Myths From an Election Night Loss and How to Save the Republican Party

With the election lost, many folks are asking how to save the Republican Party. To which I wonder what exactly they're trying to save. I am not interested in saving the Republican Party. I'm interested in saving America and the ideals that it was founded on - classical liberalism, individual liberty, and all those lofty principles that no longer seem to matter a majority of voters.

I do believe the Republican Party is still the best vehicle to advance these causes, but only because Democrats have abandoned them for a cradle-to-grave nanny state of centralized bureaucracy. When I hear Democrats advising Republicans to be more moderate to save the Republican Party, I hear only their desire to destroy conservatism. That's not a solution. That's suicide. America needs conservatism to survive, because as Margaret Thatcher correctly stated, "the facts of life are conservative." Just ask Greece.

America, like Greece, will live as a failed state if we abandon the principles that made this nation free and prosperous. Our unprecedented prosperity over two centuries is a result of economic freedom and personal liberty that promised fortune for those who worked hard, saved, invested wisely, and lived within their means. The proof of its success is not just in GDP, but in the choice of millions of immigrants to leave the old world for new opportunities and risk everything to come to these shores.

Unfortunately, the new generation wants it all now without the work or responsibility required of adults. In raising the millennials, we have created an On Demand Generation which spends money blindly on leisure and entertainment while demanding others pick up the tab for their necessities - college, housing, health care, and yes, even condoms. It seems everyone loves the sex, but nobody wants to pay for the consequences (so that's what the hippies meant by "free love"). These are adults behaving like children - putting off adulthood until 27 or however long President Obama says you can stay on your parent's health insurance.

I don't point this out to be overly pious or judgmental, certainly we are all at fault for contributing to the current state of our society, but it does end poorly in the long run. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The future members of society which we are now enabling will only think of themselves when austerity measures are enacted as they must be to avoid bankruptcy at some point. Look no further than Europe to see what the future holds. Our On Demand Generation will riot, burn, and destroy civilization when their demands to keep spending recklessly to support their habits aren't met. Turns out there is no virtue in instant gratification after all.

What's most telling about this election is how Mitt Romney won the vote of those over the age of 35, but overwhelmingly lost the vote of the under 35 crowd. Here you have the bulk of the OD Generation voting for feel-good freebies at the expense of freedom and refusing to look at the credit card balance for which all of this stuff has to be paid. The fact that its borrowed money at high interest never seems to cross their mind until the bank shows up to take it all back, and then the bank or the so-called rich must be the bad guy. In twenty years, the foolish who voted for this fiscally insolvent path will get the bill and look to blame someone else for the mess they inherited. It would be fodder for great satire if the consequences weren't so serious.

You will hear a lot of stupid talk over the next few weeks about saving the Republican Party as if its the Republican Party that needs saving rather than the future of our nation. And almost all the conclusions will be wrong.

Romney wasn't hurt by the pro-Life cause. Last time I checked, just over half of the electorate considered themselves pro-Life and pro-choice Republicans like Scott Brown and Linda McMahon lost their senate races just as badly as foot-in-mouth candidate Republican Richard Murdock. If anything, the lesson learned is the NRSC should pay to put their senatorial candidates through media bootcamp.

It wasn't a firm stance on illegal immigration that cost the Republicans, either. In Texas, Ted Cruz advocated a stronger border and stricter enforcement of the law all the way to an easy victory while Hispanic Congressman Quico Conseco lost supporting some form of the DREAM Act.

For all the talk of the tea party dragging the Republicans too far to the right, there is scant evidence that this is the case. The tea party remains mostly concerned about fiscal issues and the trillion dollar deficits run up by the Obama administration. This was hardly talked about over the election cycle and that was to the detriment of Republicans. We heard far too much about tax rates and wonkish tax policy. Romney also failed to talk enough about freedom and the virtues of being a nation of individuals who have choices and opportunity. These are the principles that elections are won on. The choice isn't between freebies or not having freebies. It's between freebies or freedom.

Where Republicans ran boring establishment types, they got trounced - see George Allen and Tommy Thompson. Fresh faces like Ted Cruz and two years ago, Marco Rubio, were both the result of tea party efforts and the milquetoast Republicans they defeated in their primaries are evidence that the tea party is reinvigorating the party and moving conservatism in the right direction.

Lastly, it wouldn't hurt for old, white Republicans who look like they just arrived for their TV interview from the country club nursing home to cede the media spotlight to a younger, fresher generation of conservative spokespeople. No, there's nothing wrong with being old or white, but when you have a branding problem as the "old white party", it might be time to stop sending Dick Armey and John Sununu out there every day. Sure, Democrats sent out Bill Clinton, but he's our first black president. They don't send out Jimmy Carter.

In the states that mattered, the Romney Ryan ticket came about 400,000 votes short of the presidency. That's not the beat-down that many media pundits are acting like occurred on Election Night. But it is a wake-up call. If not to Republicans, at least to conservatives.

Ramblings on the Eve of an Election (Plus a Prediction)

We live in a strange world made even stranger by politics. This presidential election is no different. Conservatives are solidly behind Mitt Romney despite Romney's ambivalence on many conservative issues and the fact that just four years ago Romney was considered more moderate than John McCain.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to paint Mitt Romney to the right of Sarah Palin, but sneakier (if not smarter), despite his being governor of one of our most liberal states. This has only helped get Republican enthusiasm up. Nothing makes me more sure of my party's guy than to have the other party scream how little they agree with him.

But Clint Eastwood was right. Barack Obama has failed and we've got to let him go. He inherited the equivalent of a 6-10 NFL team a couple years removed from the playoffs and couldn't get them above .500, let alone back into contention, despite spending on "all the right free agents."

In the end, Barack Obama's biggest failure was not just an ability to get the economy going again, but his decision to ignore the economy altogether and focus on left wing pet projects, otherwise called "never let a crisis go to waste." He did so by increasing welfare spending and government oversight of more sectors of the economy, piling trillions of debt on top of a trillion dollar government transformation of health care that will eventually break this nation's back.

You want to borrow $6 trillion, fine, but at least show me something for your efforts. There is nothing but debt and deficits and meager economic news as far as the eye can see thanks to the failed policies of the past four years. Even if Barack Obama loses, the going will be tough, but it will be tougher if he wins.

President Obama has no record to run on other than pivoting at the 11th hour on gay marriage, ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell", and providing free contraception for women. Hooray. This is closer to a student body president's platform for re-election than the leader of the free world. "Hey, kids, vote for me and I'll put free condoms in the Recreation Center."

The president has failed to outline a vision for the next four years that gives Americans any hope. And this is his campaign's other problem. His slogan is Forward, which is less of an idea than it is a promise to keep pressing ahead in the spend-and-borrow direction he's been taking us, consequences be damned and nevermind the headwinds.

America's economic situation needs a u-turn and if you're an independent, there's no reason to believe a Romney Presidency would be worse than the past four years. Which is why the Romney Ryan ticket is winning independents despite the scare tactics being used by Democrats; over-the-top rhetoric from "the war on women" to "they're gonna put you back in chains."

It all shapes up or at least points toward a Republican victory on Election Night. For all the talk of Romney having to win Ohio, no one is counting on a victory there more than Barack Obama. Romney can still get to 270 with New Hampshire and Wisconsin or Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa. Of these, Nevada seems the least likely. Compare that with Obama, who has no other state where things are trending up. Every other state is either tightening or if Romney has a lead, its widening (see Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and Missouri for example).

The truth of the matter is Barack Obama has been losing independents, undecideds, newspaper endorsements, enthusiasm, and substantial leads in battleground polls for the past 2 months now. That's a lot to overcome with a so-called "ground game" unless they're stuffing ballot boxes. Obama's is a campaign of attrition, much like he has left our economy, and it's going to take everything to hang on against the surge that nobody expected a Romney Ryan ticket to have.

Finally, consider that in states where Democrats are voting early in solid numbers, party affiliation may not equal an Obama vote. There are certainly plenty of white, blue collar workers in coal states who may usually vote Democratic, but have had enough of Barack Obama, Solyndra, and green energy czars.

I'm no numbers geek, but the trend lines sure to seem to be flashing a warning sign at President Obama. Last time he ran on hope. This time he hopes he barely hangs on.

Even Mainstream Media Now Admitting Enthusiastic Crowds for Mitt Romney

They have done just about everything to tilt the race in President Obama's favor, but the facts on the ground have forced the mainstream media to acknowledge Mitt Romney's surge. Not that they won't put as many caveats behind it as possible.

Yahoo News, who were already forced to fire their Washington bureau chief due to unprofessional comments he made during the Republican National Convention, show how its done:

"Rising enthusiasm and declining anxiety mark an energy boost among Mitt Romney's supporters since he prevailed in the first presidential debate. But a persistent sense he'd favor the wealthy, combined with easing discontent with the nation's direction, provide a retort for President Obama, raising the stakes for their second showdown this week.

Romney now numerically leads Obama in strong enthusiasm and trails him in anxiety among potential voters, both firsts this season. At the same time, the number of registered voters in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll who say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track has eased to its lowest in nearly three years, 56 percent - a level incumbents can survive."

If there is a persistent sense that Mitt Romney would favor the wealthy, that's only because the Obama campaign keeps telling us that. To suggest it comes from anywhere outside a Democratic Talking Point is laughable. There's also a persistent sense that President Obama has offered more excuses than answers for the struggling economy. But you'll never see that sentence in the mainstream media.

So here we have a news story about Romney's lead in voter enthusiasm and in avoiding lingering anxiety that is for some reason - Yahoo will never say - plaguing the Obama camp. Gee, that sounds like an incredible amount of momentum for Mitt Romney, but the media couches it in mysterious, "things are looking up for both candidates" language.

Baghdad Bob would be proud. For all we know, he replaced David Chalian at Yahoo.

Krugman's Keynesian Fail

Paul Krugman has an insanely stupid article in the New York Times today that tries to draw a correlation between the success of Apple's iphone and government spending. Krugman proposes that if new iphones can convince consumers to part ways with their hard-earned money, thus giving the economy a small boost, then think of what more money spent on teachers and bridges will do! Seriously. I'm not making this stupid argument up. It's a Krugman original.

Nevermind that government money is not behind the success of Apple's iphone. If it were, the gadget would cost four times as much and work half as well, but don't worry because there would be a government subsidy to help you purchase one if you made below a certain income. In other words, shares of Apple would be worth about the same as shares of GM.

What Keynesians like Krugman fail to realize in all their economic models is the difference betweeen money spent and money well spent. In their world all spending is equal, or if anything government spending is given added importance. This is more a mask for Krugman's statist tendencies than an argument for Keynesian economics.

Because Apple is a private company, it goes wihout saying that their success is profit-driven, not politically-driven. That means innovating their products to meet the demands of the consumer. Efficiency is rewarded. If they fail to innovate, they lose customers. If they succeed, demand increases and they hire more workers in a desire to increase market share. This is why free enterprise is such a successful economic model.

Krugman argues for increased spending for politically-driven interests. This makes them grossly inefficient. There is no risk of failure so long as the government is providing the backing, meaning there is no incentive to innovate. Increased government spending in this case doesn't meet the demands of the consumer, it ignores the consumer to meet the demands of the special interests. This is the opposite of Apple's model.

Take into account all the debt that comes with more government spending, and what you are creating isn't a robust economy, it's an economy that will ultimately crash due to myopic splurging.

Krugman quotes Keynes, saying "we are all dead in the long run" so better borrow and spend today. Yet what we leave behind matters. Do we leave behind successful and growing businesses free to hire workers and invest in products that can change humanity? Or is our legacy that of failed government programs that cost so much businesses like Apple are burdened with higher taxes and regulations until they can no longer operate for society's benefit?

America's economy isn't failing because we lack teachers and bridges. It's failing because we have invested so much in government that political interests impede us from holding anyone accountable anymore. Instead, we get more teachers educating dumber students, green energy companies that never produce a kilowatt of energy, and bridges to nowhere. All of which Krugman argues are somehow great for our economy.

Some days I think President Obama's Nobel Prize was more deserved than Krugman's.

Jennifer Granholm: High Priestess of Hopenchange

When I think of today's Democratic Party, I think of a faith-based religion where even the current 11.7% unemployment rate (as measured using the same standards as the Bush administration) isn't enough to deter the moonbats from voting for a leftist president. Heck, the unemployment rate could be 20% and they would be clamoring for more Obama-style hopenchange. It's a moral issue with these types and they worship at the alter of Big Government

Want to know why there's always more enthusiasm by the Democratic delegates? Because government is their savior. Republicans are more likely to have a healthy skepticism of government - even the governments they elect. A healthy distrust of authority used to be considered a good thing. Not so in the left-wing of the Democratic Party anymore, where it's considered racist to question President Obama.

Nothing against Democrats. But they sold their souls for a false religion based on creating a utopia on earth without any acknowledgement of traditional rights and values. Which is probably why they removed mention of God from their party platform only to reinsert Him back in (to boos) at the eleventh hour.

In case you think I'm overstating it, here's video of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm delivering what I can only describe as a Big Gov Sermon at yesterday's convention (sober, one hopes). The delegates at the Democratic Party eat up every word, of course, giving pause to the more reasonable among us.

If this is what your political party's convention looks like, you're living a lot closer to Scientology on the cult spectrum than you probably realize.

The Clinton Flop

Let's assume Bill Clinton gave a rousing speech at the Democratic Convention. I don't believe he did, but the talking heads on the cable stations keep trying to tell me otherwise. Timing out at just short of an HBO miniseries, the speech was one long stuttering, meandering, hypothesizing, self-aggrandizing, rambling mess that only Chris Matthews could love. It kept going and going and going until even the Energizer Bunny must have felt like committing suicide.

Mercifully, most Americans changed the channel and watched the NFL Kickoff between the Cowboys and Giants, which means they most certainly missed the Patriots vs. Fauxcahontas, as Elizabeth Warren reminded us why charisma matters in a candidate.

Michelle Obama's speech the previous night grated on my last nerve given the over-the-top rhetoric, but at least it was well-crafted. It would have made a great testimonial except that it made actual testimonials of people who have accepted Christ as their Savior seem small by comparison. And Barack has enough image problems without being compared to the Messiah.

But Clinton's speech, with its faint praise and convoluted excuses for Obama's presidential challenges, couldn't have been effective even if it was the smashing success Washington insiders and media elites claim it to be. Why? Because it wasn't going to move independents to Obama, and that's the point at this point in the game.

We are down to just a handful of undecided voters, six to eight percent really, who have yet to make up their minds in this election. So appealing to them is crucial. And when a cheater who was impeached for lying under oath steps in as your character witness, you know your campaign is in trouble.

As it turns out, Clinton presents a Catch-22 for independents. Either they liked him and miss him or they recall his extracurricular activities, Monica, the blue dress, the big lie, etc. For those in the latter group, Slick Willie was just that, and he lacks the credibility to sell Obama's policies. For those in the former group, Bill Clinton is nostalgia for the economic heyday of the 90s when deficits were one trillion dollars less and Congress actually came together and passed laws. Standing next to each other, our current president is found wanting. Clinton reminds us of all Obama's faults and failures.

Alex Castellanos, a GOP "strategist" who spends most of his time on CNN gushing over Democrats, claimed Clinton's speech by itself was strong enough to "re-elect Obama." I won't ask what medication Mr. Castellanos is on or which winning conservative politician he's given advice to recently, but I will point out the flaw in his analysis.

"Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going too far left, he came in, and the new Democrats took it to the center," Alex summarized. "He did it again tonight."

I disagree. What Bill Clinton actually did was remind independent voters that the Democratic Party has gone too far left, that we don't have a centrist in the White House. Obama's campaign slogan is "Forward" but the Clinton years are "Backwards." And backwards in the Democratic Party sounds a lot saner than forward, where fights break out over honoring God on the convention floor.

The Democrats put Bill Clinton on stage as a measuring stick Wednesday night and proved Obama doesn't measure up.

Fictional Obama vs. Real Obama

President Obama criticized Mitt Romney recently for trying to run against a fictional Obama, but if any candidate has a chance of winning this election, who better than a fictional Obama? The real Obama, after all, has overseen the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Oh well, he wanted to be compared to FDR. Favorably, one assumes, but we'll just leave it to the sycophants in the media to make up the difference.

Fictional Obama was on display quite a bit Tuesday night in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a Barack Obama who grew up poor, dug through dumpsters for furniture and was stuck with just one pair of shoes a half size too small as a law school graduate. Here was a Barack raised by his hard-working grandmother in poverty-stricken middle class, with no radical influences to be found. Here was a president who cared so much about Americans struggling to find employment that he hunched over his desk late at night reading letters, determination in his voice to turn this economy around. Here was a Barack Obama who wanted all of us to succeed, to fulfill our wildest dreams!

