This option will reset the home page of The Hayride restoring closed widgets and categories.

Reset The Hayride homepage
RSS Feed Facebook twitter

Post-Destruction Thoughts And Morsels


While decompressing from seeing the weekend’s Obamacare carnage, I offer the following:

- I mentioned this to Ryan in the discussion of his piece on Bart Stupak from last night a little earlier, and I’ll expand upon it here; maybe it’s time that conservatives and Republicans take another look at how they treat pro-life Democrats. It’s quite clear they’re a tiny, uninfluential minority within the Democrat Party – and a shrinking one at that. In other words, it’s a valid question to ask what they’re doing there.

And with that as the case, maybe it’s time to start villifying them the way the Left villifies black Republicans. The Left looks at the latter with the same quizzical disdain the Right looks at pro-life Democrats, and the treatment afforded to folks like Clarence Thomas and Mike Steele (certainly when he was running for the Senate in Maryland) is typically nothing short of abhorrent. It might be a nasty thing to do, but the Stupaks of the world should be targeted for destruction because they’re pro-life – so as to drive pro-life voters out of the Democrat Party.

After all, yesterday we saw how useless pro-life Democrats are to the pro-life cause. For all his talk, Stupak was more than happy to spread his legs for next to nothing to come aboard for Obamacare. A Republican in his seat who contributes to a majority is never in a position to ask for the executive order Stupak asked for; with a Republican majority in the House there is no Obamacare and thus there is no issue of whether the federal government is in position to fund abortions.

The pro-life position is a winner. It commands a majority of the American people. I have said that the pro-life argument is much better made in the culture rather than the legislative realm, but we’re not in position to debate that. The issue we’re currently debating is whether your taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, and regardless of that sham Stupak perpetrated yesterday this is a major danger. The American people understand that. And while a small majority of Americans are pro-life, a large majority of Americans are opposed to having their tax dollars pay for abortions. In that vein, Stupak and his group are totally useless to the cause; they’ve already demonstrated their willingness to sell out for socialism. Let’s get rid of every one of them, and let’s do it with a maximum of rancor and discord.

- Texas attorney general Greg Abbott sent this out on Facebook late last night:

“Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.”

There are, by my best count at present, 38 states engaged ton one degree or another in fighting Obamacare. You can make an argument that 38 states is a number sufficient to put federal courts on notice that they can’t slap lawsuits down as a matter of convenience. But in the event that happens, 38 states is more than enough to demand a constitutional convention targeted to an amendment – in this case one which would prevent, say, unfunded federal mandates on the states or individual mandates to buy goods or services. You only need 34 states for such a convention; there are now 38.

- I strongly suggest reading Victor Davis Hanson’s latest at Pajamas Media. He lays out an American future nobody wants which is all of a sudden no longer theoretical; and demonstrates why it’s no longer theoretical:

No, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, and is trying to reify the sloganeering of the 1960s. He apparently reasons along the following lines: that centrist talk was campaign fluff; the voters fell for it, and now it’s his turn to remake America with 51% of the House and 44% of the people. Think Sweden, or, better, Greece as our model at home, and something like America as Brazil in matters of foreign policy. Apparently, Obama figures that people now may not like the present partisanship, but they didn’t like FDR at the time either. Yet whom do they associate their Social Security checks with? Hoover? Coolidge? Harding?

I don’t see why the ram-it-through, health care formula won’t be followed by similar strategies for blanket amnesty, cap and trade, and expansions of the state takeover of cars, banks, student loans, and energy.

Remember, all these will be packaged as “comprehensive” reform — comprehensive health care, comprehensive immigration, comprehensive energy, comprehensive monitoring of even the banal decisions we make. So what does comprehensive really mean, other than all of us are going to get even more official looking letters in the mail, advising us to fill out a form, pay a fine, and be warned that a new regulation or tax is on the way — followed by the usual state/federal representative’s newsletter bragging about some new entitlement that he “won” for us with our borrowed money?

- Health insurance stocks are up today, which is not a surprise – a lot of us are now legally required to purchase their product. They’re not going to make a profit in the long run, though, because forbidding exclusions from pre-existing conditions will basically destroy the entire concept of insurance. The question is whether the providers in the market can survive until some or most of this can be repealed.

- For those “conservatives” who in 2006 and 2008 crowed about how the GOP needed to be taught a lesson, Obamacare is largely your fault. You abandoned the party, and in doing so you gave us the Alan Graysons and Al Frankens of the world, without whom last night’s bloody disaster would not have happened.

Does the Republican Party suck? Yep. I won’t argue with that. I think the GOP was sensational in its efforts to stop Obamacare, with perhaps the exception that Mitch McConnell was too soft in dragging out the vote in the Senate and making it more painful for the Democrats to continue with it. But even now we see a party which can’t coalesce around something so obvious as swearing off on earmarks, and can’t get Lindsey Graham to shut up.

But the GOP is all we have now. A third party will consign America to a generation of socialism under today’s Democrat Party, with a Nancy Pelosi speakership persisting for another 20 years and an Obama presidency followed by a Howard Dean or Chuck Schumer presidency. If this future makes you consider emigrating, then your only option is to get behind the Republican Party and push.

Or, if that analogy doesn’t light your fire, consider it this way – we’re the Russians, and this is Stalingrad. We’re the officers and the GOP’s politicians are our soldiers. What did Russian officers at Stalingrad do to those squeamish soldiers who tried to retreat? They shot ‘em. Well, if you’re disgusted by your Republican congressman or senator, you can shoot him in a primary. But if you shoot at him and you miss, he’s still your soldier. And you need him to win, or else the Nazis take the city.


2 Comments

  1. Ryan Booth says:

    While I certainly wouldn't say that I am a "single issue" voter, the life issue is certainly the most important one for me. With that said, in a congressional election, I would still vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat. Why? Because the first vote that the Democrat will cast is for the ultra-liberal, pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi. Voting for a pro-choice Republican for Congress is better for life than voting for a pro-life Democrat for that very reason.

    There are NO Democratic congressmen for whom life is the primary issue. If it were, then they wouldn't be Democrats.

    Incidentally, I think that the life issue is the only real reason that Joseph Cao is a Republican. He's a lawyer who was a community organizer, working to help those in the Vietnamese community get their fair share of gubmint money. He's a Republican because he was a Jesuit seminarian and life matters to him, and to a lesser extent he's also Republican because he spent the first seven years of his life in Vietnam and he believes in a strong American foreign policy and defense. Bart Stupak is to the right of Cao on economic issues, but Cao is a Republican because life is the primary issue for him. Stupak is a Democrat because it is a secondary issue for him.

  2. Ryan Booth says:

    While I certainly wouldn't say that I am a "single issue" voter, the life issue is certainly the most important one for me. With that said, in a congressional election, I would still vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat. Why? Because the first vote that the Democrat will cast is for the ultra-liberal, pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi. Voting for a pro-choice Republican for Congress is better for life than voting for a pro-life Democrat for that very reason.

    There are NO Democratic congressmen for whom life is the primary issue. If it were, then they wouldn't be Democrats.

    Incidentally, I think that the life issue is the only real reason that Joseph Cao is a Republican. He's a lawyer who was a community organizer, working to help those in the Vietnamese community get their fair share of gubmint money. He's a Republican because he was a Jesuit seminarian and life matters to him, and to a lesser extent he's also Republican because he spent the first seven years of his life in Vietnam and he believes in a strong American foreign policy and defense. Bart Stupak is to the right of Cao on economic issues, but Cao is a Republican because life is the primary issue for him. Stupak is a Democrat because it is a secondary issue for him.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.