Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Advice to Romney: Go big, or go home!

Krauthammer has a great column about this.  Excerpts:

It makes you think how far ahead Romney would be if he were actually running a campaign. His unwillingness to go big, to go for the larger argument, is simply astonishing.

For six months, he’s been matching Obama small ball for small ball. A hit-and-run critique here, a slogan-of-the-week there. His only momentum came when he chose Paul Ryan and seemed ready to engage on the big stuff: Medicare, entitlements, tax reform, national solvency, a restructured welfare state. Yet he has since retreated to the small and safe.

Romney has accumulated tons of cash for 30-second ads. But unless they’re placed on the scaffolding of serious speeches making the larger argument, they will be treated as nothing more than tit for tat.

Make the case. Go large. About a foreign policy in ruins. About an archaic, 20th-century welfare state model that guarantees 21st-century insolvency. And about an alternate vision of an unapologetically assertive America abroad unafraid of fundamental structural change at home.

It might just work. And it’s not too late.

I sure as heck hope not.

Advertisements

September 28, 2012 - Posted by | Obama, Romney

28 Comments »

  1. Regardless of the polls being plastered all over the MSM, this election is not over. Obama knows it. Romney knows it. The MSM know it, but won’t admit it.

    Comment by Steve | September 28, 2012

  2. Ought to be interesting if he brings it. One of the most fun debates I’ve ever seen was Romney vs. Kennedy for Senate years ago. If Romney can be as witty without coming off as distant, it should be a good one. Of course, he was going against a total d-bag with little regard for human life back then so it was easy to root for him. Now I await Kanaka Girl screaming that Obama is as sinister as Ted Kennedy. 3,2,1….

    Comment by Alli | October 1, 2012

  3. of course, he was going against a total d-bag with little regard for human life

    I was wondering where you were going to draw the distinction between the two. Drowning a woman vs. sticking scissors in the skull of a baby…. Wow…how do you choose which one is worse?

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 1, 2012

  4. Boom! I was right.

    Comment by Alli | October 1, 2012

  5. Well while you’re taking your victory lap……perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you think Obama is less sinister than Kennedy.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 1, 2012

  6. One was limousine liberal who left a woman to die; one came from nothing and made something of himself (though I’m sure he’s nothing to you) and understands the reality of unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and most of all potential cases of child abuse and neglect. Of course, if one side would not be idiotic about sex, sex ed, and contraception this wouldn’t be an issue.

    Comment by Alli | October 1, 2012

  7. Alli, without getting into the abortion debate too deeply, I want to say that what KG is talking about is Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (and the state of IL’s version of it). For more background info on that, check this out:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225291/life-obama/david-freddoso

    All the law did was to say that if an infant survived an abortion, that doctors were allowed to save the life of the infant. In IL, doctors were prohibited from doing that until the Dem-dominated state Senate passed a bill allowing doctors to help. Back then, a little-accomplished obscure state Senator opposed that bill, saying that it undermined the intent of Roe v. Wade and that babies that survived abortions weren’t really “persons”. Pretty damning indictment of Roe v. Wade, no?

    Anywho, in my view, even many of the most ardent supporters of abortion rights have a HUGE problem with this practice and with B.O.’s support for it. But hey, Romney’s rich, so what the hey.

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 2, 2012

  8. One was limousine liberal who left a woman to die

    The other is a limousine liberal who paved the way for babies to die. What kind of monster refuses to give basic medical care to a child that survives an abortion? It’s EVIL…pure and simple.

    one came from nothing and made something of himself

    First of all, he didn’t come from “nothing”. You don’t go to Punahou school in Hawaii without a lot of money. I can assure you the local Hawaiian kids aren’t going there. It’s a private school for the rich and privileged.

    Second, the guy is a “community agitator” who never had any kind of real job or real skills that would qualify him to be president. You can call that making something of himself. It seems to me that it’s more like OTHERS made something of HIM.

    he understands the reality of unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and most of all potential cases of child abuse and neglect.

    Oh that’s right, he doesn’t want his girls “punished with a baby”. By all means, let’s not teach people to take responsibility for their actions.
    And your answer to preventing child abuse and neglect is KILLING the baby? Seriously? That is twisted.

    Of course, if one side would not be idiotic about sex, sex ed, and contraception this wouldn’t be an issue.

