Friday, September 18, 2009

THE LABEL PROMISES REMEDIES, BUT THE BOX CONTAINS POISON

As conservative voters approach the 2010 elections, they might consider heeding the wisdom of this simple slogan: Don't trust the Party label. In particular, the Republican Party label is being abused as part of a conscious effort to deceive them.

Consider as evidence yesterday's report by Josh Kraushaar at politico.com. Under the direction of Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), the GOP's National Senatorial Committee is backing a slew of left-leaning candidates for the 2010 primaries. The plan is to give them special advantages in the primaries, while bad mouthing the prospects of conservative candidates.

The best, and perhaps most controversial, example of the NRSC's muscle-flexing is in Florida, where Cornyn quickly got behind the campaign of popular moderate [sic] Gov. Charlie Crist, despite growing conservative resentment over Crist's support of [alleged] President Barack Obama's stimulus plan and environmental policies.

The NRSC's open support for the governor has stifled the fundraising ability of former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, an attractive candidate in his own right who has been winning the support of conservative activists across the state.

"The speed with which the national party and national Republicans took sides in this race has presented challenges," said Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos. "Speaker Rubio never envisioned a day that a conservative in the Republican primary would be the underdog―and wouldn't be given a chance by the national party.

Conservatives considering Rush Limbaugh's contention that there's no hope outside the GOP need to ponder deeply the significance of this fact: the GOP leaders won't give a conservative a chance. Their excuse for stacking the deck against conservatives is that they are backing "electable" candidates. But they consistently define "electable" as "moderate" or "not conservative." According to the politico.com piece this logic "makes perfect sense to GOP strategists, who view it as a necessary exercise in political Darwinism.

"The job of the party committee is to help people with an 'R' next to their name; it doesn't matter what their ideology is," said Carl Forti, who headed the National Republican Congressional Committee's independent expenditure efforts in 2006 [with such good results]." "That's the mentality Cornyn has now―you want to find people that can win, and if you cater to much to the extremes, you'll be in trouble."

In fact Cornyn's intervention in primaries isn't about helping people with an 'R' next to their name. It's about making sure that in the general election those people aren't conservatives. As for the claim of electability, the notion that conservatives won't win is a purposely self-fulfilling prophecy.

The conservative heart of Americans everywhere is being roused by Obama's push to overthrow Constitutional government and install a national socialist regime in its place. But this is simply an accentuation of a longstanding reality. Consider the Battleground polling data reported by Bruce Walker in this article at americanthinker.com.

The Battleground Poll is different. It is bipartisan. A Republican polling organization, the Terrance Group, and a Democrat polling organization, Lake Research Partners, collaborate in picking the questions, selecting the sample population, conducting the surveys, and analyzing the results. The Battleground Poll website, along with the raw data, is "Republican Strategic Analysis" and "Democratic Strategic Analysis." There are few polls that are bipartisan. No other polling organization asks the same questions year after year, none that reveal the internals of their poll results so completely, and none ask anything like Question D3 in every survey. What is Question D3 and what were the results to Question D3 in the August 20, 2008 Battleground Poll? It is this:


"When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...?

Very conservative

Somewhat conservative

MODERATE

Somewhat liberal

Very liberal

UNSURE/REFUSED"

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

Sixty percent of Americans considered themselves conservative. Does this mean that most Americans do not know what "conservative" means? No: The question specifically provides an out to people who are not sure about their ideology; it provides an out to people who want to be considered "moderate." Americans reject those choices. They overwhelmingly define themselves as "conservative." This is a huge political story - except that it is not "new" at all. Look at the thirteen Battleground Poll results over the last six years, and how do Americans answer that very question? Here are the percentages of Americans in those polls who call themselves "conservative" since June 2002: 59% (June 2002 poll), 59% (September 2003 poll), 61% (April 2004 poll), 59% (June 2004 poll), 60% (September 2004 poll), 61% (October 2005 poll), 59% (March 2006), 61% (October 2006), 59% (January 2007), 63% (July 2007), 58% (December 2007), 63% (May 2008), and now 60% (August 2008.)

The percentage of Americans who define themselves as "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" has always been puny. In thirteen straight polls, this percentage has never been higher than 38% (June 2004) and it has usually been much lower. The gap between self-defined conservatives and self-defined liberals has been as high as thirty percentage points and as low as twenty-one percentage points. What does that translate into in electoral politics? If conservative presidential candidates simply got all the conservative votes - if virtually all moderate voters, uncommitted voters, and liberal voters went for the liberal candidate - then the conservative candidates would win a landslide bigger than Ronald Reagan in 1988. Have you ever wondered why liberals like Obama never call themselves liberals? Maybe their advisers have read the Battleground Poll internals.

Are these remarkable results skewed? This has always been the argument, but it is a hopelessly flawed argument. The poll results are incredibly consistent over time. These results are the same when President Bush has poll numbers at rock bottom and when Republicans were facing electoral disaster, like in October 2006 when 61% of Americans called themselves conservatives. The very consistency of these percentages is powerful evidence of their inherent validity….


Voters heavily identify themselves as conservative. Only a miniscule percentage of them identify themselves as "moderates." Yet in primary elections the GOP leaders now stack the deck in favor of so-called "moderates." This isn't a hard-boiled preference for winners. It's an ideological preference for left-leaning candidates. Once the leftists win the GOP nomination, the leftist GOP leaders exploit the conservative cachet of the Republican label (carefully bolstered and preserved by media Judas goats) in a conscious effort to deceive conservative voters into supporting people who will surely betray them. In effect, the GOP leaders do exactly what the leftist Democrats do. They hide or lie about their candidates' left-leaning views in order to hijack the seats of power. And they've been doing so at least since Ronald Reagan left office. If a conservative chances to get a GOP nomination, the same GOP forces usually go to work behind the scenes to insure the nominee's defeat in the general election. Their claptrap about uniting to defeat the leftist Democrat bogeyman only matters to them when there's another leftist bogeyman behind the Republican mask. Though they pretend to be all about winning without regard to ideology, they are in fact committed to the leftist ideology and working to assure the victory of national socialism. They therefore don't disagree with Obama's leftist goal. They disagree with his up front and hasty pursuit of it.

I have to hope that people like Rush Limbaugh are not consciously part of this national GOP strategy of deception. The currently roused conservative heart of America could lead to a restoration of the Constitutional Republic. This could usher in an era of revitalized strength and renewed dedication to the principles and practices of liberty. Or it will again be hijacked by a conscious strategy intended to assure that Americans who love liberty and the constitutional sovereignty of the people are once more deceived and betrayed. Given that the leftist elite faction thinks it has already pushed America irretrievably over the cliff into national socialism, this time may be the last time. Conservative voters beware. The byword of the day is clear:

DON'T TRUST THE PARTY LABEL

9 comments:

Chad Myers said...

You know, long ago men of great character would form a new party, they would write moving speeches and documents, they would stand for what they believe in.

I know you're doing your best Alan, but where is everyone else?

Is it time to form a Conservative Party or bring back Teddy's Bull Moose Party? Or maybe form a Constitutional Party which may include right and left leaning people who are dedicated to the Constitution.

It seems most of our problems today is that we have all but discarded the Constitution and its intentions. We (the right and the left) can AT LEAST start with that!

texan_4_keyes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dawg_em said...

And don't trust what the talking heads say. Limbaugh, Beck (he said the bailout wasn't big enough), Hannity (thinks Obama is an honest and decent man). I don't dare judge what's in their hearts. But words do mean something. Here we are at an historic crossroads; tyranny or a return to liberty. Americans are infuriated and scared. And we're supposed to continue to support the likes of John McCain? Limbaugh is unbelievable. I didn't need to read the two links in the article to know how moderate the GOP elitists are. (My definition of moderate in this instance is a Republican who leans left.)

Let's not forget what happened to Pat Buchanan when he received the nomination from the Reform Party. With over 15% of the electorate the Dems and GOP conspired together, and with the help of the Supreme Court, denied Pat a seat at the debate table.

I don't trust Limbaugh. I don't trust Hannity. I don't trust Beck. I don't trust the GOP. Shame on them for pooh-poohing the idea of Americans taking back their country. And shame on their listeners for being so gullible. I really don't understand how people can go for this rhetoric about conservative values blah blah blah, but when it's time for a righteous political revolution, they pull back on the reins. Pathetic.

texan_4_keyes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WingletDriver said...

I was very disappointed to read that about Cornyn -- he always seemed like a conservative. But Texas has a history of left-leaning Republicans: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rick Perry, George Bush. I don't know why we always think of Texas as being very conservative.

The strategy Cornyn is employing worked great for Pennsylvania, didn't it? Bush and Rove pushed hard for Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the primary. They eventually enlisted Rick Santorum to back Specter. Specter barely beat Toomey in the primary and cruised to victory in the general election. Pro-life voters punished Santorum in his next election and elected hard left democrat Bob Casey. Then earlier this year, Specter jumped parties. And yet, Bush and Cornyn and all of their ilk still follow this strategy.

The outcome of this strategy should warn them away. Republicans have gone from a comfortable majority in both houses, governorships, and state legislatures to minorities everywhere. This has happened not because the country has moved left. No, it happened because rather than deliver on the Contract with America, Republicans abandoned any sense of conservatism.

Terry Morris said...

Wasn't it the Congressional GOP "leadership" and the "conservative" talking heads who all expressed shock, SHOCK!, that the (plain-to-anyone-with-half-a-brain) thoroughly non-conservative Arlen Specter "defected" to the Democrat party? Their reaction ought to tell us something about the depth and breadth of their conservatism, whether their expression of "shock" was genuine or not.

By the way, may I respectfully offer an alternative term to "left-leaning Republicans?" The "Republicans" we're speaking of are not left leaning generally speaking. Indeed, if there is any leaning going on in that group it is to the right, not to the left where their feet are firmly planted. A better and more accurate term, therefore, and one which traditionalist conservatives have been using for years, is "right-liberal." Which is to say a liberal who leans to the right ... at least on the surface ... but a liberal nonetheless. With only a handful of exceptions (if that) all prominent Republican politicians are, by definition, right-liberals.

Texas Potters - Kim Overall said...

Gerald Celente (trends forecast institute) predicts a strong third party by 2012. I believe him more than any media today as he analyzes numbers and facts.

How BO gets away with making legislation as soon as he is in office to prevent a president's background from inquiry is beyond belief and should be tackled immediately.

The Day After being sworn in, Barrack Hussein Obama made his First Executive Order #13489, the order is to hide his records! The biased mainstream Media did not report on it of course, but you can see it here>

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

or look it up yourself. So much for that "transparency" he promised... now, Is the the act of a person who is hiding something? You decide.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The_Enigma_Hanging_Like_A_Cloud_Over_President_Obama

Also interesting:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf
http://www.obamanotqualified.com/

warpmine said...

From your days on MSNBC, I've been a gracious supporter. I've learned more from Alan's blog and commentary at WND than I ever learned in the years of college and public education.

I believe that our goal as conservative constitutionalists should be to seek out those politicians that are loyal to the constitution and the liberty that is guarantees. Citizen politicians is what we need as opposed to class politicians. Go to DC and do our bidding beholden to the Constitution you swear to uphold.

For too long we have compromised our values for the Judas Goats because we lived in fear of what the other party could bring to bare. I will no longer support those that meet only half of said principles and values.

Look forward to another great posting from Dr. Keyes

THE CONSERVATIVE said...

I will not allow these media liars to convince me that there is no hope for a third party.
I guarantee 2012 will be the year. Mr.Keyes I really hope you come in swinging harder than before!
Keyes 2012

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.