Obama's Crash and Burn...and why the Republicans aren't benefitting from it

Yesterday, this interesting piece came out in the Telegraph of London:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100220493/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-2013-ten-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

I find that I can’t really disagree with the 10 reasons that are listed.  From the Imperial style of his Presidency to the continued lousy performance of the economy and the ongoing, ever-increasing scandals surrounding this administration, Obama’s Presidency is on fire, loosing altitude, and shedding parts left and right as it plummets towards the ground.  Can you say ‘crash and burn’?

Now, compare that to this piece from the editorial page of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=1

Two telling quotes from the NYT piece:  "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue." and "Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd. She said on Thursday that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the vice chairman of the committee, said the surveillance has “proved meritorious, because we have gathered significant information on bad guys and only on bad guys over the years.”

The first is a blatant statement that the love affair between the NYT and Obama is over, and implies that they're ready to move on (and stop throwing chips into the pot for him).  The second is perhaps the most chilling, especially the 'might become a terrorist in the future' and 'only on bad guys' parts.

Precrime, anyone?  The editors of the Times realize that this could easily be applied to them...and pretty much anybody else.  In fact, since the alphabet soup agencies have been using a ladle and not a strainer, the 'only on bad guys' bit applies ONLY if EVERYONE is considered a potential 'bad guy'.  No presumption of innocence, no due process, just 'you might become a terrorist at some time in the future'.

And who will determine just who's a terrorist?  Hmm....

My guess is that's what has the NYT so upset.  If all it takes is the stroke of a pen to make that determination, given that Obama has already established the precedent of 'Bring me his head' (actually, 'Blow his head and ass in different directions with a drone strike') without all that inconvenient mucking around with trials and stuff, then aren't we all at risk?

Truly, these are interesting times.  However, the odd thing is…as bad as Obama is doing in the polls and elsewhere, the Republicans can’t seem to do much better, and this is…strange.  At least, it seems so on the surface, but if you look a little closer, you can understand why.

Charlie Cook, who writes his own political report and also for the National Journal, has written several articles on and around this topic in recent days, the most telling of which is this one:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/no-wonder-republican-criticism-of-obama-isn-t-working-20130523

Basically, the Republicans who are attacking Obama, by and large, have even less credibility than he does.  Mitch McConnell?  Please.  Not only does everybody know he’s been there since, like, Roosevelt (the first one, not the one with the jaunty cigarette holder), but he stutters and has jowls down to his nipples.  Boehner?  Not quite as ancient, but also stutters and comes across as less likable than the average rabid pit bull.  (Here I must apologize to non-rabid pit bulls, having known several in my time that were very sweet, fun dogs.)  That Boehner is still vividly remembered for reading a scripted voice vote result at the convention (yep, Johnny Boy, we still remember that, and will remind you of it when we come for YOU with pikes!) gives him ZERO credibility with a large chunk of his own base.

Remember when the Republicans had not only the White House but both Houses of Congress, as well?  Did they reform the tax code?  Winnow down Federal regulations?  Reign in the EPA?  Cut spending?  Trim government?

Let’s see…no, no, no, no and no.  In that order.

In other words, “compared with congressional Republicans, [Obama’s] the pick of the litter”.  People still remember the Bush years (really, how could they forget?  Old Media, Comedy Central and MSNBC remind them every night) and the Patriot Act…and No Child’s Behind Left…and the Medicare Drug Plan…and…and….

That Obama has, by and large, continued any number of Bush’s policies (and suddenly, all we hear from the Left are crickets, but that’s another topic altogether) has seemed to slip under the radar somehow.  At least, in terms of the Idiot Voter (hell, they’re not uninformed, they’re just idiots and I refuse to call them anything but what they are) Squads.  Combine them with the small-l libertarian Republicans, the Paulbots and the Tea Partiers who have been urinated on by the RINOstablishment for years now, and you begin to understand why the Republicans can’t seem to gain any traction.

But, there may be a bit of light at the end of the Republican tunnel.  The College Repblicans have just released a scathing analysis of the GOP and why so many people hate it (a good article about it is here:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/college-republican-national-committee-report-has-grim-findings-for-gop.html).  ‘That’ 2013 CPAC survey on Personal Core Beliefs (the complete survey results can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/130778343/CPAC-Straw-Poll-2013) shows very clearly that the vast majority of CPAC attendees (77%) view their “most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens”.  This is more than FIVE times the number of people who said they were most concerned about “traditional values” (no gay marriage or abortion, 15%), and almost TEN times the neo-con “secure and guarantee American safety at home and abroad regardless of the cost or size of government” (8%).  Even more telling, 52% of CPACers were 18-25, and a whopping 74% were under 40.  That means they’ll be around and voting for some time to come…unlike the last two Republican candidates (and the scum who anointed them) for President…and most of those fossils in Congress today.

So, here’s the situation we now find ourselves in:  a President about whom few questions were asked by the MSM now finds himself loosing their support while scandals swirl about him…and an Opposition that is perceived as being as bad (by their own base) or worse (the rest of the country).

If that’s not a recipe for revolution, I don’t know what is.

The Last Rolling

The final rolling of the Toomer's Oaks during Saturday's A Day celebration.  Today the trees were removed, and the revamping of the corner begun.

Harvey Updike (may he ever burn in Bammer Hell!) thought he'd strike a blow for Bammeration when he poisoned the trees.  What he did was to (a) prove himself an idiot, and scum (b) show the world what kinds of people Bammers are and (c) bring the Auburn family together as never before.  And, it showed us that there are a few decent Bama fans out there.  Not many ('cause they're, well, Bammers), but a few, and we cherish them.

The original oaks are now gone.  The Auburn Spirit hasn't even been dinged.  In a few years, new oaks will rise over the Gates of Auburn once more, strong and proud...and occasionally covered in toilet paper.  Because that's how we Tigers roll!

The TaliBaptists Among Us

Today I received an email, forwarded by a friend, about how the FCC is going to destroy America in the next fifteen minutes by allowing brief expletives and fleeting frontal (female) nudity to be broadcast over the airwaves.

Naturally, there was an appeal for MONEY as part of this Emergency Action Alert! (TM) message.  As if we'd expect anything less.

Just so you'll know, here's the text of the email:

Please forgive the mass email but this will have a huge impact on each of us.  Please read the following action letter from American Family Association and respond as you see fit.  I hope you do as I have and speak out in opposition to the FCC's attempt to eliminate 70% of their backlog of complaints and then forward to friends and relatives who will hopefully do the same.  THANKS MIKE

Subject: FCC set to drop ban on f-word, nudity on television and radio stations nationwide

Date: 4/8/13 10:22:01 AM

From: "AFA Action Alert"

To: mcgeema@charter.net

American Family Association     Take Action Now___________________________________

Share on Facebook Share on Facebook   Share on Twitter Share on Twitter   Online Version Online Version  FCC set to drop ban on f-word, nudity on television and radio stations nationwide They are seeking public comments; make your voice count! April 8, 2013

Dear Mike, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it is considering dropping current broadcast decency standards that ban explicit profanity and "non-sexual" nudity.

You can read the press release from the FCC here.

Specifically, if enacted, the new FCC policy would allow network television and local radio stations to air the f-word, the s-word and to allow programs to show frontal female nudity , even during hours when they know children will be watching and listening.

It is accepting comments on the proposal from the viewing public until the end of April.

Current broadcast decency law prohibits expletives and nudity, even if brief or "fleeting."  The Supreme Court has upheld the law as constitutionally enforceable by the FCC, despite lawsuit attempts by networks NBC and FOX to overturn it.

TAKE ACTION

Submit your comments to the FCC, urging it to reject any changes to the current policy.

The FCC will not accept general email comments. To be valid, you are required to file a formal comment via the FCC's website.

Please follow these instruction carefully, to insure your comment is accepted by the FCC:

1. Go to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=&filedFrom=X.

2. Enter the code "13-86" in the "Proceeding Number" box and fill out the few remaining required fields.

3. Enter your comment in the text box provided and click "Continue."

4. From there, review your comment and click "Confirm."

Here is a sample comment you may submit:

I oppose any changes to the current FCC indecency standards that would allow television and radio stations to broadcast expletives and nudity on the public airwaves, even if brief or "fleeting."

The Supreme Court has confirmed the FCC& authority to enforce policies regarding expletives and nudity, especially during times when children are likely to be watching or listening.

Relaxing the current policy would not serve the public interest and I urge the FCC to reject all proposals that would allow for the broadcast of expletives and nudity on FCC-licensed stations.

Take Action NowSend your comment to the FCC now!

It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.

Sincerely,

Tim

Tim Wildmon, President

American Family Association Help us Financially

Donate Online to AFA

One-TimeMonthlyText the letters

"AFA" to 20222

to give $10

Standard messaging rates may apply. Spiritual Heritage Tours

Experience Washington, DC and Mount Vernon from a Christian perspective.

More InformationP.S. Follow @AFAActionAlerton Twitter.

  Action Link

* http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=&filedFrom=X___________________________________

Okay, so now you know.  The FCC is trying to reduce it's backlog of cases, and actually reflect the reality that (GEE WHIZ, WALLY!) some people actually cuss, and sometimes on cable a booby gets flashed.  It's not like most people haven't seen it before.

Here's the skinny:  I don't want kids seeing this.  I also don't want an energy policy based on unicorn farts, but that's pretty much what I'm stuck with.  I have ZERO problem with relaxing the (overly rigid) rules after 'family time', when all good parents have the sprogs in bed.  For the other parents, they're kids are seeing and hearing it anyway, so it really isn't that big of a deal...unless you're trying to raise money for your TaliBaptist group.

As a general rule, I try to oppose ANYTHING the American Family Association supports, just on general principles.  Especially the 'Spiritual' Tours.  Please don't try to proselytize me when I'm trying to experience history.

At any rate, I immediately clicked on the 'action link', and put in my own two cents worth...and I'm certain the TaliBaptists WON'T approve, because THIS is what I wrote:

Proceeding Number:  13-86

I strongly support changes to the FCC's 'indecency' standards to allow TV and radio stations to broadcast colorful expletives as well as brief or fleeting frontal nudity, of either sex, on the public's airwaves, especially in those times when children should be in bed and adults will be watching these programs.

This change to the standards reflects society's changing nature, and while I do not believe this is appropriate during children's time, it is perfectly appropriate for adults who choose to view it.  Those who do not choose to do so have only to turn the dial or click the remote, and their insistence on the 'purity' of the airwaves is an attempt by them to foist their own puritanical mores upon the rest of us.

I believe these changes will NOT harm the public interest, especially if they are restricted to 'after hours' programming, and are appropriately labeled.

Notice that I'm not agitating for kids to be exposed to this language or boobies. In a perfect world, each and every kid will already have SEEN boobies, 'cause they were breast fed.  Also, every kid will be in bed by the time this comes on. Remember, if you don't like it, you can vote with your remote...and let that 'invisible hand' of the free market decide.

So, really, this irritates me on two levels:  first, it's a blatant attempt to coerce the State to regulate and enforce something that should be left up to the marketplace, and second, it's being pushed for all it's worth to scam money from the marks of the AFA.  Granted, it's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money, and anybody who'd send money to the AFA is indeed a sucker...it still annoys me.

Isn't it interesting that so-called 'conservatives' go all State-y and "We gotta have REGULATIONS" when it's bad language, the human body, and the privacy of your own home involved.

Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here?

At any rate, the info is above.  Make your voice heard, one way or another.  Otherwise, you're not allowed to complain.  Change the channel, yes.  Complain, no.

Have The Banksters Gone Too Far?

Just up on CanadaFreePress.com.  Have the Banksters indeed gone too far?  With Cyprus now being called the "template" for future bank problems in the Eurozone, where's the incentive to put money into their banks?

Personally, that old Mason jar in the backyard is looking better and better all the time....

The End of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Here's the graphic that says it all:

This pic comes from Chris Cillizza's Washington Post 'The FIx' column from yesterday, dealing with Rob Portman's changed stance on gay marriage.  Portman--a fiscal conservative with a long history of being "only loosely concerned with social issues like marriage and abortion"--is about as Establishment Republican as you can get.  With a resume that includes service in the House, not one but two Cabinet posts in the Bush administration and now a Senate seat from Ohio, is it any wonder that his name was always near the top of the lists when Romney's VP choices were bandied about?  Coming hard on the heels of the Supreme Court brief urging the recognition of the Constitutional right to marry by more than 100 big shot Republicans, it seems as though may--I repeat, MAY--be starting to get a clue that this is an issue that's not a winner for them.

It seems likely that Senator Portman's 'evolution' was prompted by his own son's coming out.  Like Dick Cheney before him, Rob found himself forced to personally face up to the consequences of a policy that regulates a member of his family to second-class citizen status.  As Newt so elegantly laid out his choices yesterday on CNN, Portman could either (a) stand on his position, and abandon his son, (b) stand on his position, but still love the son or (c) change his position because he loves his son.  (Okay, I'm paraphrasing here...go listen to Newt's own words and judge for yourself.)

Since choice (a) makes you a complete scum of an underwear stain and (b) makes you both a hypocrite and an underwear stain, as well as leading to very awkward holiday meals, Portman chose (c).  I have no doubt that the Usual Suspects will castigate him strenuously for choosing to love his son enough to publicly pull his head out of his ass, but he only gets points from me for doing this.

BTW, as long as there are 1100+ federal benefits to marriage, denying them to any citizen violates the 14th Amendment.  Don't make me go Ted Cruz on Diane Feinstein on you.  Until I can get the 'why the DOMA is indefensible' bit written, let's just leave it at that.

Now, Portman's announcement isn't going to make the RNC break out the rainbow banners any time soon.  54% of Republicans still 'strongly oppose' marriage.  But, take another look at the graph at the beginning of this post.  Note that the 'breakpoint' is in the 50-64 age group, with every younger demographic showing more support than not for same-sex marriage.  Also note that the younger the group, the higher the support.  Even the morons at the RNC ought to be able to do this math:  the opposition to gay marriage will die off LONG before the support will.  Eventually, it WILL come about, even 'way down here in Alabamistan...once enough of the TailBaptists die off.  (Come that day soon, Oh Lord, come that day soon....)

Cillizza points out (correctly, I think) that what we can expect to see from younger, less stupid Republicans in the foreseeable future is for them to just...not talk about same-sex marriage.  He compares this issue to the Democrat's realization in the 90's that gun control was a dead issue for them politically.  From Bill Clinton on down, guns and gun control just weren't Democrat talking points, although the base continued (and still continues) to want the shred the 2nd Amendment.

There have been hints of this already:  Marco Rubio framed it as a 'let the States decide' issue, which most Republicans can (at least grudgingly) get behind.  Rubio's CPAC speech was full of words like "respect", which acknowledges that most Americans see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue...which it is (see above).

So, what we can expect to see in the months and years to come is same-sex marriage being howled about only by the dying rump of the social conservatives.  Republican politicians who want to actually win elections will mouth the same old "I'm against it personally, but..." platitudes, and then move on to other, actually important points like reforming entitlements and cutting overall spending and not printing money by the wheelbarrow full.

If we're lucky, the social conservatives will get their panties all in a wad and migrate over to the Prohibition Party, where they'll finally be right at home.  Come soon that happy day, Oh Lord....

What's Wrong with the GOP in a Nutshell

I noticed two articles today on Newsmax.com that pretty much sum up the problem that is the Republican Party, circa today.  Neither of these articles were really about the battle lines for the heart, soul and destiny of the Party--those were drawn when Rand Paul filibustered, and Old Man McCain and Prissy Pants Graham whined at him for having, like, principles and stuff--but more about the fact that, barring direct divine intervention, the Republicans are at serious risk for going the way of the Whigs.

The first article I saw was ostensibly about Newt Gingrich's position on gay marriage, and his response to Rob Portman's 'change of heart' in that Senator Portman now supports gay marriage.  Newt made the point that the next few years will be difficult as the Party sorts out the "practical realities" from the "moral principles" of same-sex marriage.  Newt makes no bones about the fact that he still believes in the one man-one woman model that is "biblical" (presumably, the woman isn't a slave, as is biblically allowed), but that the Party needs to come to grips with the fact that several states have already passed same-sex marriage laws, and more will undoubtedly follow.  To his credit, Newt didn't condemn his friend Portman, and I suspect that they will still be friends going forward.  Friends sometimes have to agree to disagree.  I do give Newt kudos for realizing that Rob Portman loves his gay son (yeah, and son has come out, so kudos to Rob for loving his kid enough to pull his head out of his ass) and at least supporting THAT part of Portman's decision.

What's really important about Newt's comments didn't make it into the video clip on the page.  Newt's absolutely right when he says "the old guard of the party sometimes gets a little too crusty and a little too anti-ideas, and I think that's unfortunate".  I agree.  It's unfortunate in the same way the iceberg was "unfortunate" for the Titanic.  In saying this, Newt seconded Rand Paul's statement that the GOP is "stale and moss-covered".

Newt is no dummy.  His ideas on gay marriage may be a bit wonky, given his own situation (Third time charm?  Or Pitch 'Till You Win for breeders, fags and dykes can't even play the game), but he's seen the writing on the wall.  Of the two hot-button social conservative issues (abortion being the other), same-sex marriage is a LOST CAUSE.  Finding someone under 30 who doesn't support the right of same-sex couples to enjoy the same 1100+ federal benefits of marriage as hetero couples is getting harder every year.  Just ask Gallup.  To keep flogging this as a core issue is political suicide; nothing more, nothing less.  Too many heterosexuals know too many homos, and the breeders have figured out that the fags and dykes are...pretty much just like everybody else, only better with small dogs and decorating.  Knowing that, not letting two people who want to put on those shackles do so--especially given just what horrible shape the poor old institution is in these days--just seems, well, dumb.  So, Newt seems to be open to backing off on same-sex marriage (I'm guessing his stance will be 'I don't like it, but it's an issue for the several states), so that there's one less issue for the GOP to keep shooting itself in the foot over.

The second article that really hit home for me today was an interview with actor Robert Davi.  Davi--who's been a Bond villain, and you haven't--is spot-on when he says the GOP needs a makeover, especially of ideas.  Here's the money quote:  “They sit around wanting to communicate to the everyman, but they don’t sit around saying how do we get new ideas out there? It’s very frustrating to me.’’

Even better, Davi points out a specific case where the Republicans (once again) dropped the ball, by not using the sequester as an opening to push the flat tax:  “Why did they not say, here’s a formula, it’s a flat tax across the board and here’s discussion. If they all got together it would be bold, it would be a solution, but they keep kicking the same ball down the path to destruction.’’

Yeah.  What he said.

Sadly, all the signs and portents point towards the GOP Establishment--those old, country club, silk stockings, RINOs--have decided to double down on the same (epic fail) tactics that are now 0--2 against Barack Obama and the Democrat machine.  Don't believe me?  Two words:  Jeb Bush.

So, that's where we are at the moment.  The Old Guard is warming up the oil with which they will anoint (one way or another--Team Romney's primary fixers are still out there to torpedo a Rand Paul run in 2016 just like they did his father's last year) Jeb Bush in 2016.  The young, small-L libertarian, fiscally conservative, Constitution-loving, Tea Party friendly wing is already being belittled as being "whacko birds", and this will only get worse.  Sadly, there are still enough of these old farts around (they're just not dying off fast enough) to give the GOP once more round of EPIC FAIL in the next election cycle.  When that happens....

Assuming the currency hasn't collapsed by then, Jeb Bush's landslide defeat by Hillary and Michelle will finally kill the GOP as we know it.  But, I really don't think it'll matter all that much.

Quite frankly, a few more years of Democrat policies with a continuation of the Republican spelunking on every issue won't leave much left for ANYBODY to rule over.

Yeah, we're pretty much screwed.

A response to Laura Hollis' 2012 Election Post-Mortem

So, this email has been making the rounds; I'm not certain where it was originally posted, but it was allegedly written by a Professor of Law at Notre Dame.  There's a lot of good sense here, but I can't agree with her on all points.  So, since I have this blog, might as well use it, right?  I've copied and pasted the original here, and my somewhat lengthy response to each of her points is below.

Post-Mortem
Laura Hollis, Nov 08, 2012

Laura Hollis is:
Current: Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate
Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame.
Past: Director at Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Associate
Director and Clinical Professor at University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Education: University of Notre Dame Law School , University of NotreDame.
Summary: She has 20+ years' experience in curriculum and other program
Development and delivery.

I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year's elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:

1. We are outnumbered. We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals - they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn't enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We areoutnumbered. For the moment. It's just that simple.

2. It wasn't the candidate(s). Some are already saying, "Romney was the wrong guy"; "He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else]." With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romneyran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost. See #1, above.

3. It's the culture, stupid. We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that is not where the battle really is. Weabdicated control of the culture - starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions - education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the institutions that instill good character - marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later - we are reaping what we have sown. It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.

4. America has become a nation of adolescents. The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.

But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending. This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you." It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think aboutObama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.

5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote. It's the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year. Suffice it to say that the only "war on women" was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their "lady parts," comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women (largely married) used their "lady smarts" instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.

6. It's not about giving up on "social issues" No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard.)

That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which acivilized, free and prosperous society is not possible.

We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.

We defend family - mothers, fathers, marriage, children - because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent andunwed motherhood approaches 80 percent. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as "pro-life." What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before. There is no "giving up" on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will win out in the end.

7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one. I have to laugh - bitterly - when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama "has to know" that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle. I don't know what they're smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the "fundamental transformation" of America , the basic structure of which he despises. Expect much more of the same - largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in.Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.

8. The Corrupt Media - is the enemy too strong? I don't think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean theelectorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitistsnobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpracticeand fraud. They need to go. Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson,Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.

9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst For all the blather about "Wall Street versus Main Street," Obama's statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which - as with the public sector unions - are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out fromObama's health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.

10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it's personal. I've been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I've received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees - even when they have been our friends. It isn't just about "my guy" versus "your guy." It is my view of America versus your view of America - a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb "tweet" or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete. What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will bedemoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama's policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.

11. It's possible that America just has to hit rock bottom. I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay "a little bit more." So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist? America is on a horrificbender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere - too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.

For the past four years - but certainly within the past campaign season - we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama's presidency - unemployment, economic stagnation,skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to naturaldisasters - can be tied directly to Obama's statistphilosophies, and his decisions.

What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own "rock bottom," and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.

Laura Hollis

My responses to Ms. Hollis' points (and please realize, I've had several more months to review the election, as well as see more and more of it's consequences than she did at the time of her writing:

1.  Yes, you...the Republican Party, and/or the 'conservatives'...are outnumbered.  Yes, the groups you mentioned turned out for Romney in greater numbers than did for McCain four years earlier...but keep in mind, McCain's numbers were abysmal, and only Sarah Palin on the ticket gave the campaign any enthusiasm whatsoever.  McCain was, just as Romney was, the hand-picked and anointed candidate of the RINO Establishment; they are now 0/2 against David Axelrod's Machine with Magic Negro (not my term--the LA Times started it) as front man.

Remember this:  3 million Republican voters stayed home, or cast their vote for Gary Johnson (who, for the first time, gathered over 1 million votes for the Libertarian candidate!).  Who are these Republicans?  Most of them are the oft-derided 'Paulbots' and disaffected Tea Party (and other) grassroots activists who were actively screwed over time and time again by the RINOstablishment, culminating in the scripted voice vote result Tuesday night at the Romney anointing (a Convention, in the old-time sense, it WASN'T).  These were some of the most active and dynamic people in the Party, and they were shat upon at every turn.  Then, rather than the candidate reaching out to them, they were told by Romney's surrogates (including Paul Ryan) to basically shut up, get in line, send money and cast their votes like good little lemmings.  We (and I count myself among them) were literally told to "hold your nose" and vote for Romney.

Excuse me?  Why should I bother casting my vote for a candidate who stinks?  Is that the best motivation you can come up with?  Vote for 'our guy' because he stinks LESS than the other guy?  Top that off with the mountain of evidence (Romneycare, anyone?) that there wasn't actually lick-spit difference between Barry and Mittens, and the RINOstablishment laid the groundwork for their second shellacking in as many presidential elections.

2.  Yes, it WAS the candidate.  Romney's overall record as a candidate was abysmal (ONE win in how many races?) from the outset; he NEVER looked happy on the stump--constipated is more like it.  Mittens may be a good man--in fact, I suspect he is; I'd probably enjoy sitting down to a meal with him and his family--but he comes across as about as exciting as three day old oatmeal, without the benefit of the fiber.  Maybe if he'd eaten more fiber during the campaign, he'd have smiled more and grimaced less...?  Aside from one brief, shining moment in one debate (where it looked like Barry wanted to be somewhere, anywhere else), Romney was lackluster, ho-hum, and BORING.  His choice of Paul Ryan, Infante Terrible and Wonk Without Peer, only reinforced this.  Was it the grown-up choice?  Yes.  Sadly, most of the electorate aren't mental grownups, as has now been conclusively proven yet again.

Finally, Romney raised and spent a record amount of money, badly.  The hubris of his campaign, in believing the pundits from inside the Beltway Bubble, led to the conclusion that Obama's defeat was inevitable.  Certainly history supported this position:  the economy was horrible, Obama's signature legislation had been shoved down the throats of the Congress and American people only by the thinnest of margins, and with a scandilicious number of back-room deals being later brought to light it seemed like a looser of an issue. Obama's other promises had been proven worthless; his 'stimulus' did basically nothing except add to the pile of IOUs in the Treasury, and his crony-based green energy money had blatantly been pissed away.  Despite all this, the mainstream media continued to operate as an unpaid arm of Obama's campaign, and Romney was too busy trying to be liked to actively attack the President where he was weakest.

The difference between Narwhale and Orca and their set-up and use is illustrative of just how big a divide existed between the two campaigns:  both were programs the campaigns were going to use to coordinate their election-day 'ground game'.  The Democrat geek cabal set up Narwhale and LARP'd (Live Action Role Played) it to failure multiple times in the weeks leading up to the election--on election day, when problems arose (as they inevitably will), the 'fix it manual' of solutions had ALREADY been written and distributed.  The end result was that it was never down for long, and pretty much worked as it was intended to.  In contrast, Romney's Orca was a complete flub; it had never been stress-tested to any significant degree prior to election day, because "of course, it's going to work"...and on The Day, it went 'kerplunk, kerplooey', and stayed that way.  So, what actually happened was that Obama had hordes of paid ground workers, all tightly coordinated...and Romney had many fewer on the ground people, with no--or worse, bad--info coming to them.  So much for the RNC's plans to dominate the 'ground game'....

