Comments on: I Woke Up and It Was a Romney Monday

By: Anymouse

Anymouse — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:32:02 +0000

To phrase things in a more down to earth manner, our problems with Obama didn’t begin with Obama. They started with the Welfare system, particularly Medicaid and Medicare. He simply proceeded to extend those concepts and the doctrine of Government supported welfare a bit further.

By: Anymouse

Anymouse — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:51:56 +0000

“But when that Supreme Court asks Obama or a future liberal president to enforce its decisions against a real Tea Party, one that has taken up armed resistance, don’t expect conservatives like me to support you. Push me into that corner, and I’ll stand for the rule of law.”

Good to know you will support the modern liberal state. I will do what I can to subvert it.

Obama’s health care bill is a natural fulfillment of late stage capitalism and the welfare state and only dismantling those things will allow us to prevent it from returning.

By: I Woke Up and It Was a Romney Monday « Feeds « Local News Feeds

I Woke Up and It Was a Romney Monday « Feeds « Local News Feeds — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:53:34 +0000

[...] more Local News read here: I Woke Up and It Was a Romney Monday Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America [...]

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:17:39 +0000

One point that Carl misses is, What kind of Supreme is he going to nominate? Remember Republican presidents have nominated a number of foul balls to the Supreme Court and Romney’s politics seems suited to nominating foul balls. Plus, God has not revealed to us if anyone on the bench is going to die.
A Third Party run will also teach the GOP that it will either be a ‘conservative’ body or go the way of the Whigs.
Also, I think you may underestimate the antipathy directed at an either inept Obama or a malicious Obama. The Louisiana election may tell us a great deal about what’s coming.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:01:47 +0000

Carl, that should be a post.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:51:53 +0000

Its early still for both Perry and Cain and until Iowa or New Hampshire there is enough time for people to get their voice. But I think verbal goofs might not be that devistating if Mitt is the only other candidate.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:48:23 +0000

On real politics I tend to agree with Carl and Jim, and my advice is to listen to them above. Ron Paul as a 3rd party cand. can only lead to Obama’s reelection, with at least some of the consequences Carl describes. Remember that it’ll be Mitt with a Republican Congress.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:28:05 +0000

I’m not sure Herman’s done, but he has to learn to talk, and quickly.
I think you’re right about a right-wing/conservative third party if the GOP nominates Romney. Romney is dragging that dead, old chicken, Obamneycare around his neck like “Ole Yeller” and it’s starting to smell
really bad.
The question is can a ‘conservative’ third party candidate (Ron Paul?) win?

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:23:05 +0000

Tab, read some of the key Supreme Court cases of the last fifteen or so years: Lopez, Morrison, Kelo, Gonzales(CA pot-case) and then imagine just those areas of our jurisprudence decided in future cases with 6-3 or more majorities on the living constitutionalist side. (A good text is the Rossum and Tarr volume, BTW) Or read Cass Sunstein's delightful little handbook for property confiscation entitled The Second Bill of Rights. Then you'll see what a second Obama adminstration will mean for the U.S., even apart from the guaranteed incompetence, class-war stirring, and foreign policy fumbling of the O-man. You think we're in trouble now? You have no idea how much worse it could get. Paul should have taught you that the Constitution is the deep structure. Budgets change year by year...and even bankruptcy is not forever, but a Constitution poisoned or even hobbled by bad Supreme Court decisions requires 3/4 of the states simply to get the poison out, or years upon years of replacement. And don't tell me about how raw tea-party-esque people power will restrain a liberal court, once it gets appointed by an Obama re-elected due to Paulian sit-outs in 2012. You will then be up against the official rule of law, with no way to change its jurisprudence anytime soon, and the situation will be nearly as bad vis-a-vis the bureacratic authorities Obama will spend a second term entrenching. And so, you will have only truly revolutionary actions to turn to, if you are to remain true to Paul-ism. Perhaps that appeals to your spirit. But when that Supreme Court asks Obama or a future liberal president to enforce its decisions against a real Tea Party, one that has taken up armed resistance, don't expect conservatives like me to support you. Push me into that corner, and I'll stand for the rule of law. And when you come to realize your only options are now reduced to sullen acceptance (with only an ultra-gradualist path out of statism possible), or impossible revolutionary action, do you really know what you'll do? Are you really so sure about what your apparently zealous political courage is made of?

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:06:20 +0000

Jonathan, I actually know what you say is right. But please check out what he actually said on the show.