Why the Republicans Failed  

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

The incumbent Democrat occupying the White House for the last four years should have been easily defeated in a landslide.  Mickey Mouse could have beaten him, as could Bozo the Clown.  What went wrong for the Republicans?

If you were to listen to the talking heads TV and Internet news outlets, you would have heard all about how Mitt Romney didn't spend enough time in this state or that, or how he ignored this or that contingent of voters.  All pure unadulterated bullshit.

The real answer lies in the foolishness of the party itself.  Rather than offer conservatives a good candidate for whom to vote, the party sends out the least worthy of office, tells conservatives that it is imperative that they vote for their fool, and convinces the ones that follow to demonize and demean those that do not toe the line.  Well LOTEs, I voted for your clown, and look how much it helped you.  Your idiot didn't even win my state.  I could have voted for Pope Benedict for all the good it did even you.  LOTE poster-boy Scott Brown was handed his ass in his re-election bid.  Go figure.  The guy kowtowed to Tea Party "activists", then governed as a liberal once he arrived in Washington.  I largely spared the See I Told You Sos.

LOTEs and phony Tea Partiers notwithstanding, one needs look no further than the Republican Party Platform for 2012 for clues as to the party's failure in this most recent election.  Let facts be submitted to a candid world...

For starters, the platform was "dedicated with appreciation and reverence for:The wisdom of the Framers of the United States Constitution, who gave us a Republic, as Benjamin Franklin cautioned, if we can keep it."  If we can keep it, indeed.  With the foolishness that became the rest of the document, it's hard to look at that dedication and wonder whether those writing it intended sarcasm.  Let's look at a few things:

the federal government has expanded its size and scope, its borrowing and spending, its debt and deficit. Federalism is threatened and liberty retreats.

Yeah ok.  And exactly how do you get around the correct accusations that your last Administration wasn't involved in this?  How do you, as a party, justify nominating your own tax-and-spend liberal to the office?  If America is going to choose between two tax-and-spend liberals, they are going to choose the one offering the most handouts.  After all, that's what tax-and-spend is all about.

Jefferson’s vision of a “wise and frugal government” must be restored.

Your credibility is seriously impaired when a Massachusetts liberal is nominated to office under the pretense that he would make any attempt to restore that vision.  The last Massachusetts liberal to run on that sort of mantra also had his ass handed to him ikn this election.

Here's probably the biggest whopper of all:

As we embark upon this critical mission, we are not without guidance. We possess an owner’s manual: the Constitution of the United States, the greatest political document ever written. That sacred document shows us the path forward. Trust the people. Limit government. Respect federalism. Guarantee opportunity, not outcomes. Adhere to the rule of law. Reaffirm that our rights come from God, are protected by government, and that the only just government is one that truly governs with the consent of the governed.The principles written in the Constitution are secured by the character of the American people. President George Washington said in his first inaugural address: “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” Values matter. Character counts."

The platform then goes on to state that Romney and Ryan understand this philosophy and that they will implement it.  Really?

First of all, I definitely have an objection to a platform endorsing any candidate.  A platform states a philosophy that the candidate must then endorse, not the other way around.  Nonetheless, the party platform makes no suggestions as to how to reconcile its alleged support for the Constitution with the blatant violations of that very same Constitution that it advocates, including:

1. Federal training programs

2. Taxes on businesses

3.  Government business advocacy

Here's a whopper for you:

Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s freedom. Their proper role in a free society should be to fund services that are essential and authorized by the Constitution, such as national security, and the care of those who cannot care for themselves. We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs, or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations.

This one just blew my mind.  Not only do these people present welfare as something "essential and authorized by the Constitution", but they then turn around and allege to reject the very same unnecessary, ineffective use of taxatioon to redistribute income.  This is without even touching on the bullshit the platform suggests should be considered "tax reform", which unbelievably calls for cutting income taxes AND repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.  Correctly removing the federal government's authority to tax income, and then continuing to do so, only at lower rates?  How would THAT work?

5. Medicare/Medicaid/Socialist Security

6. FHA, FDIC, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac

7. Federal government meddling in people's housing decisions

8. FAA Modernization and Reform Act

9. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act

10. National Environmental Policy Act

11. Energy Policy

12. Agriculture Policy

13. The EPA

14. Technol.ogy and Telecommunications Regulation

15. NASA as a science mission

16. Welfare

17. Federal government meddling in families and their decisions

18. Prohibitions of gambling in the Internet

19. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

20. Romneycare

21. The FDA

22. Education

23. AIDS

24. Foreign Aid

And much of this PRECEDES a section called "We the People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government".  Wow.

Here, the party has the unmitigated gall to state, "We are the party of the Constitution, the solemn compact which confirms our God-given individual rights and assures that all Americans stand equal before the law."  From there, the platform goes on to push the Defense of Marriage Act and an Amendment of the same name, as if they were inherently part of the current Constitution.  They are not.  Being opposed to "gay marriage" does not equate to thinking that the Constitution somehow requires the traditional arrangement of marriage.  Truly defending marriage would involve getting the federal government out of the business of regulating marriage altogether, and leave the issue in the hands of the States, or better yet, the People.  This is where the issue belongs.

We then get to address the Bill of Rights, or at least those the party considers politically expedient.  Some of this is truly unbelievable.

They start out with the Tenth Amendment, but given the list shown above, who the hell would believe the party actually cared about the Tenth Amendment?  Every point shown in that list is a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment.  If the party wants credibility, this is not the way to achieve it.

After going into a defense of the Electoral College and a bit about voter integrity, the platform continues its discussion of the Bill of Rights, breaking the First Amendment into parts, initially making some great points with regard to Free Speech.  However, this post isn't about the good things in the platform.  Its stance on the Second Amendment is totally contradictory to the things Republicans say in the presence of potential voters.  We constantly hear things like "we must enforce the laws we already have".  Their platform holds these laws to be illegal under the Second Amendment, so why would they enforce them?  Why not speak of repealing them and enforcing the Second Amendment upon the States refusing to protect Second Amendment rights?  Of course the answer is simple: They don't really mean it.

Their brief statement on the Fifth Amendment covers property rights violated in Kelo V. New London, but does nothing to address violations of Fifth Amendment rights, such as additional punishments placed upon those convicted of crimes after their sentences have been served - clear violations of "double jeopardy" protections.

The section on the Ninth Amendment is also meaningless when taken in the context of the above list.

This platform is hypocrisy at its best (and worst).  It calls President Bush's AIDS program "one of the most successful health programs in history".  Yeah man, big success.  More like big bucks wasted.  Folks, the only successful AIDS program is the one that finds a cure instead of all this phantom-chasing that doesn't even pass constitutional muster.

You want to know why the Republican Party fails time and again?  Real simple: their rhetoric doesn't match their actions.  Say what you want about the communists in the Democrat Party.  They mean what they say, and they say what they mean, at least as far as what they will do.  Their projections of success don't match up, but for obvious reasons, neither do the Republicans'.

THIS is why conservatives should move on.  The Republican Party has NEVER been the party of the Constitution.  Even Lincoln couldn't bring himself to free the slaves without violating its limitations on his actions.  After 150 years, why should they start now?

Don't believe the bullshit you hear on the news about not visiting this state or that, or about not brown-nosing this group or that.  That's all a bunch of Donk mumbo-jumbo to keep you thinking the Republican Party is viable, and that all they have to do is change their campaign techniques.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Don't forget who benefits most from this stupidity: the Donks.