.
"“I
think we are going to crush them everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate
Republican leader, said in an interview, referring to the network of
activist organizations...“I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee
anywhere in the country.”"...
-------------------------------
5/2/14, "Nothing Clever about Winning with Lies and Special Interest Riches," Daniel Horowitz
"Over the past few weeks, political news outlets have been filled with
articles beaming about the masterful strategy of the GOP establishment
in crushing grassroots challenges. They smugly celebrate the wily
tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Chamber of Commerce, and
Crossroads in counterattacking the Tea Party. But when you think past
the initial headline, you will find that there is nothing special,
clever, or innovative about their strategy. It is quite simple.
Members of the political class, which is comprised of the leaders in
both parties, support unconstitutional policies, corporate welfare,
amnesty for illegals, consistent debt ceiling increases, federal control
of local functions, and anything else demanded by the dominant moneyed
interests. In return, they receive unlimited campaign support in the
form of direct contributions and independent expenditures that are
carefully coordinated with their candidates through McConnell’s network
of the Chamber, NRSC, and Karl Rove – as outlined by National Journal.
In comes a grassroots candidate from the country class. Needless to
say, unless they are a billionaire, they struggle to collect small
donations from patriotic citizens in order to develop a modicum of
legitimacy and grow their name ID with the electorate. In fact, it is
precisely because these candidates support principle over power that
they have a difficult time raising money – at least anywhere near the
scale of the political class. There is a clear inverse relationship
between principled stances on the issues and raising money.
The campaign finance “inequality” has been further exacerbated by
McCain-Soros campaign finance laws that place upstart candidates at a
disadvantage. They lack a large network of donors, but might know of a
handful of patriots who are willing to fully support the candidate.
However, they are hamstrung by caps on individual contributions.
Challenging the political class in both open seats (or Democrat
seats) and incumbent seats would be arduous enough if the only inherent
problem was the money gap. But there are two more challenges: defining
of the candidate and ideological lies.
Defining the Candidates
In most races with grassroots challengers, the incumbent enjoys
ubiquitous name ID and has been fully defined in the eyes of the voters
for years. As is often the case, the incumbent might have mediocre
approval numbers, but given that he is a known quantity, there is no
fear that he is a total lunatic.
Contrast that to most of the challengers who are starting out with
zero name ID and are completely undefined in the minds of voters.
Again, most of these challengers lack the funds to ever pose a threat to
the incumbent, but the minute they gain traction, the political class
has unlimited funds to define the challenger with their professional hit
man opposition attacks. Let’s be clear, some grassroots candidates are
better than others, but there is no human being with an impressive
background who does not have something in their lives that can be
exaggerated or distorted and put into a massive TV buy.
Remember, the first time most voters are hearing about our candidates
is through the prism of the oppo hits, and you know what they say about
a first impression. That is how they can destroy someone out of the
gate — with a dehumanization campaign. Even if they didn’t have the
funding advantage it would still be difficult because of the gap in
definition. The establishment can completely destroy upstart insurgent
candidates because there is no pre-existing definition in the minds of
voters. We cannot destroy their candidates, rather merely hope to
slowly knock them down a few points. Moreover, we focus on issues; they
focus on oppo hits. Guess which one resonates more with voters?
Lies, Lies, Lies
As the National Journal article noted, McConnell and his lieutenants
have learned how to pick the lock. Unlike moderate incumbents of the
past like Dick Lugar, who, more or less, ran on their records, these
members take the McCain/Hatch route. In other words, they lie their way
through the primary.
Instead of running on support of bailouts, amnesty, corporate
welfare, debt ceiling increases, expansion of the federal government,
jettisoning social issues, and tweaking Obamacare (things they support
privately or even vote for) they use their superior firepower to portray
themselves as rocked-rib conservatives and paint their opponents as
liberals. Remember how Mike Simpson ran ads saying he voted to REPEAL the Wall Street bailout and that his opponent was a liberal trial lawyer? Their cowardly allies do the same thing. Just look at Jason Hart’s article about OH-14 to understand how all these factors play together.
Ponder this thought for a moment: political class candidates receive
millions of dollars from big government interests precisely because of
their support for liberal causes. Then they turn around and use that
money to lie to the voters and sell themselves as the antithesis of
their funding sources and their opponents as the epitome of their
special interests.
Headed into the next few weeks, this strategy might pay off. We pray to God that it doesn’t.
But one thing is clear: there is no skill, merit, or virtue in what
they are doing. It is nothing but old-fashioned corruption and lies."...
=====================
3/8/2014, "Leading Republicans Move to Stamp Out Challenges From Right," NY Times, Carl Hulse
====================
Comment: Andrew Breitbart who died on March 1, 2012 would likely be alive today had he known his great achievements would be trashed. He wouldn't have worked himself to death for no reason. The US Constitution and rule of law no longer matter today. The two party system no longer exists. Everything can be done by one person with a pen and a phone.
The reason Breitbart worked to give the GOP House so many extra people in Nov. 2010 was to make it easy for them to defund Obamacare. We know now the GOP never had any intention of defunding Obamacare. As of May 6, 2014, John Boehner has never allowed a standalone up or down vote to defund it. The GOP didn't care how many people we gave them or that Andrew Breitbart worked himself to death in the process. They had no intention of doing any of the things they were newly empowered to do via Breitbart's efforts. They wanted the same things democrats wanted. Someone might've told Breitbart to save his strength.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment