Preibus / RNC’s Primary Campaign Solutions? All Wrong

by C. Edmund Wright on January 25, 2014

The author observed and chronicled the 2011-12 Primary/nomination season from inside a Super PAC: and analyzes this in his book WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again.

In typical establishment fashion, Reince Preibus and the wizards at the RNC have looked at the last Presidential nomination cycle and learned the wrong lessons. They have concluded that not allowing Mitt Romney a smooth coronation was the problem, and they are out to make sure their annointed one never has to face that again. As such, the prescriptions for change recently announced by Preibus will only make things worse. This is what happens when a national party is isolated from – and igorant of – their nation.

Yes, the debates did become a series of shameless food fights as the process unfolded – and something should be done about that. But what exactly? One might think that the establishment consultants would look in the mirror and figure out that it was they, and their candidates, who made it so. As long as the debates were focused on the problems of Obama and liberal judges, liberals in Congress, liberal academics, liberal unions and liberals in the media, the debates were awesome. We needed more of those debates. Of course, only Herman Cain, and at two different times Newt Gingrich, had this figured out.

It was precisely this strategy that propelled each to the lead in the national polls, Cain in November and early December 2011, and then Newt once in December of 2011 and again during the South Carolina Primary week in 2012. Go back and check the debate tapes and the polls if you don’t believe me. Both men hammered only the opposition, while the others threw food at each other. Who can forget the absurd over the top attacks from Michele Bachman on Rick Perry’s vaccintion program, not to mention the argument Perry and Romney had about  who was mowing whose yard. I mean, we all would like to, but those images are seared into our memories.

Had any of these candidates, or their over paid under observant consultants taken a big picture look at what was going on, it would have been obvious that the voters were craving only two things: a plan for beating Obama and then a plan to undo his damage once that was accomplished. Cain and Newt, neither with any money, both rocketed to the top of the heap by doing just this and by complimenting the other Republicans. Newt was especially effective, often taking down self righteous journalists like Juan Williams and John King in the process of exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism.

The other campaigns? Not so much.

The Mitt Romney money machine, which spent 99% of their ad budget in Florida savaging Newt – while ignoring the word ‘Obama’ and even the name ‘Mitt,’ was primarily responsible. But then again, so was Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Bachman, Perry and Jon Huntsman once Newt had gained a 14 point lead in Iowa. Unfortunately, Newt responded to this surreal 6 against 1 attack poorly too, resorting to the foolish “Bain Capital” attack ads in Iowa and New Hampshire – and then joining Romney in the gutter in Florida. Ah, there’s the good Newt, but also the bad Newt.

So what happened in between New Hampshire and Florida? South Carolina happened.

And in the Palmetto State, the path to victory was demonstrated. The week of the campaign, including the Monday/Thursday debate schedule, was a week long attack by conservatism against liberalism. Newt stole the show, simply because he is better at this than any of the others, but Newt is not the point. The message is the point, and they all were on message in South Carolina. The result was a 13 point win for Newt, but more than that, it was a win for the GOP. Turn out and interest skyrocketed, with turn out exceeding 2008 turn out by 35%. They all won. Conservatism won. Liberalism lost.

The message of South Carolina was the winning message, and had Romney – or any candidate – carried that message into November, Barack Obama would likely be retired in Hawaii by now. Perhaps this is why Republicans only gain the White House when they nominate the S.C. winner. The message in S.C. was also similar to the organic message of the 2010 mid terms, and not far from the 1994 mid term message as well. Oh, for the record, those were the two best elections for Republicans in modern history.

In Florida two days later, at the Monday debate, that message was totally jettisoned however.

Mitt and the bad Newt, who clearly cannot stand each other, got into a pathetic intramural skirmish and Santorum “won” the debate by being ignored. It didn’t matter however, as Mitt’s television money overwhelmed the process, scorched the earth, and he won Florida while Newt was second. The race was over at that point for all intents and purposes. Voter turn out in Florida was lower than 2008, which is astonishing, considering that McCain won Florida in 08 by being more un-Republican than his counterparts. Turn outs continued to tank in every other state after that as Mitt ran an awful campaign of destruction – virtually calling Newt the devil before insisting that Obama is “a nice guy.” It’s also an open secret that his supporters funded Santorum’s attacks on Newt, only to savage Santorum once Newt was dispatched.

This is the GOP establishment at work in typical form: using shock and awe against conservatives while tip toeing around the real opposition.

Now there are solutions to the problems of 2012, and a great place to start would be to nix this Iowa Caucus/New Hampshire Primary start. The caucus only system in Iowa produces an oddball tiny population on single issuer voters, while the cross-over voting in New Hampshire produces results that have nothing in common with the conservative base of the nation. The net result of these two states having outsized influence is a tendency against limited government conservatives winning. This is not an accident, either.

Another easy solution would be to choose conservative media figures to moderate the debates. Preibus has finally acknowledged this as an idea, several years behind the times. Back in August 2011, I publicly advocated for moderators like Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. If the GOP did this, there would be a call for even more debates, and their wouldn’t be any silly intramural side shows.

But this escapes Preibus, who blames the process for the “slicing and dicing of each other” that went on in 2011-12. No Reince, it was not the process. It was the establishment, panicking because their hand picked candidate was being rejected by 75% of the base, who started and funded most of the slicing and dicing. It was the establishment, too isolated to understand that they were being played for fools by allowing liberal journalists into our debates, that promoted the slicing and dicing. The problem, as always, is the establishment – which is why establishment thinking will not make things any better in 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pablo Torre screenshotAs published at BREITBART: by C. Edmund Wright

ESPN’s  normally excellent “Sports Reporters” show joined the ranks of GLAAD, Organizing For America (OFA), Out2Enroll and others in yet another attempt by the cultural left to redefine what it means to be a man in this country in 2013. At least, this was the apparent goal of panelist Pablo Torre, who ended the show inhis Parting Shot (all four panelist get a parting shot each week) with a soliloquy titled “Redefining Masculinity.” It can be searched and found under that name in fact, and for what it’s worth, you will notice that Torre could easily be a stand in for Ethan Krupp as Pajama Boy, but would not “blend” on the set ofDuck Dynasty at all.

“My story of the year did not arrive with a single blaring headline” began Torre, stretching the very notion of a top story of the year by insisting “instead, there was a procession of news about NFL players and concussions, and athletes finally coming out of the closet, and bullying by teammates and coaches – that all forced us to consider the same question: what does it really mean to be a man?”

Really?

What had forced us all to consider that question of what it means to be a man was more likely the Duck Dynasty controversy – and the emergence of Robertson as a national figure and traditional values icon – juxtaposed against the emergence of Pajama Boy as an ObamaCare spokesperson and all around hip young liberal. It had apparently escaped Torre, or perhaps he was simply in denial, that the nation had come down decisively on the side of Robertson in this battle of the redefined guy.

“In 2013, we learned that real men, like football players…need not ignore the illnesses tormenting them inside their heads” said Torre, intentionally conflating the issue of potential permanent brain injury with the broader topic of defining manhood down. “We learned that real men, like basketball players, need not deny their true selves” he added, referring to the coming out of Jason Collins. He then segued to Jonathan Martin v. Richie Incognito – and a scandal at Rutgers – by connoting ”we learned that real men, from college athletes to pros, need not tolerate emotional abuse to the point of suffering.”

Of course, in addition to the astonishing PR win by the Duck Dynasty clan over A&E and GLAAD, all indications are that many NFL players, and the Dolphins, have come down squarely on the side of Richie Incognito versus Martin, and Collins remains extremely un-employed as an NBA player. And yet, the very young Torre was declaring a victory for the ages for the new definition of men:

“Sports may be premised on certain traditions of masculinity…toughness, courage, strength” said Torre almost apologetically, but added confidently that “this year, we began refining that vocabulary. We learned that some old weaknesses, as defined by generations upon generations upon generations, need not be weaknesses at all.”

Without a doubt, Torre is onto something that our culture, sports included, is going through — a re-examination of what masculinity is. His conclusions, however, seem convoluted. The gliteratti may be celebrating Jason Collins and Jonathan Martin – but the nation is not. This is what happens when Pajama Boy arrogantly tries to change things that have been accepted for generation upon generation upon generation.

 

George Will’s recent column made me spit out my coffee – and not in laughter.

The piece was more evidence that living inside Washington can dull even the sharpest minds. There was a time when conservatives would point to Will’s wonky velvet hammer approach to exposing the follies of liberalism as a shining light inside a beltway filled with darkness. Today, his startling tone deafness is the most convincing evidence yet that he’s totally lost touch with American conservatives, and perhaps his senses altogether.

In today’s Washington Post, Will supports the reasonable thesis that conservatives have their most impact after liberals have had their way for a while.  And yet, he sets the stage for this with two profoundly ridiculous assumptions, both of which can only come from a mind eroded by too many cocktail parties inside the beltway.  Consider his first point:

It is difficult to recall and hard to believe that just three months ago some conservatives, mirroring progressives’ lack of respect for the public, considered it imperative to shut down the government in order to stop Obamacare in its tracks.

This is an absurdity wrapped in a falsehood. Only someone inside the nation’s richest eight counties could possibly consider shutting down the government as a sign of lack of respect for the public. That was demonstrated by the goons at the National Park Service and others.  Shutting it down was profound respect for the public, at least those who pay taxes.  Moreover, blaming conservatives, who control only one lever out of three in Washington, is a notion that only intimidated little GOP consultants could embrace.  And yet, Will gets even more preposterous with his next assertion:

They feared that once Americans got a glimpse of the law’s proffered subsidies, they would embrace it.

HUH????

This is astonishing.  I hate to break it to you Mr. Will, but no conservatives thought this way. Ted Cruz did not. Mike Lee did not, and neither did Rush Limbaugh nor Mark Levin or Sean Hannity – and neither did their listeners. We all knew at the time that the government shutdown issue would be buried under the avalanche of Obama care in short order, which is certainly has. Sir, we were never as wrong as you still are today.

Will has now fallen straight into Democrat Underground, Huffington Post, Debbie Sergeant Schultz territory with that analysis.  It is beyond foolish.  Apparently Will thought – back in September -that Obama care would indeed be a glorious thing.  Move over Nancy Pelosi, make room for Mr. Will on your team. He no longer even recognizes ours.

Yesterday on his show, Rush was warning conservatives not to take too much glee over the absurd “pajama boy” ad campaign for Obama Care.  He cited the example of Julia, the ad campaign for the Obama Campaign, and how that ended up working well for Obama even as conservatives were laughing at it.

Bad bad analogy.

First of all, the only reason Julia worked for Obama – is that Romney and the GOP elites ran away from confronting it.  Thus, along with the faux outrage over Rush himself and the Sandra Fluke issue – Obama and the liberals were allowed free reign to define Julia, Fluke, and the issues involved. They mis defined them, to Obama’s advtange, while Romney and Ryan stayed silent. In other words, Julia did not work – it was allowed to fester unopposed. It would have backfired, had we only fired upon it.

The reason pajama boy will backfire is that there is no frightened Romney campaign dominating the message. Contrasted with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, PJ boi will not stack up well. Besides, Pajama boy represents an intrusive government program that threatens to swallow all of us, and ruin our lives in the process. Julia, meanwhile, merely represented a small slice of society.

A&E Network Goes Duck Blind

December 18, 2013

When the smoke clears from this situation, Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty gang will emerge victorious, and the A&E network will be redfaced.  In what’s almost a mirror image of the Chick Fil-A situation, an American businessman is being punished and eviscerated publicly and his business pursuits are being cancelled by liberals – all [...]

Read the full article →

Did Rush Limbaugh Just Endorse iCongress Idea? (he did, whether he knows it or not)

December 16, 2013

Below is the full article….a slightly different version of this piece appears today in American Thinker. Last Thursday, Rush Limbaugh gave tacit approval of a stunning idea: a virtual Congress. Consider this article lead from June of 2011, when the news was dominated by Anthony Weiner’s junk being texted (or was it tweeted?) across the [...]

Read the full article →

Reality: Washington is always the last to know….

November 27, 2013

It’s kind of cute, almost, to see the brilliant wizards of Washington (and Manhattan) slowly catching up to the rest of us on Obama and Obamacare. Obamacare’s failure has been spectacularly clarifying and real, so much so that even an elitist struggles to ignore it.  You know the geniuses I am referring to; they reside [...]

Read the full article →

Time to re-launch the C. Edmund Wright “Give a Damn” Index?

November 24, 2013

Back in 2009, I did a series of blog features for American Thinker on polling, based around a number of new indices I formulated using existing polls from Rasmussen Reports and Real Clear Politics (RCP). The first new index was the “Give a Damn” index, which expressed Barack Obama’s disapproval intensity by comparing his “strong [...]

Read the full article →

Democrats Go From Merely Naked to buck Nekkid!

November 22, 2013

Blockbuster column SOON…..stay tooned…..

Read the full article →

Edmund and AJ host Doyle Show, Reids’ Nuke Option and HHS hail Mary show panic on Democrat side: NYT, Wash Po agree

November 22, 2013

WOW, what a news cycle. Actually, what a news FALL – the entire fall. It started with Ted Cruz’ filibuster, which is still totally misunderstood by the Jurassic media and the Republican establishment, and is still rolling along right now on the historic clunker known as Obama Care. Obama’s poll ratings are in free fall, [...]

Read the full article →