The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense

“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

What We’re Supposed To Believe

Here’s the Nonsense:  Mitt Romney is the true conservative in the GOP Primary Race.

Here’s the Horse Sense (with apologies to James Whitcomb Riley):  If ducks are liberal, then when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird Mitt Romney.

Let’s see if I understand this.  We’re supposed to believe that Mitt Romney is a conservative and the candidate with the best chance to beat Obama in the general election. 

We’re supposed to believe that he’s got some sort of conservative record. 

We’re supposed to believe that he’ll be the great conservative savior of the nation. 

We’re supposed to believe that he was only governing the way he did with moderate and liberal policies in Massachusetts because he had to work with Democrats in a blue state, but in reality he’s purported to be a true conservative. 

We’re supposed to believe that even though he uses Saul Alinsky’s left-wing methods to attack his competitors that he’s the true conservative.

We’re supposed to believe that he’s the victim of unfair and merciless attacks because he’s a conservative. 

We’re supposed to believe the left when they tell us Romney would be the “toughest to beat” for Obama in the general election, even though the last thing the left is known for is telling the truth.

What part of stupid are we supposed to be?

Are we really supposed to believe that a man whose track record is so clearly liberal is actually a conservative?  (click here to see last week's post for a clearer understanding of Romney’s record)  And let’s just assume for a minute that he’s abandoned all of those liberal leanings to become a true conservative.  (Well, all except his liberal leaning on healthcare because he still embraces the mess known as Romneycare in Massachusetts.)  Even if he has abandoned his liberal history and positions, shouldn’t he have to live as a conservative and prove his conservative positions through his actions over an extended period of time before we can truly believe he’s changed?  

Oh, wait a minute, I guess that can’t work because when Newt Gingrich has admitted his failures and made changes to his life, sought forgiveness, and lived a good life as a faithful husband and father for over a decade it’s still not good enough to prove he’s changed.  And we certainly can’t hold a different standard for Newt than we do for Mitt, can we?

This entire fiasco that the establishment Republicans want us to believe that Mitt Romney is a conservative is ridiculous.  They employ the politics of personal destruction from Saul Alinksy’s teachings that became the method of campaigning perfected by the Clintons in the 1990s.  And then when Romney’s side starts using it in Iowa against Gingrich no one holds them accountable, even though the vast majority of money spent on negative ads in Iowa (studies show up to 90% of them) were spent on ads against Gingrich. 

Yes, Gingrich made the mistake of trying to respond in kind against Romney in Iowa and was attacked viciously for doing it.  He stopped, returned to message-based campaigning and campaigning that that compares records.  But the criticism against him stood. 

Gingrich’s momentum picked up again and gave him a decisive win in South Carolina throwing Romney’s campaign a curve.  And Romney, typical of a liberal cry-baby politician, went right back to the Alinsky model of personal attacks instead of campaigning on the facts of his record.  (Oh, that's right, Romney's record isn't a conservative one so he can't stand on that.  And doesn't that sound a lot like another politician by the name of Barack Obama?  Maybe that's why George Soros, when interviewed in Davos Switzerland said that there really was no difference between Obama and Romney.)  

Ads were run by Romney's supporters that questioned Newt’s connection to the Reagan Revolution.  The establishment, once again in an effort to push Romney on all of us, brought out the old moderate losers like Dole and McCain to support him and attack Newt.  And with all the millions being spent to drive the attacks home before the primary vote this Tuesday, even Michael Reagan endorsing Gingrich and bringing forward confirmation from both he and Nancy Reagan that Ronald Reagan had passed the torch to Newt Gingrich might have been too little too late.  Although I have to say that it seems pretty stupid that any voter would think that the Reagan’s wouldn’t know better than anyone who carries the true Reagan conservative message.

Tuesday is a day that should be crystal clear to voters.  Choose Mitt Romney, a liberal Republican who will bring us the history of success of Bob Dole and John McCain or choose Newt Gingrich, the man who Ronald Reagan passed the torch to and begin the process of taking America back for freedom, liberty, and justice.