Mitt Was Half-Right About Last Week’s Loss, But Still Clueless

The denizens of the 24/7 nuthouse, which I watch so you don’t have to, MS-NBC, and other fellow travelers in the Lame Stream Media, are feigning outrage over Mitt Romney’s recent post-election statements, in which he blamed his campaign’s failure to rescue our country from the clutches of the Chicago Mafia on the “gifts” the One has bestowed on his supporters. As I told you here, there certainly were answers to Obama’s argument “Vote for me! I’m giving you free stuff!” Mitt failed to make them because he is not a conservative. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who spent decades reading, writing, analyzing and honing his conservative message, a message he understood in his bones, Mitt tried to speak conservatism as a second language, which is why the obvious answers weren’t there, and why he is left throwing up his hands saying “what am I supposed to do? I can’t compete with free stuff!” Wrong, but you need to articulate a clear message about free people, free markets, and prosperity, and why government dependency starts out as a cozy, comfy little hideaway from cold, cruel reality, and ends up being an inescapable prison.

So, there is no-brainer answer to the Obama stash appeal, which the Romney campaign failed to deliver, even though Mitt himself admitted that “tax the makers to give to the takers” has been the democrats’ playbook for at least 75 years. That failure is only half the problem, though.

As former Senator Phil Graham famously stated, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are guaranteed the vote of Paul. That’s the Cook County vision that Barack Obama has for the whole country. In addition to not understanding the need to respond to the “free stuff” appeal with the alternative, freedom and prosperity, by explaining it to Paul, Romney missed the need to appeal to Peter. When Mitt says that the takers were incentivized to turn out, he is correct. What about the makers? What about the 3 million voters that turned out for John McCain, but not for Mitt Romney? Could it be that the Romney campaign didn’t make it clear to them what was at stake, which is basically America as we know it? Paul was ready to show up, and did. Peter didn’t think it made any difference because those responsible for making the case to him didn’t do it, so he stayed home.

Now the Left has gone into their feigned outrage mode, hoping to silence any discussion of the dirty little secret; that is, there ARE takers, and the democrats DO confiscate wealth and income from the productive to buy their votes. They want to make that subject off limits because if we talk about it, the people might actually learn the truth.

I Guess Jeb Bush Was Listening to Yesterday’s Show

On yesterday’s show, I repeated my belief that the GOP nominee must be a champion of free markets and capitalism. I wonder if Jeb Bush was listening to the show. From a piece by former Gov. Bush published in today’s Wall Street Journal:

We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy’s resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government’s role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.

I was surprised to read this muscular defense of capitalism from someone I view as more of a traditional moderate GOP politician. Then, this morning between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. Central time I nearly suffered a tragic treadmill accident when I saw Stephen Moore on Fox News talking about this piece. He said that Jeb Bush could still enter the presidential race, and win, even as a WRITE IN! Apparently, the name “Bush” is not box office poison anymore, as we were all lead to believe only a couple of years ago.

 

About 2 hours ago on his show, Rush Limbaugh was talking about this appearance by Stephen Moore, and (as usual), he made an excellent point; specifically, as excellent and spot-on as this piece by Jeb Bush is, had it been written by Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin, it would not inspire Stephen Moore to gush over them and suggest that they could win a write in campaign. In fact, chances are Mr. Moore and those of his ilk would suggest that the piece demonstrated the sort of heartlessness that will cost Republicans votes in 2012.

What is it about these East Coast elitist types? I like Stephen Moore, and often agree with him, but it’s clear that he has ingested the Washington Kool-Aid like nearly everyone else who lives on the right parenthesis.

I don’t think for a minute that Jeb Bush plans to enter the 2012 race. It’s a surprising turn of events that he is the guy who took up the call to counter Obama’s anti-capitalist ranting.