    Don’t be silly. I actually thought you were smarter than to buy into the fake “war on women” crap. No one is saying you can’t have contraception….we just don’t think you have the right to make US PAY for YOUR contraception! As far as I know, sex ed is still being taught in schools. It was taught when I was in school. Personally, I believe it’s the parents’ responsibility to educate their kids about sex, but I don’t have a huge problem with basic sex ed being taught in schools. I DO, however, have a huge problem with the promotion of homosexuality under the guise of sex ed being taught to kids.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 2, 2012

  9. How successful has sex ed been to prevent pregnancy and the spread of HPV? Some estimates have HPV being present in about SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of sexually active “reproductive age” people. “Sex ed” is basically propaganda to encourage sexual activity in that it does NOT warn young people that 3 out of FOUR people may have the virus, the damage it can do, the DOZENS of strains of it, and the FACT FACT FACT that condoms do nothing to protect against the HPV virus. So, while these sexually “educated” people are using condoms,they are infecting themselves and most others with a virus that there is no cure for and can cause terrible damage to people.
    Yeah, sex ed is doing WONDERS. We are so much better off now. The evil liberal propaganda machine has dogmatically declared that pregnancy is the malady, and that the baby is to be removed as if it were some type of cancer, but rarely is event the scantest of lip-service given to warn women of the REAL virus, the REAL threat to their health…and that these “birth control” methods do NOTHING to prevent HPV infection. Oh, and the vaccine that works against a select few strains is usually the most mention HPV gets. Yeah, “sex ed” is a real success…in propaganda.
    Here is the REAL WORLD sex ed results: Women (you know, the one’s that the left have also dogmatically asserted are being warred against by the conservatives) are being encouraged to engage in “safe sex” (that’s a misnomer. It is actually, “somewhat-reduced-risk sex”) by the promise of contraception. Women get a false sense of security since pregnancy is falsely portrayed as a disease or malady, and they are CONTRACTING HPV which wages REAL war on their bodies. Little disclaimers on the side of the contraception say “does not prevent the spread of some STD’s”, but no true and honest warning like “if used properly, this device will in no way prevent the extreme likelihood of infection by HPV – a disease that can cause cancer, painful sexual encounters, unsightly warts, etc”.
    No, encouraging sexual activity among unwed partners by offering govt-sponsored contraception helps guarantee infection of a great majority of sexually active people. (And teaching chastity until marriage is such a “war” on women, huh? It actually encourages women to take the only guaranteed way to remain disease-free…at least until they get married, assuming the man hasn’t been duped into the same false sense of security)

    Comment by Kevin | October 2, 2012

  10. Page 12:
    http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats98/STD_Trends.pdf

    Comment by Kevin | October 2, 2012

  11. Got it Jonathan. I have a huge problem with that particular procedure too. Not that I would let the president off the hook on that one, but I’m not surprised he gave that reasoning given that he’s a law school grad….personally, with the exception of the judiciary, I wish we could cut back on the amount of lawyers in our governing branches. That’s off topic, though.

    KG, I never bought into the “war on women” crap. Nor did I ever say government should pay for contraception. Although if you work in an inner city, you might not think it’s a bad idea as it could eventually save you millions on welfare. Sex ed is still being taught in schools, but we have many insane politicians who insist it be abstinence only and they scoff at the idea of anything else and see it as another reason to trash public schools. If they had a clue, they would know that contraception isn’t even covered until the teacher spends a huge amount of time discussing abstinence and the possible fallout (don’t go there) from sex. Yes, it would be nice if parents discussed sex ed…it would be nice if parents parented, but you know that is just not the case. Even my parents who were very responsible parents riding my ass to get a good education and behave myself, couldn’t do the sex talk with their kids. As for homosexuality being “promoted”, well you’re too smart to believe that. Sex ed teachers may discuss homosexual sex as it also ties into the same dangers that come with unprotected hetero sex, but that doesn’t mean they are promoting it…and ignoring it is ridiculous given that some people are gay.

    Oh, Kevin…I’ll get off your lawn in a minute. But first, the HPV vaccine (although I don’t think it should be required) is effective. I know very few women who see pregnancy as a disease – though by the ninth month women are welcome to see pregnancy as a pain in the ass or however else they want – and anyone who has ever taken a sex ed class is taught right off the bat when contraception comes up that the only 100% fool proof way to prevent STDs and pregnancy is abstinence. Contraception is not meant to dissolve the individual of any responsibilities. And anyone with half a brain who graduated high school after 1985 knows better than to not use a condom if you’re going to sleep around. Those that ignore that probably weren’t the type to pay attention in school. As for chastity…I’d rather not go back to time where women married at 20 just so they could have sex.

    Comment by Alli | October 2, 2012

  12. I wish we could cut back on the amount of lawyers in our governing branches.

    AT LAST we agree on something. Most of the problems in this country are caused by the fact that we have lawyers running the government. It’s supposed to be government of the people, by the people. Not goverment of the lawyers, by the lawyers! Lawyers have a tendency to screw up and complicate everything they touch. There should definitely be a quota!

    So knowing now what you know about BAIPA, can you still honestly defend Obama as not being a sinister person?

    You may not have personally endorsed government subsidies for contraception, but that is a key issue for Obama and Obamacare. Frankly, I am not personally against the use of contraception (except abortion as contraception), but I don’t think it should be the responsibility of the American taxpayers to subsidize it. If you want it – pay for it yourself!

    As for the inner cities, I would like to see government stop subsidizing birth altogether – but then that would destroy the Democrat voter base. This B.S. of people basically “breeding for dollars and votes” has got to stop. I can’t think of a better form of birth control than “hey, if you get knocked up, it’s YOUR responsibility to take care of your own kid”. Instead, we have “hey, if you get knocked up, no worries….we’ll pay for everything and you’ll make more money than if you actually got a JOB”. We have created a system of cradle to grave entitlements for people whose sole contribution to society is popping out a bunch of kids they can’t take care of, who then go on to follow the same pattern. They never get educated, they never get meaningful employment, they never get out of poverty. It’s the worst form of slavery and it is bankrupting our country!

    It is not the job of the government to be everyone’s parents – although we’re rapidly going down that road. There’s something very wrong with a society that dictates that you can’t have a 32 ounce soda, but your 13 year old daughter can have an abortion without your knowledge. You want to talk about dangerous…. And maybe if liberal policies hadn’t decimated families, people wouldn’t need the government to be their parents.

    YES, homosexuality IS being promoted in the schools. Teaching about it in an attempt to “normalize” it is the same as promotion. That is not the school’s or the government’s place. Period.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 2, 2012

  13. Oh darling we’ve found common ground! Only on 95% though. If they are teaching the kids about heterosexual sex (and they’re teaching them about how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy, not best positions and how to get as much as you can), they may as well be realistic that some kids will eventually take part in homosexual sex…whether because they are gay or because some people like to experiment (not promoting experiments here either). Plus, c’mon KG…how many girls fall for a guy that turns out to be gay? Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t deny homosexuality exists and that maybe with the openness, we’d improve our gaydar?

    Comment by Alli | October 2, 2012

  14. c’mon KG…how many girls fall for a guy that turns out to be gay?

    Seriously? I can honestly say I’ve NEVER fallen for a guy who turned out to be gay. Perhaps it’s my conservative roots, but I tend to like men who are very masculine – manly men, not the metrosexual girly men that inhabit the liberal world. Sorry if that’s been a problem for you. However, avoiding the pitfalls of faulty gaydar is hardly a reason to teach gay sex-ed in schools.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 3, 2012

  15. So you think KG, so you think. I like my men tall and strong too, ftr. Not exactly sure what constitutes metrosexual in your opinion, but I see nothing wrong with men who dress well, find the hair style that makes them look the hottest, etc. Referring to all of them as “girly” is so late 80s.

    Anyway, schools are not teaching how to be gay; they are just teaching that gay sex requires the same amount of responsibility and protection that hetero sex does. So stop worrying that your child will be indoctrinated to be gay.

    Comment by Alli | October 3, 2012

  16. Wow Alli, you must have had a really traumatic experience with a malfunctioning gaydar. It’s obviously caused you some trauma. However, I really don’t think we have a huge societal problem of gay men pretending to be straight and duping poor unsuspecting women into believing otherwise.

    Geez, you’re really going to criticize my terminology for being outdated? Judging from the current fads in language that barely pass for English, I’ll continue to use the term “girly-men”, as it is appropriate.

    As for the sex-ed, YES, they are promoting it by their attempts at normalizing it — and they’re starting it in elementary school. Sorry, but you will never convince me that 7 year olds need to be taught about homosexuality.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 3, 2012

  17. Oh boy, KG. Some of those men (not the ones I had a crush…which were only two) were either quiet about their homosexuality or didn’t realize they were gay either at the time. Not sure which crowd you hang out with if you can’t figure that out.

    Go ahead with the girly men, but it’s so uneducated. The least you could do is catch up with the latest terms and signals regarding gay people.

    But I do understand why you think it’s being promoted now because you won’t accept anything other outcasting, stigmatizing and taking away civil rights of gay people. “Normalizing” Yeah, how dare we treat those gay people like human beings? My guess also is that a seven year old handles seeing a homosexual far better than you do. I would love to see proof of that theory of yours. And no a book about gay penguins doesn’t cut it.

    Comment by Alli | October 3, 2012

  18. Alli – you are a master at twisting other people’s words.

    First of all, I wasn’t calling gay men “girly men”. I was talking about LIBERAL MEN….you know, the ones that get manis and pedis and carry man-bags and ride their Segways through the city and use more hairspray than most women. They are, in fact, GIRLY. Uneducated? Just because I don’t kowtow to your politically correct sensibilities? Give me a break! I don’t know where you live, but it’s obviously someplace where there is an epidemic of gay men parading around as straight men and preying on poor unsuspecting women. I am still friends with most of my ex-boyfriends and I can guarantee you that not one of them is gay. Sorry to disappoint you and wreck your theory.

    Second, just because I believe homosexuality is a sin doesn’t mean that I am a bigot….but nice try. I have NEVER advocated outcasting, stigmatizing or taking away the civil rights of gay people. I have friends that are gay and I would be the first one to defend them if someone was being cruel to them. I simply don’t think it should be taught in schools or shoved down our throats by putting it blatantly on every tv show! Nor do I believe in gay marriage. So sue me for having morals!!

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 3, 2012

  19. You’re friends with people you believe are sinners and going to hell. They must love you. Sorry, but that does sort of make you a bigot. Being against gay marriage is simply a belief, it doesn’t make you moral. The fact that you insist that gay men parade around as straight men only means what I said before is way over your head. And I know not one liberal man that gets a mani or pedi. But if you want to censor television shows from putting a gay character on TV, go give it a try. Most people really don’t notice that stuff unless they are paranoid bigots.

    Comment by Alli | October 3, 2012

  20. The first Presidential debate is just now finished and I’ll bet Obamalamadigdong couldn’t be happier it’s over. I just heard Bill (Obama) Maher say that Obama sure as he** needed his teleprompter tonight! Even NBC’s Tom Brokaw gave Romney the win tonight! Let’s see how the polls TRY to spin this! AWESOME DEBATE! And Biden and Ryan meet next thursday…..Can’t wait for that!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by tnjack | October 3, 2012

  21. Haven’t seen anyone say Obama won last night. I expected Romney to get a bigger bounce since the challenger usually does on the first debate. But Obama was off his game yesterday. Having said that, I only caught about 20 minutes of it and missed the education part. Curious what the two spoke about on that.

    Comment by Alli | October 4, 2012

  22. Agreed, Alli. Even MSDNC talking heads were in despair…as were both of their viewers! 😆

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 4, 2012

  23. You’re friends with people you believe are sinners and going to hell.

    I never said anything about hell. But I am, in fact, friends with lots of sinners. EVERYONE is a sinner, including me. The thing is, we are instructed to turn away from our sin, not embrace it. Therein lies the difference.

    Being against gay marriage is simply a belief, it doesn’t make you moral.

    Oh, but it IS a moral issue. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

    The fact that you insist that gay men parade around as straight men only means what I said before is way over your head.

    YOU, my friend, are the one insisting that men are pretending to be straight when they are not. I was simply pointing out that I have never encountered that problem. Yes, we OBVIOUSLY run in different circles.

    Most people really don’t notice that stuff unless they are paranoid bigots.

    I am neither of those things. But good for you that you can turn a blind eye to depravity when it’s right in front of you.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 4, 2012

  24. How is loving someone is a sin?

    Comment by Alli | October 4, 2012

  25. Loving someone is not a sin. Homosexual behavior is.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 4, 2012

  26. Says you unless you’re quoting that book that also says women should enslaved.

    Comment by Alli | October 5, 2012

  27. Says GOD.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | October 8, 2012

  28. Sure hope that one day you meet God, he’s not the one you espoused.

    Comment by Alli | October 10, 2012


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: