The Democrats' Big Problem

The American Thinker ^ | November 24, 2012 | Bruce Walker

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The left's post-election celebrations are wholly unwarranted.

Consider..................................

In fact, every other Republican seat is in a state which Romney carried handily, while four other Democrat seats -- in New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado -- came from states in which Romney ran close to Obama. That translates in 2014 into gains, and very likely gains which will translate into a Republican Senate majority. That very fact -- because Senate Democrats can do the math -- means that Harry Reid's plan to make filibusters harder will almost certainly fail: in two years, and perhaps for years thereafter, Republicans may control the Senate.

The House of Representatives was held, and with a clear working majority. This also, likely, is the best shape Democrats will be in in the House for quite a while. The second midterm has uniformly been bad or outright disastrous for the political party which controls the White House. In the elections in 1918, 1942, 1958, 1974, 1986, and 2006, the party holding the White House lost seats (often a lot of seats) in the House. The 1998 Clinton midterm, in a time of prosperity and an impeachment which the gutless Republican Senate punted on, was the single exception to the rule: Democrats gained three seats.

Worse for Democrats, Republicans now control more governorships than before the 2012 election, and these Republican governors are showing a lot of fight on issues like medical exchanges on ObamaCare, Right to Work, voter-identification laws, and tax reform. In a strong Republican 1914-style election, there will be more Republican governors, not fewer, after the midterm.

Even more troubling for Democrats,................ That means that Democrats control only 40 of the 99 state legislative chambers..................

[timestax]

“It is time to start outing reporters and television personalities for their adulteries, their hypocritical closet homosexuality, their gambling, their excessive drinking, their illicit drug use, their tax cheating. Put the fear of God in them.” i think you are right on the money. we need to put the MSM talking heads on the defensive so that they will become the news headline, and perhaps their influence might start to wane a little in the eyes of the slobbering public who only get their understanding of what’s going on in the world from these propagandists.

Now you're talking! Let's get to it!

[timestax]

bttt

[Candor7]

It’s really quite simple.>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes it is. I look forward to hearing thet Joe Biden is now President.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for this thread.

We need to take the time and effort to discuss what we will include in our discussion group, which for lack of a better name I call it the ‘Conserve America Party’ (CAP), and THEN join to covert an existing Political Party.

1.) IMHO, the Liberal Weapon of ‘Political Correctness’ ended when Romney finished his Concession Speech. This end to the PC BS will allow our ideas to reach each other at least an order of magnitude more openly.

2.) I would like to have a discussion on this and other threads on the wisdom of having: a.) a narrow focus, or b.) a wide array of Campaign Topics, Issues, or Planks. (All y’all please put me on those threads ping lists)!

For example, IMHO once the Liberal Agenda Media (LAM) got Primary Candidate Rick Santorum to answer their endless social/moral/Religious questions, Santorum’s Campaign was effectively blocked by the LAM. Finished!

3.) Thus, by starting out with our Core Beliefs (# 1.), and THEN discussing how big our “tent” should be (#2), we can rationally admit to each other what does not work for us. IOW, let the LAM wup up on their own ‘tar-baby’ topics.

[little jeremiah]

But Bitem needs to be imprisoned too....

[nathanbedford]

If one wants to conduct guerrilla politicking it has to be financed. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is the establishment of the Republican Party is because it either contributes the bulk of the financing or controls the means of finance. To the degree that true conservatives run against Rinos for control of the party, they will face the need to find new sources of finance. One can conduct guerrilla politicking perhaps more cheaply than conventional politicking but both efforts require a lot of money.

One of the brilliant breakthroughs the Democrats have achieved over the years is to tax you and me to finance their brand of politics. We see this in National Public Radio and National Public Television. We also see it, or we would see it if we looked closely, in our tax policy in which we favor such institutions as the Ford Foundation with its funding by the hundreds of millions of dollars of left-wing themes. Most of us are familiar with the Tides Foundation and the mischief if is has done. We also see how the left finances itself out of our own pockets if we examine the American educational system from kindergarten through postgraduate work. If one looks at grants which dominate much of the culture of the faculty lounges, one sees how the most bizarre left-wing themes are financed. If one looks at kindergarten and primary schools, one understands how the teachers unions have turned the system into a money machine and how the politicians have used the unions as a money laundering machine with the ultimate result the children are thoroughly indoctrinated with with leftists' notions at our expense.

A few FReepers like gray_ whiskers have begun to think about how to attack this set up and try to deprive the left of some of its public financing. At the same time we should be thinking about how we can be financed, whether out of the public trough or privately. It is a tautology but nonetheless true that no effort that is not financially self-sustaining will sustain itself.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

......the politicians have used the unions as a money laundering machine with the ultimate result the children are thoroughly indoctrinated with with leftists' notions at our expense.

The Left is now investing their private-public pension funds into the green infrastructure where stimulus money (our money that our great-grandchildren will still be repaying) has been "invested" (handed out to crony capitalists), along with bank loans - with a call for private-public banks (modeled after the one just established in Chicago) - establishing long-term "investment" in energy policies and enforced by government regulations (EPA, DoE).

Scroll down posts here and follow the links in the comments.

[Candor7]

Yes, but who is talking about imprisonment ;-)

[grey_whiskers]

One of the brilliant breakthroughs the Democrats have achieved over the years is to tax you and me to finance their brand of politics. We see this in National Public Radio and National Public Television.

You keep on stealing my vanity ideas before I've written them, nathan.

You...you...SCOUNDREL! ;-)

Cheers!

[little jeremiah]

Well, I meant until the gallows were constructed.

[TADSLOS]

Same rationalization was spouted in Nov 2008. The GOP "leadership" had their way again this cycle with another annointed nominee and somehow managed to blow it even bigger than then.

That aside, we have reached and surpassed the tipping point in this nation. There are now more of us interested in "free" stuff from Uncle Sam than there are those of us who still hold to the principles of limited goverrnment and the personally responsible notion of pay your own way. Couple that with the fact that legal standards of requirement for citizenship and voting rights no longer apply and we have a perpetual state of takers stripping wealth and prosperity from the makers. No amount of GOP political triangulation for regaining power under the presumption that constitutional conservatism will magically grow roots again is going to reverse the process now.

It's going to take a watershed event to reset the political and cultural landscape. It's going to be downright painful, if not fatal.

[SueRae]

It almost seems insurmountable...but I’m game. I cannot and will not accept this “new normal”. Keep me posted on those efforts.

[SueRae]

Yes, Nathan’s words were good ones and I’m staying in the fight. Here in Pa., we will have our own problem, in 2014, a gubernatorial election. Currently held by a Republican, I’m already hearing disturbing names being floated as candidates, among them, the weasel Joe Sestak.

And we must absolutely neuter the Philly vote fraud machine.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

..........And we must absolutely neuter the Philly vote fraud machine.

Bump!

[CityCenter]

Put your faith in the real conservatives and forget the GOP.

[Graewoulf]

This quote is from your # 8 Reply on this thread: “ - - - It is time to expand the concept of the Tea Party beyond applications only to economic issues, but to bring to play an emotional drive of the entire conservative electorate across the whole spectrum of issues. - - - “

My reply to you was # 65 which basically asked that we clearly define what we are for, and learn from the past, both good and bad.

In my second point in reply #65, I raised the question of the wisdom of including social issues in what our main planks should be. I used the example of how easily a hostile Media stalled Rick Santorum.

In this reply to me (# 67), your main concern is about finances. My concern is that we will start to finance something that is to vaguely defined to be a cohesive platform in the future, and thus render future financing difficult.

__________

Thus, let us return to how we plan to define ourselves as among our first actions.

Ron Paul was the Father of the T.E.A. Party. He had bold economic ideas. He was rejected by most Conservatives because of his social and moral ideas.

Rick Santorum was kept off economic message by a hostile Media bombarding him with social and moral questions.

These are two good examples of how damaging distracting social and moral issues can be to a candidate.

To those who say that by making the tent bigger and thus we ‘broaden the base,’ I say that they then need to reconcile Paul and Santorum to their broader base idea.

If Conservatives make their tent bigger, what will be the main difference between them and the gutless, BiPartisan Cave-In, RINO Party that is ruining America today?

_______

True, the TEA Party defined itself as an economic movement, but chose not to be exceptionally active in the Primary and National Elections of 2011-2012.

For example, what should the main effort of the TEA Party have been in 2011 and 2012? What were the opportunities that they chose not to seize on?

Would a narrowly defined Conservative Party do better in the 2014 Elections than the TEA Party did in 2011-2012?

What say all of you?

[nathanbedford]

You raise some good points which reveal that you have done some serious thinking.

I agree with your questioning about how we grow to an electoral majority. I too have used the metaphor of the big tent and I agree with you. In my judgment one does not extend the roof of the tent willy-nilly and hope to drape sufficient yardage over the heads of a portion of the electorate to gain 50+1, rather, the idea is to open the flaps to let the people come in who will come and if they are attracted to the saliency of the message. In other words, do not pander, proclaim.

And we proclaim an attractive message because "we clearly define what we are for".

As to the social issues, there is no question that we are opening ourselves to real and substantial dangers, especially from the media. They will give legitimacy to their most naked kind of demagoguery directed against advocates of social issues on the right. Nevertheless, I think there is some social issues which we must take a stand on. My rule which determines that which we should stand fast on and that which we should give way on has to do with the presence or absence of an identifiable victim. In other words, a libertarian test. So I would fight to the death to oppose abortion but I am not particularly disturbed by the prospect of homosexual marriage because I do not see the nexus between making that union legitimate and a threat to heterosexual marriage, this though I am fully aware as a student of The Frankfurt School that the object of the left is to undermine those institutions which support capitalism and democracy, the family being prominent among them.

We face, as you point out, a partisan guerrilla war against us waged by the media which is difficult to cope with. We have tried ignoring them to death and that has failed several consecutive elections. My recommendation is that we attack them personally. We make them pay a price. We try to destroy their careers. We make life ugly for them every time they stick their heads over the parapet. We do to them what they have been doing to us. We go on Meet the Press and we attack NBC and MSNBC and we attack David Gregory. We quote him back to himself. We ask him if he will repudiate the statements of Andrea Mitchell or does NBC stand by them?

Finally, we are now four years away from the next presidential election in two years away from the next by election. We have time to sort out which issues we want to run on which is somewhat different than the issues we want to ground ourselves upon. I have suggested that there be many different groups in addition to the Tea Party Movement because I presume that the Tea Party Movement will not want to depart from its strict adherence to economic issues. That leaves the field open to other groups to do what the NRA has done, identify themselves with an issue and run with it. That is in effect what the Democrat party has done by empowering all their special interest groups. By the time of the election, we should have found out what works and run with that.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply.

_________

” - - - As to the social issues, there is no question that we are opening ourselves to real and substantial dangers, - - - “

Your reply has many topics, so I will start with a discussion based on your above quote.

I will make the following assumptions:

1.) The primary goal of any Federal Politician is to be re-elected for as many times as possible.
2.) A secondary goal of any Federal Politician is to vote as a block to support the leaders of his or her Political Party.

Discussion: Based on the above assumptions, I derive that the Federal Politician seeks out the following:
a.) topics that have maximum chaos;
b.) the most unresolvable problems;
c.) the most emotional topics;
d.) the problems that lawyers are the least qualified to solve;
c.) and problems that have the least to do with the basic functions of governing.

For example, Zipper-Boy Clinton chose as his maximum chaos topic that of “The National Problem of Teenage Smoking.” Teenagers are hard-wired to rebel, parents are hard-wired to protect, and inhaled smoke will always damage human lungs. Thus, for generations to infinity Federal Politicians have a campaign topic that they can chose sides on depending on whatever the emotions are of the audience at hand.

The above example satisfies all of the criteria listed above, and additionally the problem can never be solved.

Problems that have the intent of malice are becoming more and more common as Federal Politicians keep searching for the ultimate topic that will bring them complete job security for the rest of their lives and their descendants career lives as well.

Health has:
A.) nothing to do with governing;
B.) disease will always be part of the human condition;
C.) and is the most personal data that is available on any given person.
Thus, Federal Politicians ‘with malice for all’ proposed Hilly’care,’ Romney’care,’ and the ultimate: Obama’care.’

The above example of the power of a Social Issue to win elections for Federal Politicians and to exert maximum control over the entire population, requires that we learn a more effective way of excising Social Issues from the sphere is governing our Nation.

For example, IF we chose to filter ALL Social Issues through the test of Financial Stewardship, THEN we we have a viable basis to oppose or promote any given topic, especially Social Issues.

By making the finance the common denominator to all Social Issues, the Federal Politician will be held accountable for any financial impact of Social Issues that they oppose or support, and thus avoid the endless morality aspect of that Social Issue.

In summary, I am of the opinion that our Conservative Base would be more effective with fewer Social Issues, and then support or oppose the Social Issues on a financial basis.

BTW, “Savings” never appear on the financial balance of any known business in the World. We should be like them: It is either a liability or an asset, a loss or a profit.

Our job is to hold our elected Financial Stewards accountable for their actions and inactions.

_________

I Invite all FReepers to ponder all these points and join in the discussion.

It is very easy to have two monologues on FR, but oft’ times difficult to have a rational dialogue.

The intent of this dialogue is to establish a Conservative Base that is focused on what needs to be done to put America back on the right track that our sorry Federal Politicians in “both” Political Parties have kept us off of for decades.

What say all of you?

[LucyT]

It is very easy to have two monologues on FR, but oft’ times difficult to have a rational dialogue.

I Invite all FReepers to ponder all these points and join in the discussion.