With President Obama Polling At 43% What Price The "Permanent Democratic Majority"? 2014 Mid-Terms Would Be A Dem Disaster

Down it goes: Reuters today 43% http://tiny.cc/uinjtw

Two days ago President Obama's approval rating, was at its lowest level Gallup 3 day average.since his re-election  with an approval rating  of 46%"

All the post-election guff about the GOP being forever out of power and the emerging Democratic majority based on Hispanics/demographics will go out the window if this trend continues to the mid-terms which will then make 2010 look like a close race. 

With the GOP running the senate and house and governorships and state houses and Supreme Court what Democratic majority then? President Obama would spend the last two "legacy years" as the lamest of lame ducks.

The opportunity, in 2016 for a "New Reagan" a genuinely conservative GOP candidate/president will be the best  since 1988

One Crucial Missing Factor In Gingrich's Formula For GOP Recovery Without Which Dem's Will Always Dominate

Cross posted at Palin4President2016

The following sentence is, unless taken very seriously, a death sentence for any hope of the Republican party overcoming what Newt Gingrich described a "decisive realignment" and consolidation in power for the Democrats by 2016.

REBECCA SCHOENKOPF (Editor of leftist site "Wonkette) :"Last night, your editrix got home from her journalism class — no, idiot twitterers, which she teaches"

Certainly the urgent call to arms by Gingrich in which he sets out the current, dangerous, situation and gives remedies is appropriate. But even if successful in staving off the Dem's 2016 time frame unless one further, and vital step is taken, the respite will be temporary.

Ed Morrisey at HOT AIR (Link) gave this overview of Gingrich's statements and

plan;

"Earlier today, Newt Gingrich appeared on CBS This Morning to explain just how far in the hole Republicans are in relation to Democrats in voter outreach.  “You can’t just be an opposition party,” Gingrich warned.  “You have to be a party that has a better alternative.”  Even when the GOP has a better alternative, though, the party lost elections it should have won because of poor strategy and direction from its consultant class. 

Gingrich isn’t just voicing that message on the airwaves.  He met yesterday with Republican staffers on Capitol Hill on strategy and messaging, and a Congressional aide has passed along Gingrich’s handout at the meeting to Hot Air . Gingrich warned Republican staffers that Barack Obama has a strategy of “relentless cynicism” and demagoguery, designed to marginalize Republicans as “extreme,” and relying on the media to carry his water"

As with everything I have seen from Gingrich, most notably his 2012 plan for America, the insight and intelligence of the man shines through  Given that Palin didn't run it is a tragedy that Gingrich did not get the nomination as he would have run a campaign of ideas which would have put the Obama administration on the back foot. However that is water under the bridge sadly and Republicans now have to deal with the threat of a "permanent Democratic majority."

In point 3. of Gingrich's description of the"first steps" fightback strategy he identified these needs:"Virtually every element of the GOP, party leaders, incumbents, staffs, candidates, consultants, pollsters, need to be trained into the 21st century new model GOP." 

Absolutely correct but one major element is missing in this training and that is future right wing journalists. Here 
AT THIS LINK is a list of the leftists"Journolists" who were so devastatingly effective in their efforts against  (particularly Palin) the McCain/Palin team in 2008. It is astonishing in its depth of familiar names-all of whom are supposed to be, at least somewhat, impartial members of the press.Here, 
AT THIS LINK is a 'Daily Caller" article abut the Journolists in action in 2008

Yet these names were only the overt activists there were innumerable other political reporters in newspapers,magazines, on television and radio and of course the Blogosphere all backing the Obama campaign.Certainly the GOP had support, most notably from Fox but even the most partial observer would, if they were honest, admit to the massive media support for Obama.

And here we have, with the Schoenkopf example, a clear illustration of the problem for the GOP. Schoenkopf edits an avowedly leftist blog, comes from a communist background and is an admitted socialist (AT THIS LINK) And here she is training a new generation of journalists! 

All of Gingrich's outstanding plans and remedies will eventually come to nought if every time a Republican runs for the presidency, especially if that candidate is a true conservative  they will be under relentless attack from the leftist media which will only grow in strength given the Schoenkopf example and the other academic examples at e.g. Harvard as identified by Ted Cruz.

The Republican strategists must acknowledge this problem and consider ways to counter it. perhaps funding for promising students to attend journalism school might be considered but whatever the solution unless this real and present danger is addressed all other plans and schemes will be negated.

Here is Gingrich's analysis and remedy

THE CURRENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 28,2013

Newt Gingrich Draft

KEY PRINCIPLE:

Someone playing chess will always beat someone playing tic tac toe.

Strategy beats tactics.

THE OBAMA STRATEGY FOR 2014 and 2016

It is clear President Obama has decided that he can win a decisive realignment in 2014 and then consolidate his party in power in 2016.

To achieve that he will implement six specific strategies:

1. There will be a permanent 24/7 campaign to dominate the media
2. There will be a constant issue focus shifting to topics which isolate Republicans and arouse the President's allies at the grassroots
3. Relentless cynicism will characterize the manipulation of facts, the choice of issues and the willingness to harm the American people and American institutions ( "maximum pain for political gain" is the underlying system)
4. The entire coalition of left wing allies will be mobilized over and over to overmatch the Republicans ( think Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, unions, gay rights groups, etc etc)
5. The Republican Party will be relentlessly attacked and defined in extremist language ( anti-immigrant, homophobic, racist, waging war on women, etc) so the collapse and isolation of the brand makes candidates unacceptable and unelected with no regard for their personal characteristics
6. The 2012 turnout mechanisms will be modernized, improved and strengthened to try to make 2014 turnout resemble 2012 rather than 2010.

FACED WITH THIS REALITY THE CURRENT GOP IS HOPELESSLY OVERMATCHED.

FIRST STEPS:

1. The GOP has to admit that it is currently incapable of moving at the speed and intensity of the Obama system, with the scale of the Obama system, or with the strategic depth and technological capabilities of the Obama system. Until Republicans understand how big the gap is they will continue to lose ground.
2. A new model Republican doctrine and system has to be developed capable of matching the Obama strategy and system.
3. Virtually every element of the GOP, party leaders, incumbents, staffs, candidates, consultants, pollsters, need to be trained into the 21st century new model GOP.
4. Metrics have to be developed for measuring performance.

SOME KEY PRINCIPLES

1. The system of planning has to be Values Vision Metrics Strategies Projects Tasks
2. There has to be a vision focusing on a better American future not on an anti-Obama message
3. There is no red and blue. There are 311,000,000 Americans who deserve a better life than the Obama big government redistributionist model can give them. This will require an even bigger, better data system than the Obama machine built.
4. The GOP has to match or surpass the combination of data and behavioral science which the Democrats have developed since 2004.
5. Republicans have to build a system for a permanent campaign with a 24/7 strategy and media capability.
6. If you aren't on offense you are on defense. There are no time outs. Every morning you know your status. If you aren't on offense you are on defense. If you don't win the argument you won't win the vote( a Margaret Thatcher rule).
7. Republicans simply must learn to communicate effectively, emotionally and in a compelling human way.
8. Republicans have to learn to compete in the entire media culture including entertainment media and Internet based media. Republicans have to go where the voters go.
9. Including minorities is a key to success. This will be challenging, at times confusing, and fraught with frustration. Every Republican incumbent, leader and candidate should allocate one third of their time meeting with minority Americans. The first goal has to be to practice listen-learn-help-lead as a model. As Jack Kemp used to say "they have to know that you care before they care that you know". This one principle is an absolute key to any Republican hope to be a majority party.
10. This scale of change requires systematic leadership, metrics for achievement, and encouragement for those willing to take the risks, spend the energy and lead the way. It is a direction not a structure and it will inevitably have some chaotic, imperfect and even confusing moments.
11. Every Republican activist would do well to read California Lieutenant Governor (and former Mayor of San Francisco)' s new book Citizenville. While we will disagree with some parts of it, it is the best description I have found of the potential for a citizen centric model of civil society to replace the Washington centered bureaucratic model which is currently serving a so badly.
12. Humor can be an enormous advantage, especially at a time when people are anxious about the economy, tired of the political fighting, etc. Note Reagan and Lincoln used media constantly.

Learn From The Enemy;Frank Rich "In the end, the (GOP) party's best bet may be not to do something but just stand there until history cycles back to it

In a long piece at the New York magazine, Frank Rich a solid leftists describes every possible negative currently afflicting (he says) the Republican party. From Rubio's apparent immediate rise and fall to-well everything. You can read the whole mishegas "Lipstick On An Elephant"
HERE


After a massive litany of all the woes afflicting the GOP which is in all the stages of grief and denial, except acceptance he advises, Rich exhibits good sense by writing off all the supposed ameliorative, cosmetic changes being banded about by the spin masters and media consultants and concludes with this pithy sentence

" Its current leaders are more faithful than ever—more faithful than Nixon, Ford, and both George Bushes ever were—to the principles laid down by Goldwater and Reagan. In the end, the party’s best bet may be not to do something but just stand there until history cycles back to it once more."

Rich makes the point that after the Goldwater electoral defeat the core conservative element in the party not only refused to accept the centrists demand for a more inclusive GOP but kept to their core principles and eventually won and brought the 'Reagan revolution".

The concept was valid then and is valid now and instead of, as he rightly points out, cosmetic candidates like Rubio, first and last principles should guide the leadership. In commenting on the GOP primary campaign in 2012 Sarah Palin, in a not so veiled reference to Mitt Romney said, to paraphrase "we need a candidate who is not learning to be a conservative on the job."

If the GOP is to stick to the knitting rather than don the "lipstick" that Rich rightly excoriates as a false covering to true principles then Palin, or a Palin-ite leader should don the mantle of Reagan and Reagan-ism.

 Rich is wrong when he includes Akin as amongst the true face of the Republican party, as he should know that Palin, and many others, from all wings of the party, condemned Akin's statement on rape.

Nor is he correct in saying that Republicans voted for Akin (in the primary) because he expressed what they want. It would be difficult to imagine that if he had made his rape statement in the primary campaign that he would have been selected.

However, we can allow Rich a bit of exaggeration and hyperbole as he padded out his massive list of Republican failings because his conclusion is the correct one. CPAC will reinforce this conclusion and I would believe that Palin will emerge from it as the true to conservatism in practice and philosophy Reagan for 2016.

Lech Walesa;"A (Gay) minority should not impose itself on the majority" Hollywood/Leftist Journalists Take Note

Polish hero of the battle against communism and former President Lech Walesa spoke his mind, as is his wont, regarding gays in Polish life with a particular reference to political and social influence.

Walesa speaks bluntly which
no doubt comes from his working class background, and the struggles he has fought but that does not in any way invalidate the social concern he expresses in his own way.

Yahoo described Walesa comments with shock/horror type headlines in a report from the Associated Press (which runs anti-Palin headlines as a matter of course) ;

"Lech Walesa shocks Poland with anti-gay words"

Here is a what Walesa said in part, the whole article is AT THIS LINK

"They have to know that they are a minority and must adjust to smaller things. And not rise to the greatest heights, the greatest hours, the greatest provocations, spoiling things for the others and taking (what they want) from the majority," he told the private broadcaster TVN during a discussion of gay rights. "I don't agree to this and I will never agree to it."
"A minority should not impose itself on the majority," Walesa said.

Perhaps surprisingly the comment section has many supportive remarks-basically allowing for Walesa right to speak his mind. There was one sage comment which advised that the same free press that walesa made free, with the right to be as leftist as they wish, is attacking him.
Walesa is not saying that gays should have no rights, which would be preposterous. What he is saying is that they, as a minority , do not have the absolute tight to impose their point of view on society. 

This, his viewpoint is one I mirrored in respect of leftist Hollywood and the leftist media doing exactly that through their power of creating television programs and movies setting out what is a minority situation as "the new normal".

Here is an article I wrote on the subject when the Academy Awards were due, which I believe Walesa's comments validate

*****************************************************************

The kids are not all right.


Once again the denizens of Hollywood are using their unique propaganda tool, the Academy Awards, in the aid of their warped social philosophy.

It is a fair assumption, one only has to peruse the cover of  a gossip magazine, that a higher proportion of neurotics,drug users, out and out societal misfits, and the just plain mad who compose a proportion of the entertainment industry in numbers well  above the national average, will be gathered together on awards night.

On top of their collective neuroses, and surely actors by their very profession are subject to various manifestations of eccentricity, they have, through the massive reach of their medium, enormous power, wealth and great influence on the average person.

Thus what just a few years ago would have been considered a gross perversion, if not illegal and generally not even possible, same sex couples adopting, or creating via the loving mechanics of a turkey baster, babies.

High profile entertainment industry types, can, through their wealth and media power, undertake actions which if a normal person attempted it they would be castigated or even arrested for breaking societies taboos. Over the years we have seen these structures of society attacked and then broken and then made commonplace by actors.

At one time, not too long ago for a couple, heterosexual that is, gays would have been unthinkable, to live together openly in a sexual relationship would have been impossible,especially if children were involved.
Then major "stars" started doing so, the radical communist Vanessa Redgrave springs to mind as an example.

Shock horror newspaper headlines followed, then the glossies started to make it "interesting' and shortly after it became "normal" irrespective of what example it set for society and the effect it would have on children of such relationships. Of course such unstable relationships composed of unstable people break up one after another with untold harm on the innocents who are caught up in such horrors.

That aspect of normal society undermined the next attack,Gay and lesbian same sex relationships adopting children hove into view. Again, the unthinkable becomes,via the wealth,"prestige", and power of entertainment types perfectly acceptable to society. Elton John and partner adopts, how is it possible for men of their age in the first place to adopt an infant? Cynthia Nixon's "fiancee' gives birth amongst recent examples.

There are no long term studies on how children who grow up in these unnatural parenting relationships adjust in society.What sort of difficulties to they encounter at school amongst their peers? Do the have trouble establishing an heterosexual relationship? 

What effect will this have on population trends amongst Western nations and if they decline what will be the economic effects and the social effects as more third world labor is needed to take up the slack?

Hollywood doesn't care-all the denizens care about is satisfying their ego's, carnal nature and their hedonism "Cocaine is God's way of telling you you have too much money" Robin Williams is quoted as saying, Lohan, Sheen-well the list of examples is endless. Now having children has become their latest status symbol. It started with the adopting out of Africa craze and now has spread to same sex couples.

There are no barriers to satisfying their needs for those in the entertainment industry. Same sex parenting a no no? The propaganda machine starts. The first foray was The Birdcage with lovable characters, then "The kids are all right" whose premise is " look we lesbian parent couples are not weird, we have all the "normal" family problems and squabbles just like everyone else so our parenting is "normal"-just like everyone else.

Society has accepted that same sex couples can and should they wish live in a relationship protected by law-it is called a civil union. Where the public has had the opportunity to vote on the matter, even in ultra-liberal California, they have rejected same sex "marriage." 

Perhaps same sex parenting should also be put to the popular will, which is after all society itself, because if same sex marriage is not acceptable then perhaps same sex parenting which has the potential to inflict much psychic damage, is too important to leave to the propaganda mill that will be on show at the Academy Awards.

Bloomberg's Millions Buy's Win For Chicago Candidate.Could He Be Elected President 2016?

Robin Kelly, with the massive financial support of New York's Mayor Bloomberg has won the primary battle to replace Jesse Jackson Jr. in Chicago. Kelly's opponent made it clear that she had no chance against  the millions of "outside money."

Presuming mayor Bloomberg has no interest in running for Mayor again (term limits are no obstacle when a billionaire is in the mix as he showed last time) he may be emboldened by his Chicago success, where unlimited money brought victory. If so emboldened, he may consider doing a Perot, and running as an Independent (there being no money in the world which would see him nominated by the Republicans) in 2016.

Could money, and frankly more credibility than Ross Perot ever had, see a Bloomberg presidency? If there is a financial collapse then a massively successful businessman with unlimited financial campaign resources would have a strong story to tell and anything is possible no matter how unlikely. But, at the current level of unemployment and the "time for a change" meme, Bloomberg could not win but could assist a genuine conservative to be elected.

If the GOP nominated a true conservative, which I expect to be the case, for instance Sarah Palin, then I would expect Bloomberg to run. The scenario is perfect for him-"eight wasted years of Democrat rule and we can't turn the clock back" etc-it writes itself. As long as the GOP nominated centrists like McCain and Romney, Bloomberg didn't make his move but 2016 is set up perfectly for him.

If this played out and Hillary was the Dem's nominee leftists heads would explode with the thought of their beloved in jeopardy and their Alinsky machine unable to operate against Bloomberg's billions.

According to this analysis the Bloomberg front groups, were testing the waters, structurally wise, back in 2010 . This, after a series of trial balloons, speculative media articles, and the usual coy denials.


Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post- A Beltway mainstay of there ever was one joined the trial balloon lift off. She named names and further tills the soil . People don't raise a million dollars for fun-this is serious business.

She concludes her column with this statement;

"All that's missing from a centrist movement that could be formidable is a leader....Anyone?"

I think that "anyone" except Bloomberg need not bother applying for this leadership position.

Certainly Bloomberg would, like Perot before him, have substantial financial resources to launch a viable third party campaign. Unlike Perot however, Bloomberg would not be seen as quirky. Looking objectively, Bloomberg would be a serious and respected candidate, whose business/financial, administrative skills are unquestioned. He could organize a support team of top flight professionals, and would be a skilled debater.

He is of course nobody's fool, and if he did run it would be because he saw a path to victory. Certainly no one could accuse him of running as a quixotic gesture, Rather, he would be viewed as running to advance a set of principles, especially gun control, and to block a conservative from being elected. Such a run could well see the exact opposite happen.


Map 1. shows what I believe Bloomberg's (represented on the map by "Undecided") maximum result might be-the result of which is ideal for Palin as a lead in the Electoral College imparts more of a mandate. Realistically he is not going to win the Republican states of the South and Midwest. 

No candidate in this scenario has the required 270 electoral votes and the House of Representatives would decide the winner from amongst the top two candidates. A Republican House would of course choose Palin, over a Dem.

Map 2. Shows Bloomberg's worst case scenario. It denies the Dem candidate 270 electoral votes even he/she wins Florida, (Hard to pick because of the Jewish vote) with the House again choosing Palin.

Even if Bloomberg mounted a hugely successful campaign, and the economy was so poor that he won (Map 3) the rust belt states, plus Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, California-flights of fancy no doubt but, who knows? Teddy Roosevelt slaughtered Taft running as a Progressive in 1912  in his third party campaign. Palin would still be situated in first place in the electoral college with the House choosing her subsequently.

Personally speaking as a Manhattanite, I would not hesitate to vote for Bloomberg (splitting my vote for all the Republican candidates below president of course) in New York. In point of fact, if most Republicans, joined by PUMA's did that, Bloomberg would have a great chance of winning the state. My vote would, instead of being "wasted" go obliquely to helping Palin win-wonderful! And if voters similarly voted tactically in California, Connecticut and New Jersey-so much the better.

As has been shown on numerous occasions, the latest being the 2000 election where Bush lost the popular vote by half a million, the popular vote is of secondary importance.What happens in the electoral college, and possibly subsequently in the House is all that matters. Whether there is a "mandate" can be discussed by pundits for four years subsequent to the 2012 election. The Dem's were happy for Woodrow Wilson to win by a plurality of popular votes, so the have no cause for complaining about mandates.

"Run Mike Run". I look forward to having my vote count towards electing Palin by you winning New York. Whatever the election result the split in the GOP would be irreparable and a genuinely conservative republican party would be a permanaent fixture.

                                  MAP 1

MAP 2

MAP 3