Posted on 06/02/2011 7:25:35 AM PDT by RogerFGay
You might expect that I will lead this article by pointing to the extraordinarily weak field of candidates currently led by Mitt Romney (code-name: Chameleon). OK, that's fair. I should and in fact I already have. But there's something else. The lamestream media has started its quadrennial preoccupation with the (so-called) “women's vote”. The social policy agenda, and indeed the fate of Constitutional rule, will once again rest in the hands of radical feminists. The RINOs can't handle it.Early on, there will be much focus on the Obama agenda; the New World Order, “socializing” American industry, broader and more intensive cronyism. We'll certainly not believe candidates in the current field, who've taken credit for advancing all three during their careers. But even if another fresh, clean candidate should appear and gain in popularity, he or she will have to overcome the final barrier. A Republican candidate cannot win without winning quite solidly among men. And that's where every potential Republican nominee will be sabotaged by professional campaign advisers and party leaders.
Remember John McCain and the way he chased the skirts of “Hillary voters”? Sarah Palin said she'd do the same thing again if she had the chance. I believe she would; and then we'd find ourselves in the midst of the same spitting and snarling cat-fights as before, stuck month after month in the great competition over who's a better feminist. If there's any bright side at all, it might only be that there will be even less attention paid to MSNBC's racial slurs. But that won't save the Republicans.
The Party has a secret, and it's a doozy. When it came to the feminist vote, Ronald Reagan was farther left than Barack Obama. As Governor of California, he led the national charge to annul traditional marriage and family laws. He followed through as president, with the full support of NOW, under the Republican cover of child support and “welfare reform.” And the Party succeeded.
When Federal court challenges arose during the Clinton years, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally put an end to traditional marriage and individual rights at the same time. In P.O.P.S. v. Gardner (1993), the Court reclassified marriage and family law from civil law to social policy. This effectively (legally) redefined both marriage and the relationship between the individual and government. A year later, the nation saw the Republican “Contract with America” (Newt Gingrich) that whole-heartedly supported the transition and not surprisingly attempted to replace the concept of Constitutional protection with political party promises.
“Welfare reform” led to both an enormous increase in welfare spending and an all-encompassing expansion of the reach of the welfare state. Think the federal government telling individuals how to spend their money is something started by Obamacare? It's not. The welfare reforms of the 1980s opened the door. Tens of millions of American men, who had nothing to do with welfare benefits, began to experience living without Constitutional rights, in a country where one's wealth and happiness are entirely at the mercy of political whim.
Do you think spying on innocent Americans and great government databases filled with personal information began with The Patriot Act? Think again. It was “welfare reform” that authorized the tens of billions of dollars to build and operate the national computer systems and all the information gathering mechanisms (such as access to bank records, mandatory employment reporting, etc.). They said they were keeping track of “deadbeat dads” or “illegal aliens” or …. anyway, they were compiling information and automatically tracking the activities of everyone with a Social Security card.
It's no wonder that RINOs like Mitt Romney (and Newt Gingrich, and …) love to drop Reagan's name. It was all done in the name of fiscal conservatism and spun with socially conservative brain-teasers like “government enforcement of personal responsibility”.
They called the increased spending “investment” that was supposed to reduce welfare dependency and spending in the long run. The spin was in fact the brain-child of a leftist social science professor, Irwin Garfinkel. Among other propaganda, Garfinkel produced a “study” that concluded that socialists have a higher standard of living because their income tends toward equality (i.e. the masses are better off being equally poor because they're less relatively poor) and participated in far-left academic-level New World Order groups.
Working at the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty, Garfinkel convinced then Wisconsin Governor and later to be HHS Secretary under George W. Bush, Tommy Thompson to adapt his welfare reform concept. Thompson's far-left social policy agenda on child support and welfare reform was in the 1980s and 1990s worse than Romney's health-care socialism in Massachusetts. The welfare reform revolution went national without serious public scrutiny, legally ended traditional marriage, led to the downfall of Constitutional rule, and opened the door to the national undoing.
No, the Father's Rights Movement is not dead. The lamestream media stopped reporting when public opinion swayed to their side. You may not have noticed, but every Republican presidential candidate was quizzed about this issue in 2008 – and their responses posted on YouTube. They weren't good. Meanwhile, tens of millions of men - that's a lot of voters - who have suffered greatly from the reforms are waiting for a candidate to emerge who'll actually tell the truth and lead the country back to Constitutional rule and protection of their individual rights. It's not going to be done if no one is willing to acknowledge the root cause. And those men aren't going to vote Republican if the candidate can't or won't deal with it honorably.
And they won't. If they were, they wouldn't grasp defeat from the jaws of victory by pursuing "Hillary voters." And that's why Republicans will lose 2012.
You and all the polls. McCain never had a chance. Obama had three times the money, support of the MSM, and the third term of George W Bush.
Trying to compare the 2008 election to 2012 is like comparing apples and oranges.
In 2008, the Dems were riding the wave of the 2006 midterms, which gave them control over Congress.
The economy was going into the dumpster. The Iraq War was unpopular while McCain was claiming credit for the surge. McCain did little to disassociate himself from the Bush policies.
Obama was a young, educated, articulate black man, an historic first for this nation. His opponent was a tired, old white man who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama had huge amounts of money and a vast grassroots organization that had cut its teeth during the tough primary against Hillary. The media gave the primary 24/7 coverage, which helped Obama in the general election.
In 2008, there was no incumbent running for the Presidency, which was highly unusual.
In 2012 we will have the "Hope and Change" candidate with a record and it ain't good. The public saw what happens when you have overwhelming one party control over government and the agenda. Obamacare remains unpopular. The economy has remained in the tank. Unemployment is high, especially among minorities. The massive increase in the national debt fueled by the biggest deficits in our history that included the Porkulus bill and the expansion of the welfare state has gained much greater public attention. This country remains a center right nation.
Conservtatives and the Right are much more engaged. The Tea Party movement has changed the political equation. The impact was felt in the 2010 midterms, which were a referendum on Obama and the Dems. The result was massive changes at the federal, state, and local levels. Increased Rep Control over the statehouses will have an major electoral effect due to redistricting and the 2010 Census.
Conditions in this country are far different than they were in 2007, a year out from the 2008 elections. Comparing the 2008 election to the upcoming 2012 election is an exercise in sophistry. There will be no competing for Hillary voters. The Hope and Change candidate has feet of clay. His policies have failed and we are worse off than when he took office.
Paraphrasing Mark Twain, "The report of the death of the GOP was an exaggeration." You tout your great powers of prediction. Did you predict that the Reps would ride a tidal wave of victory in the 2010 midterms? And why did that happen?
I find it interesting that many of the pruveyors of gloom and doom for the Reps in 2012 and predictions that Obama is unbeatable, always seem to omit what happened in 2010. It seems those elections were meaningless and should be discounted. Maybe they were just part of the "unexpected" results that seem to be happening every day re our economy.
Yes. But allow me to be nit-picky. It’s my way. I’m an analyst. There are many independents (in fact). There are actually few declared party loyalists. (It’s a fact, although more than those may want to participate in primaries of the two parties.) Of course, that’s not what the partisans want you to think. It’s true of both parties. Independents decide elections.
But “Hillary voters,” for example, were not a big bunch of independents. Some of them howled and threatened that they’d support the other party when angry that their candidate lost the primary. Perhaps a few real independents did so - and maybe some of those were the ones in the McCain campaign ads. Many of the rest wouldn’t vote Republican if it was their own daughter. Just think about it - why would someone intelligent enough for independent thought feel strongly that Hillary Clinton should be president? Her credentials - she’s married to an ex-president who got caught doing the dirty with someone else in the White House.
In order to be successful, a Republican candidate must have the base solidly impressed and then focus on independents that will potentially vote for them. Going hard-left in an effort to pick up a few costs numbers in pretty much every category of voter that actually should be presumed to vote right - doesn’t get the conservative independents - and doesn’t get the leftist “independents” that they’re going after either.
The conditions in 2012 will be far different than they were in 2008. You are living in the past. I doubt Romney will be the nominee. Too much baggage. And the field is far from being set.
BTW...a latest Rasmussen poll indicates that 45-43% would rather vote for a second tier Republican candidate than BO. Imagine when we get a first tier ticket of (choose your favorite) Palin/West/Cain/Bachmann in there?
Obama headed for the trash bin of Presidential history in my opinion....He will uphold the worst President ever title very well.
Rasmussen: “Voters continue to be almost evenly divided when asked if they want to reelect President Obama.” RE: the numbers: “This is the reverse of last week when Obama picked up 45% support to the generic Republican’s 44%. In weekly surveys since the beginning of May, support for both the president and a generic Republican have remained in the narrow range of 43% to 45%.”
Imagine when you’ve got a genuine couple of big fat RINOs in there who piss the base off and chase all the conservative independents to The Libertarian Party or Ron Paul running as an Independent - or they just shrug and stay home, because it doesn’t matter.
There are many voting groups that might, or probably will have a different impact this election, but I think the “let’s vote for the black guy” vote will be much less apparent, and will affect many groups such as white independents, college kids, and even less motivated minority groups, and others whose enthusiasm for supporting the first major party black candidate will have waned. That phenomenon probably spans all voting groups to some extent (except the real, hard leftist in the Dim party).
There was no way anyone could have beat Obama in 2008. The country wanted to get rid of the Reps due to Bush's performance. The 2006 sea change in the midterms was the harginger of defeat in 2008.
You still haven’t made up your mind. Was it impossible for anyone to defeat Obama in 2008, or was it McCain’s fault? If you believe the first part, then I’m not sure why you bothered about McCain being the nominee. It didn’t matter.
Lucifer is the bearer of light.
The idea that some believe that Obama can somehow defy the laws of political gravity are amazing to me. This country is in serious trouble. The chickens are coming home to roost. And Obama's policies have made things worse whether it is shutting down drilling in the Gulf or Obamacare or out of control spending with record deficits or a host of other efforts to increase government's role in our lives.
Those of us on the Right and are members of the Tea Party can't wait to get to the polls in 2012 to throw this radical Marxist Obama out of office. We are energized, organized, and motivated.
Not worth the time to respond. If Republicans nominate a conservative, he/she will win big. If they nominate a rino, it’s iffy. The question will become whether we want to punish republicans or the country more. There is no way to predict anything at this point, and those who try are to be avoided. Gravitate to those who fight, not those who sit back and ponder.
McCain and Obama both favored an amnesty, which I believe could destroy this country with the stroke of a pen. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers.
He's not a blog pimp.
Thanks. Sometimes I wish I were famous, then maybe everybody would know things like that. Or - maybe it doesn’t work that way at all. Anyway - thanks.
Mr. Gay - in the future, please post your material in our bloggers forum.
Thanks,
BTW: I think the “blog pimp” comment is sadly funny. Everybody knows that the lamestream media sticks and Bloggers Rule! The people fighting against responsible citizen journalism are puppets of the Political Class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.