In spite of the current progressive narrative that Republicans have a pathetic field of candidates, Obama's 'destiny' to win in 2012, and a Democratic Party on the upswing, evidence is mounting 2012 may well be the turning point in our nation's history. Democratic/Socialist Worker political operatives like Ezra Klein, Ralph Nader, and Gloria Borger are all trying to make is look like the 2012 election has been run and Obama was re-elected by acclaimation. Yet, there is something going on that the Democratic party boosters are desperate to hide. A few cracks are beginning to appear and these are fault lines conservatives can take full advantage. The key to these cracks is to find out what they are, why they are occurring, and turn the narrative back around to expose them for what they truly are.
First, a few questions spring up when watching the events of the past week. Why would Obama suddenly cave on his birth certificate question and turn over the document? How could anyone categorize this radicalized socialist president as a Republican moderate? Why all the leftist political banter about the 'shrinkin GOP field'? Finally, if the above characterizations are in anyway true, why isn't Obama facing a firestorm within his own party? What are we missing? Why aren't leftists running their fool heads off and resisting this president if he's such a Republican corporate shill?
The first question is the easiest to answer. Obama had to turn over his birth certificate because even large segments of the Democratic Party were beginning to question his legitimacy. How can we know this? Because only 38% of the country absolutely believed, without reservation, that Obama was a naturally born American citizen. Since a large number of Republicans and independents, including myself, DID believe he was a naturally born citizen, that leaves large swathes of the Democratic Party that HAD to have doubts. The numbers are simply too large to pretend otherwise. Fully 62% of all Americans had some question in their mind. That is a metric that probably caused David Axelrod to run with his hand over his mouth to the nearest commode. We are talking LBJ-sized doubts within the Democratic Party about the integrity of the American president. If we want a similar parallel in history, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman are not as close as that to LBJ, but more on that later.
Let us go on to the absurd assertions of Ezra "Journolister-in-chief" Klein. Klein postulates that Obama is actually acting in accord with moderate GOP positions in the past. From the Washington ComPost, April 25, 2011, 'Obama revealed: a moderate Republican.'
"If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal health care; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans have staked out before."
So, Klein begins his argument on how conservative Obama is by setting aside all his socialist ways. He ignores the exploding spending, taking over car companies, dictating bank and insurance business practices, shutting down oil drilling, and nationalizing food inspection policy. If you ignore all his socialistic programs, he's practically Ronald Reagan, right?
He then lays out three programs that are supposedly Republican positions. The Obamacare proposal and class warfare against the rich are not, and have never been even moderate GOP proposals. Klein mingles discussions and counterproposals of Democratic plans with straight forward policy ideas. Republicans may have discussed propositions counter to the far left ideas, but that doesn't make them Republican proposals, just discussion points. As far as 'crap and tax' is concerned, Palin, Pawlenty, and Gingrich all did support this idea as a counterweight to outright bans on carbon dioxide emissions by the environ-fascists, but that was only until the 'hide the decline' revealed climate alarmist theory as a hoax. If the GOP put forth market-based proposals to a nonexistent problem, they've since rescinded their support. Regardless of who put it forth, it's since been withdrawn for good reason.
So, why would a Journolister like Klein present such a ridiculous claim? Simple. Democrats are losing supporters by the thousands. They have to shore up the centrist base and make inroads back in their independent support. Casting Obama as a moderate Republican is a blatant political maneuver intended to change perception of Obama. Clearly a majority of Americans now view Obama as a closet socialist, still in 2011 a poison pill to a national candidate. So, Klein is attempting to relabel Obama as a centrist and stem the bleeding. If Obama were so 'moderate', there would certainly be clamoring on the left against him. There may be muttering and depression, but not clamoring.
Ralph Nader likes to pretend he's not a Democrat. He isn't a part of the party and ran against Bush and Gore in 2000 earning his label of 'spoiler.' However, he has been part and parcel of Democratic policy development since the 1960's. Nader's enviro-fascism and anti-corporate populism are the mainstreams of leftist thought. Obama is Nader's dream president, only he's soured a little on the Bamster.
Nader wrote an opinion piece basically conceding the 2012 race to Obama. He argues the forces of corporate evil have embedded themselves into Obama's political bloodstream and as a result he will win. But, Nader is coming to the rescue, sort of. Nader told Politico he is looking for opposition to Obama for the Democratic primaries. Not real opposition, token opposition that will force The Won to tack left, as if he could. Politico reports Nader as saying this:
"If there was a group of people from the president’s own party geared up to debate him in Iowa and New Hampshire, “it is harder for him to say no,” Nader said. “His strategists can say, ‘Don’t fight it, Barack; use it, revel in it; you’re good on your feet.” 'Ralph Nader: Pressure Obama with primary,' Politico, Jennifer Epstein, April 27, 2011.
Now, why would Nader try to get some leftwing activists to run against Obama? Why jeopardize the progressive/socialist lurch Obama has empowered by being president? If Nader was actually opposed to Obama, as he suggests, he'd want a good, strong candidate who would force Obama leftward. If Nader wanted Obama to prove his leftist proclivities, why not argue a 'real' progressive would make a better candidate and president for the Democrats. This little half-hearted attempt to drag Obama into his utopian dream state won't do anything substantive, so why?
Because, Nader knows what his candidacy really did for Gore. Nader's hyper-socialist rhetoric and stances made Gore appear mainstream, almost moderate. He believes the same will go for Obama. Gore was innoculated from criticism on his left wing because they had an alternative. Obama could neatly position himself firmly in the progressive/socialist worker's wing of the party and have radical anarchist and communist elements criticize him. It would place Obama in a political continuum that is right of the poop and pee throwers and therefore more ?centered? than the Republican candidate. By using this Overton Window strategy, Obama would turn his 'moderate Republican' status into a nationwide shift to the left.
Which takes us to the final question? Why are Democratic political operatives so obsessed with the Republican field? Gloria Borger, Lucretia's Americanized little sister, seems very concerned that the GOP field isn't larger or more ?legitimate? She penned a ridiculous piece entitled, 'Republicans run away from 2012 race,' CNN, April 27, 2011. She sets up Republicans as realizing this coming election is historic and important and all. Then she comes up with this:
"All of which may be true. And all of which leads to the next question: Why are so many Republicans running -- away from the race?
. . . And while recent polls show an electorate that is unhappy and even depressed about the current state of affairs, Republicans remain unhappily untethered: A majority of GOP voters told CBS News/New York Times pollsters that no one on their current list of contenders is especially inspiring."
We are seven months from the first caucus and primary, and Borger concludes that of the dozens of undeclared candidates currently touring Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, no one has emerged as the leader and therefore the slate of candidates is poor. This coming from a progressive/socialist political operative. Everybody and their uncle are running for the GOP nomination, but she only sees those who aren't interested. Barbour was their favorite. When Haley Barbour announced he wasn't going to run, the left was left mouth agape. They couldn't wait to skewer and roast Barbour over their partisan fire. They believed Barbour was as good a candidate to lampoon as most. But, when he decided to forgo chasing the presidency, they were left arms akimbo.
But, why is Borger so concerned with the size of the Republican field and its lack of a frontrunner? Well, she can't get out her poison pen and venomous tongue and lie about them, yet. She's forced to criticize the entire political party and not a couple of individuals. She can't begin defining the GOP leader in the nominating fight as an 'extremist' and position Obama as 'reasonable.' This infuriates her because it exposes her to her real goal, lambast Republicans like a partisan Democratic hack.
Borger has no intention, and she's just an example of the lame-brained Party-run media's strategy, of objectively weighing a Republican in comparison with Obama. She needs the GOP frontrunner to mischaracterize and therefore redefine Obama. Without a leader to identify, marginalize, and define, she must take potshots at many candidates and that doesn't look journalistic. Once a couple of leaders emerge, she can define them as extremists and Obama as a centrist.
So, what does all this have to do with winning in 2012. Well, as I stated in my thesis, these posturings expose the Obamamaniac's dilemmas.
A. Obama is viewed suspiciously by a large and growing segment of the population who don't think he reflects their priorities.
B. Obama's political base is shuddering under his incompetent leadership flaking off Democrats and semi-loyal independents.
C. Obamamaniacs are realizing their governance is in direct opposition to the positions of the electorate and so their only hope is political gamesmanship. They have to somehow stop the bleeding and rally the tribal instincts of their 2008 coalition in opposition to Republicans before its too late.
D. There is a real danger an opportunistic Democrat could challenge Obama, even in token opposition, and embarrass the Obama juggernaut. Therefore, they must control the field and the narrative.
E. Finally, they have to be able to define the Republican challenger and reposition Obama in the 'center' of political consensus. If this takes smoke and mirrors, character assassination, blatant lies, and political subterefuge, so be it.
Without realizing it, Democratic operatives in the press and party proper have revealed just how vulnerable this president really is. We could be in for an LBJ/1968 moment.
In 1968, Johnson was seen as a shoe-in for the nomination. He had some opposition in the country for his social policies that exploded the welfare state and his war in Southeast Asia. He was the 'guns and butter' president and this was fostering intraparty fissures. Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota ran against Johnson and McCarthy lost, 42 to 49.
It was a Johnson win that shocked the Party establishment and sent them scrambling for their political lives. Never had winning a primary been such a blow to a political campaign. Johnson's eke-ing win opened up the nomination. Johnson was no longer in command of the party. Wisconsin primary polling showed Robert Kennedy, who entered the race after Johnson's 'win' in New Hampshire, a way to the nomination. While McCarthy won Wisconsin, Kennedy soon made dramatic inroads in delegates. Johnson withdrew from the contest after New Hampshire after realizing his political popularity had evaporated.
Johnson was in a particularly vulnerable position in 1967. While his approval hovered below 50%, sound familiar, his strong approval numbers dropped from 25% to 16%. Obama's hovers somewhere in between that number. Meanwhile, confidence in the government and the economy continue to bottom out. Obama's positions are at odds with wide swaths of voters, even in the Democratic Party. Obama's continuing war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq annoy growing numbers of leftists and the fight in Libya embarrasses them. Overall, most American are not very optimistic that Obamanomics, Obamacare, and Obama anything are answers to the country's most vital problems.
What Republicans and conservatives will need to do is take clear advantage of Obama and Democratic weaknesses. We need to staple the guy to the economy. It's not just jobs, jobs, jobs, its the economy stupid. We may have an inflated stock market, but that's only because of Bernanke's printing press over at the Fed. Inflation, real inflation in food and energy, will continue to drain our pocketbooks. What the Democrats, led by Obama, is not working. In fact, it was predestined to fail. It is their ideas that are bankrupt, and bankrupting the country. So, focus on the economic causes of our decline. Highlight the economic millstones of Obamacare and financial strangulation laws. Point out the weight the deficits and public debt have on the entire economy of the country. It's their philosophy that's flawed, not its execution.
Second, we must not let them define us or our positions. We have to argue back every single time they mischaracterize us or our candidates. We have to make sure if they redefine us, we shake our heads and refuse to accept their premises. The general public is with us, but we must make sure they know our philosophy is their philosophy.
Remind constantly about Obama's foibles. We have to remind the public at large how wrong the GM and Chrysler takeovers were. We have to speak out against the arbitrary and capricious nature of this administration when it comes to private ownership and control over means of production. We have to consistently buck their attempts to change the facts. The past is at our fingertips in this Internet era. Let the past sing out loudly and clearly against their prediliction toward prevarication.
Call the press' bluff. Every time a moron like Klein writes an absurd piece of fiction like Obama as a moderate Republican, it is everyone's responsibility to call them on it. Every time Krugman lies about a proposal, call them on it. Every single time Gloria Borger opens her lips to lie, point it out.
Once the truth is exposed, the chips will fall where they must. The cracks will open up and the progressive/socialist left will fall through. The Democratic Party will break open like Humpty Dumpty.
It's doubtful many Republican operatives will do the things necessary to defeat The Petulant Won. We certainly know the Party-run press won't. It will take 'we the people' to hold their feet to the fire. It will take our words and courage and determination to overthrow this tyrant. We cannot wait for a Ronald Reagan to save us. There is no cavalry.
We Are the Cavalry.