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.

This Is Just Wrong on So Many Levels

From Variety via Politico, “Jane Fonda to play Nancy Reagan in movie.

In the midst of recruiting an all-star ensemble for his long-gestating passion project “The Butler,” director Lee Daniels has tapped Jane Fonda to play Nancy Reagan.

Based on a Washington Post report by Wil Haygood, pic follows Eugene Allen, the White House butler whose career started with Harry Truman in 1952 and ended in 1986 with Ronald Reagan.

Forest Whitaker is closing a deal to play Allen, while Oprah Winfrey remains in talks to play his wife. David Oyelowo is in negotiations to play Allen’s son, while Liam Neeson and John Cusack are circling presidential supporting roles as Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, respectively. Fonda will appear in a handful of scenes as the first lady of the United States.

This Daniels guy directed “Precious,” and produced “Monster’s Ball,” and, as this profile from the Liberal Death Star reflects, he’s got a serious case of Race-Obsession Syndrome. So, no surprise, that he wants to take a slap at Nancy Reagan by casting Hanoi Jane to play her in a movie. He’s an admirer of Barack Obama’s, and I think we all remember the unfortunate, gratuitous insult the One directed at the former first lady right after he was elected.

Many, including many supposedly in-the-know, inside the Beltway “experts,” don’t understand what is really behind Obama’s desperate, consuming passion for taking over the health care system. He considers it essential to complete the work begun by the civil rights movement. In this excellent article (H/T The American Thinker), SusanAnne Hiller connects those dots. Obama and his supporters view socialism and income redistribution, detested by Ronald Reagan, as essential to their project to “remake” America. So, Mr. Daniels can use this project to take a shot at the despised 40th president.

Almost as disturbing: Liam Neeson as LBJ and John Cusack as Nixon? Seriously?