being played, and that with open borders, and so forth, the enemy was getting tons of stuff that under the prior version of the game they could not get..

   did you care that Clinton was a fulbright scholar to the soviet union? or that the man put in jail for taking chinese bribes, got 800 thousand back from ms clinton so he could pay back what he took? (Norman Hsu)

   its akin to the waking up a child goes through that an adult has completed. the concepts that drive an adults life are alien to the child, until the child has to become an adult..

   Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

   This is the psychopathic way

   the psychopath does not want you to realize what they are and what they do. they pretend to be a friend to be close, and they tell you what you want to hear, and they hide their machinations from you. as long as you are not suspicious of them, you dont see any issues or problems. but the moment a crack appears, then things start to fall into place, and you start to wake up from this view point and then start to come to terms with being used… after all, if you tell someone your using them, they will not let you. so the game is touse them, and make them feel otherwise.

   once you wake up to the more adult games of this sort, you cant go back. you start to look with an eye you lacked in the past.

   America’s old enemy is still there, plotting the overthrow of capitalism. But this is a paradox because communism supposedly died 23 years ago. What died, of course, was something different. What actually died was the practice of admitting to communist beliefs. That is what died! The fashion today — in Russia and China, the U.S. and Europe, Latin America and Africa — is to deny that one is a communist. Thus, Nelson Mandela was not a communist, but a “democrat.” Hugo Chavez was not a communist but a “populist.” President Xi Jinping is not a communist, but a “pragmatist.” Vladimir Putin is not a communist but a “Christian.” And so the game is played, around the world, so that nobody is a communist except those who wear a red beanie, or have a hammer and sickle emblazoned on their forehead.

   And who would be such an idiot and wear such a beanie? Only a fool would say that he is coming to tear down capitalism; for the capitalists have money and power, and they will resist any open or direct assault on their position. Therefore the communist label interferes with the accomplishment of the communist goal because even a relatively clueless businessmen instinctively fears expropriation. Therefore, the advance of communism must be a dissimulative process in which the communists take over under a “progressive” banner, promising better medical care and better living conditions. Or as Lenin promised the Russian people in 1917, “Our policy is bread and peace!” Their campaign gives itself away, however, by its envious telltale, and by the husbanding of destructive forces and impulses — especially by keeping alive the memory of past injustices and those tragedies of history which can be credibly blamed on “greed,” or on the “rich.” But in truth it is not the “rich” we have to fear. For wealth is not the same as evil.

10. Artfldgr:

    Once again, you are incorrect. I remember very well.

    I have already said (many times, actually) that back then I did not follow politics closely, and although I followed the news an average amount I was unaware of what I was missing because all my news sources were liberal.

    Plus, I wrote explicitly, in this post “I may or may not have been correct about this. But it was a strong perception, and I was hardly alone in it; it was the prevailing feeling.”

    I am speaking of perceptions, not whether they were correct or not.

    However, I continue to think that back in the olden days (even including Carter) the divide on national defense, for example, was not as wide as it is now. But of course, Carter and others did damage (just look at Iran, just to take one example). Do you really think I’m not aware of that sort of thing?

    You are condescending as all get out. But much of your condescension is based on a misunderstanding of what other people actually think, know, and remember.

11. It might be wishful thinking on my part, but it feels like Jonl Ernst will win. Bruce Braley has stumbled several times and lacks charisma. MO campaigned for him and repeatedly referred to him as Bruce Bailey to the amusement of many Iowans. Otoh Ernst has a very likable personality and her campaign adds are fantastic. Plus, bho is not popular here, nor are his policies. His name may not be printed on the ballot, but this election is all about him.

12. I have strong foreboding rather than optimism. I imagine that many liberals have the same feelings. So, we are far more polarized than in the 1980s and 1990s.

    In the 20th Century, even though I voted mostly against conservatives, I had plenty of disagreement with liberal orthodoxies. I was a middle of the roader; not too concerned with which party dominated. I was disgusted with Carter’s appeasing, so voted protest – John Anderson.

    In 2000, I watched all the debates carefully. I noticed that Jim Lehrer didn’t even ask Bush and Gore about the USS Cole bombing. I recall that Lehrer’s questions were mostly about how to spread the American bounty to more people, i.e., govt programs v. free-market prosperity. For me it was a toss up between Bush and Gore; I decided to vote for Bush because I thought, in general, Republicans would be better in a national security challenge. (I was sure right about that!) But in 2000, during the Florida recount, I didn’t care that much about which way it would be decided.

13. Alan F at 4:36 PM:

    “I have strong foreboding rather than optimism.”

