Sign up for our Email List For Email Marketing you can trust

The Fiscal Cliff or the Deal of the Century

By Scott Wheeler
11/27/12

The reelection of Barack Obama has increased the polarization of the country and heightened the distrust that conservatives have, not only for Obama, but also for those who voted for him.

Some conservatives are so frustrated they are calling for the Republican-controlled House to give Obama everything he wants so that the destruction wrought by his policies will punish the people who voted for him.  Conservatives see this as a "teachable moment" for Obama supporters -- you shall reap what you have sown; it is a sort of vengeance on those who voted for "revenge".

The problem with such an approach is that the Republican establishment is so inadequate when it comes to communicating with the public and battling the liberal media that they would still end up getting the blame for Obama's failed policies just as they have thus far.

While this may be a difficult moment it may also be an opportunity for Republicans to change the rules of political discourse that have been rigged in the Democrats' favor for so long. Republicans can do this by offering Obama free passage in the House for all his proposed legislation with one stipulation: if the economy is not better in specific measurable areas by October of 2014, Obama and Biden resign from office. This would give Republicans immunity from all damages and it would clear the political smoke so that the public would know who to blame for the bad economy.  

This offer should be made publically and loudly while frequently reminding voters that Obama ran for reelection on the basis that the "economy is headed in the right direction", and point out if Obama was telling the truth then just imagine how great the economy should be by October of 2014, with no resistance from Republicans.

Obama would likely reject the proposal and when he does Republicans are off the hook to support any of his policies. In fact, it would allow Republicans to outright refuse to even negotiate with him. This is how Republicans can retake the mantle of leadership, contain Obama's rhetoric, and demonstrate sincerity when they say Obama's policies will not work. It would then be up to Obama to explain why he has so little confidence in his economic policies.

Now is the best time for Republicans to present such a deal as the so-called "fiscal cliff" looms. Obama and the Democrats love the fiscal cliff scenario because they know it gives them another chance to blame House Republicans who, as usual, will not be able to defend themselves against the absurd accusations propagated by Democrats and promoted by their allies in the liberal media. In fact, there is already a Pew study that indicates over half of Americans will blame Republicans if a deal isn't reached and the fiscal cliff is avoided. That is why Democrats salivate like Pavlov's Dogs at the mere mention of the phrase "fiscal cliff".

Blame is the weapon of choice for Democrats and they are wielding it at Republicans to accept whatever they demand or they will drive us over the cliff and hand Republicans the car keys along with the responsibility. One of the reasons Obama won an election that he should have lost by a large margin was that he was successful in casting blame onto others for his failures. Republicans must find a way to finally get the public to hold Obama accountable for his policies and making this type of offer would accomplish that.

If Obama refuses the offer, Republicans can say they did everything possible to cooperate with the Administration but Obama refused to take responsibility for his own policies. Republicans need a plan that will change the direction of the blame that for twenty years has been one way. When the economic boom of the nineties occurred during Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, Clinton took credit and Obama just won reelection on that credit while blaming the bad economy on a Republican-controlled majority in the House, even though Democrats had been in control of the House from 2007 to 2011.

If Obama refuses this offer, and he likely will, Republicans can oppose any legislation he sends to the Congress while reminding everyone that Obama himself has refused to accept responsibility for the consequences.

Obama's Rare Moment of Candor

By Scott Wheeler
3/28/12

At the risk of sounding provocative or sensational, Obama has now given us more reasons to be concerned about his relationship with Russia. In a scene that can only be described as chilling, Obama was making a few final private remarks to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the end of a meeting between the two men when, unbeknownst to Obama, the microphones of reporters present at the meeting were able to give Americans a glimpse of the sheer cynicism and dastardliness of President Obama:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space.”

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The word “shocking” does not even begin to describe this utterly disturbing exchange. That an American president would tell the leader of another country that he planned to mislead his own citizens in order to be reelected so he can then create policy that favors that leader’s country is scandalous enough, but this is not the first time Obama has taken drastic steps to help Russia at the expense of American national security interests and those of our allies.

Two years ago, the FBI captured ten Russian spies working deep cover here in the U.S. These agents were said to have established contacts with both Obama officials and Clinton officials, but Obama and Eric Holder’s Justice Department immediately returned them to Russia to a hero’s welcome before our counter-intelligence agencies could interrogate these spies, thereby undermining a criminal case which a federal court in Manhattan was planning to bring against the spies. Because of that disgraceful act, we will never know the true extent to which these Russian agents were able to carry out their mission of infiltrating policymaking circles in Washington and New York to collect intelligence on the state of American politics and foreign policy to guide Russian relations with the U.S.

Several months later, immediately following the 2010 elections where Republicans gained seats in the Senate, Obama rushed the New START Treaty through the lame-duck Senate in a manner which was legally dubious at best. The Senate quickly ratified this treaty with “no changes,” per the requests of the Russian government. Like its predecessor, New START heavily favored the Russians national security at a great cost to ours by including no provisions for Russian disarmament of its tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia has a significant advantage over the U.S.

In 2009, Obama sold out our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, by announcing that we were pulling out our missile defense systems from those two countries. This announcement came despite the fact that the two countries had welcomed the presence of those systems, which we had already promised to build in response to Iran’s recent testing of a ballistic missile which could reach Poland as well as Russian attempts to reestablish hegemony in Eastern Europe. That action was in response to a demand made by Russia, and came on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

We have many reasons to fear Obama’s reelection and Obama himself is listing them for us, even if by accident. His words and actions in his dealings with Russia have been dangerous and, at times, have bordered on the treasonous. In his own words to Russian President Medvedev, he revealed that his reelection would usher in new U.S. policies in which Russia would be allowed to strengthen its military capabilities at the direct expense of U.S. national defense. It is as though he was saying, “I have to pretend that I am looking after my own country until after the election, and then I will capitulate.

Obama’s acknowledgement that he cannot be honest about his intentions in an election year makes the additional point that he does not want Americans to go to the polls with accurate information about his plans for our nation’s security. Americans should take Obama’s private conversation with Medvedev seriously and must now view his defeat in November as an imperative of national security.

Liberal Republicans Face Tough Primary Opposition

By Scott Wheeler
3/5/12

In 2009, the political character of the nation began to change. Barack Obama made the electorate more polarized than it ever had been as he became the face of the Washington political establishment and for many, the apparent enemy of traditional American values. It was also the point at which conservatives began to abandon Republicans who preferred status in the political establishment over the values of the people who have financially supported them and whose votes helped them win elections.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was forced to join the ranks of the Democrats after serving as a Republican in the U.S. Senate since 1980. Specter voted for Obama’s first stimulus in 2009 after being warned by the National Republican Trust PAC (GOP Trust) that any Republican who voted for the nearly one trillion dollar spending spree would face a well financed opponent. Specter chose to switch parties and lost in the Democrat primary.

Last week Olympia Snowe renounced her bid for reelection in the wake of her 2009 support for the stimulus and the National Republican Trust’s subsequent endorsement of her truly conservative opponent, Scott D’Amboise. But beyond the departure of such a high-profile like Snowe from the race are other stories of liberal Republicans in Congress being held to task for their support, both overt and tacit, of Obama’s failed policies.

In Indiana, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, a conservative who has served his state since 2006 and was reelected with 62% of the vote in 2010, is running for U.S. Senate against longtime incumbent Richard Lugar, who has consistently supported surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and was instrumental in passing the dangerous New START Treaty during a lame-duck session of the Senate in 2010.

But perhaps even more captivating is the story of Justin Bernier, who is challenging Andrew Roraback in Connecticut’s 5th Congressional District.

Bernier enlisted in the Navy after September 11th and was deployed to Afghanistan in 2007, where his distinguished service earned him the Joint Service Commendation Medal and an eventual appointment as Executive Director of Connecticut’s Office of Military Affairs upon his return to the United States. Bernier has joined the growing number of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to take a stand for pro-American values.

He is running as the conservative alternative to his opponent Roraback, a Republican state senator whose voting record is characteristic of a rank-and-file Democrat’s. In his home state, Roraback has voted in favor of socialized medicine, cap-and-trade, the expansion of the government’s use of imminent domain against private property owners, and was deemed “100% pro-choice” by the National Abortion Rights Action League.

With authentic conservative candidates for the U.S. House and Senate like D’Amboise, Mourdock, and Bernier, the character of the Republican Party is quickly becoming anti-establishment and presenting a true alternative to the Washington political class. Skeptical voters now seem to see this establishment as a stubborn third party unto itself, an amalgam of careerist politicians of both parties who are codependent on one another for power and protection.

Associated or Apparatchik Press

By Scott Wheeler
3/6/2012

The Associated Press is rigging polls again and is not disclosing the startling fact that its polling firm, GFK, has been granted federal government contracts since Obama has been in office. The news may not surprise the many skeptics of the liberal media because they have come to expect this sort of bias from mainstream press outlets, but this goes beyond bias as usual and well into the area of inventing favorable news for Obama to help create the impression that his reelection is inevitable, which translates into actively participating in his reelection strategy.

Last week the AP reported that their polling firm had determined that Obama would beat any of the Republican candidates in head to head matchups, but a closer look at the raw polling data reveals that the AP and GFK had cooked the numbers by sampling ten percent more Democrat/Democrat leaning than Republican/Republican leaning respondents. Nearly all national polls have determined that there is an even split between Republicans and Democrats, and some pollsters give a slight edge to Republicans. For example, a Gallup poll taken at roughly the same time period as the AP poll was taken shows a far different result: Republican Mitt Romney with a four point advantage over Obama and Rick Santorum in a dead heat. 

For the AP, which like the other mainstream media outlets, have made an issue of demanding disclosure from candidates about their political donors in the name of “transparency” this duplicity must be scrutinized. This is a news agency getting apparent special treatment from the government while skewing political news coverage that benefits the Obama administration which controls the purse strings for at least part of their polling firms business.  I began investigating this obvious conflict of interest in May of 2011 after noticing an unusual financial relationship between the newswire service, its polling firm GFK, and the federal government – and prima facie evidence that that relationship has influenced the AP’s reporting on the Obama administration.

A May 11, 2011 AP report promoted the idea that President Obama’s re-election was a foregone conclusion based on a poll conducted by its partner firm GFK. Just two months earlier GFK had announced that it had received clearance for federal government contracts to do marketing and research for US government agencies. Closer examination revealed that the May 11th AP report based its conclusions on a severely flawed polling model that provided a significant advantage to President Obama in calculating his favorability ratings on a number of issues from national security to the economy.

The flawed polling data influenced other media including ABC News, Time, The Washington Post and Yahoo News which ran the AP’s reportage without scrutiny.

The following is from the May 11, 2011 news report and was not labeled commentary:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its highest point in two years – 60 percent—and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to an Associated Press-GFK poll taken after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden…

Comfortable majorities of the public now call Obama a strong leader who will keep America safe. Nearly three-fourths – 73 percent – also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats.

There was no downside for Obama mentioned in the “news” story authored by Lis Sidoti and Jennifer Agiesta. Neither is there any mention that GFK, the Associated Press partner and the polling firm that conducted this survey, had been approved, two months prior, for a major contract with the federal government. In a press release dated March 1, 2011 GFK revealed the following:

GfK Custom Research North America, an industry leader in innovative market research tools and services, today announced that it has been awarded the General Services Administration (GSA) Mission Oriented Business Integrated Services contract (MOBIS). Having this contract allows GfK to directly and seamlessly serve public sector clients.

As the primary purchasing agent for most US governmental agencies, having the GSA validation signifies that GfK meets the high standards to enable government agencies to easily do business with GfK through various contract vehicles.

According to the AP, “The Associated Press and GfK launched a polling partnership in September 2008.”
According to an analysis by Tom Blumer at Pajamas Media, “AP reporters didn’t … tell readers how “skewed” May’s poll was. Forty-six percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 4% as independents (after classifying leaners); 20% didn’t know. By contrast, the latest available party identification results from Rasmussen as of April have the GOP at 34.8%, Dems at 33.5%, and 31.7% as not affiliated. Gallup, in an aggregate of 21 separate polls conducted last year, shows a Democrat-Republican split of 45%-44%.”

Since nearly all major polling firms consider the Democrat to Republican ratio of voters to be virtually even in number, AP/GfK’s statistical model of 46% sampling of Democrats and 29% Republican would give the appearance of significant advantage in the outcome to a Democrat, in this case Barak Obama.

The author of the tainted story from last May, Liz Sidoti, refused to comment after repeated attempts to allow her the opportunity to defend her reporting. The AP’s reportage was once considered the gold standard of journalism, today it is the tool of a corrupt administration.

The Weakness of Obama's Arguments

By Scott Wheeler
1/6/12

Obama's latest campaign strategy is just as vulnerable as the one he just abandoned and for the same reasons. The question is, will Republicans grab victory with both hands or lean into defeat? The new strategy presents the same arguments from a different angle of deception, and the Republican rebuttal is the same one they have failed to adequately make, perhaps because they don't understand it themselves outside of a few.

Obama's campaign team has abandoned the strategy that the economy "could have been worse" as the theme for reelection and adopted the more flexible strategy of "saving the middle class from decline" according to the Los Angeles Times. Indeed, Obama has already tested it out:

"You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class." This is what Obama told an audience recently in Kansas.

Failing to understand the significance of his own observation, Obama blames this on people getting wealthier instead of the most obvious explanation -- the exponential growth of government. During the time period Obama cited, government growth has far outpaced the expansion of wealth in the US, paradoxically with substantial sectors of government growth devoted to ending poverty. Note to Republicans: more government equals more poverty. US statistics not only prove it, but stats discovered after the fall of the Berlin wall do as well (additional hint in case that was too subtle - Soviet economic expansion did not knock down The Wall, people desiring freedom from government run economies did, the very type of government Obama is promising the United States.)

In 1950, government spending was approximately 24 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), today it is approaching 44 percent of GDP according to USgovernmentspending.com. Yet Obama hopes that voters don't notice that the trillions of dollars the government has spent in the so-called "War on Poverty" have created more poor people. He also hopes that voters don't notice that every last one of his policy initiatives has resulted in less freedom for us and more power for him.

Ordinary logic prefaces the conclusion that both the poor and the middle class are being strangled by the government safety net that provides false comfort for those who fail to overcome government obstacles and reach the middle class. The expanding size of government is consuming the private economy - small business first. And small business is the first step out of poverty and into the middle class, but that fact interrupts Obama's narrative that some people's ability to succeed causes others to fail.

This is why Republicans must resist their recent historical tendency to proclaim that they will be better managers of government than Democrats. The Republican presidential nominee must explain to the Democrat base how Obama's expansion of government is harming them more than it is hurting the rich. Slogans about America's greatness will no longer be persuasive, this time it will have to be an education process. That process will require explaining that capitalism and free markets did not lead to the economic melee, government intervention did. And this will undercut Obama's strategy that government can manage the economy better than we can.

Obama's Assault on Logic

By Scott Wheeler
12/14/11

A new poll and Obama's recent statements leave a huge opening for Republicans to expand a debate that is long overdue, and place President Obama's governing philosophy under scrutiny and expose its illogical conclusions. The Gallup poll, released Monday, reported that 64 percent of respondents considered big government the biggest threat to the nation, with only 26 percent that viewed big business as a bigger threat. In addition, 8 percent considered big labor the top threat to the nation. So it could be said, since Obama has been a stalwart ally of big labor, that 72 percent of the nation opposes Obama's governing philosophy.

In a CBS 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, Obama once again revealed that his view of the government is at odds with the desires of the governed, here is what he said: "And it requires everybody to have a fair chance, everybody to do their fair share, and rules of the road that create fair play for everybody.

And what people have been frustrated about, especially since the financial crisis, is the sense that the rules are rigged against middle-class families and those aspiring to get in the middle class. So, if we're willing to make investments in education so that everybody gets a fair chance and kids aren't coming out with $100,000 worth of debt to go to [sic] college."

The question is, who is it that doesn't have a "fair chance"?

If you are poor in this country you get free meals and a free education from age zero all the way through a bachelor's degree -- and in many cases, free graduate school. We are constantly told about the high number of hungry children in this country, yet the high school dropout rate is the highest in the poor schools where students get a free breakfast and a free lunch. How hungry can these children really be if they won't even show up to school to get the free meals? And Obama claims that the taxpayers who are picking up the tab for all of this have an unfair advantage?

If you are the average top ten percent wage-earner, your taxes are paying for someone else to get a better education than you are able to provide for your own children. That is called "social justice" in Obama's world. If Americans believe the "rules are rigged against the middle-class," they are right. But it is Obama now, and those who share his ideology, that have been rigging the rules for decades. If you are in the middle-class, for example, you would not have enough money to contribute to Obama's campaign in order to get the deal Obama gave Solyndra.

And that is just one example of how the left's system of government-run economics has created the very disparity that Obama claims to care about. In its most cynical form it is a protection racket that the political class in general, but mostly Democrats, have created that requires big business to pony up donations to the politicians that will be making the laws that can cost them immense sums of money.

So, yes, the deck is stacked in favor of big business, but it is Obama now, and in the past mostly Democrats, that made it that way. With threats of punitive laws, the Democrats are able to extort political support from the big businesses that they claim to be against. All the bluster about needing more regulation of Wall Street is just an announcement from Democrats that big business needs to line up and pay their alms to escape the regulatory burden contained in the next round of legislation. And if you are not big enough or don't contribute to the right politician, then you pay the price that government regulation costs you (but not your competitors who did play the corrupt political game).

In his speech at Osawatomie, Kansas last week, Obama leveled the following charge against an unspecified "they": "In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules."

This is Obama's perverted view of our constitutional right to self government -- "everybody is left to fend for themselves." This distortion is evidence of Obama's deviancy. But the line "play by their own rules" is astounding for its hubris. It is Obama and his fellow travelers who have always maintained that the Constitution is a document left open for them to interpret any way they please. In other words, Obama believes the law of the land can mean whatever he wants it to mean at any given time, while accusing others of wanting to play by their own rules.  Obama also made this interesting observation, but failed to understand its significance:

"You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class."

Of course, Obama blames this on people getting wealthier instead of the most obvious explanation -- the exponential growth of government. During the time period Obama cited, government growth has far outpaced the expansion of wealth in the US, paradoxically with substantial sectors of government growth devoted to ending poverty. Ordinary logic prefaces the conclusion that bureaucratic strangulation of small business opportunities is by far the most likely reason fewer people are in the middle-class, as opposed to Obama's claim that some people's ability to succeed caused others to be left behind. Obama's unpopular philosophy requires his use of deception and to make rhetorical points that are substantially false. In his self-serving and brutal assault on logic, his words and actions have forced us to suspect the worst about his motives.

Who is afraid of a Do-Nothing Congress?

By Scott Wheeler 12/04/11

As seen in The Washington Examiner

Is President Obama painting himself into a corner by expecting a bad economy when voters go to the polls next November? His campaign team has announced, in the New York Times, that next year their campaign strategy is to go negative.

Obama's strategists have warned that they intend to say that, whoever the Republican nominee is, it was their party that led to the economic problems we now face.

That raises an important question: If the economy were doing well right now would the President be giving Republicans the credit?

Likewise, now that he is on record saying that if his latest jobs (spending) bill doesn't pass Congress, the Republican controlled House of Representatives is to blame for the bad economy, or at least that part of the bad economy that he isn't blaming on former President Bush.

But if the economy improves over the next 11 months, the Republican candidate for president can also run on the recalcitrant Congress by pointing out that stopping Obama's policies made the economy better.
In fact, if Republicans had any moxie they would ask Obama this question: "If the Republican-controlled House was able to stop you from fixing the economy, why didn't the Democrat-controlled House stop President Bush from wrecking it, as you claim he did?"

Such questions can undo Obama's campaign strategy because it is a poorly rigged contraption that is mostly dependent upon the so-called mainstream media's contribution being equal to or greater than it was in 2008.

It is secondarily dependent on a weak Republican candidate that will seek androgyny instead of clarity when it comes to explaining the difference between what the political left believes and what conservatives believe.

We frequently hear and read that presidential elections are won with votes from the middle that flow to the most moderate candidate.

There was only one moderate running for president in 2008 and he was beaten by a left-wing extremist, so someone should explain how nominating a moderate and running to the middle wins an election.

This is not the time for Republicans to "run to the center" where the political establishment tells us the votes are. This is a time for bold statements that clarify our national purpose, while appealing to the logic of voters and exposing the fraud of the Democrats strategy to have the people who take from the system decide how the people who pay for the system's money is spent.

Republicans can start by explaining to a nation, many of whom have been previously inattentive, that all they hear about conservatives from the media and Democrats is a lie.

They are told by the left that success equates to "greed" and hope that no one notices that all of their schemes to redistribute the wealth always end with more power for them and less freedom for everyone else (except the political class who has the final say over who gets what).

A close inspection will reveal that politicians using the word "greed" use it as a weapon to gain power while robbing people of their rights to liberty and property. Power is the manifest greed of the political princelings of the Washington establishment.

The lesson of recent elections is that we cannot keep electing moderate Republicans. We can't send moderates to negotiate with left-wing extremists in the Democrat party- the net effect is destruction of the Republic.

All we have gotten for electing moderates, like we are told we should, are solutions too small to fix the problems the left creates. For every pound of progressive destruction, we get eight ounces of cure, if that, from our side.

But we are told that we are not allowed to use words like "socialism" to describe the socialists in the Democrat party because that drives away independent voters, yet they call us names like "Nazi" and "fascist" and we call them "our good friends and colleagues."

Then they win elections with a highly unpopular ideology – poll after poll shows that 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, while 20% identify themselves as liberal, and yet our Republican establishment tells us we must compromise.

This idea of sending moderates to negotiate with the far left has done enormous damage not only to the nation's economy, but to the very idea of free market economics.

Compromise on everything from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to tax increases and regulation of the markets has led to a disaster, but instead of blaming the left, who have been negotiating us out of our freedom for the past 100 years, capitalism gets blamed instead.

So when we nominate the candidate the establishment tells us we must in order to win, we lose every time. They get most of what they want, and conservatives and capitalism get all the blame for the failures of those compromises. 

Obama's campaign strategy is to blame the bad economy on Republicans, but Obama can be defeated by putting his leftist ideology on trial in this election and explaining how it brought the economy to its knees.

But first, Republicans have to acknowledge that it was weak Republicans, in the interest of compromise, that allowed too much liberal poison to choke a once strong and free economy.

Memo to Republican Candidates

By Scott Wheeler
11/09/11

We have already won the man-made global warming debate, why do you keep breathing credibility into the issue by saying "you don't know if it is happening or not?" There is plenty of evidence that it is a manufactured political issue disguised as science. The public doesn't believe it in man-made climate fears. Why not force the Democrats to defend their support of this unpopular and unscientific nonsense?

How about pointing out that the only scientists who are still perpetuating the global warming story are the ones steeped in green activism and profiting from research grants? Instead of trying to split the difference, why don't you instead explain how Democrats blew hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on a hoax?

Once again, the facts and the best political strategy are on the Conservative side yet we have Republicans throwing it away with both hands in an attempt to appeal to people who will not vote for a Republican anyway. This is not only bad politics, bad science, and it is bad for the country and bad for the cause of liberty.

Bull Connor Media Turns Fire Hose on Cain

By Scott Wheeler
11/01/11

In eleven short years since Bill Clinton was president the "one free grope rule" for Democrats has turned into the liberal media in hot pursuit of second and the third generation rumors of a conservative Republican "looked at me funny and I think sex was on his mind." Just when you think the left-wing's cesspool of hypocrisy is finally drained, they start filling it up again. I am referring of course to Politico's breathless reporting on Herman Cain over what would not have even been worthy of asking Bill Clinton or Barack Obama about.

Remember when Clinton was running for president and during his eight years in office there were repeated allegations of affairs and serious evidence of sexual harassment including "credible" evidence of rape? At that time the media devoted most of their time to attacking anyone who mentioned Clinton's sorted past.

The mainstream media were demanding at the time that the Special Prosecutor Ken Starr ignore Clinton's lying under oath about molesting an intern in the Oval Office so the nation could focus on more serious issues. All the while the liberal agenda driven mainstream media, all with exception of an occasional New York Times report, completely ignored something far more serious: allegations and evidence that Clinton had sold national security secrets to Communist China. Still today, very few have even touched on what would have been the biggest story since WWII.

Given the mainstream media's obvious agenda of protecting their liberal leaders and destroying anyone who could challenge them, here is my advice to Mr. Cain: run against the mainstream media. Do not let them bully you with scandal-rumor questions. Throw it right back on them with obvious Clinton and Obama scandal questions they refused to cover in the past. For example, when a covert Democrat pretending to be a reporter asks you what transpired with regards to the allegations from Politico, simply ask them for information about their reporting on Juanita Broderick's allegation that Bill Clinton raped her, - "when you get around to reporting on that, then get back to me." You can also throw Obama at them by saying, "how much did your newspaper (or network) tell us about Mr. Obama's relationship with that terrorist Bill Ayers, oh yea, nothing. Well you know I think the American people would like to know more about that serious issue that you all neglected last time around, so after you get some real answers about that issue then come talk to me."

The media will quickly get the message, the more they try to scandalize you the more you expose the Clinton/Obama scandals they worked so hard to keep under wraps.

In fact, you can take this strategy even further by blaming the media for all of Obama's failures. The media is to blame for the mess we are in right now. After all, he could not have been elected without their help. You can also refer to the mainstream media as "Obama's team" when addressing them. Call them out by speaking to the media they way you would speak to a Democrat, "your side says this, or your team says that." Force them to deny what is obvious to everyone- that they have a liberal agenda. Demand that if they want answers from you, then they must go get answers from Obama. While members of the mainstream media are defending themselves it will be harder for them to attack you. 

The effects of this strategy will be manifold: it will call the public's attention to the media's rabid bias in favor of Obama; it will make Obama irrelevant to this election; and it will further diminish the liberal media's popularity and trust which is not nearly as high as Obama's.

Why Herman Cain is Surging and Why
the Political Establishment Doesn't Get It

By Scott Wheeler
10/13/11

All over the country I have had numerous people tell me over the past several months that if they could pick anyone out of the Republican field to be president it would be Herman Cain. And then follow it up with this caveat "but since he can't win I am going with so-and-so (insert the name of any other Republican here)."
Daniel Henninger wrote about similar observations in the September 29 edition of the Wall Street Journal:

"You hear the same thing said about Herman Cain all the time: Herman Cain has some really interesting ideas, but . . .

I love Herman Cain, but . . .

But what?

But he can't win.

Why not?

At best, the answer has to do with that cloudy word ‘electability.' Or that Mr. Cain has never held elected political office," writes Henninger.

But something happened in the month of September that changed everything. After the Orlando debate of the Republican candidates, which many saw Cain as the winner, and the Florida straw poll that followed which Cain won, people across the nation started seeing, for the first time, that their first choice to be president really had a chance of winning- a possibility that the Republican base hasn't seen for a long, long time.

By Tuesday September 27, Zogby released a poll showing Cain with a strong lead over the rest of the field. I pointed this out to several Washington insiders who immediately dismissed it and said basically that Zogby's polls can't be trusted. I pointed out to them that their opinion of Zogby was irrelevant because it was posted at the Drudge Report and all over the country people would be realizing that Cain could win. I predicted to the naysayers, at that time, that Cain would come up in the other polls and could soon be out in front. The past two weeks has validated that analysis. The Washington establishment never gave Herman Cain a chance mainly, I am told, because of his lack of "political experience." But a lack of political experience is only a liability to the political class, to the rest of America it is an advantage. It is interesting that the political establishment itself doesn't realize how ugly the stain of being a political insider is to the majority of voters.

This makes for an interesting juxtaposition: Mr. Cain's likely biggest advantage with conservative voters, that he comes from outside the establishment, is viewed by the establishment as his biggest weakness. He speaks American. He doesn't speak in the measured tones of the political class and that is another thing that makes him attractive to the conservative base. Perhaps conservatives thought it was too good to be true that one of their own could be elected president, hence the feeling that victory for their first choice was out of reach. But now, the recognition that Mr. Cain can win will likely cause an explosion of participatory enthusiasm among the conservative class of the GOP-- the grassroots activists that do the work even after they are told that they must settle for the candidate that the establishment selects.

What is important for Cain to remember is that part of his support is predicated on conservatives believing that he won't abandon his convictions if he makes it to the general election. At this point, the biggest mistake Cain could make would be to let Washington insider election technocrats convince him he needs to moderate his views in order to get elected. He should be very aggressive in defending what the mainstream of Americans believe and ignore the warnings that being authentically conservative will "drive independents away" which is what the liberal media establishment always threatens and the Republican establishment always fears. What the Republican establishment should fear the most is that if they try to force their approved candidate on the base they may cause a split in the Republican Party that never heals.

Another Missed Opportunity

By Scott Wheeler
10/12/11

Republicans missed an opportunity to turn the tables on the Washington Post. If the presidential candidates had boycotted the Washington Post debate on the basis that the Post twice endorsed Bill Clinton who worked for a segregationist, William Fulbright, and even praised Fulbright upon his death. The Post of course has used distortions and innuendo in an attempt to smear two Republicans, George Allen in his 2006 Senate race and most recently Texas Gov. Rick Perry because he hunted on property that had a rock with a racial slur written on it and not properly covered in a timely fashion. In addition to exposing the hypocrisy of the Post, it would lay the ground work for refuting the next wave of media attacks which will surely be aimed at Herman Cain. By framing the liberal media as racist, it makes them ripe for a strong push back if they ask Cain any questions that they didn't ask Obama.

Republicans need the right answer to this predictable question from the media just as they saw it in last night's debate. Towards the end, two of the questioners played the class envy card: 

Charlie Rose "I don't want this hour and half to pass without some recognition and conversation about the question of disparity in America."

Karen Tumulty "Over the last 30 years the income of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans has grown by more than 300 percent and yet we have more people living in poverty in this country than at any time in the last fifty years. Is this acceptable and what would you do to close that gap?"

The poor, by definition, have no assets, so the growth of wealth means there alwasy will be a growing disparity. The growth of wealth has allowed the creation of more poor people because what we now consider poor is far better off as a result of increasing wealth. How bad off can poor people be in this country when the poor are the most likely to drop out of the high school education that is provided for free? And not only is the education free, but the poor get breakfast and lunch provided to them for free at school. How hungry can poor children possibly be when so many of them drop out of the school that provides them two free meals a day plus a free education?

Two Can Play That Game

By Scott Wheeler
9/22/11

More great advice for the Republican establishment to ignore:

President Obama's logical immaturity in his September 19 speech announcing the "Buffett Rule" provides a big opportunity for Republicans to expose the corruption of his rhetoric.

"We have to prioritize…..Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes or we're going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can't afford to do both. Either we gut education and medical research or we've got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable have to give up tax loopholes other companies don't get, we can't afford to do both. It's not class warfare, it's math" says Obama. But it is not math. It is philosophy--one of Aristotle's thirteen fallacies, with this particular instance being of the informal variety. It is more commonly known as the straw man argument: Obama makes up whatever he wants the conservative position on an issue to be, then pretends to refute that argument, machinating himself as the defender of the downtrodden.  In reality he comes off as a pernicious Don Quixote imagining productive people as his enemy.

Obama often uses unsophisticated fallacies to promote his illogical policies. "Either we raise taxes" on who he calls the "wealthy" or we will be forced to "gut education and medical research…. And schools that are crumblin' [sic]," Obama claims. The economic illiteracy of these statements isn't worth unpacking, but they do present an opportunity for Republicans to re-appropriate his triteness and absurdity and broadcast it to the voters every day until the election. Democrats have been employing this tactic against the GOP and conservatives for years—and to great effect.

Here are a few examples of how conservatives and Republicans can respond:

"Either we stop Obama from giving our tax money to fat-cat labor union bosses or our seniors won't get medical treatment."

"Either we stop Obama from pouring millions of dollars into the outlaw group ACORN and its subsidiaries or homeless families will be forced to sleep on the street."

"Children are going to bed hungry while Obama hands over stimulus grants to Marxist organizations such as The Brecht Forum who openly declare their plans for the overthrow of the United States."

"While our roads and schools and bridges are crumbling Obama is sending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to the terrorist group Hamas through dubious ‘aid packages' to the Gaza Strip.

"Either we ask Obama to demand that his millionaire and billionaire friends, like those at Solyndra, to return the billions of taxpayer dollars they received through the stimulus and his other failed economic experiments or else average Americans who play by the rules will do without."

If people in America are ever going to get a fair shake, the Obamas must stop their conspicuous consumption of tens of millions to support their insatiable cravings for beluga, squab and other luxuries. The Obamas' use of public funds to live the lifestyle of a czar -- flying their extended families to five-star vacations around the world and flaunting opulence as though it were their own money to burn -- is an egregious insult to so many Americans who sleep in their cars due to Obama's failure to create a single job.

The difference between these juxtapositions and the ones Obama offered are that these are accurate and fair comparisons while Obama's were wholly contrived to foment class warfare. Even with the facts on our side, conservatives still have not learned to use the illegitimate tactics of the Left for the very legitimate purpose of leveling the playing field.

Latest News:

Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
No corporate funds are accepted.