GOP SC Result Shows True Colors of Conservatives

Newt won the South Carolina GOP primary this past weekend, and did so by a lot of votes - sending one time front runner and presumed nominee Mitt "corporations are people my friend" Romney into scramble mode, and making the Republican race as up-for-grabs as it has ever been this time around.

But that's on the surface. What does Palmetto State win by Gingrich really say about conservative voters?

Well, we know that SC is a very, very conservative state. Hell, there is no such thing as left of center down there. The closest you'd get is a moderate Republican. So, we know that the voting populous there definitely represents a large number of conservatives, and presumably a good cross section of conservative beliefs on topics such as the economy, social issues, foreign affairs, etc. So, we know that South Carolina is a good test bed for taking measure of where conservatives are at.

Next, we know that the four main candidates - Romney, Newt, Santorum and Ron Paul - all represent different shades of conservatism and personality. All conservatives mind you, but different in some key ways:

• Mitt is the classic upper class "silk stocking" Republican that used to dominate the party before social conservatives took over in the 80s. On the upside for Republicans, he should represent the ultimate outcome of their preferred economic prescription for America. You an economic conservative? Mitt's your man. On the downside for the Rs, he's aloof, from Massachusetts and Mormon. That last one probably being the worst for a party run by evangelical Christians.
• Newt is an old hand in the Republican Party, having been the Speaker of the House in the 1990s. He's an authoritarian, combative and a good debater. On the up side for Republicans, he is seen as a fighter (a bully really) - as someone unafraid to take on Obama with the toughest rhetoric and stances. On the downside for them, he is a walking abomination in terms of their party's claims around support for "family values" and moral codes lifted from the Bible. Newt also has a clear track record of simply changing his stance on things so that he's always on the opposite side of his opponent and can argue with him/her. Oh, and he presided over an expanding Federal government he ground to a halt in the 1990s, lost his Speakership to ethics charges and is corporately indentured as heavily as anyone else running.
• Rick Santorum is THE MAN when it comes to religious conservatism. It doesn't get any more Christ-y than Rick. On the upside for Republicans, in Santorum they have a very clear, very obvious guy to vote for if their issue is moral and family values (as defined by the GOP and conservatives that is). On the downside, some may see him as unelectable against Obama and feel he is not as aggressive as Newt.

• Ron Paul is the libertarian in the group. He believes in virtually no Federal government at all. So, Republicans could see him as champion for one of their big causes, small government. On the downside for them, he also believes Marijuana should be legal, we shouldn't be the world's police and the government has no business in the lives of gay people.

So with the rock solid conservative credentials of the South Carolina people and the above lineup of candidates vying for their votes, what does a resounding win by Gingrich tell us about where the collective head of the conservative party is at?

My conclusion is that the SC results show that conservatives are quickly and conveniently willing forget their supposedly strong support for "family," "responsibility," and "fiscal conservatism," and "small government," in favor of a guy they thing will be able to verbally beat down Obama. Essentially, they will sell out their values for an authoritarian guy who they think will thug his way to the Presidency. This trumps other candidates and core beliefs. Truth, adherence to strong principles, small government, ethics, religion, family values...all that stuff can go out the window because conservatives like how Newt can verbally beat someone up.

How else can you explain it? If conservatives' primary objective is to "restore family values," then Santorum should have won the primary.

If they wanted to ensure the continuation of government support for the "supply side" economics they so love (government by and for the 1%), then Mitt should have come out on top.

And, if they wanted to really shake things up and get things back to more of a "state's rights" situation (ask South Carolinians about state's rights...they'll tell you that is why the North started the Civil War. Note: that wasn't the reason and the South started the war...but I digress), then Ron Paul should have won.

But they didn't. Newt did.

Typically, conservatives respond well to being told by a strong man (bully) what to do, how to think, how to vote and what to say about the opponent. No thinking, no critique...just do it. Nixon, Cheney, Haig, McCarthy, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Oliver North. Those are the types conservatives flock to, and so is Newt. He always has been.

Luckily, some other GOP primaries are taking place in less distilled conservative states so we may see some more moderation in the vote tallies for the candidates. But, I'll be watching to see if "tough guy" beats out "smart guy," "religious guy" and "live free or die guy."

GOP "Blame Obama" game starts already

Last week I dropped in a quick note about how I thought Republicans would start blaming Obama for the serious economic damage caused by their eight years (more really...remember, they controlled Congress from 1995-2006) of leading the country starting right after Obama's inauguration in January.

Turns out I was naive. Why? Because the Republicans are already at it.

Yep. One week after his election, conservative commentators and pundits are starting the "blame Obama for our economic problems" strategy.

See article here.

Sadly, but predictably, I think this is a preview of what we'll see from the R's over the next four year. Ugly.

No Country for Old Men (Or Old Ideas)

The Republican convention has just wrapped up. John McCain delivered his speech pretty well and the conservative party have had their say.


While there are many, many issues that could be debated about what has been said by the GOP this week (many instances of utter and shameless hypocrisy come to mind), the thing that the convention and especially John McCain's speech drove home to me quite clearly is...


The last thing our country needs right now in a leader is a rich old man espousing old, disproven ideas that have directly led the huge problems our nation now faces.


Whether it's the economy, the Iraq war, relations with China and Russia, healthcare, jobs, energy policy, environmental policy...all of these things are spectacularly worse than they were eight years ago specifically because of the leadership, action (or inaction in many cases) and the so called "judgement" of Bush, the Republicans and definitely John McCain.


All I could think about each time that McCain made a point in his speech about what he was going to do to solve our problems was that he is the head of the party that created these very ills and he was offering nothing new - same old Republican punch lines. And lets face it, the Republicans have really been running things for much longer than the last eight years. They controlled Congress from 1995-2006 and the Presidency for 20 of the last 28 years.

We need new ideas, new people and change. Twenty six year DC insider John McCain literally goes around the country promising more of the same.


I can't vote for that and won't.

Further, because the Republicans have so totally failed with their policies I genuinely think those deciding to vote for McCain are in fact putting some very narrow interest - anti-abortion, lower corporate taxes, oil interests, some vaugue notion of family values - ahead of the overall good of the nation. The opposite of the "Country First" mantra of the Republicans. How else can you explain signing up for the exact some thing that got us into this mess. Or, McCain voters are making their judgements on some very, very subjective criteria like...he was a POW or he seems like a nice guy. Using that type of criteria got us George W. Bush.


Lets not repeat that again.