The Smartest People in the Room

Call me a "Mitt"-picker if you will, but the most significant question for many conservatives during the 2012 elections revolved around whether or not Mitt was a fighter. I must regretfully inform, this combative quality never materialized; in spite of a spirited defense of Mitt's hand to hand combat bona fides by conservative media. Not to demean them; it's a position they were forced into by the Republican establishment, as were the rest of conservatives capable of objective analysis.

For clarity, one need only compare Mitt to a real fighter: Governor Sarah Palin, the one person whom the GOP establishment worked with stunningly exceptional dedication and ferocity to destroy. As with defeating King Barry, they failed. Today Gov. Palin looks prescient in her admonitions to Republican party elites. As for King Barry, he was treated by team Romney with kid gloves reminiscent of John McCain's politically correct behavior towards this nemesis of freedom during his own 2008 campaign. If not for the out-spoken defense of conservatism from Gov. Palin - much to the chagrin of Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager - the McCain defeat would have been far more embarrassing. That regrettable experience of McCain's unconditional surrender to political correctness has come back to haunt America today. I saw a bit of the fighter during the primaries against our own conservatives - damage produced more from an expensive and very dirty negative ad campaign than from Mitt himself - and a bit in Mitt during the first debate. After that, does anyone recall Mitt looking, sounding, and acting like someone willing to put it all on the line in a philosophical sense during the most important election in our lifetimes? Mitt was incapable of taking the proverbial "kill shot," even if his political life depended on it. Regarding the 2012 elections, however, considerably more was at stake.

---

Does anyone recall a sense of urgency being projected at any time? Warnings about the eminent demise of our country? About where we are headed, and why? Any attempt to bring truth to light regarding the Benghazi mission murders? Any articulation of conservatism that sprung from the heart - as opposed to mild-mannered establishment Pabulum - or reiteration of a record in defense of conservatism? No, I don't think so; at least, I certainly didn't. I saw a smiling, happy Mitt describing King Barry as a "nice guy." I saw a detached Mitt trying to "look" presidential; an aloof, vague, laid-back establishment product: the very embodiment of that most feared by a conservative base. I saw Mitt pandering to female voters; to racial minorities. Nobody out-pander's Democrats, and no true conservative would play that game. Why is this? Did Mitt not see the eminent peril to liberty? I'm not sure he did. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, Mitt is protected by a sheltered environment and won't be overly affected by the destructive wrath King Barry is now free to unleash on America during this, his - hopefully final - reign, as if the last four years haven't been difficult and destructive enough. The damnable history of establishmentarian republicanism is simple and verifiable: go along to get along. The fundamental transformation of America has been accepted by the Republican establishment; an exclamation point of collusion with an enemy of our republic in the name of bi-partisanship. John "Laurel" Boehner could barely contain his anxious enthusiasm to place his cheeks in the air for King Barry; the most pathetic and disgusting example of political capitulation I've seen to date from a national Republican "leader, " and there have been many of those in the running for "first place" in the contest. For God's sake, Speaker Laurel; we're talking about the survival of our Constitutional Republic! Have you no shame? Never mind, it was a rhetorical question with which to illuminate your utter lack or morality and character. I never voted for Mitt - my last choice - because I thought he would be a strong fighter for the American people; I voted for Mitt because he was the candidate rammed down the collective throats of conservatives by an out of touch, establishmentarian, white-shoes, country-clubbing, inside -the-beltway collection of RINO elitist blue blood political operatives and crony capitalists whom not only don't subscribe to conservative ideals, values, and principles, but actually resent and condescend to conservatives and conservatism. We're just too dog-gone impractical and inflexible, with unreasonable expectations. History has revealed, for example, how much Bush 41 detested Reagan and the contempt with which he viewed this brilliant man and his conservative philosophy and policies. Bush 41 - as with all the Bush clan - is a Progressive-lite, defining by example what is referred to as the "establishment" in a long tradition of "Rockefeller Republicans;" the true definition of those whom would call themselves "moderate." Why did three million conservatives stay home this election? It was because they thought their vote was inconsequential. It was because they accepted the premise that without a fighter - someone with the guts to contest a uniquely unprecedented display of corruption in a national election, for example - wiling to "go the distance" with King Barry, then it wouldn't really matter. That's not my opinion, but I believe it was the opinion of many in the Republican Party frustrated and disgusted to the point of nausea with how the primary unfolded, as well as with Romney's pitiful past performance in being a practicing conservative as was advertised by the establishmentarians. Perhaps there may have even been a hint of "kamikaze pilot" displayed in the attitude of a conservative base:

"We'll show you ivy tower dwellers a thing or two. Think you've got this election in the bag? Think you're the smartest people in the room? Watch this! We'll stay home and accept our Constitutional Republic being washed away before our eyes just for the sake of illustrating our wrath and proving you wrong! You are all just a bunch of arrogant, corrupt, elitist snobs drunk with power; power accumulated by screwing us -- We the People!"

Mitt couldn't articulate conservatism on any level but for reciting a few over-rehearsed talking points, because he is not a conservative; Mitt never was a conservative. Mitt is a moderate; a Progressive-lite. Moderates don't beat liberals. It takes the rock-ribbed conservatism of a principled conservative such as President Ronald Reagan or Gov. Sarah Palin to defeat liberals. It takes a fighter willing to defend that sacred and most precious jewel of liberty entrusted to us to protect; one that so many other great American patriots have fought - and died - to defend and preserve. Mitt's not a fighter. Mitt's not a conservative. Those whom stayed home - thus indirectly allowing the massive voter fraud to occur - have spoken: "We won't get fooled again," they said with righteous indignation. In fact, they fooled themselves. Not unlike liberals, they are ruled by their emotions rather than fact, reason, logic, and provable history. They were far too clever by half, and now America will pay the price. Whether the collapse of America is a tragedy or "commie"-tragedy is ultimately irrelevant in the final analysis; what is relevant is the pain and suffering that will ensue for so many hard-working Americans: brought to them courtesy of the Republican establishment elites...the smartest people in the room.