Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

Is common sense finally making a comeback  in the US ?

It's been nearly three very long years since we began addressing the proverbial death of common sense in America and what it prophetically entailed for our future, and yet a funny thing seems to have happened on the way to Utopia.

We can now begin to sense the formidable torque of an ideological pushback, by the Civil Society itself, from those who not only reside in our heartland, where logic formerly slumbered undisturbed by the goings-on of the "intellectual" Metro-Elites, but even in the fringe areas of the inner cities and beyond.

Something truly monolithic is stirring; what on earth could it be? Not the least of which to consider is the fact that, when the Republican Primary began, only about half of the contestants willingly classified themselves as Conservative.  Now all of them are practically falling all over themselves, some even ready to undertake a blasted polygraph test, to prove their Conservative credentials.

However, back in early to mid 2009, it was indeed a scary time for any and all things Conservative--and yes, even in the heartland. Talk of Left-Wing, anti-Liberty designs, and even censorship, along with a virtual takeover of the Government by Marxist inspired Statists was being bandied about in hushed tones all over America's now liberally-blighted plane. Liberty and its constitutional essence were being crowded back into the darkest of corners, while capitalism and its champions were becoming relegated to a lexicon belonging only to that of certain four-letter words.

That Which Must Not Be Named

During that painful period, the stories brokered outside of the Mainstream Media spoke to Leaders whose designs of community organizing, authoritarianism, collectivism,and even Saul Alinksy radicalism were relatively unknown to the populace, as a whole. In fact, many feared to even broach the subject of Statist collectivism and its sub-American authors in power, in any meaningful public forum, due to the extreme disparagement they were likely to receive. And then, of course, there was always the threat of being called a conspiracy theorist or, even worse, one of "Those people who hears voices inside of their head,"  typically forthcoming, if one but steps too far outside the box of conventionality. This, especially for those who ask the unanswered, outrageous questions, which would inevitably incite a slipstream of withering critiques, soon to arrive.

But as with all things alien at first, it doesn't take long for the alien to become known, as an eventually recognized familiar, and the historical problem with familiar is that it's quasi-stalker always seems to show up eventually, if not providentially, in the form of contempt. Which, in this case, would be the multi-tasked elephant in the room. This particular nugget of opinion speaks to our current CINC, El Magnifico, The Formerly Great and now beleaguered "Leader of the Fee World."

We can even now see this generalized contempt regarding Statism, and its needful disciples, increasingly in the daily stories coming out; in the election polling of 2012, the striking gyrations of the marketplace, certain very odd stories of anti-Constitutional designs, and a host of many other critical political oddities. The simple fact is that the Mainstream media has lost much of its grip, the Right-Wing media is evermore surging into acceptability, and the Axis Press component of the Fourth Estate is becoming more and more desperate, every day, for the now dwindling enablement that fueled its reason for being.

A Recurring Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone and Come and Gone....et al

Indeed, it would seem that whether the Mainstream media  likes it or not, the Left-Wing agenda and its so-called intellectual High Priests have been largely rejected by the American people, much like the once in vogue, global warming religion, and not a minute too soon, in fact. Ironically, the political nexus of this particular conclusion, lies recently posted, but mostly now forgotten, within the New York Times, of all places.

In the article, titled "The Future of The Obama Coalition,"  the writer confirms what all of middle-America has known for some time now. The story explains that middle-class white voters are exiting the Democratic Party in huge flocks, and have been for quite some time.  The writer, Thomas Edsall, goes on to state that Democratic operatives plan to essentially abandon the white middle class voter, as a result, because "there are no longer any fish to catch in that pond,"  in essence.

Interestingly, the few Conservatives, who were truly fascinated by this article, included this humble writer for one. I smirkingly ran the story very early that Monday morning in the increasingly popular CR News section, and good ole' Rush Limbaugh, the Step-Father of Modern Conservatism, being equally stunned, kept bringing the subject up later that same morning, and all throughout the week during his daily show. Beyond that, not many seemed truly interested except, of course,  for the ever discerning Right-Wing blogs.

However, the import of this story is absolutely beyond mind-boggling, in what the officials are communicating, that being:

The Democratic Party and the Obama Administration plan to jettison the working, middle-class vote; no joke!

The operative point of this shocking article was this particular passage:

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

Now, pragmatically speaking, even as a hardcore Conservative, is this truly wise?  To actually jettison one wide swath, if not class, of Americans in favor of another grouping of smaller swaths or lesser in number classes? Or is this in fact the nadir of class warfare itself?

Well, why not take a good look at the available US voter numbers?

Crunching The Numbers

When we view these numbers at play for Obama and the Democrats, we note that as much as possibly 60% of the entire voting population of white middle-class voters, excluding the Leftists of course, are slated to be jettisoned as targeted voters by the White House. Of those votes to be dismissed, at least 45% of  eligible voters actually voted for Obama in 2008. Ergo, you might pose the question, "Are Obama and the Democrats suicidally abandoning the voters that mostly brought them to the dance in the first place?"

