Skip to comments.Politics is the art of the possible.
Posted on 08/17/2012 3:16:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I've often heard the elites waving away conservatism by wisely exclaiming, "Politics is the art of the possible."
So what is art?
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Art is just a word for imaginative creation. In other words, politics is all about the creation of an image. And creation in this sense, means enhancement. Accentuate the positives. Eliminate the negatives. Shade the truth. Lie by omission. Illusion. Fiction. Fantasy.
Conservatism is about TRUTH. But all truth is lost in the art of politics when said art entails trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
And man, oh, man are we seeing that in spades today. They've taken a liberal progressive Reagan-hater and have built him up to be the ultimate conservative savior. More conservative than Reagan himself. But, unfortunately, it's all based on art. Ultimately the truth will out. It always does. Now Reagan had his flaws but he was no pig's ear. He was a liberty loving conservative from the git go. Some spit and polish is always necessary to make an image really shine, but they've had to build the new Romney from the ground floor up. Hell, they had to dig him up from beneath the ground first.
Myth Romney is just such a work of art. And that's the truth.
The other side lies a lot, but they do not try to hide the fact that Obama is a spread the wealth around Marxist. Or a gun grabbing, abortionist, homosexualist, global warming advocating, amnesty pushing, big government Keynesian socialist/statist. Just like Romney (based on his actual record and previous boasts).
Any truly conservative Republican candidate would already have this thing in the bag. It should've been a slam dunk Reaganesque landslide with all liberty loving Republicans, independents and grassroots conservatives turning out enmasse to rid the world of the usurping communist wannabe dictator. But Romney was languishing in the weeds. Why? Because the world knows it's all a lie. The proof will be as the polls begin registering the introduction of the conservative Ryan and they get an uptick. Just as Palin pulled in the conservatives for the RINO McCain, Ryan will pull in many conservatives for Romney. But the GOP-e is still sweating bullets that it won't be enough.
Perhaps we should all be praying that Karl Rove, the GOP-e & Co., have created a masterpiece. In fact, we must pray they've created a miracle. Unfortunately, only God does miracles. And, according to His Word, God is pro-life and pro-marriage and has a long memory.
So count me with all those RINOs like Palin, Gingrich, Cheney, West, Coulter, etc who have endorsed Romney for the sake of our future.
“Any truly conservative Republican candidate would already have this thing in the bag.”
There were too many “truly conservative Republicans” entered in the primaries, and in hindsight that wasn’t smart, or effective.
But those candidates individually decided to enter, not some mysterious “gop-e” power in the sky.
If conservatives expect to do better next time, they must do better at the basics of politics; namely strategy, tactics, fundraising, policy positions, persuading voters.
But meanwhile, this game is underway, with the two teams and players now on the field.
No, the GOP-e decided early on which GOP-e puppet to push (Romney) and which to torpedo (all the others). And FOX News was only too happy to help push the big lie.
The nomination of Ronald Reagan was a moment of change for millions of Americans as they embraced his conservatism and flocked to the Reagan party
It led Mitt Romney to leave the party and drop his republican registration that year, a dozen years later, Mitt Romney was running for office on his anti-Reaganism.
Now Romney is the republican presidential candidate that has spent 5 years creating the myth, in statement after statement, on TV and on radio, and in interviews, that just like himself, Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice", a rewrite of truth and history, reminiscent of the Soviet Union
“We lost in the primaries Jim. Face the fact that the conservatives in the race just weren’t very strong. Romney won because our preferred candidates were lackluster. Period. I’m not happy about it either, but folks just gotta get over it. Romney is what we’ve got and he is a heck of a lot better than Obama. Since when do we have some expectation that our general election candidate is going to be anything impressive anyway? In most of our lifetimes ONLY Ronald Reagan was worth truly getting excited about - and even he didn’t cut government at all or follow through on many of the conservative policies many hoped for. “
Our candidates lost due to a combination of many different problems. Number one, Mitt Romney had a lot of money to promote his lies. I recall that quite a few of the States Mittens won early on were actually the ones with the least voter participating than their average. In those he lost early on, voter participation was above the average. Mittens literally demoralized conservatives into staying home, leaving a minority that voted for him on the basis of his having a Presidential chin. Number two, Mittens had the support of the GOPe, especially on Bloody Thursday aided and abetted by Matt Drudge and so called “Republicans” releasing lies about Newt Gingrich’s personal character. This happened after Newt won big in Georgia. Number three, Rick Santorum was also running highly negative ads going after Newt’s character, while also running on the “God loves me better” and “I’m above it all” platform. Conservatives, therefore, were highly divided. Number four, Open Primaries early on tilted the early momentum to Mitt Romney’s favor, whereas conservative states like Texas didn’t even have a chance to vote for the nominee. Well, we did, but it didn’t matter at that point since they had all dropped out.
Whatever the case, to pretend that Mittens won it because he was the better candidate is absurd. He simply had the most money and he lied the most. He was the better liar, and the lucky usurper, but nothing more than that.
“They are trying to make Ryan look like an airhead by focusing on his looks and fitness. Fortunately, he is a man so it might not work like it did against Palin. Yay, sexist liberals!”
I think Ryan is an air-head. I’ve read quite a few analysis of his budget plan over the past week or so, which I had never bothered to do before. There is an article I posted early this morning from Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker that really lays it out. I think we’re experiencing one fraud after another in this election.
I think Myth Gimmick found himself a nice Gimmicky soft-conservative, which is why he was comfortable with choosing him in the first place, when this same guy (Myth) felt it necessary to try to destroy Sarah Palin’s career. That’s another thing I do not like about setting up Paul Ryan for the Presidency later on. I don’t think conservatives actually know who he is. Just who they hope he is. Same thing happens quite often. I call it the Colin Powell effect.
“God may strike Romney down for all the reasons you state. However, that is God’s decision and business, not mine. My business is to help save the USA for a little while longer and Romney will do much less harm than Obama.
So count me with all those RINOs like Palin, Gingrich, Cheney, West, Coulter, etc who have endorsed Romney for the sake of our future.”
I think it’s actually already toolate. I suspect a financial collapse is coming very soon, and neither party has any plans for it. Mittens will likely manage to get himself blamed for it by virtue of being the warm body in the oval office. Conservatives, meanwhile, will not be talking about the solutions either since they’ll be too busy playing defense for their Progressive masters. We’re looking at the slow and steady decline of the United States, with lots of people hoping and praying for things that will never be. Mitt Romney can lie and steal for his Presidency all he wants, and you guys can cheer and turn your heads when he does it, but the end solution is the same.
I think the country is under divine judgment, and that is why we have the “choice” of leaders that we do. Both Mittens and Obama represent us very well. They are shallow, self-righteous, deceitful beyond measure, selling us out but marketing it the way we like it. They represent the spiritual condition of the country as a whole.
Bump for later!
Obama the constitution ignoring, America-hating, communist wannabe dictator is infinitely worse than Carter. At least Carter was an American and he served his country. Obama is complete and utter Islamic world evil. I repeat, ANY conservative Republican would already have the full support of EVERY liberty loving American!!
If you look at what the press did to Palin, Bush 43, and Quayle, they turned a speaking style into an IQ test. None of these candidates was dumb. They simply had speaking styles that could be portrayed as such with effective editing. Palin was, in my view the hardest to do this with. She had quick, witty answers. They turned this, along with her slight accent into a negative.
It will be harder, in my opinion, to do this with Ryan. He has an eager, almost boy scout image, and also is very informed on critical issues. It's hard to make that something that will turn voters off.
If Romney and Ryan win and GOP House and Senate candidates do well, they will have a mandate for entitlement reform and the political capacity to carry it out. Add in tax reform and rate cuts, regulatory reform, the development of domestic oil and gas resources, more assertive foreign and defense policies, and an economic recovery, and the Romney administration will look an awful lot like a return of the Reagan years.
Moreover, unlike the Reagan era, there will be a Republican Congress with a VP heir apparent who is even more conservative than the President. I am not an optimist by nature, but I am full of hope these days.
Well, thank you very much. May I have another, sir.
Well, knuckle ball, spit ball or in your ear ball, I’m still not going to vote for an abortionist/homosexualist statist and all that liberal progressivism entails. Thanks anyway.
We are the resistance!!
“Well, thank you very much. May I have another, sir.”
Well, hey, Jim, you just gotta love a cult leader that has a sense of humor. Right?
Strategically, given our limited choices, I think the best approach is to elect the abortionist/homosexualist statist — and then make him pull our cart, including on the social issues. Romney is unprincipled enough that I think he can be turned into a serviceable draft horse if we keep a close watch and our political whips at the ready.
Principles and values and morals are not disposable and to be simply tossed aside when inconvenient. Either one has them or they don’t. To say one thing and do another is hypocrisy no matter how it is rationalized.
The opposite of an elitist is a populist.
Reagan was a POPULIST.
I do not blame Reagan for being a populist.
Harry Truman was the son of mule trader and even though he was a bean counter for the Pendergast machine , he was a populist which made him a better man than that elitist snob Thomas Dewey.
When Reagan voted for Truman and not Dewey, he got it right and Reagan was an Eisenhower Democrat and did not vote for that elitist snob Adlai Stevenson, Reagan got it right again.
Reagan was a UNITER because there were a large group of voters who were proud to call themselves Reagan Democrats.
There were no Daddy Bush Democrats.
There were no Bwilly Clinton Republicans.
There were no Jethro Bodine Bush Democrats.
There are no Barry Hussein Obama Republicans.
And there will be no Mittens Romney Democrats.
Reagan was a populist and he could unite parties and ideologies.
Ivy League clowns like those guys name George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barry Obama are elitists to their very core.
Ronald Reagan was a Midwesterner who graduated from Eureka College and Harry Truman never graduated from college but both were populists who never cowtowed to the Rockefeller Republican elite or in Truman’s case the Roosevelt socialist elite.
Conservative and liberal are terms of art used by the propagandists on those cable news channels like PMSNBC and Faux News.
Populism is for real and all the populists showed up at Chick-fil-A last week to support the First Amendment Freedom to Freedom of Speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.