Site Meter
Share

The GOP has a real problem with the libertarian streak that is running through the the conservative punditry. I liken it to that white stripe that is a tell-tale sign of a small vile smelling little creature.  When Newt Gingrich went after Mitt Romney on the subject of Bain, I suspect he did not realize the GOP no longer embraces that sort of capitalism – the kind Reagan supported and Rand detested him for.  Instead, it is about the selfish.

“…Politics-capitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you don’t get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business.” So, young careerist corporatists could embrace Rand’s self-styled “radical capitalism” and feel radical – radical without risk…”

This is the real problem. I found a fascinating article about Rand, and the theory that she is responsible for the destruction of the real America.  I must agree.

“…When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasn’t much difference between the comic books and Rand’s novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.

Rand said, “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible….The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth-or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.” For many young people, hearing that it is “moral” to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: “My ex-husband wasn’t a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.”…

Chuck Colson - Breaking Point

The Pink Flamingo finds rather humorous, and annoying the way Mitt Romney’s increasingly shrill, self-centered, pandering, and just plain strange supporters are literally closing their eyes to everything but All Mitt All the Time.  In order to prop up their messiah, they are ignoring a so darn much. In order to prop him  up, they are making themselves look utterly ridiculous.  They are rapidly losing credibility. One writer went so far as to say that America Hates Newt Gingrich.  Yea, I know, it is insane.  But, the punditry is in such a snit over South Carolina, that not only are they insulting people from South Carolina (this writer included) but they are ignoring reality.

“…Analysts are kidding themselves if they say Romney is the inevitable nominee. Simply put, there are very few states where he can perform among the major demographic groups the way he performed in South Carolina and still expect to win. And remember, this is still in many ways the electorate that selected Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino and Linda McMahon as its standard-bearers — in very blue states with relatively moderate GOP electorates, no less.

This vote was an utter repudiation of Romney, and it absolutely will be repeated in state after state if something doesn’t change the basic dynamic of the race. It is true that Gingrich doesn’t have funds or organization, but he gets a ton of free media from the debates, and he has an electorate that simply wants someone other than Romney….”

In all actuality, there are “two” realities here.  One, Romney is not inevitable.  He is not electable.  The reason he isn’t electable is not really about Bain.  It is about the candidate himself. Newt is now seen as electable as Mitt.

The second reality is that this campaign is a Rorschach Test for the GOP punditry.  The Republican party is increasingly dominated by a punditry that sees itself as superior to the rest of us.  Chris Christi is coming across as a nasty bully, calling Newt an embarrassment..  Ann Coulter has lost it, entirely.  We hear that Tim Pawlenty has now been enlisted to go after Newt.  Evidently it is now the battle of the surrogates so that Mitt won’t get his manicured fingers dirty. Jennifer Rubin is just plain irrational. All the punditry can do is discuss what a bad candidate Newt is.  They are apparently incapable of introspection.

All of this leads me to the real reason for this specific rant.  Once upon a time Ronald Reagan was viewed as a joke and unelectable.

Time

“…To begin with, each was an unlikely president. One was a former movie actor and television host whose apparent hard-line ideology led many, including his 1980 opponent, Jimmy Carter, to mistake him as unelectable. Carter hoped to run against Reagan—and got his wish….”

We have a real problem with today’s conservative punditry.  They are under the clutches of Rand and her almost perverted influence.  Like others, she detested Reagan.

“…We hated Reagan because the grown-ups around us snickered at his old-time movie roles in Bedtime for Bonzo and Knute Rockne, All American. That we, at tender ages, were perfectly enamored of The Muppet Movie and E.T. and Rocky and Chariots of Fire bothered no one. We hated Reagan because MAD magazine mocked his interior secretary with the caption “Watt…We Worry!” Because New York Times editorials tended to sublimate MAD’s bias, at age twelve we gladly took out our first Gray Lady subscriptions — to the nodding approval of the grown-ups around us….”

Dangerous Minds

“… During the debate, the two candidates provided clear differences of opinion on the issues.  Carter’s answers resorted to more government programs and aid.  Reagan, on the other hand, stayed on his recurring message of freeing the taxpayers and limiting government intervention.  Although the candidates were very far apart on policy, the most striking difference was in appearance.  As in the Anderson debate, Reagan was enthusiastic and self-assured.  Carter seemed somber and preachy.  Reagan’s brightest moment came when he asked the viewing audience a simple question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”  Carter’s solemn face reflected the answer coming out of many living rooms in America.

The victories in the debates and a continuous ad campaign reassured the public that Ronald Reagan could handle the job of President.  Carter’s approval ratings were so low from the highly publicized trouble at home and abroad that he did not stand a chance in November.  When the votes were tallied, Carter was out of office.  Reagan won 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49.  After this sweeping victory, Ronald Reagan only furthered his image of charisma, humor, and charm in front of the camera.  He went on to use various media outlets to make a connection with Americans of all walks of life.  Reagan’s effective use of the media led to him being called “The Great Communicator.”…”

Reagan was so evil, he advertised cigarettes.

 

 

Share

9 Comments

  • Parker says:

    I looked up Jennifer Ruin to see if I had missed a biography of Rand, and none exists by her. As a matter of fact, the only mentions of Jennifer Rubin on the Internet are that she is an author of the “definitive” biography of Ayn Rand.

    It just seemed odd for me that a person who would write the definitive biography would get the core idea of Objectivism so wrong. Now I know – it appears that this biography doesn’t exist and the quote is used to create a point.

  • Nancy Lago de Jabbour says:

    Thank you so very much for your great work on this blog…it is fantabulous!!! I am a new reader…stumbling upon your blog on one of my many searches for the REAL STORY after watching the obviously biased conservative punditry tie themselves up in knots defending/advocating/campaigning for/soft-balling/fawning all over Mr. Romney. The palpable ire for Newt Gingrich has been jaw dropping and at times I thought I was taking crazy pills……..was I really witnessing the “conservative” punditry call to arms for Mitt Romney as the liberal punditry had done for Barack Obama 3 years ago? Deja Vu anyone? Thank you again and be assured that I will tell anyone and everyone I can about ThePinkFlamingoBlog!

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    I thought much the same thing.

    SJR

  • Sanity102 says:

    From an Independent: the REAL problem with conservatives is that they claim to be the “good guys”, the party of “principles”, but one by one, your media has managed to lose credibility.

    For months Laura Ingraham told her listeners how awful the MSM was for attacking a war time president–then the war time president didn’t appoint who SHE thought should be appointed to the SCOTUS–and SHE spent the next 4 years attacking that war time president.

    For months Hugh Hewitt told his listeners how proposition 187 anti-hispanic doomed Republicans in California–then jumped on the illegal immigration bandwagon when he failed to get a WH invite with other illegal immigration critics talk show mafias.

    Then there is Medved, who for years was the lone one of sanity…now he too has jumped on the bash his pal Newt–after years of calling him a great conservative.

    This total lack of loyalty doesn’t make Independents believe nor trust conservatives.

    THAT is why McCain lost and why the GOP and America will continue to lose. The GOP has got to find a way to put Integrity back into its core.

  • Alias says:

    Sanity 102,

    Conservatism is not a bunch of people who are sometimes conservative and sometimes, well, something else. Conservatism is a core set of principles guided by metaphysical reality. Sadly, the Republicans pretend to be conservatives and when a real or at least close to orthodox conservative rises to prominence in the party – he must be torn down!

    The libertarian (materialist) sentiments of so-called conservatives will always lead them to error. Ratings for TV or radio or book selling trump principles. As does political expediency and the protection of the corporatist agenda. This is just as true from the left as well. While the 99% are calling for ‘social justice’ the Demoncrats pander and continue to protect their corporatist agenda. The new boss is the same as the old boss – can you spot the difference between ‘compassionate conservatism’ and BHO’s ‘hopey changey’ stuff? Relax, it was a rhetorical question, don’t let your pretty little head explode.

    Reagan was the first near-orthodox conservative since Taft and Newt is the next one unless enough Americans continue to let the MSNBC/Fox News media control their ‘thinking’. Wake up America, this may be your last chance.

  • Sanity102 says:

    Actually Reagan is a character of his speech writers’ rewrite. In fact, when I did some research on this paragon of conservatism, I was shocked to learn that almost everything conservatives complained about GWB and RINOs can be laid at Reagan’s feet, up to and including real amnesty, spending too much, growing government (except he did it on stuff conservatives liked aka military stuff so they claim that don’t count).

    I’m not an idiot. I know why the media, both sides, do it. The problem is that only one side is claiming to have “principles”. But those principles don’t include loyalty.

    Sorry, that should be the first and the most basic of principles because that IS the core of the UNITED States. UNITED is how we survive and it is the first lesson we learn: family loyalty…friend loyalty…school, club, organization, eventually loyalty to one’s employer.

    This election Independents will probably give the GOP the WH and perhaps the Senate because the economy is so bad. But unless the GOP does something about the talk show mafia, their pundits, and the Losertarians pretending to be the base, the party WILL eventually die. I know the Losertarians believe their “pure conservatism” party will rise from the GOP ashes, but in truth, I think it will be a more centralist party, one that will give little voice to the Ron Pauls, the tea party, and Ann Coultiers, Hugh Hewitts, and Dennis Pragers.

    Why? Because as election after election shows, 30% vote R, 30% vote D…it is that 40% that wins or loses elections. It’s time to cater to that 40%. Besides, as your party continues to allow your candidates to get stabbed in the back, the good ones will be looking for a new home–and the real Republicans will want somewhere sane to hang their vote on.

    :) Sanity…still trying to move on to 103

  • Alias says:

    Sanity,

    Do not make the assumption that Independent (meaning not affiliated with a party) equals moderate. Many independents are libertarians, which is NOT a moderate position. Many are outright anarchists, clearly not only not moderate but also violent and dangerous. Many of us are truly conservative (adhering to metaphysical truths), in fact, so extremely conservative that we find the Republicans too progressive. Most of that 40% you referred to tends to lean toward the Republican party, because the GOP can be appropriated toward conservative ends, while the Demoncrats are lost to the materialist dialectic forever.

    I suspect we will see new parties in the future, assuming the American Republic survives, the GOP will be the ‘liberal’ party and is likely to be right where it is today, that is the Left and another party, which will be the conservative party and is likely to be much farther to the Right. The Dems will no longer have quarter in America. Conversely, the GOP can continue to be tepid and the Dems will fall down the socialist hole and America will be no more. Although possible and in some sense likely, I have confident hope that we are not going to fall and the American Republic’s best days are ahead, but in the interim, it will be one heck of a mess.

    As for the punditry you chastise for lack of loyalty, I find them to be very loyal to the fiat paper dollar to which they, like most of us, have become addicted. When we say the financial economy and jobs are more important than the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the betterment of mankind and the salvation of souls, then we have abdicated our conservative principles and we will never recover from the moral error we have fallen into. Somethings are true even when we wish they were not. We are created by God, our souls are eternal and we can either get back home or be damned to eternal exile and we have a conscience that when properly informed is aware of the moral code our Creator constructed to direct our journey. Those are rational metaphysical facts that cannot be refuted except by the insane. If we chose to be insane, then we are not conservatives, we are by definition, material progressives and doomed. No matter what Ann Coulter says, she’s one of the insane – she just happens to chance on lucidity that eludes pundits on the Left.

  • Sanity102 says:

    Oh no, I AM an Independent so I KNOW that they are not moderate. In fact, the one word that describes an Independent would be “busy”. Busy with church, family, work, living.

    Independents lean left on some issues and right on others; the problem is that conservative media likes to pretend that Independents will move toward the most conservative party–and that is simply not true.

    Independents will vote for the party that RESPECTS their opinions and values and the politician that will understand that once elected, he/she represents ALL not just those who agree with their ideology.

    Conservatives spent 8 years demanding that Bush catering to Conservatives and forget about the rest of America–but hated it when Obama did exactly that with Liberals.

    This is why each party who allows their extremes to demand their ideologies be adhered to, loses the next election.

    They forget the Independent–the group that really gives power.

    As for the “tipid” GOP, I would call them “sane” and “grown up”. We want people who will govern for all the people, taking into account what will work for all and not just conservatives. Unfortunately, the tipid GOP is being run by Losertarians pretending to be the base who want politicians that won’t act like politicians–and who will govern by ideologies shared by 30% of the people over the other 70% who does not.


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera