The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Our Double-Secret Strategy To Ensure GOP Triumph

Posted on | April 11, 2012 | 123 Comments

by Smitty

While I haven’t been as deep in the tank for any candidate as the marquee name on this blog, I have been consistent in my disdain for Ol’ Willard Mitt. In that spirit, I dared say on Twitter:

This earned me a stern note from Michael Zak, whose book Back to Basics for the Republican Party, is somewhere in my to-read stack:

This invites the question: should we just form up and join the March for Mittens? Why, no: no, we should not. Look folks, the American spirit wasn’t crushed when the Japanese nuked the Alamo, and we’re just not going to roll over for a conservative show-horse, even if he could take a Canadian beauty contest.

But you’ve got to understand that this is a higher form of loyalty! You see, if we were to get on board with the severely conservative candidate, we would run the risk of blowing his cover.

Mitt, as the true anti-Obama, has to run to the center, and scoop up the moderates to win. If this blog slips out of right-wing reactionary character, we’ll scatter those moderates like so many semi trailers in a Texas tornado. (Too soon?)

The acid test of this strategy will, of course, be the Vice Presidential pick. Mitt needs to court the vast non-RINO majority of the right, but deftly, so as not to spook the horses. The near-term goal, of course, it to retire #OccupyResoluteDesk. However, the proper choice of young, charismatic conservative could help Tea Partiers view the Romney-? ticket as a 16 year gig. The right person could be the salt and lime to go with the Romney tequila, to go for a wildly inappropriate metaphor, and not to offer any liquid voting aid suggestions–you could end up so blotto you vote for BHO without realizing it.

Let’s consider some possibilities, shall we?

  • Sarah Palin: absolutely not. The only way she could work is if we spread the rumor that Mitt really doesn’t want the job, and is hoping to reprise John McCain’s 2008 concession speech. But how do you campaign for nearly a decade while secretly wanting to fail, without being named Al Gore? No, we can’t carry off the ruse that Mitt is a moderate with Sarah on the ticket. Alas.
  • Chris Christie: tough sell. Christie has a reputation for speaking loud truth to total jackwagons. A crucial aspect of the moderate game is that you drive the whole “blessed are the meek” thing past the point of absurdity. Among Christie’s copious good qualities, meekness is not found. You can’t disguise a Ford Mustang as a Prius, and you can’t sell Chris Christie as a milquetoast.
  • Marco Rubio: the big problem with Marco is the Tea Partiers. Marco represents rebellion against the Ruling Class Overlords. Remember how Charlie Crist was picked for Senator, and would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those meddling kids? No-ruse Rubio would spell the end of the “Still more Mister Nice Guy / Still more Mister Clee-ee-ee-een” gambit, as the quintessentially American spirit of Alice Cooper is packaged as a boring, phoned-in moderate.
  • Allen West: can’t be done. The Left would go into full double-think hysteria, accusing Romney of being a consumate raaaaacist attempting to cover his guilt by picking West. Furthermore, Barack Obama would wet himself if confronted with an authentic warrior, irrespective of race. One of the crucial aspects of the Romney strategy is to avoid the appearance of whipping up on the poor wee. . .President of the United States. Just because he’s POTUS, don’t think he’ll hesitate to paint himself as a victim; a victim’s victim, and a poster child for the shiny new Department of Victim Studies at a University near you.

Given all that analysis, and the late hour when I conclude, I’ll speculated wildly that the nominee is. . .Bobbie Jindal. Mainly because Stacy loves it when I speculate.

 

Category: Election 2012, Mitt Romney

Comments

123 Responses to “Our Double-Secret Strategy To Ensure GOP Triumph”

  1. K-Bob
    April 11th, 2012 @ 11:53 pm

    But we’ll get a spectacular view of everything starboard as we go straight over the falls.

  2. K-Bob
    April 11th, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

    If the next president manages to appoint four 30-year-old Scalias, it still won’t matter if Obamacare isn’t gone in two years.

  3. K-Bob
    April 11th, 2012 @ 11:57 pm

    Make that “Zombie Davy Jones”.

  4. K-Bob
    April 12th, 2012 @ 12:02 am

     Not even the large print edition?

    Oh, wait…

  5. K-Bob
    April 12th, 2012 @ 12:09 am

    Drunks
    Organizing
    Over
    Mojitos

    Sounds good to me.

  6. Garym
    April 12th, 2012 @ 12:25 am

    Is there a coloring book version?

  7. Pathfinder's wife
    April 12th, 2012 @ 12:45 am

    Really Pagan?  Because you seemed awfully blasted concerned about Santorum calling Protestants not Catholics even last week (by the way, that was a twisting of Santorum’s actual quote, which was pointed out and which you continued with anyway).  In fact, Santorum’s RCism seemed to be a vital point of concern for you.

    In fairness, you were hardly alone on this — and can you see where this will now be a problem? Heck, back in October I didn’t have a problem with anybody except Perry but the negative stuff the last few months has had an effect — and not a positive one (imagine that).  Scorched earth on the base and  other GOP opponents can wind up causing a lot of grief down the road.  I think we’re going to find shortly just how much.

    I want Obama out, but swaying my puny, individual opinion isn’t worth jack — however, there are percentages of people just like me, and some are even angrier.  When it becomes a trend, there’s a problem.  Mitt’s got a problem — he’d better start rolling with the attack on the left and some positive for the right (not red meat, I don’t think that’s his style, just positive, significant why you should vote for me stuff would be nice); he’d better do it quickly too; he’s got a lot of hurdles to overcome and the Obama team isn’t going to sit around and give him a free pass.

  8. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 9:53 am

     He didn’t say they weren’t true Catholics, if he had that would be no cause for concern, as that would simply be the truth. What he said was they were not true CHRISTIANS if they practiced contraception, a big ass difference.

    And for the millionth fucking time, it wasn’t just me that was concerned about it, it was a good many Ohio voters who either changed their vote for Romney or stayed home and caused Romney to win a state that Santorum probably would have won, and should have won.

    Quit blaming the messenger, meaning me, for just pointing out the damned obvious. Didn’t I tell you from the minute he lost Ohio it was over for him? Was I right or wrong about that?

  9. McGehee
    April 12th, 2012 @ 10:05 am

    Hypothetical Romneyrrhoid is hypotheticalizing.

  10. Bob Belvedere
    April 12th, 2012 @ 10:30 am

    Drunks
    Organizing
    Over
    Maker’s Mark

  11. Tennwriter
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:00 am

    I don’t have a problem with Santorum saying that, if as Pathfinder’s wife alludes to, thats what he actually said.

    I’m skeptical about the Christianity of a lot of RCC, and it seems very likely that even a highly charitable understanding of Mormonism still makes them non-Christians.

    But y’know, if they agreed with me, they’d be Baptists.  They don’t. They’re wrong.

  12. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:04 am

     That was my point.

  13. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:10 am

    @Adobe_Walls:disqus 

    It’s not all we got, by any means, but its the most important thing, at least in my opinion. If it were the only thing, it would still definitely be good enough for me.

  14. Bob Belvedere
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:11 am

    Bravo!

  15. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:12 am

     The choice is still Liberty or Death, but the choice for Liberty isn’t incumbent on the Presidency, its in making sure we add more conservative Republicans to the House and take over the Senate by as wide a margin as possible. THEN Romney can be either worked with or marginalized. That would be wholly up to him.

  16. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:22 am

     So you’re a Baptist? Then I take it you don’t drink alcohol, because then you would not be a Baptist in good standing according to the by-laws of the Southern Baptist Convention, as I understand them.

    So if you know somebody in your church that drinks, you have a perfect right to say “you know, you shouldn’t really be doing that, that’s not good Baptist behavior”.

    What you don’t have the right to do is point out a Catholic who just got through taking communion with a sip of wine and say, “well he’s not a sincere Christian”.

    That’s a doctrinal difference that is none of your concern. Of course, its one thing for you as a private citizen to feel that way and something else again to express that in a public forum, and I guarantee you if you were running for office later and a video came out of you doing that, your Democrat opponent would make damn sure every Catholic in your electoral area knew you’d said it.

    And you wouldn’t be able to moan and whine about it, not and be taken seriously.

  17. Pathfinder's wife
    April 12th, 2012 @ 11:43 am

    Pagan, for the last time — Santorum was pointing out how a lot of Christian denominations (and he didn’t spare Catholics either) have strayed too far away in their doctrine from the basic tenets of Christianity…the assumption then becomes a member of that faith has no longer any guidance, so what do we all expect?

    In this, he had a point — if you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.  The traditional Christian churches (many of them, most of them) have taken the notion of compromise (which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but…) and bent themselves to the point of being unrecognizable, to the point of acquiescence to anything.

    That is hardly “he says Protestants aren’t real Christians”!   Which became a smear used against him, and was not the message he was giving.

  18. Tennwriter
    April 12th, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

    Yup, I’m a teetotaler.  It helps that when I was younger, I had a very serious temper, and I was a bit concerned that if I got drunk I’d wake up in a drunk tank with a manslaughter charge.

    And I surely do have a right to point out the Catholic’s mistakes.  There is no specifically Baptist doctrine that matters.  The only thing that matters is the Scripture.

    And yes, I expect the Dem would, but hey, they’d do whatever they could however they could and damm the truth.  And if I was not taken seriously, thats the fault of the listener.

    If I say “I support the Constitution”
     and you laugh at me, is it my fault or your fault?  I disagree with RSM here.  If an idiot will not learn when a wise man instructs him, its not neccasarily the wise man’s fault. 

  19. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

     The only thing the Bible says is not to be a drunkard or a glutton, it doesn’t say anything about drinking alcohol being a sin. That is a wholly Baptist doctrine. Catholics have a right to disagree. You have a right to question and disagree with that and other of their doctrines, but you don’t have a right to say they are not sincere Christians. They might be every bit as sincere and forthright in their beliefs as you are in yours.

  20. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

     “Thou and thy wife shalt not use contraception when thou hast sex with each other” is not one of the “basic tenets of Christianity”.

  21. K-Bob
    April 12th, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

    Even better! I like mine with ice.

  22. Tennwriter
    April 12th, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

    I agree that the Bible teaches not to be drunk rather than not teaching never to drink.

    In this case, a Baptist who says otherwise (and there have been plenty who have) is Wrong.

    While it is true that I cannot and should not try to judge a man’s heart, it is true that certain beliefs are non-Christian.  So being sincere, to some large degree, is beside the point.  You can be sincerely wrong.

    I suspect part of the issue is that you believe in whats called ‘separate magisterium’ where religious truth is not the same thing as scientific truth.

    I don’t.  E=MC2 and the Virgin Birth are both true.  George Washington winning at Yorktown and Moses letting God part the Red Sea so the Israelites could walk across on dry ground, both happened.  Jesus from Nazareth is the Creator, and the Law of the Conservation of
    Mass and Energy are true.

    So, if someone says something like ‘Gravity is not true, and Jesus is not the Creator’ both those statements are objectively false.

    Sorry to go on so long, and I may well be misreading your mindset.

  23. ThePaganTemple
    April 12th, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

     @beddd0ebf1f1d7f0c1561106bdcdfb31:disqus

    This is what I mean by doctrinal differences. When a Baptist says never to drink, he is going by a part in the Bible that advises that you shouldn’t do that, because even though you might be able to drink and handle it well, and your own faith in Christ tells you it is all right, you might lead a person of lesser faith astray and cause him to do great harm to himself and others. That is one of the things they will point to, and I am sure there are others.

    And I am sure there are passages a Catholic can point to that strengthens their argument against contraception. The most obvious one might be the passage from Genesis that states, simply and forthrightly, “Be thou fruitful and multiply”.

    But again, people of good will can look at those passages and draw different conclusions without questioning the sincerity of the person who disagrees with them. So its not even a matter of being sincerely wrong, its a matter of how you work out your own salvation, so to speak, in fear and trembling. I could make either case, pro or con, for either argument. The question becomes then, are such doctrinal differences that important, or are they mere window dressing, of no more importance than whether a true Christian believes he should abstain from pork or certain other foods based on an Old Testament proscription.

    That was actually an issue back in the early days of the Church, and it was decided basically that adherence to the Old Law in that respect was not required, yet it certainly wasn’t demanded that a Jewish Christian adopt Gentile Christian dietary preferences.

    It wasn’t a matter of sincerity, or even “right” or “wrong”. Some things you actually do have the right to decide for yourself.