Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

04 December 2015

Like President Ford, @LindseyGrahamSC Cannot, Doesn't Want To & Will Not See It Coming!

Lindsey Graham: Let me drop a RINO truth bomb on you about why we can’t win with Ted Cruz as our nominee


Via the Blaze, someone on Twitter described this as Graham’s YOLO moment. This speech, to the Republican Jewish Coalition, was supposed to be about foreign policy but Cruz went on before him and I guess Grahamnesty had finally had his fill of the “bold colors, not pale pastels” pitch. He got into the race expecting to be hawkish artillery against the offensive from Rand Paul and libertarians. That offensive never happened and he’s been floating through the campaign ever since, sporadically attacking Trump, sometimes grumbling about Cruz, mostly complaining that no matter what we’re doing to damage our international enemies, we need to be doing much, much more.

Today that changed. Here’s nine full minutes of this guy tearing into Cruz, specifically about his hard line on — what else? — immigration and his preference for banning abortion without even an exception for rape. (Marco Rubio holds that position on abortion too although he’s said he’d accept a law with a rape exception if it meant limiting abortion for more conventional pregnancies.) You can’t win an election that way, says Graham, to which Cruz fans say: We’ll see. The beauty of nominating Cruz, even if you’re a Republican who prefers someone else, is that it’d be as pure a test of the “bold colors, not pale pastels” theory of winning elections since Ronald Reagan. In the 35 years since Reagan was nominated, no party nominee on either side has been as ideologically dogmatic as Cruz is.

Which means nominating Cruz would be about as controlled an experiment as our system could muster in how the electorate would react to a committed full-spectrum ideologue on the ballot. If he lost, especially if he lost badly, it would destroy the theory that the GOP’s problem in presidential elections lately is nominating mushy centrists who don’t really stand for anything. (That’s not how the loss would be spun by Cruz fans, of course — it would be blamed on media sabotage or whatever — but that’s the lesson other Republicans would draw.) Grahamnesty’s placing his bet now that if given a choice between Cruz’s bold colors and Hillary’s pale pastels, the pastels win. Prophet of doom is really the only role still open to him in the primaries, so that’s the one he’s going to play.

Lindsey Graham: Let me drop a RINO truth bomb on you about why we can’t win with pastel colours as our nominee, especially if that person is Lindsey ‘Let’s bomb everything, including Pluto!’ Graham.

Heck, even if Mizz Scarlett promenaded around all 46 counties in South Carolina in a dress made of Miss Ellen’s green, silk velvet with gold fringe portieres, he’d still lose by a bloody landslide. He might beat George Pataki and Jim Gilmore.

BTW, Lindz: The same exact crap was said by the GOPe, especially the Bushes and their surrogates, of the 40th (or 39th if you buy into the stupid Birtherism involving Chester B Arthur) President of the United States of America, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Let’s look at just a few of the things said about Reagan by Greater GOPers than you:

*     ‘He’s too conservative!’ 

(So were a lot of greats to which Graham will never measure up to)

*     ‘He’s a radical!’ 

(Anything right of centre-left is considered radical…Besides, remember when radical was chic?)

*   ‘He’s a stickler when it comes to the Constitution!’ 

(Treasonous bastard! ///)

*     ‘He’ll upend the gravy boat in DC!’

(However will we pay our kids’ tuition at St Paul’s, Exeter, Miss Porters?)

*     ‘He’s an amiable dunce – unlike, say, our brilliant 44th and his creased pants!/’

(Mr David Brooks, would you please pick up the white courtesy phone? Mr Brooks, white courtesy phone, please!)

*     ‘His temperament is unsuited for the POTUS. Can you imagine what would happen if he walked out on a Soviet leader at a Summit?’ 

(Yeah, we win. They lose.)

*     ‘He’ll start WWIII!’ 

(But, he didn’t.  Hell, he didn’t even start the arming of the Mujahedeen, including Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan. President Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski did that on 3 July 1979 – ‘What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?’)

*     ‘Do you want his finger on the nuclear button?’ 

(‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, the guy who thought Poland was FREE! was in far better capacity of his mental facilities or something)

*     ‘He’ll take a meat cleaver to the Federal budget and get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse!’ 

(Oh, don’t tease me, you shameless hussy!)

‘But several of his characteristics seemed to rule him out as a serious challenger. One was his penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems…We have very little in common…I knew…that trying to satisfy these (right-wing) zealots would doom any general election hopes.’

— Former President Gerald Ford on Ronald Reagan and conservatives (I guess Americans preferred to take a chance on ‘Our best days are ahead of us’ and ‘My theory of war: We win. They lose.’ than on the unelected President, who believed that ‘There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.’)

A picture can often tell a thousand words about a Presidency.
In full disclosure, this little girl from London wrote a letter to President Ford in 1975 and he sent me a handwritten note in return.  So, I guess I have to wee bit harsh my sarcasm mellow.

And, they never get it…

But Gerald Ford had a fatal political flaw, one that is aptly described in another fashion by James W. Ceaser in a recent Wall Street Journal review of Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon Wood’s new book entitled The Ideas of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States. The Visionary Generation was the title of Ceaser’s review of Wood’s book on the ideas behind the Revolution and the men we know as the Founding Fathers. The description could easily be applied to the now iconic battle between President Ford and Ronald Reagan for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination. Ford won that battle...on his way to losing a much larger war.

That war?

Says Ceaser of Wood:

The historian has the advantage of hindsight. He can see the development of an idea or principle in a way that the participants along the way never can…. For this reason, Mr. Wood has conceived the proper period for studying the Revolution as running from the 1760s through the Jacksonian era, since this time span allows one to see the full shape of the event.
Which is to say, the battle over the acceptance of the democratic principle (as Ceaser terms it) was fought and won not simply in the seven-year time span of the American Revolution but over a much longer period of almost eighty years, from 1760 until Andrew Jackson’s final term in the White House came to an end in March of 1837.

In a strikingly similar fashion one can easily look back and realize that what is now known to history as the “Reagan Revolution” began not in January of 1981 when Reagan himself took the presidential oath. Nor did it end eight years later when he left the White House. In fact, it began in fits and starts roughly with the emergence of the British philosopher John Locke and picking up intellectual grounding and authority as it made its way through the centuries developed by a group that includes everybody from the English-Irish statesman philosopher Edmund Burke to the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln and on to the 20th century. With the advent of the American Progressive movement and the presidencies of both Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson and (yes) Herbert Hoover (a Progressive Republican), by the time a young William F. Buckley arrived on the scene in the early 1950s with his famous line of standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” the idea of an ever-expanding state was not only mainstream it was the mainstream. In both political parties, the media, academia and religion as well.

It was an idea that was hopelessly doomed, considering the inevitable massive failures in a philosophy that was succinctly labeled by its foes as “tax and spend” domestically or mocked on national security with the slogan “Better Dead Than Red.” 

Sooner or later progressivism/liberalism was destined to find itself perched at the very edge of the cliff where Americans find themselves and their country today. Out of cash and out of credibility. But in the day, all manner of people thought this was a big no-never-mind. And if the Goldwater — Rockefeller fight for the 1964 GOP nomination was in retrospect an enormous political warning flare, the Ford-Reagan fight was, in retrospect, the tipping point when the balance began to shift. FORD — AND HE WAS NOT ALONE — COULD NOT, DID NOT, SEE IT COMING.

As historian Ceaser posits in other circumstances, Ford was too involved in the events of the day to pull back and understand what he would ultimately come to symbolize in American political history well-beyond the standard “nice guy who rescued America from Watergate” story line. In fact, as is clear in reading longtime Newsweek correspondent and Ford biographer Thomas DeFrank’s book of private, post-presidential Ford interviews, Ford literally went to his grave not understanding what he had come to represent. DeFrank’s book, Write It When I’m Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations With Gerald R. Ford, shows Ford regarding his differences with Reagan as some sort of standard annoying competition from an unfathomable and irritating fellow pol. Ford simply did not understand what he was in the middle of — while Reagan understood with a well-spoken and out-spoken clarity. A clarity that Ford, holding fast to the stance of moderation, dismissed as Reagan’s “penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems.”

How did this play itself out?

More to the point, how does this continue to play out right this moment? Ford saw the Soviet Union as an adversary to be negotiated with — and hence deeply resented Reagan’s criticism of Ford’s efforts to negotiate what was known in the day as “the Helsinki Accords.” To Ford, Helsinki was part of an ongoing process of negotiation that was standard presidential fare from FDR forward. In the case of the Helsinki negotiations the triumph was supposedly that Ford had gotten the Soviets to “sign a document that pledged them to observe the basic principles of human rights.” To Reagan, the Soviets were, as he later famously said, an “evil empire” who ” reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat…” Hence Helsinki was a worthless enterprise. An agreement with liars and cheats. Over and over and over the two men sparred from one end of America to the other in 1976. Ford was the adamant “moderate” — proud that he had picked the statist New York ex-Governor Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president, ashamed of himself for dumping Rocky in a bid to stave off Reagan. 

Ford was about “trimming” government with a spending cut here and there when he wasn’t busy negotiating with the Soviets. To Reagan the federal government was the Leviathan incarnate, an increasingly out-of-control Frankenstein which, if not sharply downsized, would bring the American Experiment crashing down around its citizens heads. And the Soviet Union should disappear. Or, as he also later said, “we win, they lose.” As we know, Ford won the battle of 1976 — but he lost the larger war to Reagan. Yet the war between the Gerald Ford’s of America — those within the Republican Party, the media, and the larger world policy establishments — is still being waged every single day. How does it show itself? Here are some examples of what might be called Ford versus Reagan: The Sequel.

Yep, and President Goldwater didn’t try to get anyone beyond the base to vote for him either.

-      wbcoleman on December 3, 2015 at 9:52 PM

New game: Every mention of Barry Goldwater merits an amuse bouche.

I love how GOPers lay the responsibility of Goldwater’s loss at the feet of conservatives.

Truth: After the assassination of JFK and the continuation of LBJ, voters were not going to elect a 3rd President in 3 years. Most Americans felt they had to vote for LBJ because to do otherwise would be seen as a betrayal of Jack and his family.

Also, the news media didn’t help. CBS’s correspondent, Daniel Schorr, went so far as to flat out LIE and claim that Goldwater was in Germany to meet with Nazis! On July 12, he reported that “it looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany’s right wing” – which, Schorr provocatively added, was “Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.”

He was forced by management to read one of those ‘Sorry, Not Sorry!’ apologies the following day.

Bear in mind that Goldwater was being demonized as few other major-party presidential candidates before or since. “In a period of ten months,” wrote Lionel Lokos in his book Hysteria 1964, “Barry Goldwater was accused of being another Adolf Hitler, fomenting a racial holocaust, advocating a nuclear policy that would destroy half the world, seeking to destroy Social Security, being a lunatic paving the way for totalitarian government.”
* Goldwater called the story “the damnedest lie I ever heard” and told the late conservative writer Victor Lasky that it “made me sick to my stomach. My Jewish forebears were probably turning over in their graves.”
* Wrote The Weekly Standard‘s Andrew Ferguson in a 2001 review of Schorr’s memoirs: “Though easily checkable, [Schorr’s report] was false in all its particulars. Goldwater had spoken vaguely of vacationing in Europe but had made no plans to visit Germany. Goldwater’s interview in Der Spiegel was a reprint of an interview that had appeared elsewhere, and he had not even considered addressing the group Schorr mentioned. More important, the story was false in its obvious implication of an Anschluss between German neo-Nazis and U.S. Republicans.”
* Years later, the LIBERAL POLITICAL HISTORIAN Rick Perlstein, in his acclaimed book Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the American Consensus, flatly described the story as “false” while Goldwater’s liberal biographer Robert Alan Goldberg characterized it as a “smear.”

Yes, Goldwater was treated abominably, but he still almost certainly would have lost…because Camelot.

What gets me about people that point to Goldwater as proof that First Principles lose is that they have to leap-frog over the 40th President (or 39th, if you are a Chester B Arthur Birther):

1980 Presidential Election:

Ronald Reagan:

Electoral vote:    489
States carried:    44
Percentage:        50.8%
Popular vote:      43,903,230

Jimmy Carter:

Electoral vote:    49
States carried:    6 + DC
Percentage: 41.0%
Popular vote:      35,480,115

1984 Presidential Election:

Ronald Reagan:

Electoral votes: 525
States carried: 49
Popular vote: 54,455,472
Percentage: 58.8%

Walter Mondale:

Electoral votes: 13
States carried: 1 + DC
Popular vote: 37,577,352
Percentage: 40.6%

In many opinion polls, Ronald Reagan is identified by Americans as the best president of all time – with 19% of 1st votes by all respondents.

The GOPers?

Richard Nixon: * = less than 0.05%
Gerald Ford: 1%
George HW Bush: * = less than 0.05%
George W Bush: 2%

Remember, whilst a student a Princeton, future Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was in a state of acute depression and shock. It was November 1980. ‘OMIGAH! THE DEVIL NAZI HAS WON!!!’ So, Ms Kagan cried and soaked her misery in a bottle of vodka…no doubt singing John Lennon’s Imagine. Speaking of imagination, is it so difficult to imagine the depression becoming euphoria, the shock unmitigated joy, and the ‘drowning in a bottle of vodka’ becoming a shaken, not stirred celebratory martini party sixty-nine days later. When was that? It was 30 March 1991 when a Leftist Loon named John W Hinckley, Jr,’s bullet.

Unfortunately for Ms Kagan, the bullet was off  by a few millimeters.


New Establishment/Consulting Class Drinking Game:

We must have a nominee that can win independents. We cannot win the election without independents!!!11!!’

How’d that work out for Romney? He won among Independents by 5 points, 50-45, but lost to Obama, 51-48.

Shut up, smarty pants.


Lindsey Graham: Joe Biden Is ‘As Good a Man as God Has Ever Created‘

Must see photo. *smh*

Fallon on December 3, 2015 at 9:45 PM

Mizz Scarlett is just pleading for BFD Biden to start groping him.

I’ll give $10,000 to the person who comes up with this REMF taking it up butt by a junior staffer or page.

If South Carolina won’t get rid of this a$$h0le, whom they claim to hate, then I guess we’ll have to do it ourselves.

EUREKA! I think that I found the last job in America that Americans will do and McGrahamnesty’s illegals won’t!

Related Reading:

No comments: