What Happened To The Landslide?

One of my top New Year’s Resolutions was to write a posting for a conservative blog in 2014. That’s right, 2014, not 2015. Unfortunately, a number of intervening events distracted me from this particular resolution. The good news is that I was still able to cross my main 2014 resolution off the list. I completed my first novel that will hit the market later this month.

Too bad I didn’t write the blog posting in 2014. To paraphrase Ted Nugent, “2014 was a ‘subject’ rich environment”. Who am I kidding, interesting blog subjects are continuing to increase at an exponential rate. The hard part is deciding which subject would make for the most interesting posting.

As I was trying to select a subject worthy of comment, I soon realized that maybe there was more to write about than any one story. The Republican midterm landslide morphed into a surprise Republican victory within hours. In a few days it further morphed into an Obama victory. When that story didn’t get the legs they wanted, a miniscule number change in Obama’s approval ratings becomes his resurgence, requiring a Republican willingness to deal with him. In other words, surrender or never win another election. What happened to the landslide?

In my mind I went over negative stories and scandals involving Progressives for a good bit of the last four decades. Sorry Libs, I am not going to catalogue all of them here, this is a post, not my second full length book. Suffice it to say, when even an accusation against a conservative surfaces, the story has a life of its own until the last person stops following it. Should an accusation surface involving a Progressive, the Press can’t waste precious resources covering it. They might lose a day of Ferguson Grand Jury stakeout rather than just see if the smoke might lead to flame.

Recently, the Media started a frenzy on behalf of PETA attacking Sarah Palin for animal cruelty. Governor Palin did the right thing. She attacked PETA. Modern journalism seems to be writing stories without effort. Lazy journalist get a pre-packaged story attacking a conservative from PETA and they run with it. Used to be young reporters were told by their editors, “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” I guess some reporters believe this only involves things told to them by their mother. If the source for their story is an organization with a sympathetic, progressive agenda they run it without any fact checking.

What do we have? First, an attack on a conservative. No need to dig deeper and get the facts, the accusation is enough of a story. This story deserves full attention and resources in hopes it discredits a strong conservative and Tea Party patriot. Mama Grizzly fought back, pointing out the hypocrisy of the story. She pointed out the fact that a liberal female became PETA’s women-of-the-year, despite posting an almost identical photo. Then Palin points out that their man-of-the-year assassinated a Ground Hog without criticism, still getting their recognition. PETA threw in the towel, yet they still get an assist from the press who chooses not to advance the story in a different direction, critical of PETA.

Again, a story that discredits a conservative also serves a number of purposes. It deflects attention from the regime’s many scandals. They can waste column inches on Sarah Palin’s “cruelty” but refuse to dig a little deeper or even mention a story when there is a hint of scandal involving a liberal or fellow progressive. Remember all the horror expressed when they discovered that Mitt Romney once took a short trip with the family dog secured on the roof of the car. PETA, other liberals and the press ran this story for a long time. Romney didn’t fight back against this and several other stories and negative ads that ran against him until he was officially nominated.

I guess Mitt was being advised by establishment consultants on how and when to spend campaign money. In their wisdom it was felt that these stories would best be challenged after he was nominated since these wouldn’t suppress his support in the nominating process. Unfortunately, the consultants were wrong. Throwing enough crap against the wall usually means some will stick. True or not these continuous attacks will take a toll. Millions of voters chose not to vote for Romney in the general election. Some probably were discouraged because of the constant negative attacks on the character of a man they had formerly held in highest regard. However, in my opinion many weren’t impressed by the lack of fight.

Most Republican voters are self-described as conservative. They are eager to vote for candidates who can clearly articulate conservative principles and programs. Unfortunately, establishment and progressive republicans equate conservative ideas with Barry Goldwater. They think only “moderates” and progressives can win the White House. Think about the last several Republican Presidential candidates. Only two moderate Republicans won the Presidency. Bush the elder was a good man but won the 3rd term of Reagan. He then went out to win his own second term and lost.

Bush attacked Reagan’s conservative beliefs when they were opponents in a primary. I am sure Reagan only chose him to be his running mate in an effort to placate the establishment of the party. Reagan endured the attacks by the party elite to win the primary and fought back. He took his message directly to the people. He was a “cowboy” who couldn’t be trusted with our military and a practitioner of voodoo economics. That was just in the primary. The attacks got more personal in the general election and throughout his presidency. The attacks were really more brutal than those endured by more contemporary candidates. Especially difficult were attacks attributed to unnamed Republican officials and the rehashing of charges leveled by his primary opponents.

The elder Bush lost his bid for a 2ND term precisely because he was a moderate progressive, uncomfortable in a conservative role. He made that famous speech in 1988 where he said, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” A message that conservatives ate up, but a promise he didn’t keep. It became Bill Clinton’s battle cry. It helped get him into office his first term. That and the fact that the liberal/progressive press never got too interested in his disgraceful conduct and became more interested in dishing dirt on Clinton’s adversaries. Remember, to Democrats the end always justifies the means. If the elder Bush took the same tack to the right that Clinton made and kept his promise, maybe we wouldn’t have had a Clinton to impeach.

Bush the younger benefitted from Clinton-weariness and by espousing some conservative principles. He also seized the opportunity to be a leader when America really needed one. Yet, shortly after the attacks started against him his popularity started to wane, then eventually evaporate. His leadership in the war on terror got him a second term. Attacks started by hyper partisan progressives were quickly echoed by the mainstream press and academia. He followed his own advice not to sully the office of President by getting in the mud and fighting back. I am sure the advice given to him from the Republican establishment was also to maintain his dignity in facing continuous personal attacks.

Again, many of the attacks started as insinuation and innuendo. If against a liberal or progressive, there is no story to pursue by our vigilant press. If against a conservative, all the press doggedly pursues unproven or patently false rumors with the full force and manpower of the mainstream press. Dan Rather, the poster boy for liberal bias ran a story about George W. Bush’s Air National Guard Service. He never checked out the story that others would disprove quite easily without a lot of work. He didn’t become even a little suspicious when the story was dumped on him by a hyper partisan. Rather didn’t ride off in disgrace, his cronies even tried to organize a special award for him. Years after he left CBS because of his part in what came to be known as Memo-gate, Rather insists the story is true. Remember, most liberal progressives believe the accusation is as much of a story as is making sure to report it only after an investigation proves it true. Of course this doesn’t apply to accusations against liberals.

In 2004 when Dan ran with this story, it was soon shot full of holes. It didn’t become the “October Surprise” that Rather and his progressive cronies wanted. In his glory days of the late 60’s and the 70’s, there weren’t bloggers with access to technology that would allow them to quickly show that the memos Rather based his stories on were fraudulent forgeries. Despite losing his job, an effort was made to turn Rather into a victim, the Public, with help from Bloggers and cable news assured his status as a villain.

Dan Rather didn’t fade away, he keeps coming back claiming his discredited story is still true. Just like OJ he tries to convince everyone his version of the truth is the only truth. As with OJ, he hasn’t offered or found any credible evidence which supports his story.

After Bush the Younger, the Republican Party ends up with John McCain, a self-described Progressive Republican. When asked what type of Republican he was he answered a “Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt Republican.” Teddy Roosevelt bragged about his Progressive beliefs and was a founder of the progressive Bull Moose Party. During a primary season that wasn’t showing significant movement towards a McCain landslide, The New York Times endorsed McCain as the Republican nominee. The most charitable motive for the action of the NYT was to hedge their bet. If their progressive lost, at least another progressive would be elected in the general election. McCain never did what a conservative would do. He didn’t tell the NYT’s where to put their endorsement. He didn’t see it as a problem even though the Times ran a story that hinted at an illicit affair with a Washington Lobbyist just a few weeks earlier. Once his nomination was in the bag, the Times endorsed his progressive opponent.

The stories of his profanity laced tirades are legend. Like Ralphie Parker’s father, McCain is a true artist whose medium is profanity. Every so often a story comes out about how McCain goes off attacking friend and foe alike in private profane tirades at meetings with Senators, Congressmen and fellow Republicans. Admittedly there have been fewer of these stories leaking out in recent years. He still has gone off against young Republican senators trying to do what their constituents elected them to do. He ridicules and scorns them in public, calling them wacko birds among other things. How dare they challenge him as the deal making leader of the progressive wing of the Republican Party. They get the brunt of his attacks, at least for the first five years after he is re-elected.

When he becomes the Republican Presidential nominee, he returns to the tried and true campaign methods of the Republican establishment. No personal attacks on an opponent, especially the historic first Black candidate. Don’t get down in mud with your opponents, no matter how nasty their attacks are. We don’t want to alienate the “independent” voters who are repelled by nasty personal attacks. I never understood that one since what the establishment wants to downplay or ignore are the untrue and slimy attacks they say are supposedly a turn off to the Independent voters. McCain lost his race despite his lack of fight and propensity not to engage in personal attack.

Establishment Republicans don’t seem to realize they have to fight back on several fronts to defeat liberal progressives. Their Democrat opponents don’t even have to directly attack the Republican to win. They have the mainstream media and academia in their pocket. Somebody takes a remark by McCain or Sarah Palin out of context and you see story after story hinting that either McCain or Palin or both are too stupid and gaffe prone to be President. Yet almost everything coming out of Joe Biden’s mouth is a gaffe of major proportion and it’s just ole Uncle Joe. He is too smart to really believe what he said. Obama is “so brilliant” his gaffes like having visited 57 of the states are ignored. One of McCain’s biggest mistakes was to scold Republican supporters for making personal attacks against Barrack Obama.

McCain followed the establishment game plan right down the toilet. He wouldn’t allow personal attacks of Obama and never gave a strong defense of himself and his running mate in face of ridiculous and often untrue personal attacks. Given how Sarah Palin has been successfully returning fire on some fairly vicious personal attacks since the anchor of John McCain has been removed from her neck, you can only think that the establishment had her on a short leash during most of the 2008 campaign.

Skip ahead to the next time a Republican establishment candidate receives the nomination. Mitt Romney seems to follow the establishment game plan. No personal attacks and no strong defense of vicious personal attacks. In referring to the Republican Establishment’s history of pushing more progressive candidates and expecting to win, a radio host rhetorically asked if that wasn’t the definition of insanity. I would think that an articulate conservative candidate who fights back against the Democrats and their allies in the press and academia would more likely win.

Romney didn’t fight back immediately when really vicious personal attacks began. He appeared pathetically weak when Candy Crowley saved Obama’s bacon when he lied about when he identified the cause of Benghazi as terrorism.

Now it appears that some establishment Republicans think another Romney candidacy is a great idea. Some others are pointing out that Ronald Reagan ran three times so Mitt should as well. Are they serious? Reagan ran against the establishment and confronted personal attacks from within his party and an unabashedly liberal press. He went directly to the people while exchanging jabs with liberals from every direction. He won in landslides. He was an articulate conservative who never avoided a chance to champion conservative ideals. Why not support an articulate conservative who has more in common with Reagan than the fact he or she was a three time candidate for president.

Any new candidate will have to have fire in their belly and not be afraid of the fight. Give the voters a clear choice, strong conservative values not liberal light. The candidate will have to be more like Ronald Reagan and be willing to fight back strongly against a progressive mainstream press. The candidate must not be afraid to take on academia no matter which school they attended. And the candidate can’t be afraid to take on the growing bureaucracy. Some of the younger candidates sound good in their speeches. None of them have yet to break out as the true Ronald Reagan heir.

The ideal candidate will have to fight the progressives in the Republican establishment to gain the nomination. Like Reagan they should go directly to the people. Ron Paul used to go directly to mostly young people for grass roots financial support. He couldn’t get enough support within the party. There has to be an effort to get the financial support from within and without the party. The ideal candidate will also have to recognize that they will be fighting a multi-front campaign. They will have to fight, Democrats, radical interest groups, academia and the press. Long before the real campaign they will have to fight all manner of vicious personal attacks. The attacks will be designed to circulate innuendo and false charges to disqualify candidates to prevent their nomination. They will also be used as a distraction in cases where the Press and a Progressive administration are trying to downplay or cover-up another scandal. Just look into Obama’s senate campaign. The Press went with sealed court records to get the attractive, articulate and formidable Republican candidate to drop out before the campaign really started.

The direct approach can work. Going back to the attack on Sarah Palin that I first mentioned, she showed the way. The final example of liberal hypocrisy that she tossed at the Press was the frenzy that accompanied the family story of Mitt Romney’s dog. She pointed out that even after Obama mentioned eating a dog as a child, there wasn’t mention by PETA or their allies in the liberal press. This attack on Sarah Palin is immediately dropped not before some backlash happens. Potential Republican candidates should study Reagan and Palin if they want to win.

Just to be prepared for the first attack of 2016, if the Congress doesn’t reverse Obamacare and the unconstitutional actions of the President, the Democrats and the Press will ask them why not. I know that if they do win those battles, they will still face vicious attacks.

This article was written by Jim Kulas, author of the soon-to-be-released novel; Second Revolution, We The People Have Had Enough. Find out more at www.jimkulas.com.

Share

Speak Your Mind

*