Perhaps such a stirring speech with so many heartbreaking stories would win us over if the real Barack Obama hadn't been elected president four years ago. But we know better. We've seen the real Barack Obama up close and personal and he doesn't match the fictional Obama that the First Lady is selling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the First Lady for trying. Who wants to go back to being picked up in a rusted-out car when you can take separate planes to Hawaii or jet to Spain, Aspen, and Martha's Vineyard with a full entourage of staff, friends, and family members on the taxpayer dime? Not that a rusted-out car would be waiting for the First Couple should Fictional Obama lose the election. I'm sure they could at least afford a Chevy Volt or two.

The Real Barack Obama, of course, is who we are talking about electing, and his tenure has been disappointing to say the least. If the Real Obama wants us to succeed in achieving our dreams, he certainly hasn't shown it. Instead, he has said about successful businessmen, "at a certain point you've made enough money" and "there will be a time for profits later." In the meantime, risk your savings and lose your shirts for the greater good, because "if you've got a business - you didn't build that."

The Fictional Obama may be a family man who dotes on his daughters, but the Real Obama has a Kenyan half-brother living in poverty and doesn't want anyone "being punished with a baby." Which is probably why this year's Democratic National Convention is as anti-family as Americans have ever seen. If the contraception talk keeps up for two more days, the networks will have to change the TV rating to "MA" for mature. And it certainly didn't help when they wrote support for abortion on demand into their party platform - even at taxpayer expense - to go along with taxpayer funded sterilizations and sex change operations, removing any mention of God or God-given rights.

Sure, Fictional Obama is deeply concerned about the 11.5% real unemployment and even the fictional, Enron-style-bookkeeping 8.3% unemployment rate, but Real Obama hasn't met with his Jobs Council in eight months and thinks "the private sector is doing fine." And while Fictional Obama may stay up late focused on the job like a laser, Real Obama has set a record for golf outings and fundraisers, not to mention that time he walked out in the middle of a press conference to attend a party, leaving Bill Clinton in charge (don't worry, the interns had the day off).

Essentially, we elected Fictional Obama the first time around. But he was new on the scene. He spoke eloquently. And he promised to cut the deficit in half. Obama promised real change in 2008, but that turned out to be fiction, too, as our annual deficit has failed to sink below the one trillion dollar mark during his presidency. That's an extra five trillion dollars of very real money added to the debt in less than one term.

It's all too fitting that we should have a record number of fact-checkers in an era where fiscal reality is ignored and personal narrative is king. Meanwhile, Democrats with the aid of a complicit media, try to convince us that Fictional Obama is real, and Real Obama is just a figment of our racist imagination.

My head is spinning.

Illegally Yours

President Obama's lawless executive order to extend visas (or defer deportation) for some illegal immigrants went into effect yesterday, and media outlets were quick to rush down and interview the applying non-citizens. Most of them seemed nice enough and I don't know a soul who would suggest they don't bleed like the rest of us. It's not hard to feel sympathy for an individual who through no fault of their own was brought here illegally, has since assimilated, attends school or holds full-time employment, and feels American down to their very core.

Good for them. Except the president has skirted the law to help them skirt the law with a thrown together policy that is ultimately destined to fail.

For one, circumventing Congress to change the law is a breach of power and most likely unconstitutional (with this Supreme Court, you never know, but its certainly not a policy that gives merit to representative democracy). The immigrants who sign up for this amnesty program could be signing up for quick deportation once President Obama's executive order is revoked or overturned. As it should be.

Secondly, any criteria to apply for "legal" illegal status is dubious at best and creates the potential for gross fraud and abuse. After all, how does one acquire the legal paperwork to prove they illegally entered the country during the qualified time to be deemed acceptably illegal? And if you came here illegally outside the qualified time frame, why not simply pretend to meet the criteria? How do you disprove such a claim? So long as you're under thirty and have established a stateside address, what racist would doubt you haven't lived and worked here for the required five years?

There's also the issue of those who are over thirty but were brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. Why do they get denied the opportunity of their younger cousins and siblings? Are we splitting up families now? The kids are alright but the parents have to go?

This isn't sound policy or even an acceptable substitute for the DREAM Act. It's a nightmare for immigration enforcement, a nightmare for the courts, and a nightmare for businesses trying to follow the law and hire long-term help. Which is why laws are best passed through the constitutional and legislative process, not made up willy-nilly by the wave of a leader's scepter to woo votes in the midst of a political campaign.