Well, in large part, yes--when you figure in the various percentages.

During the '08 Presidential race, Obama beat McCain by a margin of 53% to 47% of the vote with about 130 million of 208 million "eligible" Americans voting. Now, with the Tea Party being one of the greatest possible beneficiaries of Obama's discarded middle-class Americans, will Obama stand even the remotest of chances in winning back the White House? Even better than that, are Obama's often ridiculously flawed US economic prognostications now also taking root in the White House's 2012 campaign equations? We can only hope.

Remember, Obama's winning 2008 vote totals, in actual population, would equal out to about 69 million votes, whereas the votes for the thoroughly moderate McCain totaled about 60 million, a difference of around 9 million votes, or put another way, an amount equal to the population of the city of New York, if we add in the illegals .  These 9 million votes are only about 4% of the total eligible national votes. But one thing that many seem to leave out of the equation is the question of how many eligible voters will vote this time around? With all of the carnage on display within our economy, our health care and our jobless numbers, not to mention the millions who have been adversely affected by draconian regulations, will the number of disaffected voters make 2008's record turn-out look like a diminutive  Occupy Wall Street protest, in comparison?

To wit, now can you begin to see where Obama's dubious game plan might be fatally flawed?

The simple fact is that Obama intends to eject a  number of voters, as unattainable,  that would easily overwhelm his '08 winning margin. Do the Democrats actually believe that Obama's margin of 2012 votes will outweigh his winning '08 vote totals, after their dismissing a large number of those votes, and after all of the other elements already mentioned?

More remarkably, the word coming from the White House states, once again, that Obama intends to focus on voters who have gotten ahead, as being "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists  along with lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic." Does this not perfectly describe Obama's voter base in 2008, being those who are and who will arguably be voting for him "anyway" in 2012?

Think of it as purchasing a vehicle that you already own....ahem.

But, unfortunately for Obama, there are several other rather large points that many seem to be missing, as it, in fact, gets even better for our generic Republican nominee.

With approximately 220 million eligible voters, now, and a considerable swath of those being dismissed almost entirely by the White House, what's left for Obama to pick up from the remaining voters? The answer is not very much, to put it lightly. In fact, if Obama were to pick up every single individual of the other voter segments, which is unlikely, he would at best win about 43% of the total estimated vote, assuming the meaningfully jettisoned voters will largely vote either Republican or Tea Party Republican,which they most likely, will, at this point. Operative point here being, no one can win with only 43% of the eligible vote, unless, of course, a third party comes into play, but that's a story for another time while noting the common question of "which side would be most affected?"

However,  let's look at this  from another angle, that being voter turnout. In November 2008, immediately after the financial meltdown, the voter turnout was a whopping 63%, which represented a profound disenchantment with all things Bush, and therefore, the Right-Wing in general. The Black turnout made history at even more amazing 68% of those eligible, of which virtually all voted for Obama. Unfortunately for Obama this time around, there will be far more at play against the Left in 2012 and in a mirror-like display of 2010, if not far, far, worse especially when accounting for race.

You see, Black unemployment is currently running at its worst rate in 27 years. We would have to travel all the way back to the early eighties (read Carter) to find a similar rate at the current 16% level, and with no hope of any true rebound in 2012. During the White Devil Bush years, Black unemployment ran at a record low rate of about 10%, meaning better than 30% of all Blacks were much better off then than they are now.

But, even better or worse, take your pick, prior to 2008's vote, the previous  major election of 2004 saw a black voter turnout of about 56% as opposed to 2008's whopping 68%. This 12 % differential represented the massive Obama change we can believe in bump of 2008. However once again, with Black unemployment at running at the aforesaid record levels, and mass disenchantment ruling the day, it becomes obvious that Obama might be lucky to get back to even the 2004 level of Black voter participation, which, when mixed into the numbers machine, would work out to a net loss of Black voters approaching 4 million eligible votes. This total alone represents almost half of Obama's winning 08 ' vote margin, as the plot thickens evermore dramatically. Nevermind the additional pick-up of at least 10 electoral college votes by those states voting Republican in the last several elections due to the 2010 census.

A Gigantic Sucking Sound....

Further, in the 2010 Left-Wing Meltdown election, much of Obama's change we can believe in had then been largely implemented, but without the anti-fruitive implications of 2012 being forthcoming as of then, as now. But, to say that there was a gigantic sucking sound away from the Democratic Party in 2010 would be , once again, putting it mildly at best. This, due in large part to both the economy and the  nettlesome legislative meddling of the Liberals into everyone's daily lives, among many other factors. But what many are not saying is that this particular Democratic sucking sound has grown magnitudinally louder in the last 12 months, as Obama's job favorability ratings have plummeted dramatically.

While all mid-term elections tend to be significantly lower in turnout than in Presidential elections, 2010's 41% turnout saw many of those 08' Obama voters sitting at home in abject disappointment. In fact, a whopping 1/3rd of all eligible 2008 voters stayed home, sparking a Republican landslide of epic proportions, as we all know.

With all things being equal in 2012, coupled with Obama's most likely disastrous campaign change-up of negating White, working, middle-class voters, Obama could, quite possibly, be in store for a landslide loss of historical proportions. But then, where can we look, in our history, to see what might possibly come to pass in this upcoming 2012 election, other than crunching a host of both real and speculative numbers together?

The Reagan Revolution

During the late 70's and leading up to the Right-Wing Reagan revolution, The leftist malaise of the Carter administration had settled over the land like a massive and noxious fog bank that refused to be lifted. Unemployment was rampant, fuel costs were spiraling and shortages of virtually everything was wringing both life and hope out of American exceptionalism. Then, as now, much of the talk of the day centered around an America in decline. Ronald Reagan, a Conservative and a champion of American exceptionalism, free markets and individual liberty, won the nomination against moderate, George H.W. Bush, after a loss in the Iowa caucus, but a later clean- sweep run through New Hampshire and the southern primaries.

Carter, the incumbent, whose economy exactingly mirrored our current economic straits, verbally cast Reagan as a dangerous Right-Wing radical, begging the question, "where have we heard this one before?" Reagan, on the other hand, responded by repeatedly ridiculing and deriding Carter throughout the entire campaign, something that today's Republicans seem to council against, if not actually wilting at even the mere thought. But even more remarkably, the Mainstream media of the time characterized Carter as being a very decent, well-meaning intellectual, unfairly blamed for problems that had been brewing in the economy long before. Meanwhile, Carter's detractors viewed him as being an incompetent, witless leader whose economic abilities could easily be bested by those of even a fifth-grade child.

So, can you say "Deja Vu?"

To say that history often repeats itself, in this comparative exercise, would be a woefully  deficient understatement at best. So, what happened after that? Well, let s just say a landslide of epic proportions by Conservative Reagan which stunned the entire world, with a special nod to the former Soviet Union. You see, up to that point, everyone had thought Carter to be running ahead of Reagan, but the twist that we should all consider, as talk of a third party run peppers all current discussion, would be the  inclusion within the 1980 Campaign of an Independent third party candidate and former Rockefeller Republican (read Moderate) named John Anderson.  Anderson, who ran and lost in the Republican primary, ended up receiving almost 7% of the popular vote, most of those coming from Carter rather than Reagan, but still not enough to decide the outcome against Reagan.

Interestingly, and despite Carter's severe loss, at no time did Carter ever seek to write-off a large number of his own voters, as Obama is currently doing. Carter, much like Obama, was and is a Big-Government Liberal who was also responsible for installing numerous Statist Bureaus to include the ever useless US Department of Energy and the ignorance-enabling US Department of Education, among a host of lesser Big Government social programs. A paradigm which, once again, prophetically mirrors our current state of affairs in the US, even to the point of running massive deficits, then as now. But the Liberally sought Utopia of the late seventies was no less difficult to find then--than it is now in 2011, as the road to Obama's transformative Utopia has become the equivalent of a hazard-fraught, northern Alaska ice road in January, for Heaven's sake.

So, as one can quite obviously see, history does have an answer for the question of what to expect for the 2012 election, under strikingly similar circumstances, despite all of the detritus that the Axis Press will try to force-feed the American people leading up to the big day.

Our advise? Don't buy into the Left-Wing propagandists for one moment. Caution should rule the day for virtually every fact you that hear and every sentence that you read, and don't be too disappointed by the heavily "weighted" polls that will incrementally tout the President's Phoenix-type of rise back into wild popularity.

A Left-Wing Meltdown

From every vantage point accessible, Obama looks to have an almost impossibly long and difficult row to hoe, even according to two very prominent Democrats, who have taken extreme issue with Obama's wanton destruction of the Democratic Party and our economy.

Democratic pollsters Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, two men who're not at all Socialists, and who are beyond angry at what a Marxist-inspired Obama has done to their Democratic Party, wrote a particular piece that took the Inner-Beltway by storm in the Wall Street Journal.

On the question of Obama's running, they stated this:

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively

On the question of why Obama should abandon running, they stated this:

The president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

On Obama's success as President, they wrote the following:

With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

With regard to Obama's partisanship, they noted this:

One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be "guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it."

Cadell and Schoen close with this stunner, and these, Ladies and Gentlemen, are respected Democrats, once again:

If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country.

Now, what else could one possibly add in weight to this entire argument which is rooted in the assembly of simple common sense, existentially applied, except to ponderously note how all of these separate nuggets of truth lead to one inexorable conclusion:

Economic and principled reality consistently points to the fact that Liberal-Socialist ideas frequently sound both great and most wondrous on behalf of the good of the people, until such time as the matured product of this damaging ideology is finally brought to bear, that ultimately being the multiple injuries of  "poverty, want, dependence and despair."

But, Obama's a "shoe-in" to win..."Right."