As an aside, it wasn't Mr. Preibus of the RNC who raised all that money.  The person responsible for conservatives cleaning out the couch cushions in the last election was...Barack Hussein Obama, himself.  Don't let anyone fool you...most of that money WASN'T given to elect Mittens Romneycare, but to DE-ELECT BHO.

3.  Yes, it is the culture.  Ozzie and Harriet lost to The New Normal.  Andy Griffith has been replaced with CSI, while the real Andys have been replaced with SWAT teams.  The local schoolmarm has been replaced with a unionized Educrat, more concerned with their tenure and benefit package than teaching.  Tricky Dick Nixon's War on Drugs has done EXACTLY the same thing alcohol prohibition did decades earlier, with completely predictable results--the appearance of 'harder' (more highly concentrated forms) of the intoxicants, the rise of a new gangster class, and the glorification of that gangsta class.  As a side effect, we've now created the largest prison-industrial complex on the planet, which has assured (along with mandatory forfeiture, which is as addicting for police departments as heroin ever thought about being) that crime pays very, very well.  That it also is creating an indigenous group of American Muslims--because black men, who we lock up at disgustingly high rates, come out of prison as converts to Islam more often than not--who are ripe to be turned into fanatical anti-American terrorists.  This hasn't really bit us...yet, but that day is sure to come.

So, yes; the culture wars have been lost...and a good portion of the blame lies squarely with the government, and BOTH political parties.  How many Republicans over the years have supported this, that and the other social program, which decoupled behaviors and consequences?  How many RINOs, not wanting to be seen as mean, hateful and RAAACIST, have given their votes to gimme gimme programs which have now created a truly 'entitled' class?  Yes, they were played like an organ grinder's box by the Dems...but there was quite a bit of quiescent leading to the slaughter going on, as well.  And, when those few brave individuals like Ron Paul stood up and said 'NO!", they were shouted down and called just about everything but a Child of God.  Now, the culture is broken, probably beyond the point of repair.

4.  Yes, America has indeed become, not a nation of adolescents, but a nation of CHILDREN.  Most 'adults' by the calendar still haven't made it through their adolescence yet...at least, that's my view as a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist.  And, is this really hard to understand?  For the past several decades, the 'Me' generation has been completely, narcissistically fixated on themselves.  As bad as that is, what's even worse is the effect this has had on THEIR children:  these kids have grown up without any significant parental attachment figure except for the television (and now, the computer and iPad).  Without that constant interaction to allow normal growth and development to occur, what you wind up with is...well, what we have.  A nation of whiney four year olds who, when stressed, regress to about the mental age of 2, and have NO real adult coping skills to rely on.  We've just seen this in the response to Hurricane Sandy--these people live on or near the Atlantic Coast, which has HURRICANES at odd intervals.  They had plenty of warning...and did what?  Did they get a bag together and leave?  Did they lay in supplies and hunker down to ride it out?  (And by that, I don't mean a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread and a 12 pack--did they have supplies of food, meds, and clothes in plastic bags to last a week or 10 days?  Most of them...NO.)  No, they trusted in Mamma Sammy to come in and make it all better...and then cried when the tit wasn't there when they wanted it.  That work crews from all over the South--who do hurricane clean-up on a regular basis and are old hands at it--were turned away because they weren't 'Union' enough--proved to me that those idiots didn't deserve any help.

Sadly, the only thing that will fix this is a long period of truly hard times.  The character that was built during the Depression has all been leeched away.  It can't be taught, certainly not in a government school.  It can only be learned in the School of Hard Knocks...and it won't be a pleasant lesson.  Nor will it be one that everyone will survive, as the Universe in general doesn't care about political correctness, diversity, ethnic balance and sensitivity, and all those other things the whining class obsesses about.  The worst part about it, though, will be the screaming of all those titty babies in big bodies for Mamma Sammy to make it all better....

5.  Yes, there is a Vagina Vote.  There's also a slut vote, which isn't limited to one sex.  Believe that abortion is murder?  Fine, don't have one.  Face facts:  Roe v. Wade has been around so long that it's not going away; harping on this makes you seem as stupid and unrealistic as the Islamofascists--since you both seem to think that women are useful only as chattels and baby-factories.  This may not (or indeed may) be true, but that's how it sounds.  Get over it.  If you REALLY want to take this position, then do what REAL conservatives would do:  start up your own line of Blessed Baby clinics, and put one beside every Planned Parenthood clinic in the country.  Don't just whine for the government to do something, get off your asses and do it yourself:  make the alternative to abortion REAL and CONCRETE and EASY to access!  I'm not kidding here...put a store-front beside every single Planned Parenthood outlet, and compete in the market of public opinion.  I don't like paying for Planned Parenthood and Sluts R Us, and I don't want to pay for your own religiosity-based obsession, either.  Put your money where your mouth is, or STFU.

Oh, and STFU about 'legitimate rape', too; every time some yahoo in a cheap polyester/cotton blend suit (which, btw, violates the biblical prohibition against wearing blended fabrics, which you people so conveniently forget), it makes your whole movement and it's position look like total fools.  You seriously need to muzzle these guys.  Seriously.

6.  Yep, you really need to work on your talking points about the social issues.  See above, for a start.  Come up with a good reason why supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion go together (even though they obviously don't--BOTH involve the taking of life).  Can't answer that?  Then drop it as a talking point.

Defend marriage?  Sure...just don't have your point men be multiply-divorced guys on their second, third or more wives.  Oh, and how does denying two people the 1100+ benefits of marriage, when they've already been in a stable, committed, non-promiscious relationship for years jive with your 'defense'?  Oh, it's not 'biblical'?  Well, then; bring on the stonings for wearing the poly/cotton blends...or eating cheeseburgers...or shaving...or cross-breeding livestock...or taking the Lord's name in vain...or harvesting the corners of fields...or eating shrimp...or collecting firewood on Saturday, even if it keeps your family from freezing...or...or...and while you're at it, look up the meaning of 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitoi', and compare them to 'paiderassite'...which Paul WOULD have used if he meant it like you say he meant it.

Want to maintain a strong, civilization-saving moral code?  Fine.  Start with the Constitution...the 'endowed by their Creator' bit, which derives from natural law.  Make EVERYBODY equal before the law, and realize that the Creator gave some people a better hand of cards to play than others.  Oppose promiscuity, because it's demonstrably bad for people; support love and committed relationships because they're demonstrably good for people.  Ditch the whole Puritanical 'anything fun is bad, we must torture the body to save the soul' awfulness inherent in so much of your message (and the Government's rules), and be a bit more open to the 'all have sinned and fallen short'.  Read the story of the Good Samaritan...and realize that the Samaritan didn't have a government grant to do what he did.  Provide viable alternatives for people in trouble, and do more 'walking the walk'.

Oh, and shoot the 1% of yahoos who won't STFU, and who keep making you look like fools and worse.  Seriously.  They won't be missed.

7.  Agree.  Obama's going to try to run roughshod over, well, everything most of us hold dear.  Don't be afraid to be called RAAACIST--the media aren't going to like you regardless, so why bother trying?  Stand for what you believe in, or go home.

8.  Agree.  The 'classic' media are hopelessly corrupt...but they are also dying rapidly.  Help this along by supporting new media.  Also, don't let anybody sign off on any stupid 'consent decrees' like the RINOstablishment did to prevent them from howling about voter fraud.  Whatever fool agreed to that is LONG overdue for his pike!

9.  Agree.  It's almost impossible for a small business to start up in this country today; in some places (California), you can dispense with the 'almost'.  However, the economy is contracting; the collapse is now pretty much inevitable.  Move to a better place (Texas, Nevada, Florida and the South are all benefiting from the craziness of other states) and hunker down.  This too shall pass.

10.  Agree.  Stop trying to 'convert' the libtarded, they are gone.  Scrape them off.  We're at 'circle the wagons' time, as much as it pains me to say it.  The tone of the chatter has shifted markedly since the election, and an ugly mood is sweeping the country.  How much longer do we have until it all blows up in the Oligarch's faces?  I don't know...but I'm betting we don't have until 2016.  At this rate, I'll be very surprised if we make it to the 2014 elections, quite frankly.

11.  Agree.  Hitting 'rock bottom' is almost certainly the only viable option.  Sadly, I don't think it'll be long in coming.  So...buy gold and silver, and keep your passport handy.  Alternatively, buy food, water filters, and stock extra medicines and good for barter.  Lay in some seeds, some simple tools, and a good book on Gardening for Idiots.  Pick up an extra pack or needles and a couple of spools of thread the next time you're in the dollar store.  Buy ammo whenever and where ever you can find it.  Pray every day.

So, that's my take.  I'm not optimistic about the near future, but I think that at least in places, what comes after the coming Unpleasantness will be okay.  I doubt that I'll live through it, but I've had a good run already; that doesn't much worry me.  And, I'm keeping on keeping on, like things may actually work out.  I'm just adding a few extra things to every shopping basket....

Bill Chitwood, M.D.