An Open Call To Patriots – Fix Bayonets

Bear with me, this needs somewhat of a set up.    After watching President Obama get re-elected, despite the insufferably painful in-your-face and pocketbook policies that are economically destructive to a brutal point, it is painfully obvious there is much heavy lifting needed.

I have now fully digested all the Romney folks who give their excuses, the Cocktail Class Decepticons who give their insight, and the beltway Republicans -who still think Mitch McConnell is a reasonable face for the party. Seriously?  Talk about “moderation”, vis-a-vis acquiescence to the leftist progressive principles.

The progressive intolerant President Obama campaign was a cynical one, and using his own words “revenge,” based in large part on division amid the electorate; noting Millionaires/Billionaires are now couples making $250k or more, and freebies like birth control at the expense of religious liberty; with promises of more “stuff” like amnesty to illegal aliens, bailouts for unsustainable union contracts and bigger government like the takeover of student finances, to “spread the wealth;”  and if you didn’t like it, well, you were a racist.   People fell for it.

Essentially, the final insight I personally was waiting to understand, was to see who the new face of the RGA would be, and who they would put forth as the messenger for the party headed to 2014/2016.   Bobby Jindal, was selected and now he provides the roadmap to how Republicans are going to approach the electorate moving forward:

 Considering the Romney admission of Obama dividing the electorate  […] at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association at the Encore Hotel here in Las Vegas, Jindal did not hold back.  “That is absolutely wrong,” Jindal said. “Two points on that.  One, we have got to stop dividing American voters.  We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent.

So the new head of the Republican Governors Association, Bobby Jindal, is advocating for a newly branded Republican party to appeal to Athiests, the Dependency Class, Abortionists, Illegal Aliens (who supposedly can’t vote anyway), Big Labor Union Collectives, Those who wish to increase taxes, The professional Race-baiting class, Socialists, Communists, and other like-minded and progressively affiliated members of the electorate….  Target 100%.


This is the approach?

In essence, Bobby Jindal now reflects the new paradigm of the Republican party and wants to out-left the left;  replete with faux-appeals, and happy sounding albeit disingenuous words, to people who might be fiscally worried about all the money it costs to support these ideological parasites in their fantasy lifestyle of government dependency.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along, ignore the guy reaching into your bank account – it’s not really your money anyway…. it belongs to the ‘collective’.   This is the new “improved” or “better” approach, really?


Did any one of them pause to wrap their insufferable “big government” mind-set around the real reason for Romney losing.   He just sucked – Big Time.

Just like Bob Dole, Bush-1, John McCain, and all other faux-conservatives cocktail class republicans before them.  Romney was such a horrific candidate he could not even convince more than 40% of the Republican electorate in the primary he was worth a vote.

Think about it.

60% of Romney’s own affiliated party did not want him to win the primary.  Yet it’s some big effen’ surprise that he lost the general election;  and subsequently the “establishment” betters are going to come up with a new manner, a new method and purpose, to insure their viability moving forward?

They got the guy they wanted to oppose Obama – AND LOST.   But it’s your fault.

The intellectual elitist class (Mitch McConnell, Orin Hatch, John Boehner, Lyndsey Graham, John McCain) are going to come up with a bolder, better, Romney 2.0?  AND THAT is going to restore fundamental foundational principles of our Republic?


I don’t give a FUCK about Grover Norquist – I DO care about the future of this Republic.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, but Three Rights make a left.   Think about this analogy:

Republicans are the party of free-market business so this analogy is actually quite appropos.

Now that the product launch was a massive fail – nobody bought this product or brand – So, you have a board meeting taking place at the Company Headquarters (GOP).   The various departments Marketing/Advertising (RNC), Retail Operations (RGA), and Product Research and Development (Beltway)… all pointing fingers.  

Meanwhile the Customer Relations dept. (the folks who matter – the ones closest to the work at corporate level) and the store managers (those charged with actually selling the product) are shut out of the board room and unable to explain what the customer wanted and why their product failed so miserably.

You see, “The Board” must find an excuse, because they cannot accept the principle that their product is wrong.   If they accept it, if they actually accepted the understanding of what is at the core of the company problem, they would have to absorb that the problem is THEM.    This paradigm shift is too difficult a bitter pill to swallow.

They spent a massive amount of money, effort, time, developing a product in the echo-chamber of executive suite(s).    It looks great, it sounds great, it seems great, but only because they are looking at the product “as if” they are the consumer/customer – They’re not.

Until they understand that THEY are the problem they will just recycle the same stinkin’ thinkin’ and lauch another Dole/McCain/Romney 2.0 /3.0 /eleventy.naught – under the auspices that they just didn’t do a good enough job of advertising it.

Another batch of shit people don’t want to buy will flood to stores…… and the cycle will repeat.   Meanwhile the competition laughs uncontrollably and tells them to keep it up.

The Decepticon Cocktail Class of Republicans has moved so far away from conservative principles they have circled back around to the left.

But this is after all what the crustless sandwich crowd historically does when they lose – they double down on stupid.

Look at the prior outcomes to giving them power – Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff.   Or, better yet, how about The Patriot Act, or FEMA, or the TSA, or, well, you get the point.  That is why there is no distance between the options, their Corinthian Leather candidate Mitt Romney, and/or the progressive tax and spend candidate Barack Obama.

So now Jindal is going to carry the cigar box formerly held by Bob McDonnell, Haley Barbour and K-Street, whilst the same white wine spritzer country club class of “betters” reframe a newer version of the old failed narrative.

Only this time, they mean to be “inclusive” and stuff…..while blaming conservatives, the “far right” for their failings….. failings which include the nomination of their guy, the one THEY wanted, Mitt Romney…  Huh?

We are now to accept wanting a balanced budget, stopping insane spending, and promoting achievement with equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome) and being pro-free market business rather than over-regulation and entitlement is… “far right“?  Really?

That, in a nutshell, is what Tea partiers stand for.

The raised pinky crowd argue fiscal cliffs about 3 or 4 percent tax hikes NOW on “the rich” (defined progressively as couples making $250k), while totally ignoring the 25 to 50% tax hikes embedded in the current rate of deficit spending over $1.2 Trillion annually.

