Known liberals lose presidential elections. Period.
[Since his conservative epiphany in 2000, Gamecock has regularly referred to Charles Krauthammer as "The Master", so instrumental was he in said epiphany.]
Originally published in The Minority and HinzSight Reports
Is Gamecock the only member of the chattering class in America that understands the history of U.S. presidential elections since 1968? I give a pass to the under 30 crowd that obsesses over polls. I give no pass to the Beltway crowd, including “The Master.”
Before I dare school said master, some facts as the rooster sees them.
You people, this is fundamental: The American people do not elect known liberals to the office of President of the United States. Period. Democrats have lost every such election but three since 1964. Those three ran as moderates. All the others ran as liberals of varying degrees. Most of the losers led MSM push polls at various times until a week or so before the elections, at which time the media gave up the ghost to try and salvage some credibility. Obama is doing worse than most all the previous Democrat losers thanks to the alternative media that grabbed the attention of usually inattentive average voters with images and rhetoric from Obama’s hate whitey America pastor of 20 years.
Krauthammer’s latest column in the Washington Post, in its assessment of Palin’s effect on the race, not only ignores the above overarching paradigm, but also reveals a fatal genetic defect of those trapped in the Manhatten-DC-Chicago-LA-San Fran cocoon of ignorant elitism in the following:
“There are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, ‘Who is this man?’ and ‘Can we trust this man with the presidency?’ ”
– Fred Thompson on John McCain, Sept. 2
This was the most effective line of the entire Republican convention: a ringing affirmation of John McCain’s authenticity and a not-so-subtle indictment of Barack Obama’s insubstantiality. What’s left of this line of argument, however, after John McCain picks Sarah Palin for vice president?
Palin is an admirable and formidable woman. She has energized the Republican base and single-handedly unified the Republican convention behind McCain. She performed spectacularly in her acceptance speech. Nonetheless, the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic.
It’s clear that McCain picked her because he had decided that he needed a game-changer. But why? He’d closed the gap in the polls with Obama. True, that had more to do with Obama sagging than McCain gaining. But what’s the difference? You win either way.
Obama was sagging because of missteps that reflected the fundamental weakness of his candidacy. Which suggested McCain’s strategy: Make this a referendum on Obama, surely the least experienced, least qualified, least prepared presidential nominee in living memory.
Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president’s only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment’s notice. Palin is not ready. Nor is Obama. But with Palin, the case against Obama evaporates.
Fred Thompson’s line may or not have been the most effective, but it surely was not the most effective for the reason Krauthammer assumes. I agree that McCain didn’t need Palin to beat Obama, but not for the reason Krauthammer assumes. Palin will increase the size of the landslide I already expected. I suspect the missteps Charles refers to by Obama are not the ones I would cite, and Palin is no more a “rookie” than any other member of the respective tickets. All are rookies. None have served either as President or Vice-President of the United States.
Among living non-Rookies we have Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Bush41, Quayle, Bush43 and Cheney. Does their status as non-rookies make them indistiquishable as being trustworthy with the Presidency?
Of course not.
What makes Obama, and Biden not trustworthy is their liberal views. Their missteps have been their liberal musings and policy positions. The only thing Palin is a “rookie” at, is indulging the scrutiny of and interchanges with, the cocoon of ignorance referred to above.
Charles (and those similarly situated), the President and Vice-President of the United States are chosen by voters on Election Day. You all can imagine that they do so based on what you all subject them to if that makes you feel better. You can imagine that debate gotcha moments on your world of TV is what makes the world turn. You delude yourselves.
One thing explains the 7 of 10, soon to be 8 of 11 GOP winning way from 1968-2004, soon to be 2008: Known liberals lose, whether they be “rookies” or “veterans” at indulging the PC machinations of the D.C. chattering classes or not.
I understand that to admit the truth would be to diminish the supposed self-importance of hundreds, if not thousands, of chatterers from Alexandria to Boston, so I give you all a pass. I enjoy your chattering. I chatter. I also enjoy Seinfeld re-runs, sports and Family Guy.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson