A Big Factor in the GOP Defeat: Many Whites Stayed Home. Why?

Lawrence Auster discussed another key reason why the GOP lost the 2012 presidential election:  several million white voters stayed home.  Had they showed up as expected, Romney would have won the election, in spite of the non-white vote for Obama.  Auster writes:

It appears that the reason Obama won was that many conservatives, including readers of this site, disliked Romney so much that they preferred to have Obamacare, preferred to have the contraceptive mandate, preferred to have the destruction of the private health insurance industry and of the private medical care industry leading to outright socialized medicine, preferred to have an annual trillion dollar increase in the deficit, preferred to have a president allied with and actively facilitating the spread of jihadist regimes in the Mideast, than to have Romney as president. In short, if what the commenters are saying is true, it appears that the most terrible event in the history of this country, the final destruction of the constitutional American Republic, was brought about by conservatives for whom McCain was conservative enough, but Romney was not conservative enough.

Why did they stay home?  Was it because Romney is a Mormon?  Probably not, or the evangelical South would not have gone heavily for Romney.

Some speculation says that many whites are simply fed up with the GOP being too liberal and not adequately conservative.  I hope that answer is true...but I really don't know.  It sounds too simplistic and self-serving.  I suspect that Obama's negative campaign, which started very early in the campaign, was a major factor.  It was exacerbated by Romney's late entrance into the fray and a less than effective rebuttal of the Obama slander against him.

See the discussion at View From the Right here.

Sean Hannity Endorses Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

According to Michael of the Southern Nationalist Network, Sean Hannity has just now endorsed amnesty for illegal aliens.  Michael says this would be a big mistake for Republicans, because these new citizens would register as Democrats and vote against Republican policies.  He writes:

Republican leaders apparently believe that if they give citizenship to millions of Third World immigrants that those immigrants will become Republican voters. However, Hispanics voted more than two-to-one against the GOP in the recent presidential race. When Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to two million Mexicans back in 1980 he created nearly two million more Democratic voters. Most of the people that Hannity wants to give voting rights to will end up voting against his party. California, only a few decades ago a mostly-White State that leaned Republican, now has a White minority and is a solidly Democratic State. The more Hispanic the State has become, the more Democratic it has become. Granting citizenship to millions more Hispanics will only weaken the Republican Party.

I very much agree with Michael on this issue.  Read his entire article here.

Update:  The Daily Caller also addresses the GOP's possible move towards amnesty:  Alert: Immigration Sellout Underway?

Mark Levin Swears No Compromise, No Bi-Partisanship in Wake of Republican Defeat

Some Republicans are now saying we need to move left in order to win elections (like Charles Krauthammer, who advocates amnesty for illegals).  These people fail to realize that Republican victories are a means to an end, that of freedom and prosperity.  Republican victories are not an end in themselves.  If the GOP cannot deliver conservative victories, then it is time to jettison the Republican Party.

Yesterday, Mark Levin swore not to compromise with liberals on essential things, saying "We will not be compliant in our demise."  I very much agree with him.  He said:

We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

Interestingly enough, Levin openly discusses the latino demographic which has proven so deleterious to the American ethos, stating the obvious, that the Democrats support unbridled immigration of third-worlders because such immigrants will become Democrats and vote for the welfare state.

See the video here.

Conservative Contemplations on the Electoral Disaster

Many conservatives, including this one, are in a deep blue funk over the election disaster.  Some have posted well-written essays on what it all means.  The first step in a long-term solution is understanding what happened and why, and these essays are soothing to the troubled soul.  Unvarnished truth is liberating and may lead to a better future for those who love liberty.  Once we have an accurate diagnosis, then we can work on a cure.

Here are some quotes from some of these essays.

Lawrence Auster, of View From the Right:

.... even if the historical American order is finished, which I believe it is and have said so repeatedly, the world hasn't ended, we are still living in it and have to try to understand it and make sense of it and figure out how we are going to live in it. Indeed, I and readers are at this moment trying to come to terms with the overwhelming disaster that has come upon us, and that’s part of what VFR is about.

