Category: GOP

Thoughts on taking back the GOP.

Cool Blast Lemonade: Why I Still Believe in American Greatness

I remember my first lemonade stand.  Lost money, but learned a lot about hard work.


Now, with Obama declaring war on small business, I wonder how long it will take the Sutton family tykes to be targeted, based on this Fox News article.

Clara Sutton talks about what she has learned so far:

You learn how to make change.  We learned about customer service -- that we should always be nice to customers. We learned how to advertise.

We donate some of the money to charity to help other people out.  We use the rest for supplies. We might buy a gift for our brother since he’s our employee.

Wait until you learn about city permits, sales tax, unemployment tax, income tax, and property tax, not to mention health regulations, workers comp, insurance, audits, ADA, and health care.  Not so cute anymore.

Obama has declared war on small business, making it official actually, because the bureaucrats have been targeting small business for years.  Andrew Sutton, a small business owner himself, had something to say about President Obama's take on the debt business owners owe to the government, :

It was not very presidential. A leader should lead by being more positive. [Obama] should of said, “you guys should be the backbone of the economy.”

Obama entered the his term knowing the economy was in crisis.  Little remembered is how active Obama was even before he assumed office.  In fact, the second half of TARP spending was at Obama’s request, before he assumed office.  Bush agreed to take the fall for it.  Ann Coulter covers this tidbit:

The theory is that a new resident is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

After taking office, and facing what was, in his own words, “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,” what was the game plan he and his staff came up with?  Their priorities were as follows:
I could go on.  I do not care how big a supporter of Obama you are, you cannot possibly consider the above list as actions by someone intending to repair the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”  These actions are done by someone who intends to change the economy, not fix it.  The bad kind of change, not the good kind.
Hey Obamites? Want me to give him the benefit of the doubt?  Want me to assume he intended to fix the economy, not break it further?  Fine, for the sake of argument, let’s play that game.  Assuming Obama wanted to fix the economy, has he succeeded?  No.  Period.  Worst recovery from a recession ever.  More jobs?  No. Longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression.
I could go on.  The Obamite response?  It’s Bush’s fault.  It’s ATM’s fault.  It’s rich people, a tsunami, locusts.
Not my fault
Basically, Obama wants to blame anyone or anything for the problems we still face.  But he NEVER accepts responsibility for the things he has done – the things that failed to work.
And some day, some little girl selling lemonade is going to be out of business because Obama declared war on small business.
[Update]  …or a kid selling hotdogs.


Based on comments from the cross-post at Flopping Aces, I need to update this post:

Ok, so I have to either take credit for, or admit failure over, the fact that the post does not fulfill the premise of the title. I think I need an update. That is the downside of having so many other demands on my time that I can’t put as much effort here as I really want to.

When I started this post, I intended to wrap it back to the point that little kids starting lemonade stands is really a reason to cheer for America. It devolved into the reality of how awful and intrusive government has become. So, my post can be considered ironic in extreme, but it actually was not intended to be.

I really do believe in the future of America. I really do believe that the lemonade stand is the absolute perfect paradigm for this discussion. We have, as a country, developed a habit of turning out really stupid teenagers – that grow up to be really bright 28 year olds. I think that is the key to understanding my faith in this country.

We coddle our kids. Duh.

We tell them they can be President. (Certainly, if Obama can become President, ANYONE can).

We tell them they are talented, smart, and special. We build their little egos as much as we can. Then, when they are teenagers, we drop The Rules on them. And we freak out when they rebel. Duh.

Eventually, they take the ego boosts and the belief that they can do anything (in this the best country ever), and they face the reality: the Government is NOT here to help you, people can be idiots, sponges, leaches, or piglets (pick your analogy), and frankly, TANSTAAFL. (Look it up, I won’t link, just so you remember the phrase.)

In summary, when we turn them loose they are angry — because they thought the world was simple and they would just rule.

Then they figured out it wasn’t. And the key to success is hard work and “I got your back”. Those of them that figure this out succeed. Those of them that don’t, work for those of them that did.

This process produces really bright 28 year olds. Who figured it out.

Hence, my belief that the lemonade stand is the core of why I still believe in the Greatness of America.

Spoken as a dad with teenagers (sympathy is accepted), but also as an adept observer of human nature.

Obama Endorses Romney

At least, if you take him at his word, that seems to be what he is saying.  I’d hate to think our President would say things he didn’t mean just to get elected.  That would be lying.

Interesting Suggestion

Why Drudge is Still the Man

imageTo quote Instapundit, heh. With all the ups and downs of the primary season, I was waiting for a tipping point.  With Rubio’s endorsement of Romney, we have reached that tipping point.

The funny thing to me was that Drudge Report was linked to Fox News on their coverage of the endorsement, but the browser cache was such that when Drudge linked to the story, it brought up a new Fox News headline that was not on my already open Fox News page.  Drudge was so fast, he beat my browser refresh (and Fox News site’s own refresh).

Anyway, this means it’s over, Romney will be the nominee.

Sarah. Palin.

Oh, for what could have been.

Andrew Malcolm gets it right.

In Defense of Conservatism. In Defense of Newt.

It’s going to take me a while to get to my point, so bear with me.  It’s worth the ride.

This year, Romney has been labeled as the chosen one by the “Republican Establishment,” but there seems to be much confusion and derision over just who is the Republican Establishment, or even if they exist. 

First, let’s start with the obvious, who they are not. I’m available to discuss the whys, but IMHO, if you are one of the following you are not part of the Republican Establishment:

Democrats, Green Party, Libertarians, or Ron Paul Supporters.

The Tea Party.

Limbaugh. Hannity, Levin, or other conservative talk show hosts.

Evangelicals, Second Amendment advocates, and other single-issue voters.

Who’s left?  Rush Limbaugh has discussed the the country club Republicans as the “go along to get along” crowd, and we’re getting closer now.  But before I explore this further, I’m going to digress again (sorry). 

Thought exercise: What’s the Left’s equivalent of the Republican Establishment?  It’s not Greenpeace, NOW, ACLU, or the unions, so what is it?  It is simply elected officials and their ilk.  The people that pander to all those left wing special interests.  Or, to quote Sarah Palin, the “crony capitalists.”  The people that make their living off of plying favors and delivering the bacon through their influence as an elected official, or through their influence with elected officials.  Play by our rules and support our causes, and we’ll get you elected.  Democrat elected officials, union leaders, Main Stream Media, that is the left’s Establishment.  The ones that have the most control on who get’s elected next as a Democrat.  The people who do not really believe in the cause but are not afraid to use it.

In other words, there is a Democrat Establishment.  And it is just as real, and dangerous, as the Republican Establishment, its just never been named as such.

Back to the Country Club Republicans.  The people who associate with, do business with, lobby, support, and often select who the next elected Republican will be.  This is not a bad crowd, they are really nice people, but they do not like fights.  Go along to get along.  Do not rock the boat.  They do not like the Tea Party, for instance.  But as you can see from the results of their actions, regardless of whether whether they realize it or not, they are engaged in the same crony capitalism as their mirror-pair equivalents on the left wing Establishment.  Vote for those that play by our crony capitalism rules.

So, the Republican Establishment is really not much better, by results, than their equivalent on the left.  Hence, the disdain of the Republican Establishment by true conservatives, namely the Tea Party.  By extension, people on the right that deride the Tea Party have flagged themselves as part of the Republican Establishment.  Likewise, Republicans that demean conservative talk radio, they might as well hold up a sign reading “Republican Establishment”. 

And therein lies the battle.  In reality, it is a fight for control of the Republican Party primary process, at all levels.  Who picks the candidates that get “official” support in a primary?  The Republican Establishment, or the Tea Party? 

Hold that thought.

Now, to defend Newt. 

However, in order to do that, let me first defend conservatives.  Heck, to make a point, I’m going to defend the Republican Establishment, in the person of George W. Bush. 

The problem with the Republican Establishment is that their core is the country club “go along to get along” members.  They do not want a fight, they do not want to offend, they do not want the left-wing members of their country clubs and social circles to know they are even Republican.  In those circles, their “friends”, heck, any person, felt comfortable calling George W. Bush a moron.  Or Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, or any other Republican that had influence. 

In those circles, the country club Republicans allowed their friends on the left to label, demean, insult, deride, and emasculate anyone and everyone on the right that had influence. 

In order for ‘evil’ to prevail, all that needs to happen is for ‘good’ people to do nothing.

The Republican Establishment allows evil to prevail with nothing but silence.  Actually, I’ll broaden that a bit:  Republicans, in general, are all guilty of this.  We all have been in that living room, listening to a friend call one of our own an idiot, and stood by in silence.  Embarrassed silence.  But silence, nonetheless.

The Republican Establishment embraces this, and picks candidates based solely on who will cause the least amount of conflict in those social situations.  This is called the “big tent” approach to “electability”.  Frankly, it is nothing less than cowardice.

We all should have been defending Bush, and instead we allowed our polite avoidance of conflict to create a public acceptance of a lot of “facts” that simply were not true.  Obama was only elected because we refused to defend our own, which left fiction in the public conscious, such as “Bush Lied, People Died”, and “the worst economy ever”. 

From all of this, the Tea Party arose.  People unafraid to defend our own.  Unafraid of conflict.  People in fact, looking for a good fight.  The original Boston Tea Party was, in fact, just such a group of people seeking conflict in order to have their views prevail.

Which brings me back to defending Newt. 

Romney=Republican Establishment.  You know how I know?   Because it is not possible to distinguish his attacks on Newt from the left’s attacks.  Because instead of building up something to support, Romney is willing to tear down others in his drive for power.  Because he remains silent when he should speak in defense.

Newt is not perfect.  No one is.  But consider the left’s defense of Clinton, and realize the big difference between the Republican Establishment and the Democrat Establishment: The left does not care about the truth, they just want to win.  The right does not care about winning, they just want people to like them.

The single best interview I have ever seen with any candidate was Greta Van Susteren interviewing Newt on January 27, 2012.  

Watching that interview, and the continued observation of the lack of defense of Republicans by other Republicans, and I came to the realization that I support Newt Gingrich for President. 

I am ok with Santorum.  I am absolutely on board with Kermit the Frog, or anyone, as a better President than Obama has been.  I’ll support whoever is the Republican nominee.  However, it is time to defend our own.  To defend our turn.  To attack those that attack us.

It is time for a fighter: Newt Gingrich.

It is time we start defending our own, and stop being shamed into silence.

It is time to stop the back room, crony capitalism, crowd from protecting their own financial interests above the interests of the nation as a whole.  When you can’t tell the difference between an attack from a Republican and an attack from the left, there is a problem. 

Romney’s attacks on the whoever was this month’s leading conservative might as well have been written by the Democrats.  That is just plain stupid, and should not be tolerated.  The last interview I listened to with Romney featured him reminding everyone that Newt had to resign in shame because of ethics charges.  In reality, Newt was exonerated.  But, instead of defending him, Republicans turned on him.

Are you unhappy with the current crop of candidates?  Then ask yourself why Sarah Palin did not run.  Perhaps because her negative ratings had been driven up by the left in absence of defenders.  She was considered “not electable” because of this.  Perhaps if more people had defended her, her negatives would not have been so easily driven up.

The same can be said for virtually every conservative in the public eye, whether those in the media, or as elected officials.  The left will vilify them, marginalize them, and engage in ad hominem attacks.  And far, far too often, conservatives sit politely in the room allowing it to happen.  It is the national shame of this behavior which is driving the Tea Party.  That is why the Tea Party folks have rallied around candidate after candidate as they were picked off by the left and the Republican establishment.  That is why they do not want Mitt Romney.  That is why we do not believe in the concept of “electability” when it is used to encompass attacks that should have already been defended against.

George W Bush left office with a horrible reputation because conservatives failed to defend him.  Yes, we were upset and disappointed in him and some of his policies.  But it was a different list of concerns than the left had.  So when people shouted “Bush lied, people died,” we said nothing and allowed that meme to enter the national conscious.  All too often, the conventional wisdom is created from liberal fictions that should not have gone so unchallenged.

Even as Santorum surges in the face of sniping at Newt, I urge conservatives to break this cycle of allowing conservatives from being torn apart without a defense.  The next time someone says in front of you that Sara Palin is an idiot, or George Bush was a criminal, or Newt Gingrich was corrupt, or Rush Limbaugh is a bigot, or even that Mitt Romney was a vulture capitalist, don’t ignore them, you have to speak up.  Defend our side.  Defend our principles.  Defend our ideas.  Defend our spokesmen, our leaders, our elected officials.  Defend conservatism.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if you refuse to speak up.  And in silence, idiocy reigns.

Newt and Geeks

I’ve been busy, so not a lot of posting lately.  Ok, no posts.  Part of this was the Primaries have caught my attention, and I don’t like any of the candidates.  Mostly though, I really have been busy.  It turns out I have a company to run.  Who knew?

However, with Newt’s recent upset in South Carolina, I began to see some hope in the race.  Ever since Fred Thompson, I have been waiting for a candidate willing to fight for conservative principles.  I was not happy about McCain, but when he selected Sarah Palin, I was ecstatic, hoping finally for a campaign of ideas.  A fight.  Unfortunately, McCain shut the Palin camp up, and eventually lost while trying to be the nice guy.

It is not that conservatives think Newt is our spokesman.  He blew that over the past several years with his lack of knowledge on Global Warming, one of the touchstones we use to determine who is really a conservative.  I could list other examples, but the point is that Newt has not been a great representative of conservative thought in the past decade.

However, he can articulate conservative thoughts, which makes him valuable to us.  And, as he has now demonstrated, he is willing to fight for those principles, making him a lot more interesting than Perry was, or Santorum, for that matter.

Now, I bring all of that up only to change the subject.  For the real geeks out there, check out this intensely technical discussion regarding Equation 8 in Global Warming discussions. 

Now, to the point:  How can I tie Newt into pure geek conservative?  I believe that Newt is willing to learn where he is wrong, and is able to change his mind.  My guess is that he is the only current candidate that could wade through a technical discussion like this and emerge from the far side with an actual opinion based on reason.  I can’t see Santorum engaging in this discussion, nor Romney.  As a result, I think they are both too subject to the opinions of their handlers.  I discount Ron Paul, as obviously I do Obama.  That leaves Newt as the only choice I see as a candidate able to make the difficult decisions we now face.  To fight the necessary fight.

So, unless or until we get Palin through a brokered convention, I am now ready to make an endorsement: Newt Gingrich.

Time for a Tea Party

Sorry for the lack of recent posts…  Work and family come first.

Dancing with the one that brought you.

Many fine folks are peeved with Palin over her announced support for McCain’s reelection campaign.  I'm not.  McCain brought her to the national spotlight, and dancing with the one that brought you is a sign of a good character.

My suggestion for those of you who are upset with Palin over this is to send a donation to both JD Hayworth and to SarahPAC

Ellen Degeneres and John McCain talk about Barack Obama and gay marriage

McCain is already targeting Hayworth with an email blast to his supporters:

Unfortunately, J.D. Hayworth has a record of talking like a conservative, but voting like a liberal on fiscal issues.

If he had only been half as tough in criticizing Obama, he might have actually won.

Bipartisan Democrats are Extinct

The left is so partisan they can’t even compromise with themselves on their own health bill.  Pelosi announced today that:

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House, I don't see the votes for it at this time."

At the same time, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters there have been White House meetings focusing on a scenario that “merges the House and Senate products.”

Pelosi’s Democrats can’t accept the health bill by Reid’s Democrats, and vice versa. 

My question is, how are Republicans supposed to cut a bipartisan compromise with Democrats when the Democrats can’t even work out a partisan compromise amongst themselves? 

Remember this the next time a Dem squeals about wanting the GOP to act in a bipartisan manner.  It isn’t about compromise for Democrats, its about power.

A final thought.  What is the difference between the Republican threat to use the Nuclear Option and Democrats making the same threat?  The Democrats only purpose was to wield power.  They want to force an entirely partisan bill through the Senate in the face of 100% Republican opposition.  The Republican threat was solely to release the logjam of Bush judicial nominees that were being blocked by Democrats, who refused to even allow the confirmation votes to occur, because they knew they could not even hold their own party together on those votes.

How do those teabags taste now, Keith?


It’s a beautiful morning.  Some have coffee.  I prefer diet coke.

And Keith Olbermann is having tea.  How do those teabags taste now, Keith?



Copyright 2012 by Chip Meyer Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement