http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority
Posted on 11/24/2006 5:53:57 PM PST by neverdem
"The Republicans lost because they were too conservative." "No, not conservative enough." "They lost because they disappointed the religious right." "No, because they are too tied to the religious right."
Many of us feel the loss was due to what I call "McCain-Soros."
Ever since the passage of McCain-Feingold, money has poured into organizations such as MoveOn.org, which in turn demonizes Republicans, painting a portrait of them as the incarnation of evil. The ads have had as their goal one thing: leaving a sour taste in the mouth of the electorate over anything Republican, conservative or religious. It has worked. The soft Republican, such as Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, went down with the tough Republican, such as Sen. Rick Santorum.
These ads, paid for by George Soros, Peter Lewis and other multi-millionaire leftists are the direct result of, and have been made possible by, the passage of McCain-Feingold, which opened the door to unlimited spending by left-wing fat cats on behalf of liberal candidates and causes. Until its passage, contributions were, basically, limited to the political parties and candidates themselves, but with a cap. Until the passage of McCain-Feingold, a cap was placed on how much Soros could underwrite in his lust for power and influence.
Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) has made it possible for George Soros and other billionaire transnationalists to effect and determine the outcome of our elections and thus U.S. destiny, indeed world destiny. And that is exactly what the wealthy internationalists have always craved.
Certainly, McCain was aware that if the most liberal member of the Senate, Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), was pushing a piece of legislation, its purpose was not to help conservative causes but the far left ones that are Feingold's life's mission. Indeed, Feingold had a hard time finding a sponsor across the aisle willing to proffer the "bipartisan" aura he needed to gain passage for this liberal dream.
Feingold understood, as we now all do, the Achilles’ heel of John McCain. To wit: I am the "cleaner" and wiser Republican. I stand out from the pack. "Take the dirty money out of politics" became McCain's slogan. He did, and now we have the "clean" money of George Soros and Peter Lewis, so clean that it can be spread around, infinitely, for every left-wing cause. It was noble, a campaign finance "reform," so befitting of Mr. Noble.
President Bush did not veto it. We didn't fight it, assured that it would be overturned by the courts as "limiting free speech." But, it wasn't overturned. Everyone passed the buck hoping that the next link in the process would stop it.
Democrats since Bill Clinton do one thing: they campaign every day as if it is the day preceding an election. They demonize Republicans, our motives. The message they telegraph is not so much about our policy but our "sinister" goals. It is Halliburton, profiteering from war, mean-spiritedness, dogmatism over compassion. It is 24/7/365.
The purpose of the ads is not to illuminate their political positions. It is to destroy the Republican candidate and officeholder, the persona of the conservative. Through osmosis -- after a five year daily barrage of ads on radio, TV and in newspapers -- it appears to have worked.
Republicans, on the other hand, don't begin serious campaigning until the month before the election and have never learned the Goebbles technique so familiar, and comfortable, to Democrats: demonize the person, demonize the group. Do so every day, until respectable people find it offensive to be associated with, let alone vote for, such terrible people. The Muslims are doing it against Israel, against Jews, and they are indeed swaying Europe, prevailing.
The paid-for-by-Soros ads contributed mightily to the Republican defeat. Having won the House and Senate, Democrats can save some money by no longer having to pay for as many ads since they will use their committee positions to demonize and destroy conservatives through Democrat witch hunts under chairmen who have a Torquemada/Inquisition-like intent toward those they are "investigating." Instead of paid ads, the mainstream media will for free, as news, nightly furnish Americans the audios and visuals from the congressional hearings -- the images -- that will make anyone associated with the Republican party look like a thief, greedy, a conspirator -- Al Capone.
Companies that contributed too much to Republican candidates will be hauled in and scrutinized under a series of bogus charges. The public will love it, for the Democrats and 527s have spent the last few years laying the demonization groundwork regarding companies such as Exxon, Phillip Morris, Merck, Diebold, Halliburton, Wal-Mart: big oil, big tobacco, big pharmaceutical, giant retailers, etc. If "smart," these companies will mend their ways and learn their lesson regarding who should be the major beneficiary of their contributions. After all, inquisitors simply want and always accept repentance.
So thank you, John McCain, for your tireless efforts in behalf of McCain-Soros, clean money and motives and "reform." You have helped bring your party down. Thanks for being the gang leader of the “Gang of 14,” which stood in the way of up-or-down confirmation of conservative justices. Hats off to you for redefining torture so that effective interrogation of jihadists is forever impossible. As a reward, you wish, now, to lead the party and become its Presidential nominee and standard bearer. I don't think so.
June 13, 2006
John McCain & George Soros: New York Encounter
You read, you decide.
No I am not suggesting a difference in press coverage. The amount however was complete saturation, 24/7. What I am saying is that since President Reagan, we have the 'I feel' generations sent on their way into this world with the public educational system of seeing the world under how one 'feels'. These have NO memory of President Reagan, and the numbers of Reagan voters no longer among us is dwindling that voter group into a nonexistence impact.
The 'I feel' generations have their brains on sensory reactions and every exposure they were given to President Bush was a negative feeling. These liberals and all their tentacles preached that Iraq was not involved in terrorism and that OIL was the reason why we invaded. Add that to the Clintons UNIONS, (government and teachers) and the S$ORO$ funded outreaches, gelled the public at large into voting at the local level on how they felt.
The liberals had to get the attention of their base, in Missouri where I live, it was attaching an amendment of a minimum raise increase. Also millions were invested into a salvation program of cloning and that was sold to coverage the state covered health recipients Medicaid.
The 'news' 24/7 was a campaign arm, no matter the point of origin with the continuous drumbeat of Vietnamization of Iraq, President Bush is a liar, Republicans were the party of corruption (sadly there were some names and faces to give that persona).
Now granted these liberals took advantage of presenting President Bush on vacation when he should have been in New Orleans saving 'millions' of people, but cause of their race, he could not be bothered. The whole hurricane and aftermath became the fault of President Bush.
My point is that for Republicans to have countered the mass hysterical media preaching Bush hate 24/7 was not a financially possible endeavor.
These liberals would be in debt for decades in they were required to fund every bad news about Bush/Republicans and the ever streaming nice coverage given to liberals.
If Republicans had not peed off their base, the base might hav egotten motivated to go out earlier and do the work that was needed to retain Congress. You don't win if you pee off your base.
The left has been better at exploiting hte campaign censorship bill, but instead of complaining about this unconstitutional bill, we should learn to do better at exploiting it ourselves while we continue to try to restore the Constitution by getting rid of it.
The bill is patently unconstitutional and everyone knows it.
BTW, I heard independent expenditure ads right up through Election Day. Someone should have filed a suit to stop them, hoping that they would lose and the law would be overturned. And maybe in the meantime, that Communazi America-hater Soros (who should be investigated under the treason, sedition, and RICO laws) would be constrained a bit from buying Congress for his fellow anti-Americans.
Isn't there some way we can denaturalize this jerk?
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority
You're in the wrong party.
McCain-Soros.
If the shoe fits -- wear it.
Though I agree they cost us the Congress in this election
But I disagree that they are the base ... the base came out and voted
Now the question is .. will the fringe stay home and not vote in 08 .. or will they give us all another Clinton Administration like they did before
grrrrr ... note to self .. pay attention when typing
will the fringe stay home and not vote in 08 ... or = will the fringe get out and vote in 08 .. or
McCain got his revenge.
The author is even MORE RIGHT than he knows... Soros wasn't just a fatcat that took advantage of McCain-Feingold, he was the huge fatcat that HELPED PASS IT to begin with so he could then pour multi-millions into our political system to defeat Republicans.
The article below is a must-read and completely details the course of Soros' billions changing and exploiting our campaign system... it's horrifying how much he has accomplished.
-----
Soros' "Reform"
By James O. E. Norell
First Freedoms | May 31, 2004
"If there were an illustration accompanying the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, it would be an engraving of globalist billionaire George Soros."
"Soros, one of the richest men in the world, backed campaign finance reform with huge cash donations to a wide variety of Washington "reform" special interest groups to accomplish what his funding conduit called an effort "to reduce the corrupting influence of very large donors" and to ban pre-election "issue advocacy" ads by groups like the NRA."
"Now, arch-reformer Soros is pouring perhaps as much as $30-million of his own money into left-wing "progressive" organizations he believes are uniquely inoculated against the restrictions of the very law Soros bought and paid for – restrictions like the ban on broadcast political advertising."
{snip}
"Without Soros spending at least $18 million to fund an army of the slickest "public interest" D.C. lobbyists and PR spin meisters, it is doubtful that McCain-Feingold would have become law. Soros was the hand in the sock-puppet."
{snip}
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13584
Great set of links, thanks.
You might also want to check out the article I indicated in post #53 about Soros' years-long involvement in sabotaging our political system... and how far he has gotten now with McCain's direct help :-(
No, McCain is not a democrate he is a Republican. See he has an R after his name on the ballot, so if we don't vote for him we are voting for a democrat. Ahhhh, my nuts just fell off!!!
IMHO, the Clintons have to split the right to win the WH and so the Clintons need a Ross Perot for '08.
And it is starting to look like maybe Tancredo is it.
I am keeping a close eye on that double agent conservative Pat Buchanan too.
If he plays true to form, Buchanan will be supporting the vote splitter.
I think that's what they are planning on doing also
President Bush did not veto it.
President Bush did not veto it.
President Bush did not veto it.
President Bush did not veto it.
President Bush did not veto it.
President Bush did not veto it.
President Bush did not veto it.
At what point do we get it?
McCain is a dirty filthy, back stabbing, egoistical insane RINO
Bush is a great leader, good politician, overall I think he is a stand up guy and I'm sure glad he is in the oval office instead of Gore or Kerry.
He may be all those things, but he is not the leader of Reagan conservatives
'I feel' generations have their brains on sensory reactions and
I agree to a point.
Reagan connected with people. So did Clinton. And they reached out to the public over the noise of the MSM each time they were in trouble.
W doesn't do that.
Elections are won and lost by a candidate's strength and his ability to connect with his constituency. To a lesser degree the Party's image has an impact on the voting public.
In many ways W allowed the media to define Iraq and his administration.
He cannot communicate his positions easily with one on one discussions on TV. A few press conferences can't move the public with a War going on.
Unlike Clinton his spokepeople are weak or non-existent.
The Country was extremely unhappy with their perception of their governance
Wish I could agree.
Republicans did themselves in.
Blaming Soros and McCain is not an answer and certainly not the reason for the losses.
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.