Chris Adamo
How Democrats intend to win big in 2012
By Chris Adamo
Throughout 2010, liberals sought to diffuse conservative momentum and comfort themselves with the notion that this was not 1994, and therefore any repeat of the Republican landslide victory of that year was hardly an inevitability. However, in the wake of last year's elections which easily eclipsed the Gingrich Revolution in scope and intensity, the new liberal rejoinder is that this era is indeed a repeat of those events that now portends recuperative gains for the Democrats in the Congress in next year's elections, as well as a resounding comeback for Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, their propaganda offensive has merit, and certain significant parallels do exist. Yet it is still early enough in the 2012 election cycle (Yes, that dreaded season is indeed prematurely upon us.) for conservatives to recognize the nature of the battle that awaits them, and to take the necessary corrective action to avoid such a catastrophe. As has historically been the case, this contest is entirely theirs to win or lose. The ability of the Republicans to prevail is entirely in their hands, and will ultimately be determined by their political spine, or lack thereof.
If present trends remain unchanged, the biggest campaign topic will be the economy. Republicans are uniquely positioned at present to make even greater gains in the Congress than they achieved last fall, merely by contrasting themselves against the Democrat status quo. As a principled opposition to the outlandish spending practices of Obama and his minions on Capitol Hill, Republicans could make the case that a new course needs to be charted if the country is to avoid financial calamity.
The down side of this situation, at least from a Beltway insider perspective, is that doing so requires serious and severe budget cuts be implemented on short order. And that is a tack that the GOP has been pathetically inept at pursuing, partly because they lack the collective resolve to confront the problem or face the certain firestorm that will ensue, and partly because their whole approach to "governing" is so thoroughly jaded with Washington thinking.
Barack Obama and the Democrat majorities of 2008 knew that if they could somehow drastically bloat the budget beyond any previous proportions, the Republican response would be to treat the latest levels of government waste as the new "baseline" from which they must therefore be compelled to operate. As a result, annual deficits such as the $170 billion of 2007 would henceforth be the stuff of ancient history. Since 2008, the Democrats have regularly run deficits exceeding $1 trillion. Yet the Republicans are now loathe to keep their promise to cut even a hundred billion from those exorbitant sums.
Having conceded the criminally outlandish premises of "TARP," Obama's "stimulus" slush fund, and the tectonic trend of the federal government to continually grow its ranks and its financial coffers, the present Republican timidity on reducing the budget only serves to dishearten those at the grassroots who held rallies during the past two years demanding such reductions. Serious budget cutting would of course generate the predictable outcries from every victimized special interest group. But failing to do so will surely cause a much sterner and louder response from Real America, whose pockets are being summarily picked in order to fund the madness.
Pressing forward on another front, the left is once again playing the "race card," making regular mention of his ethnicity as the real motivation for any opposition he faces, as was the case during Obama's first campaign cycle. By such means, liberals intend to hamstring any Republican opponent from dealing directly with Obama's manifold fumblings and the glaring failures of his first term.
Thus, the innumerable episodes of groveling at the feet of foreign leaders, the abominable breaches of justice by Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, the flagrant trampling of constitutional limits on the scope of his office, the deliberate and malicious undercutting of the nation's economy, or the dangerous and pernicious prohibition of oil drilling in the Gulf can hardly be candidly discussed in their full magnitude. Doing so would be interpreted as criticism "based on his race," and therefore taboo.
Abetted by their liberal parrots in the "mainstream" media, Democrats have lately been playing the "hate card" virtually non-stop, and are laying the necessary groundwork to ensure that those on the right are forced into an entirely defensive posture, which is and has always been a guaranteed loser. And this effort has gone into overdrive ever since the January 8 mass murder by the deranged gunman Jared Loughner in Tucson.
However, even before the tragedy in Arizona, the standard Democrat/media ruse has been to characterize any opposition to their abhorrent agenda as some form of "hate." Efforts to slow the ongoing holocaust of abortion are rebranded as "hatred of women." The drive to preserve the time-honored and unalterable definition of marriage is recast as "hatred of homosexuals." And attempts to shore up our national borders, a standard practice of any country in history that wanted to preserve its culture and its national integrity, are decried as "hatred of those who look different from us."
So how can conservatives hope to prevail in such a jaded environment? And more significantly, who will they find to carry their banner, hopefully all the way to the White House? If they expect to navigate the course laid out for them by the left, the answer is that absolutely nobody will fit the bill. A contest fought entirely on terms laid out by the opposition is an exercise in futility. Avoiding any discussion of the sordid nature of the liberal opposition, and focusing instead entirely on "the issues" as defined by the left, means campaigning against the utopia they invariably promise.
Moreover, a candidate who refuses to address the glaring hypocrisy and fraud of the liberal opposition is exhibiting moral cowardice cloaked in the sanctimony of "refraining from personal attacks." Such politicians have historically gone soft at critical junctures, once in office, and do not inspire confidence from the electorate since they telegraph ahead of time that they do not play to win. After the fiascos of Republican "moderation" during the last decade, voters are in no mood for more of the same.
On the other hand, if the fervency of the past election cycle, as epitomized by the grassroots conservatism of the "Tea Party," can remain on course and unfazed by the derision from the political establishment, it can continue forward with unstoppable momentum. Self-assured conservatives, who are unafraid to trumpet their cause and willing to properly portray those on the left whose deeds have damaged the nation, can carry their banner to victory, and offer the nation a reprieve from the disastrous course of the past several years.
© Chris Adamo
March 10, 2011
Throughout 2010, liberals sought to diffuse conservative momentum and comfort themselves with the notion that this was not 1994, and therefore any repeat of the Republican landslide victory of that year was hardly an inevitability. However, in the wake of last year's elections which easily eclipsed the Gingrich Revolution in scope and intensity, the new liberal rejoinder is that this era is indeed a repeat of those events that now portends recuperative gains for the Democrats in the Congress in next year's elections, as well as a resounding comeback for Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, their propaganda offensive has merit, and certain significant parallels do exist. Yet it is still early enough in the 2012 election cycle (Yes, that dreaded season is indeed prematurely upon us.) for conservatives to recognize the nature of the battle that awaits them, and to take the necessary corrective action to avoid such a catastrophe. As has historically been the case, this contest is entirely theirs to win or lose. The ability of the Republicans to prevail is entirely in their hands, and will ultimately be determined by their political spine, or lack thereof.
If present trends remain unchanged, the biggest campaign topic will be the economy. Republicans are uniquely positioned at present to make even greater gains in the Congress than they achieved last fall, merely by contrasting themselves against the Democrat status quo. As a principled opposition to the outlandish spending practices of Obama and his minions on Capitol Hill, Republicans could make the case that a new course needs to be charted if the country is to avoid financial calamity.
The down side of this situation, at least from a Beltway insider perspective, is that doing so requires serious and severe budget cuts be implemented on short order. And that is a tack that the GOP has been pathetically inept at pursuing, partly because they lack the collective resolve to confront the problem or face the certain firestorm that will ensue, and partly because their whole approach to "governing" is so thoroughly jaded with Washington thinking.
Barack Obama and the Democrat majorities of 2008 knew that if they could somehow drastically bloat the budget beyond any previous proportions, the Republican response would be to treat the latest levels of government waste as the new "baseline" from which they must therefore be compelled to operate. As a result, annual deficits such as the $170 billion of 2007 would henceforth be the stuff of ancient history. Since 2008, the Democrats have regularly run deficits exceeding $1 trillion. Yet the Republicans are now loathe to keep their promise to cut even a hundred billion from those exorbitant sums.
Having conceded the criminally outlandish premises of "TARP," Obama's "stimulus" slush fund, and the tectonic trend of the federal government to continually grow its ranks and its financial coffers, the present Republican timidity on reducing the budget only serves to dishearten those at the grassroots who held rallies during the past two years demanding such reductions. Serious budget cutting would of course generate the predictable outcries from every victimized special interest group. But failing to do so will surely cause a much sterner and louder response from Real America, whose pockets are being summarily picked in order to fund the madness.
Pressing forward on another front, the left is once again playing the "race card," making regular mention of his ethnicity as the real motivation for any opposition he faces, as was the case during Obama's first campaign cycle. By such means, liberals intend to hamstring any Republican opponent from dealing directly with Obama's manifold fumblings and the glaring failures of his first term.
Thus, the innumerable episodes of groveling at the feet of foreign leaders, the abominable breaches of justice by Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, the flagrant trampling of constitutional limits on the scope of his office, the deliberate and malicious undercutting of the nation's economy, or the dangerous and pernicious prohibition of oil drilling in the Gulf can hardly be candidly discussed in their full magnitude. Doing so would be interpreted as criticism "based on his race," and therefore taboo.
Abetted by their liberal parrots in the "mainstream" media, Democrats have lately been playing the "hate card" virtually non-stop, and are laying the necessary groundwork to ensure that those on the right are forced into an entirely defensive posture, which is and has always been a guaranteed loser. And this effort has gone into overdrive ever since the January 8 mass murder by the deranged gunman Jared Loughner in Tucson.
However, even before the tragedy in Arizona, the standard Democrat/media ruse has been to characterize any opposition to their abhorrent agenda as some form of "hate." Efforts to slow the ongoing holocaust of abortion are rebranded as "hatred of women." The drive to preserve the time-honored and unalterable definition of marriage is recast as "hatred of homosexuals." And attempts to shore up our national borders, a standard practice of any country in history that wanted to preserve its culture and its national integrity, are decried as "hatred of those who look different from us."
So how can conservatives hope to prevail in such a jaded environment? And more significantly, who will they find to carry their banner, hopefully all the way to the White House? If they expect to navigate the course laid out for them by the left, the answer is that absolutely nobody will fit the bill. A contest fought entirely on terms laid out by the opposition is an exercise in futility. Avoiding any discussion of the sordid nature of the liberal opposition, and focusing instead entirely on "the issues" as defined by the left, means campaigning against the utopia they invariably promise.
Moreover, a candidate who refuses to address the glaring hypocrisy and fraud of the liberal opposition is exhibiting moral cowardice cloaked in the sanctimony of "refraining from personal attacks." Such politicians have historically gone soft at critical junctures, once in office, and do not inspire confidence from the electorate since they telegraph ahead of time that they do not play to win. After the fiascos of Republican "moderation" during the last decade, voters are in no mood for more of the same.
On the other hand, if the fervency of the past election cycle, as epitomized by the grassroots conservatism of the "Tea Party," can remain on course and unfazed by the derision from the political establishment, it can continue forward with unstoppable momentum. Self-assured conservatives, who are unafraid to trumpet their cause and willing to properly portray those on the left whose deeds have damaged the nation, can carry their banner to victory, and offer the nation a reprieve from the disastrous course of the past several years.
© Chris Adamo
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
