A Narrative of Which They Are Certain

One recalls rhetoric from the days of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case born of the heavily contested presidential election of 2000. Democrats claimed they were certain — absolutely certain! — that once the votes in certain Florida counties were re-counted, Al Gore would emerge the winner of Florida’s electoral votes, and the U.S. Presidency. They were … of course … wrong.

Those votes ultimately were re-counted, and Mr. Bush still emerged the winner; such news was less than a footnote to the Liberal Media Complex, who continued to tout their preferred narrative that the Supreme Court, not the voters, improperly gave Mr. Bush a presidency actually won by Mr. Gore.

There was the feckless Dan Rather, of CBS News fame, and his certainty — absolute certainty! — of a narrative whereby George W. Bush had used family connections to avoid the Vietnam draft. However, the foundation for Mr. Rather’s purported journalistic scoop, intended to swing the 2004 presidential election in Democrat John Kerry’s favor, rested on forged documents. And a shamed Dan Rather left his anchor desk at CBS in disgrace.

Will those on the left ever learn?

Now, we have the Liberal Media Complex and their scandal du jour of ‘collusion’ (whatever that means) between the Donald Trump Campaign and the Russian government, and how said ‘collusion’ resulted in Hillary Clinton’s rejection by American voters in 2016. Let’s face it, Hillary and the Democrats had every imaginable advantage, including oodles and gobs of money (considered the ‘mother’s milk’ of presidential politics, until Donald Trump came along), the unbridled and fawning support of establishment media and the Hollywood set, and, lest we forget, a sitting U.S. president with a known penchant for deploying instruments of the federal government against his political opponents.

And Hillary still lost … a reality the political left simply will not accept.

They have chosen a narrative upon which to rest their delusion, the aforementioned, of ‘collusion’ between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government, to deny Hillary a victory rightfully hers. The none too minor detail missing from their narrative, however, is … any evidence that it’s true … for none has come to light. But that doesn’t stop determined Democrats and their allies on the left from continuing to tout a narrative of which they are certain — absolutely certain!

Republicans, Wake Up! … Before It’s Too Late

For eight years, President George W. Bush acted as though it was beneath him to defend himself and his party against relentless, withering assault from Democrats and the Liberal Media Complex. Then, along came left-wing wunderkind Barack Obama; and the Complex just couldn’t get enough of the guy.

With outgoing President Bush likened to The Plague, incoming Republican standard-bearer, John McCain, reliably feckless, and the U.S. economy cratering (as if on cue), it was no wonder voters, in 2008, gave Democrats the keys to the capital city: White House, House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Democrats spent the next two years having their way with our government and our economy – in other words, careening full-throttle toward Socialism. And voters said, “What the heck? We didn’t vote for this!”

In 2010, voters awarded Republicans the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2014, the Senate. In 2016, the White House. Which begs the question: Why is it now so hard for Republicans to behave like a party in power?

From a public relations standpoint, congressional Democrats are running well-orchestrated circles around their Republican counterparts, who come off, by contrast, as bumbling chumps. For example, when your party controls the Senate, you don’t agree to hold Senate hearings on Russia’s purported collusion with your own presidential candidate in the 2016 election, while ignoring the potential shenanigans of the opposing party. But, that’s what Republicans are doing. The mind boggles at this level of political incompetence.

President Trump has enough on his plate, trying to get his fledgling administration off the ground, all the while taking flak from a Democrat party and a Liberal Media Complex openly determined to destroy him. The President should be able to rely on other Republicans to stand up for him and for themselves; and at the very least, not behave like bush-league amateurs who stumbled onto the main stage.

It’s enough to make voters cry foul. Or at least say, “What the heck? We didn’t vote for this!”

‘Patriotism’ Returns … and We’re Not Supposed to Notice

When George W. Bush was in the White House, Democrats and their allies in the Liberal Media Complex (a.k.a. ‘mainstream’ media) often refered to political opposition and obstructionism as ‘the highest form of patriotism.’ Whoever got in Bush’s way was doing the honorable thing.

Once Barack Obama became America’s chief executive, however, dissent and obstruction became something akin to treason, according to the same liberal chorus. If you wanted Mr. Obama to fail, then you wanted America to fail. Rather clear-cut.

As Donald Trump prepares to take the presidential baton from Mr. Obama’s incredulous hands, and Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees begin testifying on Capital Hill this week, we see the Democrat party and the Liberal Media Complex once again warming to the idea of opposition and obstructionism. They assemble choreographed, often compensated street protestors, and organize opposition on a massive scale, augmented by liberal politicians’ frequent appearances at their Capital Hill podiums, and their seats on congressional committees, for orchestrated displays of feigned indignation.

There is nothing surprising about this liberal double standard. It is, in fact, as anticipated as it is apparent. What amazes is that liberals, be they party hacks or media hacks, do not seem able to notice their own hypocrisy. They drone on in a bewildered state of self-delusion. And the rest of us are not supposed to notice.

Really?

The Big Liberal Lie

It came to a head with Hurricane Katrina.

I remember watching Fox News and CNN; seeing people stranded on rooftops, surrounded by flood waters that had inundated New Orleans; people left homeless, awaiting rescue, seeking help just to make it through the day, uncertain what the next day would bring. At a point, I asked myself, “Aren’t there any white people here?” It seemed every one of those flood victims was black, and I wanted the disparity explained.

America’s liberal establishment, backed by their media hounds (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream’ media), found a convenient scapegoat in President George W. Bush, and they put the blame squarely on his shoulders. As it turns out, however, the answer is not so convenient for liberals to acknowledge. Because the flood victims I saw on TV were those living in the most vulnerable areas of the city, those most socially and economically marginalized. And in that regard, New Orleans is not unique.

Why have minorities, African-Americans in particular, been left behind in so many ways? How do certain people end up so often living in the poorest neighborhoods, socially and economically marginalized? An answer is found in the imagery of Katrina, but has less to do with natural disasters than with the man-made variety. For those images illustrated the abject failure of liberal policies, and of the decades-long drive to turn America into a welfare state.

American society is now into a third successive generation of liberal welfare policies that encourage people to have children out-of-wedlock. That has resulted in a breakdown of the traditional family structure in many communities, especially among African-Americans. And the problem has become endemic. Recent statistics show that approximately 72% of African-American children are born out-of-wedlock. And children raised in single-parent households, and too often in poverty, are far more likely to spend their adult lives in poverty, in conflict with police or other sanctioned authority, ingested into our criminal justice system, or otherwise socially and economically marginalized.

Our liberal establishment downplays this reality because it points to the big lie they’ve been telling for decades — that a bureaucratic welfare state remains the only hope for society’s disenfranchised. The truth, in fact, is that decades of liberal policies have created a massive government bureaucracy that relies on the victim status, and resulting political support, of the very people it purports to help. Instead of acknowledging this, liberals call for more gun control laws; they decry racist police officers; they call for spending ever more taxpayer money to ever further expand the federal bureaucracy — anything to avoid a serious examination of their own failed policies.

When a politician or media figure tells us that too many guns, too little federal spending, right-wing bigotry and too little government bureaucracy have marginalized America’s racial minorities, they are perpetuating a false narrative. The challenge for conservatives is to reach out to those who’ve come to accept that false narrative, those who’ve been lured into a cycle of dependency, those who’ve been conditioned to expect little from themselves and from society — and to convince them there is an alternative.

Think that’s impossible? Think again. We have a strong weapon on our side … the truth.

What Would Bush Do?

FBI Director James Comey appeared on Capital Hill yesterday, at the behest of congressional Republicans, and testified as to Hillary Clinton’s lack of veracity in her own congressional testimony some months earlier. In response to pointed questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy, Mr. Comey indicated that Mrs. Clinton had misrepresented the facts numerous times regarding the handling of her official State Department emails.

So now, there are calls for a perjury investigation, and one anticipates a congressional referral of the matter to the FBI. Meanwhile, the State Department re-opens its own investigation of the Clinton emails. The response from congressional Democrats is to downplay the controversy and attempt to change the subject. And we are left with a hyper-partisan mess. In short, the matter is far from over, both legally and politically. So, how might this have been avoided?

An answer is found in the example of former President George W. Bush, during the CIA leak scandal, known as Plamegate.  When Plamegate erupted in 2003, then President Bush called for the naming of a special prosecutor, and Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to lead an independent investigation into the matter. This allowed a thorough (some would say overly thorough, but that’s another matter) inquiry to take place, independent of the FBI and U.S. Justice Department, freed from suspicion of any untoward influence by the Bush Administration.

President Barack Obama could have chosen a similar route by calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. But he didn’t.

As with every other scandal during his presidential tenure, Mr. Obama left this matter squarely within the realm of political influence. Such influence surfaced most recently in a private meeting, off the record and intensely inappropriate, between Hillary Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Only days later, Mr. Comey’s formal recommendation followed, that no criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton, a recommendation quickly accepted by Attorney General Lynch.

All of it highly suspect, hyper-partisan, tainted. Such is Mr. Obama’s legacy.

‘Bush’ A Double-Edged Sword

 

The political establishment was abuzz when Gov. Jeb Bush entered the 2016 presidential race, which was to be expected. He had instant front-runner status, and hoards of campaign cash quickly flowed his way, also as expected. Why, one may ask, all that attention for someone not overly charismatic, who doesn’t look good in a suit and doesn’t have a quick wit or glib line at his disposal? Why the early, presumed front-runner status and hoards of cash to a man who, increasingly as the weeks wear on, shows no great energy or urgency in how he conducts himself or his campaign?

The answer is simple; his last name is Bush. And therein lies the rub.

It is obvious from national polling, with outsiders Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson atop the Republican list, that the GOP’s voter base is not embracing business as usual. The genteel, establishment approach has worn thin. And no Republican represents that old-school, worn out approach more than Jeb Bush. He is also inextricably linked to George W. Bush (obliged to defend his older brother in an intra-party spat with Mr. Trump, which is even now an unnecessary distraction). That’s not a good thing in this election cycle, with America still embroiled in Middle-East chaos, and a new direction so desperately sought.

Jeb is on record defending his brother. Should he become the Republican nominee, the liberal media (a.k.a. ‘mainstream media’), along with the Democrat party, will link him to George W’s record. Their assault will be severe, withering and dispiriting. Jeb will be stuck in that quagmire, wasting time and resources defending his brother and himself.

Most any other Republican would find it easier to stay on the offensive, taking the argument to Democrats and their liberal media allies, running enthusiastically against the failed policies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and focusing on the nation’s desire for a better future.

His name is Bush, a double-edged sword. And there’s the rub.

What Is To Be Learned … Or Not … From 2014 Midterms

I watched the election returns last night, at a dining establishment in Santa Monica, California, and I sensed early on it was a good night to be Republican. At one point, a man sat down next to me at the restaurant’s bar, and before ordering anything, he glanced up to see Fox News’ coverage of Election Day 2014’s life-affirming results. The man seemed a bit taken aback, and said to the bartender, “Oh, is this election day?” To which the bartender, somewhat dumbfounded himself, replied, “I think it’s the state elections.”

Earlier today, President Obama held his first post-election press conference. When asked to characterize yesterday’s results, the President conceded merely that, “The Republicans had a good night.” Indeed, Republicans had more than that. It was a resounding Republican triumph, and as deep and convincing a defeat for Democrats as the “shellacking” (the president’s word choice) they suffered in 2010. Mr. Obama attributed those 2010 losses to a poor job of “messaging” by himself and his party. However, in this sixth year of the Obama presidency, voters left little guesswork in their wake, as they thoroughly repudiated Mr. Obama and his party’s now well-established, statist vision of America.

In the process, Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate, gaining 7 seats for a majority of 52 seats, and likely more once the dust settles in Alaska, Louisiana and Virginia. Republicans also added at least another 12 seats to their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, while they further expanded their share of Governorships among states in all regions of the country. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of down-ballot victories in state legislatures and local races.

At first blush, Mr. Obama’s concession that Republicans merely had “a good night” might seem politically tone-deaf. Considering, however, that the president’s target audience consists of voters who are themselves politically tone-deaf and relatively uninformed, like my two friends at the bar last night, Mr. Obama’s comment begins to make a degree of sense.

One imagines the president will allow himself to learn little from his party’s defeat yesterday, that he will continue his appeals to the clueless and uninformed, and that he will remain dismissive and obstinate toward those who don’t give him his way. And so, one anticipates the remainder of Mr. Obama’s presidency will be a rancorous, divisive and perhaps dispiriting affair. As President George W. Bush once famously said … “Bring it on.”