House of Eratosthenes

Newt’s doing very well. I’m pleased that there’s sand in the gears of the Romney machine and there’s a real chance someone else is going to get the nomination. I’m unhappy that it’s Newt.

But it’s bittersweet all the way. This is poetic justice all around.

I’m delighted to see the anguish and frustration on the part of the faux-intellectual faux-conservatives. You know, the ones like David Frum, for example, endlessly crying in their Pinot Noir about the perceived streak of “anti-intellectualism” in the Republican party. I cannot help but wonder what would happen if Romney bowed out right about now, making a Newt nomination a certainty…and then if Sarah Palin offered to step (back) in, what would they say? I imagine they’d still go for Newt because “we need someone with the intellectual horsepower to defeat The Great Barack Obama” or words to that effect. But more than a few would admit to seeing a certain positive appeal in Alaska’s former Governor that was not evident to them six months ago. Actually, I know this for fact; a few have personally told me so, which could not have been easy for them.

They won’t ‘fess up to learning the life lesson: Be very careful about wishing for a field of options to be narrowed down.

It also pleases me enormously to see the liberal disgust. The feeling of fear is palpable. Anyone who’s been paying the slightest bit of attention, understands that the lefties wanted an Obama/Romney contest, it would have been the next best thing to skipping the elections altogether and swearing in OBumbles as Dictator For Life. Liberals are disgusted with Newt because they know the conservatives are disgusted with Newt — and are willing to rally behind the former House Speaker anyway. They understand this means something. See, like I’ve been saying for awhile, when liberals try to get other liberals elected or re-elected, they act just like conservatives. They understand human incentive and how it connects with free trade…all of a sudden. They’re wondering something like: If the GOP is willing to do that, then what else is it willing to do?

In fundraising, Emperor Barack is 13% of the way toward His original goal, which it seems He’s going to have to abandon right about now. It’s still an impressive amount of money and He’s likely to be out in front this year money-wise, but it must be worrisome that He’s miscalculated the level of His own support so badly.

How to make it a sure thing that we’ll have a different President a year from now? Distill the next three paragraphs down to a bumper sticker slogan, and I think you’ll have this thing nailed shut:

YES Newt Gingrich, with all of his faults, is looking like an okay deal right now to Republicans as well as to the nation as a whole. It is not because the faults are hard to spot. It is a case of beggars-can’t-be-choosers. America is negotiating its own election from a position of weakness.

Across the ideological divide and all our more trivial disagreements, we are still Americans first. We are all unhappy with one thing or another because we do not like to see our country negotiate things from a position of weakness. But to half of us, three years ago it seemed like an okay idea for our country to — call it what you will. Bow a little. Go on an “apology tour.” Listen as its leader droned on endlessly about “for far too long we have [blank]” and “we [the country, not His administration] have not always done what’s right.” In short, look at herself the way any shrewd military commander wants his enemy to look at itself; questioning its own right & privilege to exist and thrive.

It is hypocritical and unworkable to cheer on the journey to the position of weakness, and indulge in shock and dismay as we reach the ultimate destination. In ’08, we planted. Now we’re harvesting.

One fellow Republican I know put it better than anybody else, I think: Obama out now, later on we’ll take out the trash.

One small correction. We are not all Americans first.

A significant difference between a National Socialist, for example, and a communist, is that the Nazi by definition is a nationalist before he is a socialist, whereas the communist is first an internationalist. Ideology before country. Imagine no heaven, no hell, no country, no possessions, no religion too.

Often, the socialist I know are loudly and proudly anti-patriotic, which distinguishes them in their own minds from being unpatriotic. It’s a growing population, my opinion.
- xlibrl | 01/24/2012 @ 00:09
the socialist I know are loudly and proudly anti-patriotic, which distinguishes them in their own minds from being unpatriotic.

Agreed. Much of modern liberalism seems to be just a photo-negative of Norman Rockwell’s America (you know, those wholesome 1950s they always accuse conservatives of making up, then being nostalgic for). They’re not unpatriotic, they’re anti-patriotic — which means, in practice, that they’re rabidly nationalistic for other countries. (The USSR, Cuba, North Vietnam, Mao’s China, etc.). They’re not so much pro-abortion as anti-anti-abortionists (freakwagons like Amanda Marcotte aside, few militant feminists would actually defend the nuts and bolts of a 3rd-trimester procedure for any length of time). They’re not atheists, they’re anti-Christian (and are far more evangelical about it than the biggest-haired televangelist).

And so on. I’ve tried and tried to figure out what they’re for, but other than “being always and everywhere Better Than You,” I’ve come up blank.
- Severian | 01/24/2012 @ 11:07

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File CLIIIMonday, January 23rd, 2012

Memo For File CLIII
Monday, January 23rd, 2012