The evilness of 'bipartisanship'

On Johnny Carson's final show back in 1992, I recall his saying something like, "And so it's all come down to this." His words came to mind in the wake of another disastrous Republican defeat for the presidency.

It was an eerie rerun of 2008, with masochistic Republicans offering up yet another lackluster candidate who lacked the belief, the passion, or the courage to make liberty and capitalism the cornerstones of his campaign. It was sad watching statist Republicans fall in line, one by one, and throw their support behind Mitt Mushney.

Even pseudo-conservative Ann Coulter jumped on the bandwagon early, insisting that MittMan was "the most electable candidate in the Republican race." In fact, in a moment of temporary insanity she even defended Romneycare by pointing out that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives citizens the right to not buy health insurance. And this was just four months after she had called Romneycare a failure!

To add insult to injury, in a humorous twist of irony, Coulter's first love, Chris Christie, announced his support for Romney early on, then stunned Democrats and Republicans alike by playing the role of a rotund version of Benedict Arnold and putting the final nail in Romney's campaign coffin when he gave BHO a Charlie Crist greeting.

The reality, of course, is that Coulter and all those other deluded souls who came to believe that Romney was the next Ronald Reagan chose to ignore the fact that there was little Romney would have – or could have – done to change the downward trajectory of a country that is now more than $16 trillion in debt.

Meaning that even if he had suddenly transformed himself into an ultra-conservative, small-government type of guy, it was already too late. In the words of liberal Thomas Friedman, "We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes." God lent us the time and China lent us the dimes, and both lenders are about to demand that their loans be repaid.

In his newest book, Robert Ringer goes to bat for the most maligned and beleaguered individuals in America. Don't miss "The Entrepreneur: The Way Back forthe U.S. Economy"

There's no way that MittMan was going to buy into the kinds of laissez-faire policies Calvin Coolidge implemented to quickly get America out of the 1920-21 depression. On the contrary, during his campaign, MittMan promised that he would not cut food stamps – not even to the level of where they were prior to BHO's taking control of the White House (you know, when millions of people in America were starving).

He also assured us that he would protect the minimum wage – and even index it to the consumer price index. Worst of all, he emphasized that he would be a "bipartisan" president. And, unlike, Obama, I believe he meant it. (When Obama says he's ready to work with Republicans, he means giving them the opportunity to fully support his Marxist agenda.)

Laura Ingraham was spot on when she said, "If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people, because this is a gimme election – or at least it should be."

I concur. I have long advocated that the Republican Party either close its doors or break itself into two parties. The statists could keep the Republican label and those who are committed to returning to a small government dedicated to adhering to the Constitution could form a new party with a new, more appropriate name.

The current Republican Party is infested with unprincipled statists like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, whose chief function is to serve as useful idiots for the Dirty Dems and act as placeholders for each new piece of socialist legislation they pass.

Thankfully, however, there are a number of highly principled, courageous people in the Republican Party who have little in common with RINOs. Ron Paul is obviously the most glaring example, and he's someone I am convinced could have easily won the presidency by appealing to blacks, Hispanics, women, gays and young folks – not by pandering, but explaining why liberty is in their best interest. Not free contraception, not gay marriage, not amnesty for illegals – just plain, old liberty.

It's time for a serious, liberty-based third party to make its appearance. The tea party was a noble movement, and with just a handful of sporadic rallies here and there, it managed to change the face of the House in 2010. Unfortunately, after that, it mysteriously disappeared. The tea party needs to resurface as an actual political party and not be ashamed to take a hard-nosed stance against partisanship.

If there is such a thing as evil, bipartisanship surely deserves the label. First, because it's nothing more than code for Republicans going along with never-ending, anti-constitutional, Democratic legislation. Second, and more important, to be "bipartisan" requires that one compromise between liberty and tyranny, and, given that the two are mutually exclusive, that's a moral impossibility.

The purpose of an opposition party is not to "reach across the aisle," not to compromise, not to be "bipartisan." It is to oppose. It is to fight tooth and nail for the natural rights of every citizen – rich or poor, gay or straight, male or female, black, brown, or white. It is the duty of the opposition party not to give an inch when it comes to defending the Constitution and making certain that neither Congress nor the president be allowed to take actions that are not expressly granted to them by the Constitution.

Plain and simple, the objective should be gridlock – gridlock that prevents, rather than encourages, more legislation from being passed. I don't want to see Congress accomplish anything other than dramatically reduce taxes, dramatically reduce regulations and dramatically reduce intrusions into our personal lives.

Forget all the political mumbo-jumbo you're hearing from the television analysts about why the most failed president in history was able to win a second term. The Republicans lost because they once again chose a stand-for-nothing candidate who was not passionate about liberty and free enterprise.