Sunday, July 20, 2014

GOP Self-Destructing?

Bill Whittle gives us some lessons on how it could have been

Click here for full video of Bill Whittle's speech.

In our continuing series of guest posts, we've taken the liberty of including Bill Whittle's Conservative speech at the David Horowitz Restoration Weekend 2012 event -- following Romney's bewildering loss in the Presidential election.
[The video audience has been urged to share this commentary - and this seems an effective way]

Bill explains why the Republican Party has been so effective at losing elections -- and allowing the Left to dominate the Media -- unopposed, with the result that Conservative candidates and Conservativism in general is allowed to be demonized by the Left.

He believes the GOP, and Conservatives at large, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome
"We do not believe our own philosophy!"
"Republicans are utterly unable to stand for what they believe in, ... and in a way, they are ashamed of it!"

Non-Partisan Moderator Crowley
He provides an excellent retort to Candy Crowley's question to Candidate Romney, whom he described as a "... remarkably decent and good man" -- a description with which we can all agree.

The difficulty is/was that Romney is a decent and good man, and was unprepared to enter a match with a conniving, lying, manipulative Chicago politician backed by Stalinists; but, he could have managed the battle with Mr Obama.

What he could not manage was to have the Moderator side with the other candidate, ask questions in the form of personal attacks, and last but not least, tell Romney in the midst of the debate that Romney had his facts wrong on Benghazi -- implying that he was lying -- which swayed the American voters, and likely cost Romney the election.
[Crowley was later proven wrong and roundly condemned by journalists, the Right, and even the Left for her partisan performance; but by then, the damage was irreversible.]

Mitt Romney "did not even believe his own life story!" i.e., he was embarrassed for having worked hard, built a variety of successful, profitable companies which employed tens, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of employees -- with health benefits, and in the process made a pile of money [billions of dollars] for himself and his investors.

His personal wealth was/is $250 million, of which he paid $60 million in taxes -- which went to pay the wages of government bureaucrats, build schools and homeless shelters, and support countless organizations supporting the poor and underprivileged.
Was this a crime?
Did he exploit anyone to achieve all this?
Did anyone suffer because he was creating wealth, jobs, and taxable income -- not only for himself, but for tens of thousands of taxpaying workers.

Why no, as a matter of fact, he contributed to the wealth of the country he wished to serve.
His opponent had contributed nothing, but had taken grant money from the government tax base to live in grand style and build a political base, with a Marxist and terrorist cadre advising him.

He wished to lead the most dynamic and wealthiest country in the world, a place where the greatest threat to the poor is obesity.  With his wealth, he lives better than the poor in the US, but, if he is hit by a bus, he will be taken to the same emergency room as a poor person and be treated by the same doctors; the difference is that the poor will pay nothing, and he will pay for his treatment.

On Benghazi, he could have asked why the President failed to respond to the attack; and he should have asked, but did not, where the President physically was during the attack -- and why he did not respond.   But he didn't ask.

Asked how he would have handled Benghazi as President, Romney could have responded that he would have directed the US forces in the region to respond immediately; he would have directed the commander of the 6th Fleet [in the Mediterranean Sea at the time] to launch a dozen fighters to arrive at Benghazi  -- only 22 minutes away, to be followed by rescue helicopters and an AC-130, and they would rescue those under attack.

We suspect the audience would have stood and cheered during the debate.
[We recall the Reagan years in which he took on tough topics by poking fun at his opponents, and at himself; he was the last President for whom the entire Congress stood and cheered.]

We suspect the American public would have stood in their living rooms and cheered and Mr Obama would have been soundly thrashed at the polls -- as brutally as Jimmy Carter was defeated in 1980.

We have a second chance; it means voting to take control of the Senate and solidify control of the House in November.

It's time for American citizens to take control of our country again.
Get to the polls in November.