 Flyovercountry, of The Blogmocracy:

There really are two America’s, and the problem is that they are geographically intertwined. One American wishes to live under the rule of law established by our founders, who saw the destructive potential of a democracy, and the lasting virtue of a republic. Protecting individual rights against the tyranny of a majority who would simply vote themselves authority to systematically rob the fruits of the labors of those who chose to be productive. The second American wishes to live in a society that would seek to cede all responsibility and consequence to a federal authority in exchange for having their basic needs provided for. The second America is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave, but is instead the land of the kept and the home of the clueless. They seek nothing more than to have their freedoms traded one by one for a stream of relatively cheap consumer products and state run reeducation at one of the labor camps known as land grant colleges. Unfortunately, these two Americas live side by side, and have very little if any geographical division, which would be necessary for the divorce that I believe is now inevitable. Said divorce will be a messy affair, but there is no chance of a reconciliation that I can see as being possible.

Kurt Silverfiddle of Western Hero:

If we couldn’t sell a conservative, small-government message with a moderate-friendly candidate running against an imperious ruler many perceived to be a crypto-marxist, or at best constitutionally-challenged, then small-government conservatism is a spent force. Many conservatives will drift to the middle looking for morsels, while the rump right will meet the fate of its European cousins, enduring a meager existence as either principled cranks or angry extremists.

One bright spot: We conservatives and libertarians are now the subversives.
Oh, and GOP, you can kiss my ass. I hate your party more than the Democrats. At least the Donkeys know who they are and aren't suffering a perpetual identity crisis. And they know how to grab what they want. The typical Republican politician couldn't grab his ass with both hands and a mirror.

Melanie Phillips -- "America Goes Into the Darkness":

The greatest satisfaction today over the re-election of Obama is not being felt in the Democratic Party. It is not being felt among the media, who are no longer objective observers but have turned instead into corrupt partisans who ruthlessly censored the truth about Obama and helped peddle his demonising propaganda about his opponent. It is not being felt among the gloating, drooling decadents of the western left who now scent a great blood-letting of all who dare defy their secular inquisition. No, the greatest satisfaction is surely being felt in Iran. 

Four years ago, America put into the White House a sulky narcissist with an unbroken history of involvement in thuggish, corrupt, far-left, black power, Jew-bashing, west-hating politics. Obama’s agenda has been crystal clear from the get-go: to increase the power of the state over the citizen at home, and to neutralise American power abroad. Four more years of this and he’ll almost certainly have succeeded. The impact upon western security could be cataclysmic.

John Hinderaker of Powerline:

Then there is the fact that relatively few Americans actually pay for the government they consume. To a greater extent than any other developed nation, we rely on upper-income people to finance our federal government. When that is combined with the fact that around 40% of our federal spending isn’t paid for at all–it is borrowed–it is small wonder that many self-interested voters are happy to vote themselves more government. Mitt Romney proclaimed that Barack Obama was the candidate of “free stuff,” and voters took him at his word.

The question is, can this vicious cycle ever be broken? Once we are governed by a majority that no longer believes in the America of the Founding, is there any path back to freedom and prosperity? The next four years will bring unprecedented levels of spending, borrowing and taxation. The national debt will rise to $20 trillion or more. When interest rates increase, as they inevitably must, interest costs will squeeze out other government spending. That might not be all bad, except that defense will go first. If Obama’s second term turns into a disaster, fiscal or otherwise, voter revulsion may return the Republicans to power. But that doesn’t mean that America will be saved.

Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish:

The left got this far by having a plan. We will either find a plan or we will be gone. America will go the way of Latin America, with gated communities, conservative oligarchs, violent ghettos and red politicians screaming about power to the people. There will be no law, just men with guns and newspapers, and generals in convenient positions, and suitcases full of cocaine in the right hands. If you like this system, it's probably only a generation away. Given enough immigration from south of the border-- maybe less. And then California turns into Brazil and America turns into California.

Revolutions are not born out of success, they are born out of despair. They rise out of the dark hours of the night. They come from the understanding that all the other options are running out. Sometimes you have to fall down to rise and sometimes you have to hit bottom, to gather one last breath and fight to reach the top.

 We live in a very troubling time.  Can America be saved, or is the culture too corrupted by third-world immigration and the demise of the western ethos?  I tend to agree with flyovercountry, that a divorce between two groups of Americans (left vs right) is inevitable.  Yes, I am talking about secession.  I do not believe that America, as we knew it and loved it, can be saved.  It is already gone.

Obama Wins Re-Election

Ohio has now gone to Obama and the election is all but over.  Obama wins re-election.

We're toast.

Now Obamacare will survive and we will have nationalized health care.

Social Security and Medicare will go broke.

High unemployment will continue, along with higher taxes.

Gas prices will continue their ascent into the stratosphere.

America is over.

Final Electoral Map and I'm going to bed:

Election Watch 2012

Based on the Twitter feed, it looks like the election will come down to Ohio:  whoever wins that will probably win the election.  Right now it is trending towards Obama.

Looks like my friend Lawrence Auster, of View From the Right, is correct again.  It appears likely that Obama will win re-election in a close contest.  The old Mencken axiom of "never betting on the intelligence of the American people" has been proven correct...again.

It is a bitter pill to swallow, but the America we believed in is gone.

Update:  7:20 PM, PST:  Twitter feeds show conservative morale falling quickly as it appears Obama will win re-election.  Dems will retain control of the Senate.

Update:  8:10 PM, PST:  Obama leads in electoral votes 229 to 190.  California alone will put Obama over the top.  It's over.  We have lost the election.

That will end my reporting for tonight.  Tomorrow we can begin digesting the results and figuring a strategy for the future.  Right now, America is a socialist state along the lines of Europe.  America will suffer much for this election, but have no one to blame but themselves.

Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain writes:

Please forgive me for having encouraged anyone to believe that there was still hope to save America. We’re obviously doomed beyond all hope of redemption.

The sad thing is that Romney will win the popular vote, but lose the election.

Interactive Map of Election Returns (Google)

6:27 PM - PST - Google has a map of the election returns here.  At this moment, Romney has won 153 electoral votes to 123 for Obama.  270 electoral votes are needed to win.

These results are from the east but also include Texas; the west coast polls haven't yet closed, but will add a large number of electoral votes for Obama.

So as of right now, it is still too close to call.

6:56 PM, PST:  Electoral count is now R 153 O 143.

8:07 PM, PST:  Electoral count is now O 229, R 190.  We're going to lose.

Voted and Nervously Awaiting the Election Returns

I got up at 6:15 AM, got to the polling place at 7:30 AM, and the place was packed.  There is a heavy turnout here in Northern California.  I voted and left for my morning Spanish class.  The teacher is a very good instructor and a great guy, but a Democrat.  He was wearing a campaign button that said "Yes on 30" and "No on 32."  I voted the exact opposite of his wishes.

It will be a long day, and hours will pass before we know any election results.  I think I'll drive over to Morgan Hill and buy some cigars for use as pacifiers to ward off anxiety.  They taste so much better than my thumb, and you can light them as well.

Hispanics For Romney #juntosconromney

Here's a great Twitter thread that features Hispanics for Romney. Great to know these good people are out there: it is #juntosconromney ("together with Romney").

Not all Hispanics are Democrat-deluded. A Twitter hashtag #juntosconromney ("together with Romney") is for Hispanics who are voting for Romney. Some of them have some great things to say! I especially like those of Stephen Sanchez and Marisa Marshall -- see the link here. Bueno, mis amigos!

Here's a screen grab of some of the tweeters:

Who Will Win the Presidential Election of 2012?

Beats the Hell outta me.  My intuition says Romney will win and it won't be that close.  However, whether reality conforms itself to my intuition or not remains to be seen.