Stop.  Think.

A 4% tax increase now “on the rich” to avoid a “fiscal cliff” catastrophy generates $40 billion a year.    WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER $960 BILLION in the one year deficit?  D.E.F.I.C.I.T. !!

You could magnify all current tax rate increase proposals by a magnitude of TWENTY and you still would not close the spending gap.   We are $16.3 TRILLION in debt.

If 4% more gets you $40 Billion.  How much will it take in the future to get $16+ TRILLION.   (*note a Trillion is one thousand Billions)

And it is “extremist” to point this out.

I suppose these things, these realities, these TRUTHS, are anathema to the entitlement “gimmeeeee NOW ‘I am special'” crowd who must be brought into the base of a new Republican party fearful of further electoral defeat.

Subsequently it becomes appropriate to call everyone who dares to think that people should actually earn, then keep what they earn, rather than mooch a life of indebtedness cradle to grave, “far right“.    And the apparent ‘best idea’ is to alienate the production class preferring to curry favor of the taking recipient class.

Riddle me this….  How exactly is this Republican approach any different from President Obama’s version of FORWARD?    Where does that road trip actually end?   CLUE:  It’s a hell of a lot worse than any current FISCAL CLIFF.

But we are the movement of solutions.   We are the folks who look at a problem, roll up our sleeves and deal with the issue in front of us.   We are the git-r-done crowd and it doesn’t matter a hoot or a holler what happens, or doesn’t happen, in your bedroom or in your doctor’s office.  That’s your business.  That’s your pursuit of happiness, and that’s fine with us, to the extent that your engagement in happy-chasing behavior does not ultimately end up costing us more confiscation of what we work diligently to earn.

Buy your own damn rubbers and birth control pills along with your own beer, wine or latte’s.  Not.Our.Issue.

So with solution-minded principles at the forefront, how do we send a message, a resounding message, that none can ignore?   Unfortunately, it takes a bold statement, a slap across the face to wake the pontificating class of Decepticons up.

So how do we do it?

We take out John Boehner, that’s how.

THAT will send a message.

It’s not like John Boehner is the antithesis of all that is wrong – he ain’t.  But he is a damn good representation of it;  and it would sure as heck snap back the insufferable hands of those who are STUPID enough to place our necks in the guillotine of fiscal insanity.

Instead of waiting as victims for the blade to reach us whilst bitching and moaning about it, let’s just Git-r-done and take one of them out first.

If you are on board with the approach, let me know in the comments, also let this message reach far and wide through all the blogosphere to patriots young and old alike.

There is a candidate in Ohio willing to take John Boehner on in the primary of 2014.  He has reached out to us, offering to be fully vetted, and willing to take the challenge.

The question is – Are you bold enough to support him?

More will follow…….

This entry was posted in Decepticons, States, Tea Party, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to An Open Call To Patriots – Fix Bayonets

  1. texan59 says:

    I’m in. I think Boehner is probably a nice guy. But he isn’t the man for this job. He’s ingrained. He’s a younger Bob Michel. Play golf, go to parties and don’t stir the pot too much. It’s past time to stir the pot. We need a whole new set of cookware. No more go along to get along.


  2. janc1955 says:

    Boehner does have a nice tan though.


  3. czarowniczy says:

    Coming from someone who spent a number of years under the whiz-kid Jindall, not only as Governor but years ago when he was Gov Foster’s lil’ darlin’ cost-cutter – beware, do not take your eyes off of him and don’t leave your wallet on the table unguarded. If Bobby seems too good to be true, he is. He talks a good talk and speaks fast and furious, tells conservatives just what they want to hear.


    • drkate says:

      Not to mention, he is ineligible for the Presidency, just like Rubio. This is why the republicans didn’t say a thing about Obama’s usurpation of the presidency…they want guys like these. Both parties are operating outside the constitution. Time for a third party starting now.


      • cajunkelly says:

        Just because I’m feeling argumentative:

        Chester Arthur, the 21st president who served from 1881-1885.

        Chester Arthur was born in Vermont in 1829; but his father, Irish-born preacher
        William Arthur, was a subject of the United Kingdom at the time
        of Chester’s birth and didn’t become a naturalized U.S. citizen until
        1843, when Chester was a teenager.


        • 22tula says:

          I don’t think cajunkelly that You are argumentative at all. I was thinking the same thing. We keep looking at the effect, (BO) and not the cause.
          Is “The Open Call To Patriots,” calling for a new Constitution?
          If so, then see links below for ideas.
          Is “The Open Call To Patriots,” a call to restore the Constitution,
          then see the same links below.

          For years the Federal Government has been slowly chipping away the US Constitution. But it wasn’t until 2008 when the “Big Slap,” in our face occurred.
          The Federal Government in particular our Commander in Chief,
          the Protector, Defender and Preserver of the US Constitution,
          George W. Bush, and the Legislative Body accepted
          an undocumented candidate to run for US President,
          thus defiling the US Constitution.
          That is dereliction of duty – Period.
          Take that to the courts.
          First Question to George W. Bush:
          Why would You allow an undocumented candidate to be on the ballot?
          Follow Up.
          As You know President Bush The Constitution of the United States, (Article. II. Section. 1.), states that
          No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

          So how can You, President Bush know if the candidate meets these requirements without seeing documentation?
          This is a Conspiracy.

          Vattel’s Influence on the term of a Natural Born Citizen

          “How Can A Natural Born Citizen’s Status Be ‘Governed’ By Great Britain”

          Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

          Vattel took many cue’s from ancient Rome’s Cicero. Marcus Tullius Cicero – A successful politician, formidable orator, and prolific writer, Cicero has given us more insight into republican Rome and a more vibrant understanding of the republican spirit than any other figure of his time. In the law, in particular, Cicero has guided the thinking of scholars in every age. One need not look far for proof. The natural law theorist Vattel opens his eighteenth-century treatise with an inscription from Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis: “For nothing of all that is done on earth is more pleasing to that supreme God who rules the whole universe than the assemblies and gatherings of men associated in justice, which are called States.”130 Vattel also quotes Cicero liberally throughout his manuscript — some six times in a single chapter.131 Although it is now sadly misunderstood, Cicero’s remark about the universality of the natural law crops up in American court opinions even now.

          “President George Washington racks up $300,000 late fee for two Manhattan library books” By Rich Schapiro – April 17, 2010


  4. Mikado Cat says:

    This is time for our annual healthcare enrollment, and for a family of three its looking like $15k to $20k total out of pocket expenses, and we have no special issues. Add in no Twinkies and people are going to be unhappy in 2014. That should make voters motivated make some changes.

    Going after Boehner, failing and giving the seat to a Democrat would be bad. Deciding on a candidate without a very careful look at the demographics in the districts that will be voting. Before you decide who you are going to beat, better decide on who your coalition of voters is going to be.

    Romney was far from perfect, but he didn’t lose on any fundamental issues, he died the death of a thousand cuts, many inflicted during the primaries.


  5. Sharon says:

    We’ve got some serious conversations coming at us. This Tree is a good place to try to have them.


  6. Did anyone notice how “Jim DeMint” was virtually ((((crickets)))) this election?


    • TXMom says:

      Yes, I have, SD! And I am disturbed by his “absence”. What do you think is going on?


      • I’m not 100% certain, but…..

        I do know the McConnell class was FURIOUS with him for his work in 2010 supporting Rubio, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey et al… who all beat their establishment preferred and chosen “next in line” candidates.

        I do know he was leveraged heavily to “knock it off” when his Senate Conservative Fund was taking down establishment types. I do know that John Cornyn, Ron Portman, and Mike Crapo were specifically told to “influence” or persuade DeMint to drop out of sight…..

        I do know that when DeMint was poised to add Orin Hatch to the knock out list after they, well, actually “he” took out Dick Lugar…… The establishment class were furious, actually beyond furious…..

        DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund raised more money ($16+ million) than the Republican Senatorial Campaign.

        The establishment was not about to lose the senior spot on the judicial committee…. to a, wait for it, Tea Party candidate….

        I do know there is a SERIOUS rift in the Senate R’s, and the conservatives who align with DeMint are punished in every aspect by Mitch McConnell,…. and DeMint needed to work quietly behind enemy lines to support and bring victories to: Ted Cruz (Tx), Jeff Flake (Az) and Deb Fischer (NE).

        Actually, DeMint’s SCF scored the only victories in the Senate (as noted above). All the establishment R’s for Senate 2012 were crushed and defeated.

        ….. but the problem is the Tea Party. Go figure.


  7. Dusty says:

    You may place this oild vet on your list of those who would love to see weeping John gone! And all of the other RINOs mentioned as well. We could use a wise person likwe Barry Golwater to give us a boost. However, I don’t have any contact with those Cajuns in Jindals swamps. May we put forth a genuine effort to restore the Glory of the USA.


    • floridianne says:

      A man in a position of “leadership” who cries is in fact the epitome of weakness. A total and complete embarrassment; utterly useless. The party is lost and has been for a long time. Wasn’t it both Huckabee and Barbour who pardoned murderers? Disgusting. And Republicans just love Huckabee. Gag! Who exactly are these people with whom so many are aligned? Not me, I left when they failed to secure the border. They had the ability to provide the one thing that justifies their existence: national security. They simply refuse to protect the citizenry. Not one iota of difference between them and the marxists. Both are hell bent on the destruction of the country. Is resistence even possible? Is it time to let it burn?


      • I’ve been wondering about the “let it burn” aspect myself, TBH. But then I think about my kids, and I think how are they ever going to know how amazing this country is meant to be if I don’t at least try? I don’t know what to do but I am gonna re-read this post and try to figure it out.


      • doodahdaze says:

        Just look at the GOP tax plan. Eliminate the deductions. Once eliminated it is easy for the Democrats to raise the rates. The GOP will give lip service as usual. The deductions will be gone forever and the rates subject to change. It’s the deductions stupid! As far as resistance is concerned. There is none now that the Tea Party has been put out to pasture. i don’t think there is a majority coalition to be had any more.


      • canadacan says:

        Never give up never give in


  8. marie says:

    I was/am pissed at Jindal for his remarks–big time pissed at a man I formerly admired.

    I am pissed at Chris Christie for so many reasons I never thought imaginable 3 months ago.

    I have lost respect for both of them.

    One thing that is totally absurd is having ANY gop spokespeople at this early date trying to say what is right and/or wrong with the party. They should go about their business and ignore questions about what the party is and isn’t, what it is and/or what it should be. In a year and a half we’ll see the 2016 field forming and in three years we’ll see the field narrowed and a few months after that there’ll be a presumed nominee and he or she will, at that time, determine “the party’s positions.”


    • Miskky says:

      Yeah, its so easy to criticize the Candidate but in reality the electorate really could not and still cannot stand the truth. Everyone is saying Romney should have given more details, should have done this, should have done that. What a bunch of BS that is. The more details given the more the dems and the MSM would have had to attack him. Then he would have been criticized for giving too much detail or saying too much of this or to much of that. His 47% was the truth. The “Gifts” that got Obama elected is the truth. We’ll never be able to change reality until we are willing to face reality!

      The American people may not be stupid but a majority sure are ignorant and they really want to stay that way since it supports their “Government, take care of me” mentality!


      • All True. That is why the “Messenger” is important – the message was/is correct… The messenger was weak. The messenger was weak in the primay with 60% wanting some other option and only 40% support for Romney – But the GOP had to have “their guy”, the “next in line”, the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in the first round.

        So long as the messenger is wrong – the message will not reach.


      • Coast says:

        I agree…I didn’t consider Romney weak, more of Obama effectively painting Romney as “not for the people” and the American people falling for lies and spin. Obama has poisoned over 50% of America.


        • ctdar says:

          How bout once and for all level the playing field and get to the bottom of the outright fraud of the voting machine tabulations, poller intimidation and MSM bias? We will never know just how bad Romney lost or did he? Every major newspaper endorsed Romney, the crowds were out for him in his rally’s where Obama had to change venues coz he couldn’t fill a room.
          There is a reason why more Tea Party candidates won their races vs the moderates. IMHO need to get to the root of the election outcome before addressing change in party views.


  9. ZurichMike says:

    I see Jindal’s remarks a different way. And haven’t we had this general conversation before?

    The GOP never really made its case during the past election in reaching out even to those who vote Democrat to explain factually, clearly, cogently, and personally how free markets, lower taxes, fiscal discipline, and limited government would help them and their families. Granted, we’re up against a dumbed-down population, a leftist public school system, leftist media, and the culture of self-gratification where sacrifice is something other people must do. But these truths about a lean, open, free society creating stable, successful families and countries have absolutely *nothing* to do with whether one is an atheist, an abortionist, or an illegal alien. IMHO, separating and painting the electorate in such broad stroke is divisive and simplistic, and what the left does.

    The more I think about it, Paul Ryan was silenced or chose to be silent; he never really was allowed to do what he does best: make an easy-to-understand financial case for voting GOP. His ability to connect at a very basic level is why he enjoys such popularity in his district — even among Democrats. So going after 100% of the vote is the right strategy. And half a loaf is better than none. This is what Reagan did, remember? His promise of “morning in America” meant that opportunity and freedom was available to *all* Americans, not just apparently to some ill-defined subset of the 47%. And this is what gave him a *landslide* victory. Morning rises on us all, not just the Republican Party or conservatives.

    What is suggested about Boehner is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I look to California, where a once powerful GOP has been relegated to the enclaves in places like Orange County, comfortable with their principles, yet out of power. Rockefeller Republicans in Connecticut are out of power not necessarily because they went “left”, but because they also didn’t explain “right” in terms that even the 53% would understand and prefer.

    In conclusion to my humble opinion, this is not an either/or proposition between Tea Party beliefs and non-Tea Party (traditional or established) beliefs. It’s not and either/or proposition about one’s voting record and one’s political beliefs — I would support even a leftist who voted more conservatively than his opponent, if that were my only choice. But unless Jesus Christ Himself is running for office, we are going to have to accept failed, flawed people as our politicians. Instead of jockeying for position right now, how about reaching out to *everyone* in America with some basics about government and finances?


    • Pretty sure we tried that. It did not work, so much.


      • ZurichMike says:

        No, it has never really been tried on a sustained, large-scale effort. And what, exactly, was Romney’s plan other than “I am not Barack Obama”? What were the specific financial plans? “I will cut taxes to ____%, I will cut all federal agencies but 10%, etc.” — was missing. I am also concerned about how the non-establishment GOP thinks that its candidates are better. If so, why did so many fail in the 2010 and 2012 elections? Yes, a few won, but it’s not the stuff of seismic shifts. We will never “out-optic” the Dems. We have to be teachers, and this takes a long time, given what has become of the US electorate.


    • Well stated and I don’t think we are entirely divergent, just looking at it from Practical vs. Ideological aspects.

      First, the opportunity to explain the 47% comment was lost by Romney because he sucks at explaining in a connective way. Accepting a reality is not dividing the electorate. It appears you are trying to express a concerted, and fundamentally sound opinion, that it is healthier to eat your spinach than gorge on Ice Cream.

      Understanding what we are up against, vis-a-vis Stripper Club Night with your EBT card accepted, against fiscal prudence is, in my opinion, impossible. Dependency is a self-fulfilling prophecy and the Left has that touchy feely ‘we won’t make you swallow the bitter pill of grown-ups’ argument. It is easier to sell the Ice cream than spinach.

      That’s not to say you should not still try, as in ‘lay out the clear cost for being short-sighted’, but it is ridiculous to attempt broad principled acceptance from 100% of the people to give up their dependency – it’s just easier to keep it, they want it, and the professional dependency classists are professional pushers.

      Those who want 100% government subsidized abortions on demand are not going to buy what you are selling. Nor will anyone with a personal stake in 100% government subsidized (_____________) fill in the blank.

      Secondly, to the bigger issue – you point out the argument yourself. Why was Paul Ryan silenced?

      He was silenced because he was seen by the Republicans to be a “token” to the base to “keep them happy”, and they damned sure did not want to cut him loose with all that spinach selling ahead of him he was perfectly able to explain. He was also silenced by the media who support the professional pushers. But the latter is not within the relm of our control – the former is.

      Hence, that is exactly the point. So long as the “right” per se’ perceive the Paul Ryans of the world as a liability, a token to be held at arms length, they are as much the problem as the pushers and the media supportive dependency pushers.

      Removing Boehner is not cutting off a nose to spite face, it is instead cutting out a visible melenoma to cure the cancer of weakness. What is the risk? A Nancy Pelosi type replacing a John Boehner?….. We are beyond the point it would make a difference.

      Let the professional “right” take the 3rd party approach….. at their own peril.

      Again, I repeat – the current fiscal cliff is arguing for 4% tax hike equivelent to $40B per year in revenue. What about the other $960B year-upon-year CURRENT deficit spending that will need to be paid?… we are, in essence, taxing our future selves into the dependency you are seeking to find a better spokesperson to advocate against…. You could magnify the tax revenue request by a factor of 20 and still not reach the needed level to just cover existing deficit spending.


      • ZurichMike says:

        Come to think of it, Ryan could have explained the finances. and out-done Michelle Obama in explaining physical fitness since he is actually very, very fit!

        Anyway, back to the discussion — I had this discussion with a friend in DC last week. You are correct in that sacrifice means something that other people do. The perpetually aggrieved, perpetually dependent classes will vote the Santa Claus ticket time after time — unless we can show that a non-dependent path will be better. Hard to do? Yes. Impossible? No.


        • Agreed. However, the spinach gets psychologically easier to eat when the Dr. gives you word of your 6 months to live after the most recent artery repair. Until then you’ll chase the sound of the ice cream truck…. and it is a waste of time and effort to yell toward those waving their EBT cards at the driver, or even try to convince otherwise before they set off on foot….

          Better to get in the drivers seat and smash the truck into the closest tree if you cannot safely take it out of town forever.


          • ZurichMike says:

            Good point. And I do so much love your metaphors and analogies. Smashing the ice cream truck! Fabulous!


            • doodahdaze says:

              Unemployment insurance is going to run out on 20 million over the next two years. They will have to rely on welfare. More will become unemployed and there will be no full time jobs with benefits due to Obamacare. This is the perfect storm when combined with amnesty for the Mexicans, Obama will succeed in his mission. The GOP-E message will not sell to a majority. All Obama has to do now is sit back and watch the carnage.


    • Coast says:

      At this point, Jesus would be “run out of town” by the voters.


    • Menagerie says:

      I agree with you Mike. The Republicans cannot elucidate who and what they are, and make a simple, bold case for their beliefs. However, I do not think it will ever be simply a case of messaging, because party leaders are tone deaf to the clear wishes of the people. Their interests do not coincide with ours. There is a part of me that is coming to believe the Republicans will never get it. What hope is there is a party that refuses to listen to the base over and over and over? They can float these ideas about what went wrong until hell freezes over. What went wrong is simple to me, and two pronged. First and foremost, they not only angered and alienated their base during the primaries, they enraged them. They counted on them to fall back in line, just like I did, but they overestimated how many would do that, and second, just as you said, they couldn’t sell ice to an Eskimo, and they won’t turn loose those who can to do it.


  10. BertDilbert says:

    Nonsense, you guys think that voting your man in will fix the problem. It won’t because the system is broken. The focus needs to be on fixing the system to where those in office are not bought by unions and big business. If you can’t fix that, stay home and just wait for the implosion.


    • The “system” will not fix itself. It does actually take “people” to do that. You do know that, I hope.


      • lovemygirl says:

        Working from now until then is what is needed. You start NOW to get the results 2-4 years down the road.


      • BertDilbert says:

        Until someone comes up with a plan to remove union and other corporate money from the system of campaign finance count me out. Unless you have a plan that revolves around that, our country is doomed to end up in a pile of ashes. Our next crisis will probably hit in 2014 or so and since the underlying problem is compounding you don’t have much time left to do anything.

        A good number of people understand that this is the problem and everything else is a symptom that revolves around this. Yet noone is ready to tackle the problem, they would rather point to the symptoms and chase them around. First rule of first aid is stop the bleeding, which generally means finding the wound and applying direct pressure. Instead, we ignore the wound and grab rags and sop the blood up off the ground. Obviously if you ignore the wound the patient is going to die.

        The system may not fix itself but it will certainly resolve itself just as not putting gas in the tank resolves itself by leaving you stranded on the side of the road. .


        • doodahdaze says:

          AAA=Federal Reserve. I wonder what would happen to the Democrats if they treated the Blacks the way the GOP treated the Tea Party? It is like Obama tamping down the Black and Mexican voters.


        • dreamerspirit says:

          Obviously the issue of campaign finance continues to plague and subvert our elections. The unions feel Obama owes them for his successful reelection and make no pretense about it. However, democrats recognized that Romney was able to raise significant contributions from big business. Now they are trying to move to make corporate contributions subject to a different level of eligibility than that of unions. This would only put the democrats at an advantage.

          I hate the way the campaign finance laws have corrupted our politicians and our entire election process. We saw the full brunt of it this past election. Wherever Obama needed to win or felt threatened, he would outspend the Republican Party in numerous ways. The same thing happened with Allen West and Michele Bachmann; two candidates that the democrats targeted and poured huge sums of money into defeating them.

          However, I do not see why we can not focus on more than one objective. If we want to see changes made in campaign finance, then we need to work toward that end as well. I am all for multi-tasking because I do not believe this is a one answer fixes all problems solution. If we sit back and do nothing how can we expect anything to change?


      • doodahdaze says:

        Fixing the system is the message of the GOP-E. That may be the wrong message. I don’t see how be fixed. Trying to fix it might be futile. I have been searching for anyone with an actual plan that will work. I don’t think there is one. I would love to hear about one. We have four more years of Obama. I think we might have gone over the cliff and are now in free fall. The question becomes when do we impact? Gravity works.


  11. doodahdaze says:

    The GOP-E leadership reminds me of the members of the Bushwood Country Club in Caddyshack. Send in Rodney.


  12. Reblogged this on USA Natural Born and commented:
    LOCK AND LOAD, send cry baby Bohner abode! 🙂


    • doodahdaze says:

      Bohner is just a symptom of the disease. The left can’t understand how the welfare state is funded. It can’t fund itself. The cost is 1 trillion a year, and rising. We are borrowing the money to fund it. It will only continue as long as we can borrow the money. So called entitlements, such as social security are still funded by taxes. The economy is not big enough to fund the welfare state through taxation. Taxation can never pay off the debt. It can only be funded by free money inflation. We are borrowing at zero interest. The payoff will be in hyper inflated dollars. Example. Years ago a home would cost 10k. Today that home is 150k. Do the math. A coke was a nickel. Today a dollar. Do the math. Exponential inflation.


  13. lovemygirl says:

    I think they are grooming Rubio. They think they need the Hispanic vote.


    • doodahdaze says:

      Democrats will always be able to outbid the GOP for the “group” vote. It is the Mexican vote they are talking about. Not Hispanic. That is just clever manipulation. the illegals are Mexicans.


  14. It will take more than removing John Boehner but I’m in. We need to do this in every state. The “good ol boy” system of rich elites works against us in every state because they have the money and know the rules (they created them) required to run. In some states you can’t even get on the ballot if you’re not registered and supported by one of the parties. We will also be fighting the Progressive (There are no more true democrats) propaganda arm…the lame stream media and need to understand from the start that the attacks will come against whomever we run. America is ready for a group of individuals who will pick up the sword and challenge the establishment…Charge…….


    • doodahdaze says:

      Who becomes a politician? Where do the parties get their candidates? These are relevant questions. Can a non-system oriented candidate even run? The vast majority of the elected representatives come out of the party “farm system.” The minor leagues so to speak.


  15. Arkindole says:

    Boehner is dirt, even his OH red people say so–so, he doesn’t have a whole lot of love. I tend to agree with BertDilbert above. The EBT cards will need to bounce, and that will generate the signal Matt Bracken describes. In case you didn’t hear, they tried a micro EBT crash Friday in several states including FL. There will need to be extreme pain and gnashing of the teeth with the entitlement crowd before anything happens. Then, and only then, will hell be released on these evil parasites by the virtuous ones that are now sitting silent. SD; I think those are the people you are talking about that will effect change. But, after that happens it will be tribal for a while until a new political system is established. One word–ugly.


  16. Mikado Cat says:

    In 2010 despite the tea party wins, nobody thought Obama could be beat in 2012, and nobody with a serious chance of beating him was willing to use their “one chance” to run, so we had half a dozen not going to win ideologs mud wrestle for a year and ran with whoever was still standing. What Romney HAD TO DO to win the primary cost him the most in the actual election. By the end of the primaries, Obama was beatable by a good candidate, and we had were walking wounded. Obama still could have EASILY lost if just 47% and Akins were “fixed”.

    I totally disagree on deductions. Nobody will believe anybody is being taxed fairly until the tax code is predictable and understandable by the average person. Its the PERCEPTION of unfairness that allows the public to demand the rich pay “their fair share” when 5% actually pay 60% of all income tax.

    We also need to REALLY clarify the difference between income tax and SS. High income people pay the max into SS yearly, but often collect NOTHING because they invest and income from that knocks them out of SS benefits (I think). SS is NOT paying for government programs, it is money paid back to those who paid in during working age. SS and annual cap are what liberals use to skew the “tax” percentages, and its not a fair treatment and we need to say so.

    I believe in totally dumping the liberal narrative of the right protecting the rich. We need to pound into heads that reduced government, reduced government spending helps EVERYONE by giving opportunity, and that taxes ALWAYS have consequences. Also that its immoral to vote yourself something that belongs to someone else.


  17. gretchenone says:

    I have not emerged from my cynicism yet–that this is all a day late and a dollar short in terms of being able to fix anything.

    It is clear to me, however, that the Republican Party is willing to sacrifice the conservatives in order to build a party that they believe will win elections. They are cutting off their base and saying “Good riddance”. This is a well calculated move on their part. Wakee, wakee people.

    Therefore, if I was going to make some type of plan to fix things, it would surely be to vote out of office the Boehners of the Party before trying to defeat the marxists. But it sure better be All In — a well-financed effort, ready to scrabble in the dirt, laser focused, with viable candidates who can take the heat from both parties.

    That’s asking a lot.


  18. Frank says:

    Hypocrites. That’s what you all are. I saw this moment over a year ago. 2008 Romney was considered the conservative. 2011 he was the RINO according to all of you. You all wanted Sarah Palin to ride in and steal the nomination at the convention bypassing scrutiny, debates, hard hitting interviews. Just like Obama, you all set out to kill Romney from the get go. The tax returnes – thanks Rick sanctimonious Santorum and Newt philanderer Gingrich. The Etch-A-Sketch – thanks Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Romney the flip flopper – thanks Rick ooops where am I Perry. The war on women, started by Rush “slut” Limbaugh and Rick Santorum’s benefactor “put an aspirin between your knees” Freise. Every step Romney took, he was bashed, ridiculed by his own party. Ronnie’s 11th commandment was not only broken it was stepped on and spat on. “Yea, you want Romney – by the time you get him will shall have reduced him to nothing.” You all played right into Obama’s hands. Typical. Republicans always eat their own.

    What you had in Romney was a cool level headed businessman with a great love for America and Israel. He was going to reduce the Federal Government in size so much that he shared with Rush that he might be a one term President – which was fine with him. Horror! a Romney presidency – what could it have been like? Let see: a vibrant economy (which we were on the brink of with the right President), a stronger defense, a crippled EPA, lower unemployment, lower taxes. If you weren’t so jaded, you would seen how great Romney would have been. You all shot yourselves in the foot. Romney would have been greater than Ronnie in many ways. But you couldn’t see past your selfish agendas. I blame you all, Rush, Levin, Ingraham. Ironically not the Evangelicals b/c they voted with their Biblical values not their personal agenda. I blame voter fraud. Stop blaming Romney b/c you look like idiots doing so. You made your bed. Stupid wolverines – you turned on your pack leader – the strongest one you had available b/c he wasn’t your Momma wolverine – stupid.


    • canadacan says:

      We need to stop the circular firing squad please. Ryan’s a good choice I also want to hear about this guy from Ohio. and by the way I like Rubio go ahead and bash me let’s get started. come on negative people let’s get started I’m getting mad now I’m up for a fight.


      • canadacan says:

        We need to stop the hand wringing. I absolutely adore the treehouse and Sundance crackers wonderful. but you guys aren’t always right. I’m a wasp I put bashing Hispanics for going to need them. use some common sense. the Hispanics are here to stay get over it. yes I am a constitutional conservative they’re not all 1 flavor.


        • canadacan says:

          Zurich. Mike. Made. A Lot of sense.


          • Canadacan, just ignore Frank and his pontifications. He’s an old time former member of the Treehouse community who pounded his feet, and gnashed his teeth because in 2010 and 2011 people warned about his angelic boy Romney worship…. As it turns out, Frank is unable to swallow the bitter crow and accept his defeat…. there must be someone else to blame. – Typical prog mentality.


    • Menagerie says:

      Frank you were always a Romney fanboy, now you are just a bitter Romney fanboy. Given who and what he was, the Roves of the Republican establishment mustered far more support for him than I ever thought he’d get, but the fact remains they forced him on us. I sucked up my rage and voted for him. Others did not, and would not. As long as the good ole boy power brokers speak for the Republican Party, the RP does NOT speak for the people. We have, time and again, most dramatically in the elections of 2010, given them clear, very clear direction as to what we believe in and will support. They have refused to listen to the people, and will continue to do so.


    • stellap says:

      Frank, once Romney was the nominee we supported him, and supported voting for him. Are you saying that the nominee cannot ever be criticized? Sour grapes, Frank. Romney lost. I’m sorry that he did, but I, for one, won’t take the blame for it.

      P.S.: Many of us here (me too) donated to the Romney campaign. Does that sound as if we were opposing him?


    • And then there’s Frank. I wondered when he’d poke his head up and not accept responsibility for a horridly flawed, ideologically disconnected, North East thinking candidate that had no connection to espousing conservative principles.

      No Frank we voted for your guy – he lost. He lost because he was no better than the alternative, Obama, in the eyes of many… An uninspiring, non-asperational and disconnected candidate unable to articulate and connect to the average electorate.

      No one in the “ABO crowd” turned their back on Romney – no-one. We all voted for him even if we didn’t actually like him. Your guy was the lesser of two evils, again, McCain 2.0 and that never works.

      But it’s funny now to see you avoid responsibility for Obama Term 2.

      BTW – who’s your next one “in line”?


    • Sharon says:

      Frank, my hubby and I donated more money to Romney’s campaign than we have ever donated to any political campaign in our lives, and we bought lawn signs for the first time in our lives……

      We supported him 100% when we saw he was the nominee. Would YOU have done the same for any OTHER nominee, FRANK?????

      I’m not going to try to take on your sentences and your toddler-like spewing of hurt as though you are someone who should be communicated with as an equal.

      Shame on you. Shame on you. You never could defend him without being childish, so I guess it’s no wonder you act like this now.

      We are busting our butts 24/7, and have been for close to two years….and you come whining and yelling in here like a Paulbot Lite looking for somebody to kick in the shins.


    • aliashubbatch says:

      Sounds like a certain Romney cultist is still butthurt. If there was anything that I can call a win, it’s that I have yet to hear another LDS commercial ad on the radio since Etchy’s loss. 🙄


    • Mikado Cat says:

      The exit polls are hard to argue with, the right did not vote at the same levels as in 2008 or 2010, we lost because the right didn’t see Romney as right enough, or maybe too LDS.

      I also wonder if it may have been less of a top of ticket down loss, than bottom of ticket up loss. I think the division between tea party and non tea party may have been felt more strongly in state and congressional races, and when one side lost to the other in the primaries the disaffected didn’t vote in the presidential election.


  19. dreamerspirit says:

    Many good and interesting points made.


  20. SD,

    I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that the messenger was the problem. Gov. Romney was vastly more qualified to be President than President Obama. if you agree with that, and you really have to, then you have to concede that Romney should have won.

    Romney was also not wrong in his assessment that Obama courted voters with gifts, both past and future. Gov. Jindal is wrong in his recrimination of Romney’s comments. No, Romney is not to blame for his loss. Republicans and Independents that did not vote are to blame. Voters that are otherwise eligible, but have not registered, and therefore could not vote, are to blame. They fell for the media’s spin. The number of people that fall under those two umbrellas is around 100 million, almost 40 million more people than voted for President Obama. So, the biggest reason why Romney lost was because of the media who did everything they could to hide Obama’s problems and inflame or create problems for Romney. There is also the strong possibility of voter fraud. For that, I would direct you to World Net Daily.


    • Keep it simple…… So, according to your logic, it was, and is, the “customers fault”, that the product (Romney) the business (establishment Republicans) were selling was not worthy of their purchase.

      So when businesses fail – because people do not purchase their goods – whose fault is it?


      • SD,

        That’s making it too simple. Consider this: If Romney did not advertise, then your analogy would be perfect and the business would be at fault for not showcasing their product. However, that was not the case. The case was that the product was showcased and the message was a good message: “you built that,” “we can do this,” etc, etc. But, the administration’s guard (the media) lied about the message, the messenger, and a competing product.


        • No, it really is that simple. It really is. Republicans are the party of free-market business so this analogy is actually quite appropos.

          Now that the product launch was a massive fail – nobody bought this product or brand – So, you have a board meeting taking place at the Company Headquarters (GOP). The various departments Marketing/Advertising (RNC), Retail Operations (RGA), and Product Research and Development (Beltway)… all pointing fingers.

          Meanwhile the Customer Relations dept. (the folks who matter – the ones closest to the work) and the store managers (those charged with selling the product) are shut out of the board room and unable to explain what the customer wanted and why their product failed so miserably.

          You see, “The Board” must find an excuse, because they cannot accept the principle that their product is wrong. If they accept it, if they actually accepted the understanding of what is at the core of the company problem, they would have to absorb that the problem is THEM. This paradigm shift is too difficult a bitter pill to swallow.

          They spent a massive amount of money, effort, time, developing a product in the echo-chamber of a executive suite(s). It looks great, it sounds great, it seems great because they are looking at the product “as if” they are the consumer/customer – They’re not.

          Until they understand that THEY are the problem they will just recycle the same stinkin’ thinkin’ and lauch another Dole/McCain/Romney 2.0 /3.0 /eleventy.naught – under the auspices that they just didn’t do a good enough job of advertising it.

          Another batch of shit people don’t want to buy will flood to stores…… and the cycle will repeat. Meanwhile the competition laughs uncontrollably and tells them to keep it up.


          • SD,

            I’m really not intending this to take up too much of your time, but the analogy is not perfect. Specifically, you said, “nobody bought this product or brand.” This is untrue. Nearly 60 million people bought the “Romney brand”. And, in a true business-sense, both the “Obama brand” and the “Romney brand” would enjoy great success with 10’s of millions of customers.

            As Milton Friedman said, “Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” And, this is why the analogy is not really perfect. A business market can allow both products to exist simultaneously and both can enjoy success. But, in the Presidential race, one is a loser and one is a winner. In this sense, a 3rd party (the media) has immense power and is responsible for how many in the customer base determine which product they will choose.

            The problem I had with your original post was that it declares that Romney lost because “he sucked.” In reality, we all, here, know that Romney would have been vastly superior to President Obama and has been so throughout his entire life. So, he didn’t lose because he sucks. He lost for various different reasons.


          • howie says:

            Who is the next designated loser?


      • SD,

        Also, as for the whether or not it is the customer’s fault, yes, many in the populace are not educated enough to make decisions that affect all of us. A recent study came out that showed that many Americans, who actually vote, spend only a few hours researching the candidate they’ll eventually vote for, and they only do it just before the election. Our founders were more limited in their approach, requiring one to own land in order to vote. That provides skin in the game, but, in this day and age, we don’t need to go that far. Instead, the “right” to vote should be limited to those that pay taxes. If you only pay taxes at the local level, you can vote, but only at the local level. If, you are one of dwindling number of Americans that actually pay federal income tax, then you can vote in federal elections. We already have a limitation on age, which means that the right to vote is not truly a right and can be limited to certain people. Barring the issue of fraud, this vote was simply a vote by the “have-nots” to take from the “haves”.

        Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” I’d like to expand that to the executive branch and the media, as well.


        • Ahhhh…. but for that, you need an eloquent messenger… and it would need to be a pretty good one too. No?

          Sorta a “Steve Jobs” esque of conservative brain trust and development……

          Politics are DOWNSTREAM from popular culture.


          • SD,

            Not only do you need an eloquent messenger, you need a press that isn’t allied against that message. Even Steve Jobs had naysayers trying to tear down Apple for its success, but the media wasn’t allied with them, in that case.

            Pop culture does drive politics, I agree. That was part of my original comment. The people are responsible for the government they have and, whether there was action or inaction, both produce consequences.


          • Cyrano says:

            We need a Newt Gingrich without the political and personal baggage. I like Bobby Jindal, but I agree he is not the man for this job. Christy just might be able to carry the torch, but I fear that he is lacking in the knowledge of political history needed to keep from putting his foot in his mouth. Newt should take him under his wing for a while and prepare him for 2016. He’s gonna need a very big wing!


            • Like you said, Newt has too much baggage. Christie is too unhealthy looking in our image conscious society. But, more than that, he is too well-known. That might seem like a good thing, but in our world where the media tries to destroy anything that goes against their narrative, like anything even remotely conservative, it is a bad thing, as the media has typically had negative after negative story about (insert name here).

              We need a dark horse. like Obama was. One who comes to prominence quickly and energizes the populace just as quick, but, in this case, with realistic ideas to help our country grow and prosper, giving the media less to work with (read as: distort).


          • Arkindole says:

            “…you need an eloquent messenger… and it would need to be a pretty good one too. No?”

            Sorta sounds like a call for Reagan. If fact, many many talking heads have been using that comparison because he was able to do that. Justincase has a point. It’s hard to get a sense of the numbers of voters given the massive fraud (should I mention Alan West here?), however, I do know many who “withheld” their vote as some form of bizarre protest. And, I, like Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish), now call them my country’s enemy. If we listen to those types they were not pleased with the republican side for a zillion different reasons–moron, catholic, businessman, fitness nut, vouchers, yada yada. Perhaps you are right; those missing voters might have turned the tide if there was a different candidate that appealed to them.
            However, returning to the post’s main thesis that the GOP is “caving”, The two party system is now only an illusion. It’s global Kabuki. It’s greed and corruption in congress, the executive office, and the judicial branch who merely protect their interests. In order to slow down an implosion, we must cut the senior entitlement program, pensions, healthcare, and welfare. Facts are facts. Austerity is the mandate, and look to the EU for lessons on how that will work. Taxation is a soothing word to the sheeple, but most failed their consumer math courses and they can’t balance their own checkbooks. The loss of productivity and revenue income invalidates the taxation illusion. On Nov 8th we actually found out that a majority of voters will not tolerate cuts in “their” .gov pie–they were, in point of fact, protecting it with a vote for 0bama. So, I’m not sure anyone can sell austerity to the great entitled majority.


  21. obsidian53 says:

    republican and democrat same party, same goals big government.
    Boehner is already history he will be replaced by a democrat.
    next election the republicans can count on even fewer votes and more voter fraud.
    Recall Hillary’s reset button and her words to the Russians, “I never understood the concept of a two party system.”
    I won’t waste my time voting, voter fraud and abject surrender by the republicans made my vote worthless.


  22. Cyrano says:

    I said before the election, that the Republican party had failed to represent conservatives, and that we need a new party that conservatives would be proud to claim. Conservative libertarians is what we are and we need a leader who will take us in that direction with or without the Republican establishment. The question is “How to affect this radical change?” Some one help me here.

    When the World Football league was established, then failed rather Quickly, it was noted that it would be impossible to succeed with a new league unless you had a commitment from at least one major broadcast network. I think that applies here. Before we can even begin to subtly change the political landscape, we need to get control of at least one major network. Fox doesn’t count. They are a cheap trick Rupert Murdoch creation with all the subtlety of a Mack truck! For $40 billion we could acquire NBC. I presume another 40 or so would get CBS. Now we’re getting somewhere! We need to literally bring the red county voters together to buy stocks in a targeted corporation such as Comcast. once we have a controlling interest we do some firing and hiring. The sheeple will pay no attention to this sort of activity.

    I nominate Bobby Jindal to head this project. I think he is a good man trapped in a broken system.


  23. cajunkelly says:

    For the record, I’ma stay away from political discussions about my Governor. T’wouldn’t be prudent.

    I’ll just say he has the speaking skills of a three year old, and that’s a source of embarrassment for me.


  24. hoffstyle71 says:

    Here’s my opinion. The Republican party needs a makeover MTV style. Conservatism always wins. Always. The reason why it is not selling is because it is not being marketed correctly. Younger voters care only for the image and right now the image is that being a Progressive is the cool thing to do. Conservatives needs to wipe the old, power holding Rino’s out and put the younger and more diverse group right out front and take these moonbats on their own turf. And for the message itself, our talk show hosts and television personalities need to change as well…Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the likes time is up as far as I am concerned. This needs to happen now.


  25. Mikado Cat says:

    Romney was the barely tolerable GOP candidate, social conservative, fiscal liberal. I want the opposite, fiscal conservative, socially tolerant.

    Its unfortunate Libertarian party is still even more so than GOP controlled by the fringe.


  26. Mikado Cat says:

    The sell is the whole FUBAR.

    Do you want to help the rich or the poor?

    GOP cheerfully allows itself to be painted as defending the rich, instead of selling the idea that keeping people poor is BAD and creating jobs and helping people OUT of poverty is GOOD.

    Obama loves the poor, and wants to make millions more of them.


  27. ytz4mee says:

    The GOP-E lacks real courage.
    They successfully alienated a force for good, college age Libertarians.
    They attempted to marginalize and co-opt the Tea Party movement.
    They are idiots.
    That is all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s