Chris Adamo
Hold the presses! Romney disenfranchises Chicago voters!
By Chris Adamo
By now, everyone has heard Vice-President Joe Biden's outrageous and despicable August 14 assertion to a Danville Virginia audience that Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan intend to "put y'all back in chains," as well as Romney's justifiably angry response that the Obama team should "take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago." Of course in the present media climate, with the major networks claiming to be "mainstream" and CNN touting itself as "centrist," the entire episode has essentially been trivialized, at least for the moment.
It is wholly predictable that if the Romney/Ryan ticket maintains its current momentum, the Democrat/media propaganda machine will raise the tenor of its attacks still further,, revisiting every past episode of the campaign with glaring liberal bias, the end goal being to somehow make the Republicans look bad while presenting the Obama/Biden cabal in the most positive light. At that point, they will undoubtedly resurrect this exchange, but with an entirely different spin intended to cast the Republicans at a disadvantage.
We can fully expect to hear Romney's reference to "Chicago politics" as an unforgivable slam against Chicagoans. And given the ethnic makeup of that region, it will not be long before some "objective" reporter suggests that, at the root of Romney's antipathy towards the Windy City is, you guessed it, racism. You heard it here first.
Never mind the detestable nature of the Biden statement that prompted Romney's reaction, or the countless other truly contemptible and wholly baseless accusations from the Obama campaign and its cheerleaders on Capitol Hill, along with DNC Chair (and liberal pit viper) Debbie Wasserman Shultz. The moment the network anchors decide that their comments are not relevant, or choose to accept the expected flimsy and predictable excuse that such lies and shameless allegations were "taken out of context," the entire focus of any right/left altercation shifts to the unpardonable words of conservatives.
Too many times in the past, genuine conservative momentum has been completely dispersed, merely by putting its key players on the defensive over some minuscule or even totally immaterial infraction of what the left considers to be proper decorum. It matters little that the boundaries of such "controversies" are constantly shifting, in order to steer clear of any possibility that the liberal candidates might have breached them. Once leftists determine that a violation of their standards of decency has occurred, they will relentlessly pummel their quarry, demanding apologies and resignations, even suggesting that jail time might also be appropriate.
By far the most pathetic aspect of these orgies of sanctimony and hypocrisy is that, far too frequently, those on the right give them an air of legitimacy by accepting their premises and reacting defensively to them. Fraud and double standards, no matter how excessively and hysterically presented, will invariably appear more valid and plausible if their targets respond to them as such. Conversely, when liberals are confronted with their own extreme and fallacious words, they either continue as if they are unaware of any problem, or offer some extraneous argument as concrete proof to bolster their point.
In this manner, the left has successfully derailed conservative candidates not on any substantive deficiencies of policy, but by manufacturing a controversy out of whole cloth and harping on it incessantly. Worst of all, in most such cases the aspiring conservative could have successfully repelled the attack, by merely remaining on message and utilizing every ensuing assault as an opportunity to reaffirm the original point.
Of course this counterstrategy becomes far more difficult the moment some other available self-aggrandizing "conservative" perceives the situation as an opportunity to prove himself/herself morally or philosophically superior to the individual under assault. The net result of this deplorable sequence of events is that good candidates are summarily targeted and politically annihilated by an aggressive and coordinated liberal attack, aided and abetted by Republicans and conservatives who are foolishly concerned with appearing amiable and palatable to their enemies.
If, on a continual basis, liberals are thus empowered to determine who on our side is a worthwhile candidate, and whose "faults" render them unfit for office (a verdict typically rendered with absolute finality in the wake of a single misstep), is it any wonder that the makeup of the Republican Party, particularly at its inner circles, is hardly a representation of conservative America, and is instead a collaborator with the liberal establishment? As long as "our side" persists in seeking the approval of the left, we can be assured that the only individuals to be found worthy are those who advance the agenda of the left.
Representative Todd Akin (R.-MO) misspoke, and has since rescinded his errors. Yet the entire liberal establishment in this country, desperately seeking some topic other than the crumbling economy to occupy the headlines and news reports, behave as if he shot up a movie theater (another event that they shamelessly tried to pin on conservatives, by the way). Almost immediately "our side," as if stampeded by the ferocity of the liberal onslaught, went into high gear, castigating Akin with a fervor that they rarely direct at Democrats. Certainly, Akin's words did not cost the lives of hundreds of innocent people, as did the "Fast and Furious" debacle of Attorney General Eric Holder or the Administration that sanctioned his actions. Yet the conservative community is, in comparison, remarkably subdued to the outrage it represents.
Does anyone seriously question the nature of Supreme Court Justices Akin would vote to confirm, his commitment to protecting the rights of innocent and helpless people, or his resolve to uphold constitutional principle? And are conservatives nevertheless willing to throw him overboard in order to display "good intentions" to a hostile and ethically bankrupt political opposition? If such is the manner in which conservatives intend to engage the left, they should abandon any expectation of ever prevailing. And they should also know that they are feeding the monster that, at its earliest opportunity, will eagerly consume them as well. Every word spoken against their flawed cohorts will immediately be used as ammunition to be redirected at the entire movement.
© Chris Adamo
August 24, 2012
By now, everyone has heard Vice-President Joe Biden's outrageous and despicable August 14 assertion to a Danville Virginia audience that Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan intend to "put y'all back in chains," as well as Romney's justifiably angry response that the Obama team should "take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago." Of course in the present media climate, with the major networks claiming to be "mainstream" and CNN touting itself as "centrist," the entire episode has essentially been trivialized, at least for the moment.
It is wholly predictable that if the Romney/Ryan ticket maintains its current momentum, the Democrat/media propaganda machine will raise the tenor of its attacks still further,, revisiting every past episode of the campaign with glaring liberal bias, the end goal being to somehow make the Republicans look bad while presenting the Obama/Biden cabal in the most positive light. At that point, they will undoubtedly resurrect this exchange, but with an entirely different spin intended to cast the Republicans at a disadvantage.
We can fully expect to hear Romney's reference to "Chicago politics" as an unforgivable slam against Chicagoans. And given the ethnic makeup of that region, it will not be long before some "objective" reporter suggests that, at the root of Romney's antipathy towards the Windy City is, you guessed it, racism. You heard it here first.
Never mind the detestable nature of the Biden statement that prompted Romney's reaction, or the countless other truly contemptible and wholly baseless accusations from the Obama campaign and its cheerleaders on Capitol Hill, along with DNC Chair (and liberal pit viper) Debbie Wasserman Shultz. The moment the network anchors decide that their comments are not relevant, or choose to accept the expected flimsy and predictable excuse that such lies and shameless allegations were "taken out of context," the entire focus of any right/left altercation shifts to the unpardonable words of conservatives.
Too many times in the past, genuine conservative momentum has been completely dispersed, merely by putting its key players on the defensive over some minuscule or even totally immaterial infraction of what the left considers to be proper decorum. It matters little that the boundaries of such "controversies" are constantly shifting, in order to steer clear of any possibility that the liberal candidates might have breached them. Once leftists determine that a violation of their standards of decency has occurred, they will relentlessly pummel their quarry, demanding apologies and resignations, even suggesting that jail time might also be appropriate.
By far the most pathetic aspect of these orgies of sanctimony and hypocrisy is that, far too frequently, those on the right give them an air of legitimacy by accepting their premises and reacting defensively to them. Fraud and double standards, no matter how excessively and hysterically presented, will invariably appear more valid and plausible if their targets respond to them as such. Conversely, when liberals are confronted with their own extreme and fallacious words, they either continue as if they are unaware of any problem, or offer some extraneous argument as concrete proof to bolster their point.
In this manner, the left has successfully derailed conservative candidates not on any substantive deficiencies of policy, but by manufacturing a controversy out of whole cloth and harping on it incessantly. Worst of all, in most such cases the aspiring conservative could have successfully repelled the attack, by merely remaining on message and utilizing every ensuing assault as an opportunity to reaffirm the original point.
Of course this counterstrategy becomes far more difficult the moment some other available self-aggrandizing "conservative" perceives the situation as an opportunity to prove himself/herself morally or philosophically superior to the individual under assault. The net result of this deplorable sequence of events is that good candidates are summarily targeted and politically annihilated by an aggressive and coordinated liberal attack, aided and abetted by Republicans and conservatives who are foolishly concerned with appearing amiable and palatable to their enemies.
If, on a continual basis, liberals are thus empowered to determine who on our side is a worthwhile candidate, and whose "faults" render them unfit for office (a verdict typically rendered with absolute finality in the wake of a single misstep), is it any wonder that the makeup of the Republican Party, particularly at its inner circles, is hardly a representation of conservative America, and is instead a collaborator with the liberal establishment? As long as "our side" persists in seeking the approval of the left, we can be assured that the only individuals to be found worthy are those who advance the agenda of the left.
Representative Todd Akin (R.-MO) misspoke, and has since rescinded his errors. Yet the entire liberal establishment in this country, desperately seeking some topic other than the crumbling economy to occupy the headlines and news reports, behave as if he shot up a movie theater (another event that they shamelessly tried to pin on conservatives, by the way). Almost immediately "our side," as if stampeded by the ferocity of the liberal onslaught, went into high gear, castigating Akin with a fervor that they rarely direct at Democrats. Certainly, Akin's words did not cost the lives of hundreds of innocent people, as did the "Fast and Furious" debacle of Attorney General Eric Holder or the Administration that sanctioned his actions. Yet the conservative community is, in comparison, remarkably subdued to the outrage it represents.
Does anyone seriously question the nature of Supreme Court Justices Akin would vote to confirm, his commitment to protecting the rights of innocent and helpless people, or his resolve to uphold constitutional principle? And are conservatives nevertheless willing to throw him overboard in order to display "good intentions" to a hostile and ethically bankrupt political opposition? If such is the manner in which conservatives intend to engage the left, they should abandon any expectation of ever prevailing. And they should also know that they are feeding the monster that, at its earliest opportunity, will eagerly consume them as well. Every word spoken against their flawed cohorts will immediately be used as ammunition to be redirected at the entire movement.
© 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.)
