The Definition of Insanity

*******This was originally posted on my Facebook page as a note on March 9th, 2011.  I’m re-posting to make a point.

The old saying goes: The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again only to get the same result.

That old saying could be applied to the Republican Party.  I am a conservative but a registered republican ever since I became of legal age. I have never supported, voted for, nor would I even consider becoming a Democrat.

With the 2012 election already being speculated on, I am beginning to see hints that the GOP may be repeating the same insane things when it comes to national elections—backing and nominating the wrong person to run against the Democrat.

John McCain, who had a history of non partisan “reach across the aisle” politics, was supposed be the candidate who would appeal to these voters.  Yet in 2008, it wasn’t the Black or Hispanic voter who carried Obama to finish line.  It was the independent, white voter.   They are partly responsible for placing this country in the danger that it is in now.   Many of them voted because they had Bush hatred.  Even though they voted for conservative and Republican politicians in droves in 2010,  some polling suggests they may want to give Obama another chance in 2012.  As I and other good conservatives stated time and again, that is a disastrous prospect.

Now let me give you two scenarios which would drive me to leave the GOP–perhaps temporarily–and become a registered independent with conservative leanings.

Scenario 1:
Let’s say, John McCain did decide to run for president again.  I know this idea may be a both rightening and absurd, but crazier things have happened.   Ole middle of the road McCain hasn’t really shot down the idea of running again in 2012 when asked by the press.  What’s even more frightening is the surefire possibility that the GOP would back him over the other potential candidates.   If this nightmare scenario should ever become a reality I will—the day after McCain accepts the nomination—march right down to my local Board of Elections and switch my party affiliation to independent.

Scenario 2:
Let’s say the GOP nominates someone who’s moderate like McCain, ie: Huckabee, Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman or basically, a bore, I would not be able to support that candidate or defend  his shortcomings.  However, when it came time to place my vote, I would have to vote for any of these candidates because, when it comes down to the Devil I know—Obama—I’d gladly vote for the Devil I don’t know and would do so with a clear conscience.  Now say this milquetoast Republican ran against Obama and did everything imaginable to sabotage himself, who would not challenge Obama on character flaws, call out Obama’s lies and allows some sort of October surprise to be exposed ruining his candidacy and then loses?   Then I will march right down to that local BOE office and register as an independent.

It’s very certain that the second scenario could play out in 2012.  With all due respect, the GOP has a rather hoary tradition when it comes to candidates they support.   Meaning, the GOP has a history of backing NOT the right candidate, but the candidate that was the next in line.  In 2000, McCain ran and lost to George W. Bush.  Was McCain really the right candidate in 2008?  No.  At that time, Romney was.  Yet, it didn’t matter.  McCain was next in line.

For the GOP in 2012,  it’s evident that Mitt Romney is that man who is next in line.   In my opinion, this will be a mistake if he were selected to challenge Obama.  Here’s why.   You may recall in late 2007, John McCain was on the ropes.  In fact, the press drummed up the narrative that he was finished.  You may remember the media footage of a broken down gasbag named Sen. John McCain wandering around a random airport, carrying his own luggage to head back to Arizona after tiresome campaigning.   Then what happened?  The Obama team and the leftist media revived McCain’s campaign.  I think that I read this in a book by David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, who revealed the Obama camp wanted McCain because ole’ get along go along John was the easiest for them to beat.  They were right.  That was until the monkey wrench known as Gov. Sarah Palin was thrown into the equation and roused conservatives for McCain.  And she almost got him over the finish line.

For 2012 as in 2008, Obama and Axelrod are most likely salivating over the good chance that Romney will be the front runner.  The reason for this follows Obama & Co’s modus operandi.   Obama’s strategy with Romney—as it was for Hillary Clinton and McCain—is to adopt the same platform as his opponent.  In other words, take the same position as your opponent on any issue and communicate it more gracefully to the people.   An example of this would be the joint statement McCain and Obama issued on the economic crisis.   Also, he also took most of Hillary’s position points and glossed over and re-presented them almost verbatim.

I’ve been hearing pundits on the right, people like George Will, who are complaining that the potential GOP nominee should only go after Obama on the issues.  Just today I received an email from Dick Morris who’s promoting his new book Revolt.  The headline of the email was How To Defeat Obama and a bullet point in the email was Don’t attack Obama personally.  Just debate him on the issues.

With all due respect to these political thinkers, they’re wrong.  Obama’s strategy is to adopt the same platform as his opponent, make it more about personality, less about issues and substance and grand ideas about “winning the future”.  In 2008, of course, the grand idea was “hope and change”.   It’s 2011–hope has changed to despair.

It’s already happening and it’s coming from either Obama or the media.  Just last week at a Governor’s conference, Obama praised Romney’s health care bill that he signed into law in Massachusetts.   RomneyCare is seen by most of the American public as the prototype for ObamaCare.  We know that a majority of Americans want this law repealed.  Having Romney as the GOP nominee, Obama would virtually neutralize the issue of Obamacare and it’s repeal.

As far as the media goes, even those on Fox are already assisting Obama in winning a re-election.  Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham had on NY Times token conservative columnist (he’s about as conservative as Obama is Irish) David Brooks on her show this past week.  It was basically a softball interview that you can listen to here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q72fxQ8Si-w&feature=feedu

At the end of the clip, Brooks—a liberal and Obama media sycophant—is asked by Ingraham who he thinks should be the GOP nominee.  Without a beat, Brooks declares: Romney is first choice, Pawlenty as second.   In short, it’s beginning to look a lot like 2008 all over again.

In order to beat Obama in 2012, the Republican party needs to back a candidate that is diametrically opposed to the president on the issues AND a candidate who could beat him on a personal level.  Also, this candidate must have national notoriety, strong ability to fund raise and must embrace— not distance themselves from—the tea party movement.

The only two candidates who represent all of the above are Sarah Palin and possibly Michele Bachmann.   First the obvious: both are women.  No doubt Obama will be running his re-election campaign on the possibilities of creating history all over again.  The media will be pushing the gimmick that America’s first black president should be re-elected because—you guessed it—it’s historic!  Translation:  more white guilt laid upon on an already race-weary American public.

This gimmick would be neutralized because, by running any of these two women, the counter argument for the republicans would be that Obama is, in fact, standing in the way of another historic moment—the first female president of the United States.

Both women, especially Palin, are the polar opposite of Obama when it comes to almost all of the major issues.  Take Obamacare for example.  Both women have gone nuclear and demonstrated their opposition publicly.  Palin was the first to call the “death panels” for what they were in 2009.  Recently, Bachmann has gone public with the information that 105 billion taxpayer dollars were sneakily placed into the 2,000+ page Obamacare bill in order for it to be funded and implemented.

Both women have guts.  Palin took on corrupt members within her own party in Alaska and sent many of them to jail.  Bachmann faced down the Nancy Pelosi machine and won.  Pelosi declared war on Bachmann and sank millions of DNC money trying to get her out seated in 2010.  Palin endured numerous attacks—many of them lies created by the left or frivolous ethics complaints all of which she has been exonerated— still she stands.

Make no mistake, I’m not insinuating that if either Palin or Bachmann run for president and do not win the nomination that I will not vote for the selected GOP nominee.  That would be absurd. There is a very high probability that factors such as a poor economy, gas prices, scandal, unrest in the middle east or threats from other countries, could mean that any potential GOP candidate would be able to win.  Then again, things may turn around and with good spin from the campaigner and thief may make the road to 2012 a tough battle.

In any case, regarding my two horrifying scenarios which may produce another four years of Obama rule—which most believe would mean kissing the country goodbye—I would be compelled to change party affiliation to independent.  This wouldn’t be done out of spite, but out of frustration.  Because when it comes to national elections, the Republican Party continues to repeat the same mistakes over and over again and, insanely, ignores it’s base of social and fiscal conservatives.

In many ways, the GOP is like a drug addict in your family who simply refuses to hit rock bottom and I’m frankly sick and tired of either enabling—via donations or volunteer support—or telling him that he has a problem and should possibly seek treatment.  It’s just not for me anymore.

I do not intend to become the typical independent and talk down to the average republican or conservative who happens to be a republican, because they are not the problem.  I would change affiliation to send the powers that be in the republican party a message that enough is enough.   No more milquetoast candidates, no more ignoring your base and just get your act together because I’m sick of it.

Then again, they may have already realized the danger the country is in, know that another slip up and betrayal of the public’s trust will render them extinct and will act on the opportunity to make good on past mistakes and take the country back.

Let’s hope.

Mr. L