    I do as well, and that feeling has only intensified as I watch the GOP types getting prematurely cocky (while the national MSM lowers everyone’s expectations about the Dems’ prospects).

    Pride goeth before the Fall, too good to be true, and all that.

14. Carl in Atlanta,

    “Pride goeth before destruction”, not a fall. I hate to correct such a popular misquote, but it is more prophetic that way, do you not think?

15. I see 2014 midterms going down about like the 2010 midterms did, with massive Republican gains.

    It’s 2016 that I fret. Even if the Rs can elect a president that year, does anyone think the media is magically going to change? The next R president is going to get slimed by the Ds and the media, working in concert, just as with Bush. It takes an extraordinary person to withstand it. The only one to do so was Reagan. But they’re much more intense about it now than they were with Reagan.

16. Terry Hoover:

    Touché! Here’s the full quote of Proverbs 16:18 (King James version): “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

    Even more apt.

17. Libertarians share a trait with liberals: they are into self-congratulation. They can tel themselves they are principled, intellectual, sophisticated people even if they help elect a Democrat. Splinter libertarian style candidates provided the Dems the margin of victory in Senate races in Minnesota, Oregon and Montana leading up to the Obama presidency. And those Dem senators were all needed to pass Obamacare.

18. Here in South Central WI, I see far more Walker signs than Burke ones, so I have hopes that the forces of Good will prevail on those of Darkness. But I still worry, as Madison and Milwaukee are locked Democrat. I have no doubt that the Democrats are quite capable of voter fraud in Madison, and Milwaukee.

19. It’s hard to read these tea leaves. There are cracks appearing in the Democratic machine, which some say indicate a wave. It’s a hopeful argument, but most of the evidence for a wave is anecdotal and inferential, not numbers from the races.

    Still, some “fortune” seems to be on the Republican side, mainly how the Ebola crisis has diminished the amount of negative attention usually heaped on the Republicans while, on the other hand, indicating federal incompetence. Obama couldn’t have been more helpful. There are few if none high profile gaffes from Republicans. In fact, the opposite as Joni Ernst shows remarkable political ability and other candidates debate well and stay resilient. The gaffes, this time, belong to the Democrats.

    But we’ve all seen and deep down fear that the close ones go to the Democrats. No wave yet, but there is a swell, and it would be swell if that swell waved as November surges by.

20. As 2010, these races will hugely turn on the popularity — and policies — of the Wan.

    But without him at the head of the ticket, OfA will REALLY have to hack its way to victory.

    Demorcats sweat because Blacks, a mainstay of support, are notorious for not voting in off-year elections.

    Not withstanding the juiced BLS stats, a staggering fraction of wage-age Americans are unemployed — or fake employed.

    Fake employed: instant ‘consultant’ — the moment anyone hangs out his shingle, he’s off the unemployed statistic. That he’s operating at a dead loss is irrelevant.

    All over CraigsList you can find adverts for trunk-slamming blue collar service ‘talent’ — all willing to work at ruinous prices.

    When I visit my dentist, he’s top notch, how can I fail to note that his calendar is virtually clear? And he’s not the only dentist, and I’m in a better part of town, too. (My dentist is across the street from Intel’s huge facility. Take a clue.)

    My attorney is hurting for custom.

    All local real estate agents are in despair — and need anti-depressants.

    Even the movie theater is pathetic… again, this is the wealthy part of town… the hillsides are littered with multi-million dollar homes… by their hundreds. (!)

    Such realities have to mean that High Involvement Voters are sure to be in a snit.

    Governor Moonbeam has actually lost the White vote in California. (!) Normally, a liberal Democrat governor in an improving economy would be untouchable.

    Our boy is safe, though. He owns the illegal alien vote.

    I’d say that the rural and suburban vote goes massively to the GOP.

    I’d say that the ghetto vote (Latino/ Black) goes massively to the Democrats, so too the ‘Academic vote.’

    The coal states, oil states, gas states are big trouble for the Democrats.

    I figure that the GOP ought to get to at least 52-3 seats in the Senate; and pick up a few more House seats.

    I see Pelosi being turfed out in a bitter party squabble next January… if she even wants to return.

    &&&

    The big issue that ought to swing voters is President Obola.

    At $ 2,000,00 per patient, America needs to scale up its giving.

    [ Each ebola-victim forces an entire army of experts to mobilize… Starting with back-tracers… A cascade of astounding expenses erupts: ICUs emptied on virtually no notice… etc.]

    President Obola is on course to have every travelling American quarantined when they travel overseas. Just think about THAT risk.

21. “But (as I’ve explained many times) they are so much better than the alternative that it seems important to give them a chance, or at least to throw somewhat of a monkey wrench into the left’s inexorable march to permanent control.”

    I’m in favor of giving them another chance but if “they are so much better than the alternative” how many chances should they need? How many more chances must we give them?

    “So, what happens if the Republicans do as well next week as I hope? Then they will need to show us it was worth voting for them.”

    The greater the majority, the greater the political leverage. Only one third of the Senate is up for election, so a modest majority is the best that can be hoped for, making substantial correction of Obama’s agenda unlikely. Proof of ‘worth’ is a subjective determinant. But the more critical to survival, the less ambivalent is consensus as to worth.

    “But we need to be realistic: with Obama as president, and lacking enough votes to override a veto, their hands are somewhat tied. They should pass a lot of bills to show what they would like to do, and challenge him to veto them. They should use the tools that Democrats handed them (no filibuster for judicial appointments) to tie up his judicial nominations. They need to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.”

    Anything less would be evidence of insincerity upon the GOP’s part, yes?

    “And somehow (I don’t know how, if Obama chooses to do it through executive action, as has been threatened), they need to block amnesty, and strengthen the border.”

    “Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), says it’s “un-American” for President Barack Obama to consider implementing an executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens across the country.”

    I’m sure that all would agree that POV to be encouraging. Priebus was careful however, not to say that the GOP is against amnesty per se, just amnesty by Presidential fiat. He did insist that the border needs to be secured before any further talk of immigration but given that everyone knows that no matter what the law, Obama is NOT going to enforce it, that’s at best, disingenuous on Priebus’ part. No indication of reduced support of the GOP for Amnesty itself, makes probable the likelihood that Congress will pass amnesty for 34+MILLION illegals.

    And if they do I have but one question.

    Will that be proof enough that further ‘chances’ for the GOP are a waste of effort or will we once again hear the refrain that they be given another chance “to show us it was worth voting for them”?…

22. trunk-slamming blue collar service ‘talent’

    What is that? Carpet layers and home builders, for example?

    But you’re right. Now’s a good time to get work done, both white and blue collar. Hopefully that translates into anti-Democrat anger.

23. Geoffrey Britain:

    People tend to forget that Republicans have only had control of Congress and the presidency one time since the Eisenhower administration. So it’s not as though they had so many opportunities. And they’ve only had control of Congress even without the presidency twice since Eisenhower.

    One of those times two times when Republicans controlled Congress was during the Clinton (D) administration, the Contract With America era. They actually tried pretty hard that time, until they lost the shutdown battle (in the eyes of America, in terms of public opinion). America might have elected them, but it wanted them to compromise to avoid a shutdown, even though conservatives didn’t want it.

    The second time Republicans controlled Congress, of course, was during the middle part of the Bush (R) administration. I think that particular time is considered a real betrayal by many conservatives, and it very much rankles. I think it was partly due to the focus on the War on Terror, but also that Bush just was not much of a conservative leader on domestic issues.

    But I am really really really tired of conservatives acting as though Republicans had so many chances to do so much, so many times, and blew them. They are really talking about one time since the 1950s, George Bush’s middle 4 years (from the 2002 election to the 2006 election).

    Have the Republicans learned a lesson by now? I don’t think we’ll get a full chance to see what they would like to do, even if they dominate Congress in this election, because Obama will still be president.

    Of course, if they get Congress in 2014, keep it in 2016 AND elect a Republican president, and don’t do what you would like, then that’s a better test of their usefulness/uselessness. Or, if they get Congress in 2014 and give in to Obama on amnesty, I will be the first to condemn them.

    It also depends what is meant by “give in” on amnesty, though. There are many possible conservative approaches to the problem, but they all must begin with securing the border for real.

    See charts here about control of Congress and the presidency over time.

24. “everyone running seemed to have our interests at heart.”

    Glad to see that I wasn’t the only naé¯ve one back in the day!

    Yea, it would be great if the Republicans didn’t play nice and did hold Obama’s feet to the fire; but, they don’t because they know all too well that the press would throw them into the fire if they did so.

25. charles:

    That’s what happened in the mid-90s.

26. Maybe we need to see the issue in another light. Maybe our fears our mirages. Maybe the future will provide.

    all the fetters we thought were there:
    and staying. Comprised of the air
    blown in, blown out by our lungs:
    they were not there; we were wrong

27. Neo,

    You make many valid points and I am cognizant of ‘Don’t Let Perfect Be The Enemy Of Good’. That said, despite the GOP not having a majority, IMO they have not fought nearly as hard as they might have and I offer the House’s performance under Boehner as evidence.

    Re: “Of course, if they get Congress in 2014, keep it in 2016 AND elect a Republican president, and don’t do what you would like, then that’s a better test of their usefulness/uselessness.”

    It’s NOT a case of my judgement resting upon the GOP ‘doing what I would like’. It’s a case of the GOP’s actions consistently and repeatedly profoundly violating their own professed principles, it amounting to not just a betrayal of their base but of America itself.

    As example, I point to the GOP leadership’s adamant support for Amnesty. This despite vociferous objection from their base and 70% disapproval from the public at large. In addition, talk of ‘first secure the border’ is literally denial of reality because we all know that Obama and the democrats are not, under any circumstance, going to willingly allow that to happen. They’ll fight it, even if in the minority.

    The GOP, especially if they retake the Senate will be on trial with more and more conservatives for if it is not to be a case of too little, too late… the GOP must do far more than merely pay lip service to its purported principles.

    Today, more than ever, actions speak louder than words.

28. Geoffrey Britain:

    I wrote it as “do what you like” purposely.

    You know why? Because everybody has a different bottom line for what is conservative enough to please them.

    For example, immigration reform. Some conservatives want nothing—absolutely no giving in on anything; deport everyone!—except a closed border. Some would accept some sort of worker permit program.

    Some said that Republicans should have shut down the government rather than give in on the debt ceiling. Some thought that would be political suicide.

    See what I mean? Your definition of “the GOP’s actions consistently and repeatedly profoundly violating their own professed principles” is different from that of some other person who might consider him/herself to be a conservative as well, and consider you to be a far-right fanatic.

    And I don’t really mean YOU; I mean anyone with opinions to the right of that other person.

29. I am far less nervous or anxious than I have been in any previous general election (Presidential or Midterm). This is mostly due to my overall cynicism about the impact of elections and the efficacy of elected officials (at least at the federal level) in our post modern administrative-judicial hegemony. I’m not one of those “No difference between Democrats and Republican” whiners. There is plenty of difference, and control of Congress and the Presidency has a significant impact on public policy. Nonetheless, the difference is largely between a localized cancer or one with metastasis. No cure, just a question of the progression of the disease.

    That being said, I already voted straight Republican ticket (as little as that matters in my deep blue area of western Washington). My cynicism leads me to a very simple standard for voting in a general election:

    A) Is the GOP candidate likely to loyally vote with the caucus on procedural matters, and not pull a Jeffords or a Specter?

    B) Is the GOP candidate very unlikely to say or do something so offensive, so obnoxious, and so moronic, that he will damage the GOP brand beyond his own election/office?

    If the answer to both of those questions is no, the GOP candidate has my vote. Period.

    I think a planned October surprise is highly unlikely at this point. It’s getting too close to the election (especially given the amount of early voting already happening) for it to have maximum impact. An unplanned October surprise is still possible. Two possibilities I envision are another massive, tragic school shooting (much bigger than the one in Marysville), immediately exploited by leftist demagogues and their MSM enablers or a prominent GOP candidate or two making idiotic, offensive comments (or comments that can be spun as idiotic and offensive) a la Todd Akin and replayed ad nauseam in the MSM. But again, either would have to happen awfully soon (I’d say by Friday) to have a significant impact.

    Ultimately I think the GOP will take the Senate, and likely beyond the bare minimum. I predict a net gain either of seven or eight seats. Ideally, we want a cushion on election night in case Louisiana or Georgia go to a runoff. We don’t want to give the left an opportunity to demagogue and/or cheat their way to a majority in one localized election

    The GOP will also post modest gains in the House (likely no more than 10 seats) and roughly break even on the governorships. I agree with Neo that a Scott Walker victory is paramount, and I would happily trade three or four other governorships to ensure this victory. But I think he will win. Having been born and raised in Wisconsin, it always seems as though opinion solidifies early and does not really change during the course of the campaign. Look up the gubernatorial polling and results for 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2012 and the Senate polling/results for 2010 and 2012 if you want evidence. Walker has pretty much consistently led in most polls, even if sometimes within the margin of error. So, he’ll likely pull it off by 3-4%

    So, a week from now we’ll be relieved and happy with a decent night for the GOP. And then? I don’t see Obama evolving in any way. While they will beat their breasts and demonstrate astroturf reflection, I don’t see the Democratic party taking the results to heart one iota. All will be focused on 2016 and the likely conflict, acrimony and bombast of the 114th Congress vis-a-vis the Administration will inform the run up to 2016 greatly. Do Boehner and McConnell (assuming he wins and is not defeated for the leadership) have the cojones in such a struggle? I doubt it.

30. Those with character, who were part of the 47%, are waking up. It’s enough to make a difference. Byzantium will survive.

31. Rolly Polly Carl Rove is predicting great things. It’s therefore my duty to inform y’all there will be great disappointment for republicans. I don’t know what the dummies will do to blow it, but I’m with Kaba; they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

32. Ackler:

    Gingrich had the cojones. But it didn’t matter, did it?

33. Neo,

    I think it mattered to a certain extent, but he wilted too quickly in the face of Clinton. But that was 18-20 years ago. Unfortunately, this country is far further along in the march towards the hegemony of the administrative state and the dominance of leftists in most of our cultural institutions. I don’t know how conservatives can ever succeed in pushing back this tide. But I do know any successful effort will not be based primarily on winning federal elections.

34. “everybody has a different bottom line for what is conservative enough to please them.”

    Very true and irrelevant. Of course there’s a spectrum of opinion nor is 100% consensus achievable. But a consensus consisting of a strong majority is a realistic goal and, to achieve that consensus only requires that the GOP’s actions be, in general, consistent with their professed principles. We can readily accept occasional lapses, just on the major issues hold their ground for otherwise, the cultural and political war is already lost.

    It’s not a case of us needing to be ‘pleased’. It’s a case of ‘saying what you mean and meaning what you say’. It’s a case of basic honesty in regard to the survival of our country. Nothing less is at stake and the GOP leadership has to know that to be the case.

    All we’re really asking is that the GOP be as dedicated to our side’s principles, as are the democrats to theirs and, isn’t it revoltingly ironic that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al are demonstrably far more loyal to their side, than is the GOP to ours?

35. By nature I have a sunny disposition, but (as some others have already stated) it’s over folks.

    If you believe in the founding principles of this country you believe a central, federal government is a necessary evil and should be limited to 14 enumerated powers that are checked by the three branches of government, and, most importantly the 10th Amendment and the states continually fighting to retain the rights reserved to them by the Constitution.

    Why does anyone who believes the above think they can get this country back on that track by electing strong politicians to federal positions of power? The odds of another politician with the talent of Reagan coming along are slim to none, and EVEN REAGAN GREW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The federal government will not stop the federal government from increasing its power. The federal government will not stop the federal government usurping power from the states.

    There aren’t enough Conservatives in this country to win the fight and most Conservatives have bought into the folly of elected, Federal officials saving the nation, if only we get the right Federal officials in office. It cannot happen at the Federal level. It has to happen at the local level. States attorneys’ generals and governors need to sue the federal government to get their rights back.

    The 17th Amendment has to be repealed (make Senators work for the states, not Washington and K Street).

    The 16th Amendment has to be repealed (take away their source of funds, make Congress levy consumption taxes, as intended by the Founders).

    And here’s the real bad news: We have a majority electorate who don’t even know the Constitution has Amendments (I’d hate to see the statistics on how many registered voters even know we have a Constitution).

    A majority of our countrymen and women believe it is the federal government’s role to ease their suffering and provide for them. The percentage of US citizens who desire that relationship has been growing steadily, inexorably for well over 100 years.

    It’s over.

36. Conservative policies have never really impacted my decision or judgment on support. I only support a special type of person, the one that has the Will to defeat or kill the Leftist alliance. I don’t really particularly care what their “politics” is, besides that.

    After people see the true nature of the Left, they will become closer to that view of things.

    Other than Sarah Palin, the Tea Party organizers and funders, Ted Cruz, or that prosecutor grilling the IRS all the time over stuff like Benghazi, I don’t see that strength of spine in pols. In fact I see the opposite, they ally with the Left to stomp down on such. That tells me far more than I ever needed to know about people’s allegiances in DC.

37. In very reluctant and partial support of Rufus T. Firefly’s POV, I highly recommend reading David Solway’s “We Have Met the Enemy” it is IMO, one of the most brilliant encapsulations of the current state of affairs that I have ever read.

    “To put it bluntly, we in the West are now living in a cognitive pseudo-world of contrafactual beliefs and specious assertions of Orwellian dimensions, prompted by ignorance, the denaturing of language and the marasmus of mind – a world in which everyone is regarded as equal but some are less equal than others. Truth-tellers are less equal than professional liars, white people are less equal than colored people, men are less equal than women, Christians and Jews are less equal than Muslims, capitalists are less equal than socialists, nationals are less equal than immigrants, in particular Muslim immigrants – the list goes on. What is happening is truly astonishing and almost impossible to believe, for what we are experiencing is a cultural pathology on a global scale, a spreading and apparently unstoppable plague of sociopolitical ebola willingly contracted.

    It is indeed a disheartening spectacle: a great civilization, centered in Europe and ramifying into North America, rapidly imploding, opening the gates to those who will destroy it while eating itself up from inside, with no assurance that this process of self-immolation can be reversed.

    Quite possibly, it is too late to halt the collapse of the temple of reason, but we are embroiled in a struggle that must be waged to the end.”

    Yet despite the grim prognosis, there are reasons for hope, much of liberal support is based on the left’s lies. Lies by definition are contrary to reality and therefore, ultimately unsustainable. When reality arrives and the left’s lies have left Western civilization mortally threatened, ideology will go out the window. Just the threat of ISIS and Ebola have lessened Obama’s support and sooner or later, one way or the other, a mortal threat will manifest.

    It is also a fact that socialism is at base, an unsustainable proposition. As it increasingly turns to tyranny to remain in power, as it is already doing (see here, here, here, here and here), that is and will continue to awaken people. Another relevant fact is that 60+ million Americans voted for Romney in 2012 and, we will not go ‘quietly into the night’. Finally, there is Orwell’s observation that, “Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible.”

38. Geoffrey Britain,

    I will read Mr. Solway’s essay. Based on your excerpt I should find it interesting. My comment was in response to neo-neocon’s post and the other comments to it:

    It’s sort of interesting looking at the pending races and speculating on winners and losers, but if anyone is entertaining the slightest hope that any result will halt this country’s decent into Nanny-Statism they are sadly mistaken. Very mistaken.

    You are right that radical Islam, a monetary collapse, pandemic or asteroid impact could shift the citizenry’s focus to fundamentals, just as we witnessed in the first days and weeks after 9-11.

    What is being missed is how citizens view Government. What is singularly unique in our nation’s experiment with Independence is, for the first time in human history, the individual was sovereign. It was government’s role to stay the hell out of the citizens’ way. With every market collapse, war, natural disaster, pandemic… the U.S. populace has chosen security over Independence until all of the safeguards the Founders put in place have been toppled.

    No matter what letter is next to their name, a majority of your neighbors expect the politicians they are electing to provide for them and keep them “safe.”

    It’s over.

39. Geoffrey Britain:

    Some in the GOP are dedicated to such principles. Some are not. We need to increase the proportion of the former, of course.

    But remember something else: politicians are politicians. They need money. They become beholden to moneyed interests, or to compromise with principles in other ways, if they think that will lead to their re-election. Most people who run for office, even if they start out with principles, lose them. It’s the rare person who can stick to them.

    I’m not sure why Democrats stick together so much more, but I think it has to do with groupthink, pressure, and being more ideological in general.

40. The Colonists revolted when England imposed taxes on their tea without giving them a say.

    Can you imagine what those people would have done if the government got between them and their income?!

    We freely accept (and have accepted for over a century) that the government has authority over any agreement we make with another private individual for labor and compensation, AND THE GOVERNMENT GETS PAID FIRST! Not only that, but the federal government can change, at any time, the amount of that pay they confiscate, even retroactively!

    Just think about that one thing. No revolt. No revolution. No protests. We debate about the percentages, not the principle. The electorate does not want freedom and liberty, and, most of all, it does not want responsibility.

41. neo-neocon, if you increase the proportion of the former the electorate will stop electing them.

    The electorate will vote for more Rs than Ds this time around because they are unhappy, but why are they unhappy? Because they don’t think the government is doing enough!

    You and I are unhappy because we think the government is doing too much. You and I are in the minority, and have been since Herbert Hoover was voted out of office.

42. Rufus T. Firefly:

    Of course, it’s unlikely to change in a vacuum with only a change of politicians. However, there is also the education front, the cultural front, the MSM front. Many many fronts.

    But the political front is part of it.

    However, if more conservatives are elected (for whatever reason, including the present backlash of disgust for this administration), and they do things that end up improving the situation (for example, the economy, or foreign policy, or ebola), or at least stop some of the bad things that are happening now at the hands of liberals, the public may actually take notice. That could lead to more lasting political change.

    It didn’t with Reagan (perhaps because there was no change on the others fronts, the cultural and informational ones). Then again, not long ago (prior to Obama), people on the left were complaining about how “liberal” had become a dirty word.

43. neo-neocon, I hate to be such a curmudgeon here (and if you folks knew me in person you’d know this is not my nature at all), but it really is over.

    Like many of the commenters here (yourself included), I can become obsessed with systems and trying to figure them out. I have spent a lot of time examining politics, current events, human nature… all in hopes of figuring a way to get this country back to its founding principles so I would know which wagon to hitch my star to…

    What we want is against human nature. The Founding Fathers knew that and that’s why they put so many limitations on the Federal government. “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The slide (to Nanny-Statism) could be due to losing a cultural battle. The slide could be to failing to educate. The slide could be to the growth of secularism, or, a dozen other excuses Conservatives focus on. It could even be as simple as a nation progressing from a majority of citizen-farmers to a majority of city dwellers who can’t darn a sock, mend a fence or boil an egg.

    Sadly, I don’t think the causes(s) matter because I think the result will always be the same. Whenever there is a catastrophe, or the hint of a catastrophe, the populous rise up and beg for a King to save them. 70% of the Old Testament is that exact story and all of human history since has been the same.

    With each major financial panic in this country the citizens asked the politicians to save them. The answer: more regulation, less freedom. How can a business be “too big to fail?” Yet each time another big business fails we ask the government to save it from failure: more regulation, less freedom.

    With each health issue (air pollution, tainted meat, poisoned Tylenol, bad water, unpasteurized milk, disease epidemics…) the citizens asked the politicians to save them. The answer: more regulation, less freedom.

    Your neighbors do not want freedom. They don’t want to turn on their television and see a child suffer brain damage because she rode a bicycle without a helmet. They don’t want to turn on their television and see a school shooting because parents failed to raise their children properly. They don’t want to walk outside and see an old woman begging in the streets because her husband blew their life savings at the track and left her penniless. They don’t want to walk down the street and see obese people. They don’t want to learn they invested their life savings with a bank that made bad loans.

    Freedom and personal responsibility are frightening to the majority of your neighbors and they believe politicians can protect them from the dangers of independence.

44. Rufus T. Firefly:

    I am pessimistic. It certainly may be “over.”

    But I certainly don’t know it’s over. History is unpredictable before it happens. We can play the percentages—in which case, the republic may be over. But “know” it? Absolutely not.

    And I certainly will do all I can to prevent it from being over, rather than to give in to a combination of pessimism and hubris.

45. “I’m not sure why Democrats stick together so much more, but I think it has to do with groupthink, pressure, and being more ideological in general.” neo

    Undoubtedly so, that however does not obviate the reasons for the GOP to be equally loyal to its base. I think that the GOP’s lack of fidelity has to do with placing short term personal gain ahead of long term group interests and, a failure to see that ultimately, future personal gain is dependent upon long term group interests being addressed.

46. “Freedom and personal responsibility are frightening to the majority of your neighbors and they believe politicians can protect them from the dangers of independence.”

    Sadly, I have also concluded that to be true of an increasing number of Americans. But I have recently begun to think that there is an environmental and a historical dynamic that is responsible for that phenomena.

    That twin dynamic is the unprecedented abundance that the industrial revolution has wrought and an important characteristic in what is known as “r/K Selection Theory”.

    Specifically in regard to the quantification of r-type environments, which are ones of freely available resources.

    “Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment [one of freely available resources], r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

    Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the ”everyone gets a trophy” movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.”

    It also occurs to me that the very first widespread r-type environment was Western civilization well after the industrial revolution had begun. It would be interesting to see a graph comparing the rise of abundance in the West and the rise of leftist liberalism. But even without data, it’s obvious that such a correlation is probable.

    But wait, there’s more!

    The interaction between r and K types is cyclic and by that I mean that the abundance that leads to an r-type environment, that in turn leads to the dominance of liberal suppositions in government, invariably over time deplete that environment of available resources and that process accelerates as consumers outstrip producers. But in order to keep that form of governance, ever greater control must be implemented and control = tyranny.

    As tyranny, in the face of decreasing resources becomes ever more unjustifiable, in an increasingly K type environment, the K-type increases (see linked article) and sooner or later rebellion arises. And then the cycle repeats.

47. GB…

    Preach it brother!

    IMHO, the number one schism between Black culture and mainstream culture is the r/K divide.

    R vs K is more than just abundance vs scarcity… It’s tied into what WORKS.

    A K ‘strategy’ requires defendable turf. THAT’S the key.

    Africans, mice, deer, rabbits – have absolutely no way of defending their turf from their peers. (This in contrast to true rivals. Tribes certainly can fight tribes, but the bulk of selection pressure, all of the time, is within a tribe — man vs man, woman vs woman.)

    Europeans, in contrast, were always fanatical about turf — even down to intra-tribal arrangements. This is also true for Asians.

    It’s not so true for Asiatics or plains Indians. It’s interesting to note just how many parallels occur between African norms and these classic nomads.

    (And DNA has established that the plains Indians are descendants from central Asia. That migration had to have occurred before domestication of the horse… or they all died off in the (brutal) transit.)

    These tales indicate that Hss is one species that can, and does, shift from r to K selection pressure. Indeed, it would seem that most fauna can’t engage in K strategies.

48. neo-neocon,

    I live my life striving to make tomorrow better for myself and others. I’m raising my kids to be independent. I’m not giving up on anything, but I’m also realistic about what I see.

    I agree that history is unpredictable and I would not be surprised to eventually learn that what I think will happen does not.

    My main point is: It has been over for awhile. Something new may take it’s place. Something better may take its place. But it has, irrefutably ended.

    But our system of government would be unrecognizable to the Founders. This is not what they designed. It’s not what they intended. England in 1776 was closer to what they designed than the US in 2014. And this didn’t happen during President Obama’s administration, or George W. Bush’s, or Bill Clinton’s or even Jimmy Carter’s (and Nixon instituted more Big Government programs than all but Obama).

    The US Government takes whatever portion of my income it chooses, whenever it chooses, even retroactively.
    The US Government will remove my offspring from my care if it does not approve of how I am educating them.
    The US Government limits what devices/methods I can use to protect my home, family and belongings.
    The US Government limits what substances, foods and beverages I put into my body and will incarcerate me for as long as it chooses if it disapproves. This includes pharmaceuticals that I may believe are life saving, even if a group of physicians agree that I am terminally ill.
    The US Government forces me to purchase health insurance for myself and all family members under the age of 27 and will incarcerate me if I do not.
    The US Government takes my earnings and will determine how much, if any, they will return to me at an age they will determine and a rate they will determine, subject to change at any time, without notice.
    The US Government takes a percentage of my earnings and redistributes it to healthy, able-bodied American males who choose not to work.
    The US Government takes a percentage of my earnings and redistributes it to dependents of healthy, able-bodied Americans whose husbands and fathers refuse to support them.
    The US Government takes a percentage of my earnings and loans it to able-bodied men and women unwilling to pay for their University educations with their own money.

    Do I need to continue?

    Now, imagine reading the above list to men like Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin… They would want no part of any nation governed as such.

    It has been over for many, many years.

49. I don’t have any answers; I am a stranger in a strange land. I emerged from a culture that valued “self actualization”. I chose the word “culture” intentionally because it is increasingly apparent to me that “self actualization” is not a universal urge, like I always believed. So, tongue in cheek, the solution is to find a culture that still values this ethic, instead of the infantilized, feminized, smarmy style over substance culture of today. This is amplified, of course, by the reality that “takers” are overtaking “makers”.

50. Exasperated,

    “… a stranger in a strange land.”

    I feel that way often.

    I see Sandra Fluke appear out of nowhere on my television set; a wealthy, middle-aged, adult woman in a relationship with an adult, middle-aged son of billionaire parents, and she is angry at me because I will not give her $10 for a box of condoms and I assume I’m watching a comedic parody of a press conference. Then, the next day I read in the newspaper that the President of the United States personally telephoned her in deference to her hardship.

    I see men and women who made the poor decision of borrowing money to pursue degrees in fields with low to no demand appear on my television and demand that I pay their debts because the work they are offered is beneath them and I assume I’m watching a comedic parody of adults pretending to be spoiled children. A week later the President of the United States makes a public speech stating I am financially responsible for their foolish choices.

    I see my government stop construction of a plant that will create energy from coal and sequester the carbon emissions under the ground at the same time stating that the imbalance of carbon taken from the ground and put into the air is the greatest threat facing humanity. I see my government stop forestation, leaving old growth forests to eventually ignite, and burn, pumping millions of tons of carbon into the air while, at the same time stating that the imbalance of carbon taken from the ground and put into the air is the greatest threat facing humanity (yet new trees are marvelous carbon sinks).

    I see my government halt the construction of a pipeline to transport oil from North Dakota to refineries because the pipeline will “damage” the environment, necessitating transport by diesel fueled trains and trucks.

    And on, and on, and on.

    A strange land, indeed.

51. Exile or death were the ancient cultural solutions to people who were too foreign to be considered usable.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>