Here are the factors that impress me:
1.  Romney is tied or slightly ahead or slighly behind Obama in several key states like Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and Florida.  Turnout will be the key to victory, and Romney's crowds are large and enthusiastic; Obama's not so much.  Only 800 people turned out to hear Joe Biden speak today.

2.  All the traditional reasons for picking a winner line up behind Romney:  the economy is terrible and Obama hasn't helped; gas prices are sky high, unemployment is not improving.  Only the fervently faithful to their Party will vote for Obama.

3.  Independents are overwhelmingly for Romney, by double digits.  Traditionally, no one wins without winning the independents.

4.  Most polls showing Obama ahead are skewed from oversampling Democrats, and are based on the undoubtedly false belief that the Democrat turnout will be the same as in 2008.  Most pundits expect it to be substantially lower.  The sharp decline in Democrats voting early and the sharp increase in Republicans voting early confirm this impression.

5.  Republican registrations are up considerably and Democrat registrations are down.  The former have the enthusiasm and the determination to win.  They will show up at the polls, whereas many disappointed Democrats will stay home.

6.  Undecided voters traditionally go for the challenger, and will go for Romney this time.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.  By this time tomorrow, we should know.

Photoshopping as Therapy: Creating Some in Expectancy of a Romney Win

I hate this anxiety, waiting for Tuesday, waiting to know if we will have to suffer another four years of radical-leftwing-college-sophomore-redistributionism.  If Obama is re-elected, what will the gas prices be in 2016 when he leaves office?  If they double again, like they did in his first four years, we are looking at $9 a gallon gas.  Yes indeedy, liberals, do vote for Obama if you enjoy poverty.

All the news indicates the race is tied; one poll shows Romney up, another shows Obama up, one pundit says this, and another says that.  I suspect that Romney will win, because not all voters like to put their hand in the fire twice.  Most learn the first time that it hurts.

Nevertheless, who really knows?  Not I.  So instead of assuring my readers that I know the answer and that I have crunched the numbers proving a Romney victory, I Photoshop instead.  It's good therapy for my anxiety.  This morning I Photoshopped Nat Silverman dining on a big crow sandwich and Paul Krugman's facial expression when he learns Romney has won.  Both are funny and fun, but won't be posted until I know Romney and Ryan have been elected beyond all doubt.

So who else can I skewer?  I know, Cher said she would "cry forever" if Romney wins, that would be a worthy subject for Photoshop.  Who else?

Don't Forget to Change Your Clocks and Your President

"Racism" Charges Against Ron Paul Appear Exaggerated at Best

Lawrence Auster of View From the Right often points out how mainstream "conservatives" often adopt leftist arguments and positions on the subject of race.  These conservatives have swallowed the progressive Kool-Aid, and rush to display themselves as greatly enlightened anti-racists.  They pose and posture just like liberals do, acting out a script that says "Look at me, I am so tolerant and enlightened!"

Conservative Networks appears to represent such types.  No one is allowed to discuss aspects of black people because such topics are strictly verboten.  Conservative Networks has published a bunch of links to Ron Paul's old newsletters, describing them as "Racist Newsletter Links."  I clicked on several of them and didn't find anything that I considered especially offensive.  Indeed, a lot of the links don't discuss race at all.  One link merely described how militant gays invaded a Catholic church to disrupt services and insult Catholicism.  I have copied and pasted their links below; feel free to peruse them.

So far, the only "offensive" remarks that have been attributed to Ron Paul are these:
1.  Only about 5% of blacks vote sensibly in any election.  Yes, that's about the percentage who vote Republican, so it appears Paul's statement is true.

2.  Statistics infer that about 95% of black men in the Washington, DC area are either criminal or partially criminal.  I agree that this statement is stupid.  It is too vague and unsupported to be credible and appears highly exaggerated.  However, statistics do show that almost 40% of young black men are, or have been, in the justice system.  The truth is outrageous enough without exaggerating it.

3.  The "swiftness" of young black men:  Paul stated that young black purse snatchers are unlikely to be caught because of their swiftness of foot.  However, Paul is right, black men do run faster than men of other races.  This is a biological fact.  It is the reason why blacks make up a disproportionate number of men in professional sports like basketball or football.   It is the reason why the top track stars are generally black. The statement that "white men can't jump" is a true comparison of white basketball players vs black ones.  So why is the truth offensive?  What am I missing here?

4.  Blacks commit crime in a higher proportion to their numbers in society.  Again, a true statement.  As I pointed out in my last post, making this observation without offering possible solutions is unwise from a political point of view.  Some have pointed out that Paul's comment seems designed to pander to prejudice against blacks.  Maybe so.  But that prejudice is fed by black behavior more than any other factor.  Paul's statement was tactless, but how can the truth be "racist"?

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am not a supporter of Ron Paul.  Paul is a paleolibertarian, and as such, holds foreign policy views that seem similar to those on the far left.  For that reason, I cannot support him as a candidate.   However, truth is truth and fair is fair.  Ron Paul's views on race are often tactless and unhelpful, but not necessarily wrong.

Links to Ron Paul's old Newsletters, copied and pasted from Conservative Networks:

Link Link

Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link

Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link LinkLinkLink Link

Link Link Link Link

Rick Perry's Ad: Exciting Ad That Kicks Obama Hard (Video)

This video and the last one of Cain deserve a hat tip to Lawrence Auster of View From the Right.

Perry's ad is pretty exciting stuff -- very well done.

The Cowboy With Yellow Flowers: a Tale of the Old West (Herman Cain Ad on Video)

Dismissing Herman Cain

by Robert Ringer
Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Herman Cain

Establishment Republicans and most of the media are going to great lengths to downplay Herman Cain’s chances of winning the Republican nomination. Not so much because of his slips on such issues as abortion and negotiating with terrorists, but because he doesn’t have the money or staff to be competitive.

While I’m sure there’s a lot of historical evidence to back up their lack-of-money-and-staff argument, I don’t think they understand the mood of the average American today. They are victims of what I call the Paradigm Restriction.

Metaphorically speaking, we are all restricted by our unique mental paradigms. It’s difficult to comprehend ideas and circumstances we are not accustomed to hearing and seeing within the invisible parameters that surround our lives.

Thus, one of the causes of our differing perceptions of reality is that we all start from our own set of assumptions. To break through one’s Paradigm Restriction requires a willingness to let go of comfortable, long-held beliefs and look at the world the way it is today rather than the way it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago.

The idea that Herman Cain can’t win because of his lack of financial support is based on a pre-Tea Party view of the world. People are angry, and the more they are told that someone like Herman Cain can’t win because of a lack of funds and/or staff, the more determined they are to prove the pundits wrong.

In addition, Cain doesn’t need much money for advertising, because with nonstop debates on the horizon, he will get more and better exposure than ads could ever buy him. And that exposure showcases him as the least uptight, most pleasant candidate, traits that are only magnified by the nasty behavior of guys like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum.

Given that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a 100 percent pure libertarian-centered conservative, Cain can afford to stumble now and then. After all, the others stumble repeatedly because they lack purity in their words and actions.

All this by way of saying you should not be surprised if Cain wins by a wide margin in Iowa. And don’t be shocked if he comes close to winning in New Hampshire. Finally, unless Rick Perry gets much better very quickly, Cain could very well win in South Carolina.

Herman Cain may not be ideologically perfect, but, contrary to what we’re hearing from the pundits, he can win the nomination. And if he does, pundits are wrong in thinking he can’t beat Barack Obama. Just think of the contrast between the two:

Nasty and hateful (Obama) vs pleasant and likeable (Cain).

Hard-core Marxist (Obama) vs hard-core capitalist (Cain).

No experience in the private sector and creating jobs (Obama) vs tremendous success in the private sector and creating jobs (Cain).

Focus on raising taxes (Obama) vs a focus on lowering taxes (Cain).

Elitist background financed by public and private handouts (Obama) vs pulling himself up by his bootstraps from humble beginnings (Cain).

Above all, how in the world would the worst racist ever to set foot in the Oval Office handle a real black person in head-to-head debates? It would be fun to watch the Master of Malevolence squirm while trying to figure out how to cope with a black conservative. Obama’s beloved race card would be off the table!

We can hope for a surprise Ron Paul victory, but if we can’t get that, don’t count out the man whom the establishment is so certain cannot win. A victory for Herman Cain would throw all the old rules out the window — and into the trash bin of political history.

Reprinted with permission

Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer

ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.

Barack Obama's Latest Gambit for Re-Election: He's the "Responsible Adult"

"Nyaaah - nyaaah - nyaaah!"

According to Politico:

One of President Barack Obama’s 2012 themes will likely revolve around what his aides call “the contrast” — a portrayal of Obama as a responsible, moderate adult harassed by infantile Republicans who favor the wealthy.

Yes, more often than not, politics is about image rather than reality.  The truth is that Barack Obama is a far-left ideologue who neither understands economics nor cares.  The far left believes that wealth exists independently of effort, work, investment and risk taking, sort of like manna from heaven:  it just appears, as if by magic, like sunshine, flowers and rainbows.  The rich are those who have managed to grab more than their fair share, leaving the slower and the tardy to fight for scraps.  It is therefore the job of the far left to take some of the manna away and redistribute it to the poor folks.

Obama is neither responsible nor moderate, and his belief system is not that of an adult.  His belief system is more that of a radical college sophomore who is high on pot and believes passionately in the manna-from-heaven theory of wealth, and his holy mission to rearrange reality so it is more to his liking.  We absolutely cannot bear another four years of this radical college sophomore, lest we become the next Greece, with all of its economic failings, crushing debt and widespread riots.

Michele Bachmann Absolutely Not "a Flake"

Michele Bachmann, US Congress Representative from Minnesota, has entered the fray to become the GOP's nominee for President of the United States.  The Democrats have already begun their proactive sliming of Bachmann, as they do for any serious opposition candidate.  They will belittle her accomplishments, misquote her, scour her background for any potential negatives to exploit, and do their best to destroy any credibility she may have as a candidate.  Like they have done for Sarah Palin, the Dems want to paint Bachmann as a non-serious airhead.  Bachmann, however, is no such thing.

Investor's Business Daily tells why.

Meanwhile, Politico does its part to belittle Bachmann and is refuted by Legal Insurrection.

Rick Perry: Next President of the United States?

Kevin McCullough, a syndicated talk show host, says he is the first pundit to predict Obama's presidency in 2008.  He is now predicting that Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the GOP nominee and the victor in the presidential election of 2012.

I could live with that.

McCullough gives five reasons why Perry will be the guy.

Jon Huntsman, "the Republican Candidate Democrats Fear the Most" (Time)

Jon Huntsman, whom I have never heard of before today, was once the governor of Utah and has worked in the Obama Administration for the past two years (he was ambassador to China).  He has also just announced his candidacy for president as a Republican.

The warmth and acclaim being afforded Huntsman from the left means he is dead on arrival to the national election scene.  We have been expecting some RINO to appear and be praised to the heavens by the left as the greatest GOP candidate ever, or painted as the candidate most likely to cast fear into the hearts of Democrats everywhere, in an attempt to make Republicans like the guy.  The Daily Beast loves him; Harry Reid endorses him; Chris Matthews is probably getting a new thrill up his leg.

The left's real reason for praising Huntsman:  he is a weak candidate whose nomination would give Obama a better chance at reelection.  He is an unknown who hasn't said much on issues most important to conservatives -- though he has mouthed off a bit too much on his love of the Green movement, or as we like to call them, the Luddites.

Jon Huntsman, "the candidate that Democrats fear most."  Yeah.  R-i-i-i-i-ght.

Read Time's fantasy here.