Friday, September 17, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesThe Kettle & The Meat: A 2012 Prophesy

The Kettle & The Meat: A 2012 Prophesy

An interesting link came my way in an email thread the other day and it got me thinking; what if Obama wins in 2012? And, failing that, what if they (the GOP) muck things up again, like they did in ’08, and present me with a candidate I simply HATE and will refuse to vote for?

For those of you that are not religiously inclined, please forgive my biblical analogy here but Ezekiel 11 teaches us an interesting lesson about hubris. It doesn’t go well for the confident and assured in this story (even though it offers promise for a better future at the end – after their demise), but it is very instructive.

Foregone conclusions and a belief in repeating failed endeavors of the past in an attempt to attain future success is, apparently, an innate feature of the human beast that dates back many thousands of years. As it was in 750 BC, so does it appear to be the case in 2012; those in power are quite sure the symbolic nature of their power will, alone, be enough to secure their future victory. [translation: There’s NO way we lose this time… we can nominate anyone we want! You seen Obama’s poll numbers?]

There are a lot of people like me who simply disagree.

Now, I will admit that I simply love arguing with my Republican friends about this whole “I’ll stay home then” attitude we independent Conservatives have about elections such as the ones we’re headed for. There’s nothing quite like pissing off an otherwise like-minded friend than to suggest to him that I won’t bother to vote. And, as much as I understand their without-fail-hateful response, and as much as I truly want to sympathize with their conviction that voting – even against my principles and my own conscience – is the only hope I have for saving my country…I simply disagree; if this is about principle, then I’ll keep mine thankyouverymuch, and you can do whatever the bloody hell you want with yours. And this is, perhaps, at the epicenter of the reasons for division within the party.

One small problem…independents aren’t MEMBERS of the party, and we can likewise do whatever the hell we want as well.

There is an immutable truth to be salvaged in this un-winnable argument however; Congress runs the country:

Why do I have this feeling that the back-stabbing and petty politics of the Republican insiders are going to leave me completely unexcited about the presidential campaign, and more focused on electing conservatives to Congress as a counterweight to the (hoped for) new Republican President?

Legal Insurrection speaks truth to people like me, and I’m already quite convinced that the GOP establishment has it in for Romney (it’s his turn, you know) and – regardless protestations to the contrary – I’m satisfied Romney’s ascension to “last man standing” status is, amongst the party elite, a foregone conclusion. Problem? I won’t vote for him, and no one can yell loud enough, or swear hatefully enough, or threaten me convincingly enough to make me change my mind. I’ll vote down-ticket, but Romney is out.

And, of the many people I once believed were Conservative first and Republican after the fact… I’m as disappointed as I can be to hear them all start suggesting that Romney will be ok if their other choices don’t clear the field. Accepting defeat before the fight has even started…how can so many have forgotten what happened 3 years ago with such relative equivocating ease? Where did “standing on principle” go?

Am I to believe, then, that principle only means something when you presume you’re going to win?

There it is… I said it… it’s out there and I’m sure many of you reading this are already saying pretty much everything I’ve already heard so save it. And, as you form your lips around the question of how I’ll feel knowing I helped elect Obama? My answer is, unequivocally, “I don’t give a rip.” Give me a Congress that understands… and has the numbers (and the will) to actually FIX… the problems, and you can elect whoever the [redacted] you want if it’ll make you feel better or sleep at night.

This country, by design, is run by us through our legislators. Want to change things? Then “conservatize” Congress and it won’t MATTER who the President is… including Romney…or anyone else. Want to put an end to Obama? Give him a veto-proof Congress to push around, and let’s watch him get a taste of humility.

As for Romney, he can keep his pretty hair and go run an olympics somewhere, and stay the hell out of my affairs. He’s not welcome in my Government, and nothing…not even screams and wails of sticking together and doing “what’s right” in the fight against Obama… will change my mind. But I’ll go ahead and ask the question just for posterity: is it my “opinion” that the GOP wants to hear and find ways to incorporate into their platform? Or is it my vote that they will promptly tally up and dispense with on their way to doing just whatever the hell they want?

Since I’m assuming it’s the latter I will – accordingly – do whatever I want with the one shot I have at change…vote to fix Congress where the real work gets done. My money’s on them, and I can crystal-ball elections as well as anyone; Romney will be our next President whether anyone likes it or not, and we’ll STILL only have our Congressmen and Senators to try and effect change through, under whatever Adminstration we’ll have shoved down our throats.

[Cross Posted…]

haystackhttp://unwashedphilosopher@gmail.com
There's not much to say... I come from a long line of Appalachian folk that landed in America long before flipping off the King was even a twinkle in the eyes of our founding fathers. We have been Carpenters and coal miners... Soldiers & Sailors and pig farmers and Sunday morning circuit-riding preachers. Hell, I'm told we have even been fairly decent bootleggers too.

17 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

17 COMMENTS

    • My only argument against the OP’s point would be this. Imagine a non-veto-proof Republican majority in the Senate and House. Then imagine another term with BO in office. He will veto every sensible plan that comes through Congress and spend the national treasury organizing new groups of hooligans to demoralize the American people. Do you think he will even allow a budget to be passed?

      Then imagine our worst possible candidate, Jon Huntsman. Would he veto good bills that for instance revoke all rule-making and rule-enforcement abilities by all federal agencies, or repeal Dodd Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and the Light Bulb ban, or dissolve the Depts of Energy and Education, make illegal the government’s practice of funding grants for environmental organizations to sue the government with, and return the EPA to 1973 funding levels? While Huntsman might veto some of those things he would not veto an Obamacare repeal. And that’s the difference I see. I’m not so sure that the Republican victory will be veto-proof, though I think we’ll be pretty close to veto proof in the house and a 60:40 count in the senate. That’s where a RINO is better than a Communist.

  1. This slap of reality goes poorly with my morning coffee; but it needed to be said and thanks for it. The conservative, veto-proof majorities in both houses is indeed a worthy goal to sweat for, so long as they can ditch this ‘my dear colleague across the aisle’ crapolla. And the concept that legislators exist to ‘do things’; like most of you-all, I want them to undo a lot that’s already been over-done.

  2. You just described the Obama-media-GOP Establishment suppress the vote plan for 2012, ‘Stack. It worked perfectly in 2008, as not only did 8 million stay at home (wouldn’t have helped McCain) but they didn’t vote for senators or congressmen either.

    So I most certainly will vote. Who I won’t vote for I’ll keep under my hat.

  3. I understand your sentiment ‘stack. I don’t much like Romney myself. And normally, it wouldn’t bother me (that much!) to see a Conservative stand on principle and refuse to vote for the GOP nominee. But ’12 is a different bird.

    Since it’s unlikely that we will pick up veto-proof majorities in both houses, and with Obamacare ready to come online in ’14, it is imperative, in a way it never has been before, that the GOP candidate be elected. So I’ll hold my nose and vote for Romney if need be, and I’ll be glad to mail you a few extra clothes pins if you’d like. 😮

  4. We had the leadership stand up in front of the microphones after the Tea Party elections last year and tell us (you could look it up) “We get it.” Uh huh. What did they get? Two words: Super Committee. They got nothing. Keep on truckin’, ladies and gentlemen of constitutional conservatism. You’ve got a long, long way to go.

  5. In a discussion with someone concerning Romney a few months ago I pointed out there is a very significant contingent of the Republican Party that will not vote for him under any circumstances. I doubt it is smaller than 10% and may be as large as 20%.

    For anybody who hasn’t figured out my position yet I will continue to keep it under my hat. 🙂

    I said I would bet it is easily a large enough contingent that Romney can’t win if he gets the nomination. I believe that is true.

    He went off about how stupid it would be for people to refuse to vote for Romney and thereby possibly re-elect Obama. How anybody who wouldn’t vote for Romney under the circumstance was a complete moron, idiot, etc.

    My question to him was fairly simple.

    Who is dumber, those who refuse to vote for Romney under any circumstance or those who nominate him knowing that the faction exists and is large enough to keep Romney from winning?

    Is it smart to nominate a sure loser?

    I don’t think Romney can win. Like it or not there are enough folks who will even go vote down ticket as ‘stack says but leave the top blank or mark a third party protest in.
    People can wail and gnash teeth about that but it might be more productive electorally speaking to spread the word far and wide so as to prevent the nomination of a sure loser.

    Nobody seems to have a problem doing exactly that for Paul, no smaller effort should be made in clarifying what a Romney nomination means for 2012.

      • It seems to be blackmail each side against the other…don’t you agree?

        If we don’t vote for who we don’t want we get Obama…If we don’t vote according to how were instructed to, we get Obama…

        And…in every scenario, if we get Obama anyway, it’s our own fault. I see no upside in any scenario…and our principles are not of any relevancy or value-we have to vote, and we have to vote for whoever the hell they shove down our throats because… it is the only choice, and we don’t have to like it.. we just have to do it.

        This is an altogether too familiar scenario.

      • I agree it is blackmail. It is what the establishment does to us every time.

        For me, this time, the bogeyman (Obama) just doesn’t seem worse than the savior (Romney). While I would never vote for Obama the only reason I can see for voting Romney is to take one for the team. No Thanks.

        There just doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two.
        Military? Obama does what he is told. Doubt Romney would have acted much different. What is his position on Libya?
        Spending? Haven’t seen much in his campaign or history to indicate he is going to do much of anything. His attacking Perry over Social Security is frightening in it’s stupidity. Is there anybody who thinks 1.75 full time workers per beneficiary is workable? That it isn’t a Ponzi scheme?
        What’s left ObamaCare?

        The Republican Establishment can sink with their candidate. You would think 2008 would have taught the idiots something but in the end they got Obama and I doubt they care.

        In a way Obama may be better. Would a Republican congress have passed Medicare Part D had Kerry been president. Yet how do they go against their own president? They don’t. Would congress have been more fiscally responsible if they were trying to fight a democrat? Probably.

        Nope, a Republican squish president almost certainly means things get worse.

        And the brand is further destroyed by another dirtball politician.

  6. Here’s why Obama is actually worse. You have to remember Jimmy Carter’s term. Whether you were in diapers, a teen or an adult, Carter didnt just nauseate us because of how he was wrecking the economy (rememeber the special word they had to coine for it “stagflation”), he absolutely **scared us to death** the way he was selling out and surrendering America day after day. Obama has yet to reach that nadir, but the other shoe may soon drop. So a Repub is still better than a Marxist. Not that I am pushing Romney. Just cant figure out what has happened to Perry and Bachmann(?). Others may like it but Romney-Christie does not work for me. This feels like the Stars Wars movie where the good guys are stuck down in the trash chute and then realize the walls are starting to close in on them.

    • I remember it well CJ, and-like you-I remember the misery index…we agree, in principle, but I’m sure you understand that this is an especially difficult time to take one for the team that never lets you play…not even out in rightfield against a lineup of all right-handed hitters.

    • I wasn’t far out of diapers when Carter got in but I was a precocious news reader and already conservative.
      Maybe he set the tone of my political thinking. 🙂
      Looking at long term history though it seems we get a far lefty followed by a moderate Republican practically every time. The Establishment ordains it. And the results over the last 100 years is to me unbelievably bad.
      Worse it takes less than a generation for the far lefty’s positions to be redefined as rightwing extremist it seems.

      So I begin to think screw this I am done with this two steps back followed by one step forward game.
      We have to stop digging the hole.

  7. At this point, the ruling-class Republican establishment and their willing accomplices in the MSM are playing their same old, same old: you must nominate the moderate ’cause he’s the only one who can win. Of course, no matter who gets the nod, even their anointed moderate, they’ll turn on him (or her) like a mad dog once the nomination is nailed down, ensuring that he can’t win. Their worn-out playbook gets boring after awhile.

    • My only argument against the OP’s point would be this. Imagine a non-veto-proof Republican majority in the Senate and House. Then imagine another term with BO in office. He will veto every sensible plan that comes through Congress and spend the national treasury organizing new groups of hooligans to demoralize the American people. Do you think he will even allow a budget to be passed?

      Then imagine our worst possible candidate, Jon Huntsman. Would he veto good bills that for instance revoke all rule-making and rule-enforcement abilities by all federal agencies, or repeal Dodd Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and the Light Bulb ban, or dissolve the Depts of Energy and Education, make illegal the government’s practice of funding grants for environmental organizations to sue the government with, and return the EPA to 1973 funding levels? While Huntsman might veto some of those things he would not veto an Obamacare repeal. And that’s the difference I see. I’m not so sure that the Republican victory will be veto-proof, though I think we’ll be pretty close to veto proof in the house and a 60:40 count in the senate. That’s where a RINO is better than a Communist.

  1. This slap of reality goes poorly with my morning coffee; but it needed to be said and thanks for it. The conservative, veto-proof majorities in both houses is indeed a worthy goal to sweat for, so long as they can ditch this ‘my dear colleague across the aisle’ crapolla. And the concept that legislators exist to ‘do things’; like most of you-all, I want them to undo a lot that’s already been over-done.

  2. You just described the Obama-media-GOP Establishment suppress the vote plan for 2012, ‘Stack. It worked perfectly in 2008, as not only did 8 million stay at home (wouldn’t have helped McCain) but they didn’t vote for senators or congressmen either.

    So I most certainly will vote. Who I won’t vote for I’ll keep under my hat.

  3. I understand your sentiment ‘stack. I don’t much like Romney myself. And normally, it wouldn’t bother me (that much!) to see a Conservative stand on principle and refuse to vote for the GOP nominee. But ’12 is a different bird.

    Since it’s unlikely that we will pick up veto-proof majorities in both houses, and with Obamacare ready to come online in ’14, it is imperative, in a way it never has been before, that the GOP candidate be elected. So I’ll hold my nose and vote for Romney if need be, and I’ll be glad to mail you a few extra clothes pins if you’d like. 😮

  4. We had the leadership stand up in front of the microphones after the Tea Party elections last year and tell us (you could look it up) “We get it.” Uh huh. What did they get? Two words: Super Committee. They got nothing. Keep on truckin’, ladies and gentlemen of constitutional conservatism. You’ve got a long, long way to go.

  5. In a discussion with someone concerning Romney a few months ago I pointed out there is a very significant contingent of the Republican Party that will not vote for him under any circumstances. I doubt it is smaller than 10% and may be as large as 20%.

    For anybody who hasn’t figured out my position yet I will continue to keep it under my hat. 🙂

    I said I would bet it is easily a large enough contingent that Romney can’t win if he gets the nomination. I believe that is true.

    He went off about how stupid it would be for people to refuse to vote for Romney and thereby possibly re-elect Obama. How anybody who wouldn’t vote for Romney under the circumstance was a complete moron, idiot, etc.

    My question to him was fairly simple.

    Who is dumber, those who refuse to vote for Romney under any circumstance or those who nominate him knowing that the faction exists and is large enough to keep Romney from winning?

    Is it smart to nominate a sure loser?

    I don’t think Romney can win. Like it or not there are enough folks who will even go vote down ticket as ‘stack says but leave the top blank or mark a third party protest in.
    People can wail and gnash teeth about that but it might be more productive electorally speaking to spread the word far and wide so as to prevent the nomination of a sure loser.

    Nobody seems to have a problem doing exactly that for Paul, no smaller effort should be made in clarifying what a Romney nomination means for 2012.

      • It seems to be blackmail each side against the other…don’t you agree?

        If we don’t vote for who we don’t want we get Obama…If we don’t vote according to how were instructed to, we get Obama…

        And…in every scenario, if we get Obama anyway, it’s our own fault. I see no upside in any scenario…and our principles are not of any relevancy or value-we have to vote, and we have to vote for whoever the hell they shove down our throats because… it is the only choice, and we don’t have to like it.. we just have to do it.

        This is an altogether too familiar scenario.

      • I agree it is blackmail. It is what the establishment does to us every time.

        For me, this time, the bogeyman (Obama) just doesn’t seem worse than the savior (Romney). While I would never vote for Obama the only reason I can see for voting Romney is to take one for the team. No Thanks.

        There just doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two.
        Military? Obama does what he is told. Doubt Romney would have acted much different. What is his position on Libya?
        Spending? Haven’t seen much in his campaign or history to indicate he is going to do much of anything. His attacking Perry over Social Security is frightening in it’s stupidity. Is there anybody who thinks 1.75 full time workers per beneficiary is workable? That it isn’t a Ponzi scheme?
        What’s left ObamaCare?

        The Republican Establishment can sink with their candidate. You would think 2008 would have taught the idiots something but in the end they got Obama and I doubt they care.

        In a way Obama may be better. Would a Republican congress have passed Medicare Part D had Kerry been president. Yet how do they go against their own president? They don’t. Would congress have been more fiscally responsible if they were trying to fight a democrat? Probably.

        Nope, a Republican squish president almost certainly means things get worse.

        And the brand is further destroyed by another dirtball politician.

  6. Here’s why Obama is actually worse. You have to remember Jimmy Carter’s term. Whether you were in diapers, a teen or an adult, Carter didnt just nauseate us because of how he was wrecking the economy (rememeber the special word they had to coine for it “stagflation”), he absolutely **scared us to death** the way he was selling out and surrendering America day after day. Obama has yet to reach that nadir, but the other shoe may soon drop. So a Repub is still better than a Marxist. Not that I am pushing Romney. Just cant figure out what has happened to Perry and Bachmann(?). Others may like it but Romney-Christie does not work for me. This feels like the Stars Wars movie where the good guys are stuck down in the trash chute and then realize the walls are starting to close in on them.

    • I remember it well CJ, and-like you-I remember the misery index…we agree, in principle, but I’m sure you understand that this is an especially difficult time to take one for the team that never lets you play…not even out in rightfield against a lineup of all right-handed hitters.

    • I wasn’t far out of diapers when Carter got in but I was a precocious news reader and already conservative.
      Maybe he set the tone of my political thinking. 🙂
      Looking at long term history though it seems we get a far lefty followed by a moderate Republican practically every time. The Establishment ordains it. And the results over the last 100 years is to me unbelievably bad.
      Worse it takes less than a generation for the far lefty’s positions to be redefined as rightwing extremist it seems.

      So I begin to think screw this I am done with this two steps back followed by one step forward game.
      We have to stop digging the hole.

  7. At this point, the ruling-class Republican establishment and their willing accomplices in the MSM are playing their same old, same old: you must nominate the moderate ’cause he’s the only one who can win. Of course, no matter who gets the nod, even their anointed moderate, they’ll turn on him (or her) like a mad dog once the nomination is nailed down, ensuring that he can’t win. Their worn-out playbook gets boring after awhile.

Must Read