The death of Republicanism, Part 1: the battlefield
When looking at politics I view it as if I’m staring at a battlefield or a chessboard: I ponder, “Where are the best places to move, position, and to attack?” Sometimes positioning your forces is the most critical move for a long-term victory. Strategically aligning forces in key places will not lead to a rapid victory, but it will ensure enduring long-term success. Sadly that’s exactly what the left has done.
Every time a Republican candidate steps out on the political battlefield, they are almost instantly placed at a disadvantage. Over the last few years, the left has positioned people with their mindset in the media, whether it’s a local paper like The Asbury Park Press or a national affiliate like ABC News. Through traditional media, the left focuses on a negative narrative towards the Republican candidate while allowing the Democrat to proceed worry free.
This forces the Republican candidate to spend more time and money on paid media and door-to-door efforts compared to the Democrat opponent. This allows the Democrats to focus on a more long-term strategy within each campaign, such as voter registration. Over one election this doesn’t make much of a difference to the voter rolls but over time it produces voter rolls like we have here in New Jersey. Also it has a long-term effect of slowly bleeding out the financial resources of the Republican Party and their donors.
If strategically positioning their forces in the media wasn’t bad enough, the left has also been focusing on an even longer term strategy than that of the media: the education system.
This long-term strategy is just beginning to show its effects on the voting electorate and on society as a whole; particularly since the creation of the Department of Education in the 1970s. Those in the education system are overwhelmingly to the left and when you move to administration roles or the higher education system they are progressively to the far left.
Your children’s and grandchildren’s minds are being shaped to view the world from the left’s perspective. Not only are children being taught to view the world from their perspective, but they are also being dumbed down, which in turn will make them more dependent upon the welfare state the left has set up. This welfare state is used as a modern-day slavery to keep the recipients faithful to their Democrat masters.
By positioning their people in the key roles of the media and education system, the left has created the perfect environment in which to wage a political war for the total and utter control of this nation. Their mission is nothing short of trying to bring about a so-called “Socialist Utopia.” And the scary part is: they are winning!
To be continued…
More from my site
The death of Republicanism, Part 2: the endurance race 
Measley Issues Apology To Lautenberg. Challenges The Senator To Turn His Wealth Over To U.S. Treasury
Team Obama Asks New Jerseyans for Dirt On Christie
You can fool some of the people some of the time…..
Veterans of Anna’s Army Marching For Cullari- Booker Strong In Vote By Mail Returns
Water up to the seawall in Sea Bright
SUPER MEGA ROADSIDE RALLY
Joe Kyrillos: Like No Other
Has anyone seen Charles Measley?
This is an interesting theory, but more often I think the GOP shoots itself in the foot with its messaging and the refusal of people who are farther right or lesser right to support the candidates who are not “right enough” or too far right.
The failure to concentrate on what unites us, rather than on what divides us, is our worst trait. Look at the nonsense spewing from BTPG, who got a seat at the GOP table, now “threatening” to primary candidates. Read Barbra’s Facebook posts about the Governor and then tell me she deserves a seat at the table.
The Democrats support the Democrats, whether they are too far left or not left enough. They are a coalition that sticks together. The GOP is not.
That is definitely one contrast between the two parties, Republicans always seem to have a harder time uniting after a primary than Democrats.
Also when Republicans lose for whatever reason they try to realign themselves to be more like Democrats. When on the other hand when Democrats lose they stick even more to their principles and go further to the left.
You have to be pragmatic to be successful.
Ought to be the lesson. Dole,McCain, now Romney. The “evil right” in the party sucked it up,and went along with the most liberal/Rino of the group at the time. We sucked it up and most of us realize it has to be better than the leftists. After anyone more conservative gets beaten to death in our primaries, we are expected to go along , and most of us do. What is the result? We aren’t giving the voters enough of a contrast, a difference, so well down again to defeat. The Reagan Revolution was just that: a departure for the moderate party norm, a clear path to more individuality, freedom, capitalism, and getting heavier government off our backs. Unfortunately, this is hard for people to accept: personal responsibility, more civility, more intense adherance to our founding, core principles. Unless and until we find, in the next four long, miserable years, a Reaganesque leader, we are condemned to more of the same sad losses.
I have a different take on a few things. Regarding the past few Presidential elections:
1996: R’s lose to a very popular D President who has a good economy going for him. Sen. Dole was well qualified and a war hero however the reason he lost is not becasue he was not conservative enough. Nobody was beating President Clinton that year.
2000 and 2004: R’s win both years against good D candidates.
2008: McCain runs to the right of his actual record however is hamstrung by the Great Depression and ongoing wars. You can make a good arguement that no Republican was going to win in 2008. The reason McCain lost is not becasue he was not far enough to the right.
2012: If you had asked me 2-3 years ago I would have thought that a moderate former northeastern Governor like Romney would have been a very tough challanger to President Obama. I know some will disagree however I can make a good arguement that many voters did not support Romeny in the 2012 general election since he went so far to the right in the primary process and debates.
I know many invoke the name of Ronald Reagan as to what they would like to see in an R candidate/President (and there were many things about Mr. Reagan that I liked) however I would suggest that in many ways he was more moderate than people realized epsecially by 2012 standards. In a 1980 debate with George Bush he (and Mr. Bush) took such moderate stances on immigration reform, that they would have been booed off the stage in 2012 debates. Mr. Reagan spoke about how secretaries should not pay higher taxes than their corporate bosses…sound familiar?? Mr. Reagan supported the ban on assault weapons that became law under President Clinton.
I am not suggesting that today people change positions that they truely believe in just to win an election but at the same time it should be recognized that many Republican candidates for various offices in the country took positions/stances on social issues that were far removed from the mainstream. I might be painfully be stating the obvious to some but there have been several Seante seats in the 2010 and 2012 elections where the Republicans nominated canidates that were so extreme that they ended up losing elections that would have been won easily by more qualified less extreme alternative Republican candidates who were defeated in primaries. Richard Lugar would have been reelected without even having to leave his office to campaign.
Regarding new voter registration, its just a fact of life that the large majority of new younger voters are more moderate on social issues and the large majority of those approved of the Presidents position on tax policy.
Can a Republican be elected President???…sure but from my persepctive someone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie stands a far better chance of getting the independent/moderate/some Dem votes needed in the swing states to win a general election than someone who is seen as being on the far right.