Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category
The latest spin from progressives is that the questions asked at the CNBC Disaster were “the most substantive” questions asked this debate season:
Cruz ticked off the insults the CNBC moderators had lobbed Wednesday night at the assembled Republicans. “Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?”
The crowd roared. Republican pollster Frank Luntz reported with some awe that his focus group gave Cruz’s riff a 98. “That’s the highest score we’ve ever measured,” Luntz tweeted. “EVER.”
Cruz’s attack on the moderators was smart politics, but it was almost precisely backwards. The questions in the CNBC debate, though relentlessly tough, were easily the most substantive of the debates so far. And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks, but that’s because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.
Let me correct those deceptive statements before someone starts thinking that they’re substantive comments worthy of serious consideration. To do that, it’s important to provide context for the debate. CNBC signed a contract that said that this debate would be about economic issues.
John Harwood didn’t meet those expectations. He failed that test early and often. Early on, he asked Donald Trump a question that ended with him saying “Let’s be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?” That’s Klein’s idea of a substantive, hard-hitting question?
A couple minutes later, Becky Quick asked Dr. Carson a question about his tax plan, saying “Dr. Carson, let’s talk about taxes. You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and, I’ve looked at it, and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I’ve had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.” Though this sounds like a fair question, it isn’t from the standpoint that Dr. Carson’s flat tax plan, in Dr. Carson’s words, “the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.”
If these are examples of “the most substantive”, hard-hitting questions of the debate season, why are they utterly disrespectful? Why didn’t the ‘moderators’ do their homework and get the basics right? When Harwood asked Sen. Rubio about his tax plan, he got it almost entirely wrong. Here’s that exchange:
HARWOOD: Senator Rubio, 30 seconds to you. The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to people in the middle of the income scale. Since you’re the champion of Americans living paycheck-to- paycheck, don’t you have that backward?
RUBIO: No, that’s — you’re wrong. In fact, the largest after- tax gains is for the people at the lower end of the tax spectrum under my plan. And there’s a bunch of things my tax plan does to help them.
Number one, you have people in this country that…
HARWOOD: The Tax Foundation — just to be clear, they said the…
RUBIO: …you wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it.
HARWOOD: No, I did not.
RUBIO: You did. No, you did.
Sean Davis’ article settles that matter permanently by posting Harwood’s tweet saying that he “had to go back and correct it”:
John Harwood? Verified account ?
?@JohnJHarwood CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%.
It’s stunning that the DNC apologists that call themselves journalists can’t even get their facts straight. They can’t even admit that they’ve made mistakes when it’s highlighted that they’ve made major mistakes. Harwood’s mistake was so bad that the Tax Foundation corrected him in a tweet…during the debate:
Scott A. Hodge ?@scottahodge
Rubio was right about his plan. Poor get larger tax benefit than the rich. #CNBCGOPdebate http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/FF457-Charts_4.png …
These aren’t substantive, hard-hitting questions. If I wanted to write a 3,000 word article on the flimsy, unprofessional questions asked at the CNBC I could do it without much effort. When a moderator asks whether fantasy football should be regulated, the candidates should have the right to criticize the moderators.
Normally, Kirsten Powers is one of the somewhat sane liberals in the national media. Ms. Powers’ latest USA Today article proves that there’s an exception to every rule.
The subject of Ms. Powers’ latest column is last week’s Benghazi hearing. According to Ms. Powers, who seems to have digested the Democrats’ chanting points then regurgitated them for this column, Republicans “bungling and bullying at Thursday’s hearing should count as an in-kind donation to the Clinton campaign.” Of course, Ms. Powers then said that what “happened in Benghazi matters” before saying that “investigating security failures, especially those that resulted in the deaths of Americans, is a laudable endeavor.”
Unfortunately, she then asked “does anyone really believe that’s what the Republicans were up to last week?”
The reason I suspect that this is a world-class spin job is this question:
But is it really a mystery as to why a friend of at least two decades would have her email address?
That’s spin. It isn’t surprising that Sid Blumenthal would have Hillary’s email address. It’s that Christopher Stevens didn’t have it. This emphasizes the point:
“During the hearing Michael McFaul tweeted, “As ambassador in Russia, I enjoyed multiple ways to communicate with Secretary Clinton. Email was never one of them.”
Actually, McFaul might’ve highlighted something important in that tweet. Clearly, he was able to “communicate with Secretary Clinton.” Why wasn’t Ambassador Stevens able to communicate directly with Mrs. Clinton? It’s clear that Stevens tried getting Mrs. Clinton’s attention often. According to documentation introduced at the hearing, Christopher Stevens literally made hundreds of requests for additional security.
According to Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, she never received a single request. She said that she “neither rejected or approved” any of Christopher Stevens’ security requests.
Ms. Powers says that “hate-blinded Republicans” bungled the hearing. That’s a cheap shot and then some. Republicans weren’t blinded with hate. They were determined to find out why Mrs. Clinton failed to protect Christopher Stevens, the man Mrs. Clinton called her “dear friend.” Is it typical for Mrs. Clinton to treat dear friends like that? If it is, then I’m thankful I’m not one of Hillary’s dear friends.
Does Ms. Powers think that it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton repeatedly told the American people for well over a week that a video caused the terrorist attack after telling her daughter that it was a terrorist attack? Does Ms. Powers think it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister and the Libyan president that Christopher Stevens died in a terrorist attack?
If asking tough questions of Mrs. Clinton is bullying, then this nation’s best days are in its past. If trying to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her decisions is proof that Republicans hat Mrs. Clinton, then Ms. Powers has a dramatically different definition of hatred than I do. Does Ms. Powers think Mike Pompeo bullied Mrs. Clinton when he asked her why nobody at the State Department got fired for not approving Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security? Does Ms. Powers think Susan Brooks bullied Mrs. Clinton when she asked Mrs. Clinton if she ever talked with Christopher Stevens after he was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Libya?
Personally, I’d call those important, thoughtful questions proof that Republicans on that committee took their jobs seriously.
Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Powers response to whether these questions are either a) inappropriate or b) proof that I’m trying to bully Mrs. Clinton.
Poor Gov. Dayton. He got taken to the cleaners by a used car salesman named Kurt Daudt. At least, that’s the impression Doug Grow wants you to believe after reading this article:
If you want to understand the negotiations leading up to the upcoming special session, it might be helpful to remember that House Speaker Kurt Daudt once worked at a car dealership.
Daudt’s counterpart in the negotiations, DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, started the process by saying he’d call the special session only after Daudt agreed to give him money for universal pre-K for 4-year-olds. “That’s my No. 1 priority,” he governor said. It was the legislative equivalent of walking into a car dealer and demanding the premium package, moon roof and all.
But then the governor said he needed a few other “must have” items, like the removal of language undermining the state auditor position, even after Dayton signed the budget bill that included that provision. In other words, the governor was now demanding leather seats — after he’d already signed a check to buy a car with cloth ones.
If you’re feeling sorry for Gov. Dayton, check this out:
The governor’s one great bargaining chip was his ability to say when a special session would be held, and doing so only after he got an agreement on what exactly will be considered there. But even if he knew exactly what he wanted from the session, Dayton had little leverage beyond the power of the bully pulpit. After all, he had made it clear from the get-go that he was going to do just about anything to avoid a government shutdown. “I have no intention to see this go to June 30th and a possible shutdown,” he said. “I’m just not going to subject people to that.”
Gov. Dayton didn’t have the power of the bully pulpit because he kept insisting on terrible policies that were rejected by Republicans and major DFL constituencies alike. (Think universal pre-K.)
Good policies make for great politicking. Gov. Dayton tried pushing a universal pre-K plan that wasn’t as popular as a heart attack.
Couple that with the DFL’s insistence on a gas tax increase and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.
When it comes to literary unprofessionalism, it’s difficult to top Gail Collins. Back in February, Ms. Collins’ sloppiness led her to accuse Scott Walker’s education budget cuts led to teacher layoffs in 2010. It was proof that Ms. Collins’ research skills aren’t highly developed. Thankfully, I can rely on Ed Morrissey’s research skills, which were evidenced in this post:
There are newspaper corrections that sincerely intend to repair the record … and then there are New York Times “corrections” to columns that should never have run in the first place. On Friday, the Paper of Record published a Gail Collins essay blaming Scott Walker’s cuts to education funding in Wisconsin for teacher layoffs that took place in 2010. There were only two problems with the column: Scott Walker didn’t take office until 2011, and his public-employee union reforms actually prevented cuts that would have resulted in even more K-12 layoffs. Either of those could have been easily checked, but would have been obvious to anyone who paid the least bit of attention to the controversy in Wisconsin over the last four years.
Needless to say, I don’t take Gail Collins word on anything. That’s why I did a little reading when she issued this edict:
We’ve been wondering when a presidential candidate would say something incredibly insensitive about women and reproduction. The moment has arrived. The 2016 Todd (“Legitimate Rape”) Akin Award for Sexual Sensitivity goes to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
Maybe it was inevitable. Of all the practicing politicians in the scramble, Walker is possibly the sloppiest public speaker. Compared with him, Chris Christie can be a pinnacle of verbal discipline.
Last week, Walker was on a radio talk show, praising a law he signed requiring women who want an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Which they’re supposed to watch, while the physician points out the features of the fetus.
An ultrasound, he said, was “just a cool thing.”
That Gail Collins describes the baby in the ultrasound as a fetus shows that she isn’t coming at this from an unbiased perspective. How many women, when they see their first ultrasound, say “Look at my fetus”? Aren’t they most likely to say “Look at my baby”?
The whole reason why Wisconsin legislators passed that bill and Gov. Walker signed it into law is because a significant number of women that see their baby when they get an ultrasound decide not to get an abortion.
There are 2 points that are essential to this article. First, it isn’t coincidental that Gail Collins’ fury is directed at Scott Walker. When she wrote about Gov. Walker in February, she couldn’t be bothered with getting the facts straight. This wasn’t a difficult project. Anyone with a memory knew that Gov. Walker wasn’t elected until November, 2010. Anyone with an ounce of professional pride would’ve gotten that right. She didn’t.
Second, it’s clear that Ms. Collins isn’t in touch with people in the heartland. Apparently, in Ms. Collins’ world, the widely held belief is that anyone who does anything that makes it more difficult to have an abortion is a Neanderthal. Anyone that can compare the stupid thing that Todd Akin said with what Scott Walker said is frightening.
Then again, I am talking about Gail Collins.
The RNC should pull the plug on the Republican presidential debate that ABC is hosting. It isn’t just that George Stephanopoulos didn’t clothe himself in glory with his nondisclosure of his donations to the Clinton Foundation. It’s that ABC is caught in another controversy that proves ABC isn’t trustworthy:
Games may have been played yesterday in connection with the week’s resounding media story. On Thursday morning, Politico media reporter Dylan Byers broke the story of George Stephanopoulos’s big-money donations to the Clinton Foundation (at first they were reported as $50,000 but grew to $75,000 by day’s end). The headline of Byers’s story: “George Stephanopoulos discloses $75,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation.”
Big deal. The Internet exploded with commentary, criticisms of Stephanopoulos, liberal-media slams and claims that the PR department of ABC News had done something untoward in handling the story.
Thanks @ABC for leaking statement to @DylanByers after @AndrewStilesUSA and @FreeBeacon asked you about Stephanopoulos donation to Clintons
— Matthew Continetti (@continetti) May 14, 2015
.@AndrewStilesUSA spotted the donation yesterday. I told him to ask @ABC for comment. They said they’d give a statement—to @DylanByers!
— Matthew Continetti (@continetti) May 14, 2015
In other words, ABC issued a statement to a newspaper that they thought would write a friendlier story about the Stephanopoulos story rather than let a real journalist write the story he’d discovered. That’s a pretty scummy thing to do. I don’t think it’s coincidence that ABC gave the Washington Free Beacon a comment … 10 minutes after the Byers Politico article broke. Here’s why:
When the Washington Free Beaconers put their heads together Thursday morning, there was still no comment from ABC News. “I say, ‘Let’s begin to move this story,’” recalls Continetti. The piece wasn’t complicated: A network news anchor had contributed to a charity run by the first family of the Democratic party and hadn’t told viewers when that charity emerged in news coverage. What was complicated was its landing. “Literally as we were about to hit ‘post,’ we are alerted to the Dylan Byers piece that just went up,” says Continetti, who moved to publish their piece without the ABC News statements. Those arrived later.
This sounds like Stephanopoulos and the ABC PR department trying to direct the story to a friendlier media outlet. They know that the Washington Free Beacon is a right-of-center newspaper. Stephanopoulos might’ve suspected that Stiles’ article would’ve been harder hitting than Byers’ spoon-fed article.
The RNC shouldn’t be in the business of fighting reporters’ fights. Still, it shouldn’t let networks host debates if they’ve shown themselves to not be trustworthy. It isn’t just that Stephanopoulos isn’t trustworthy. It’s that ABC has proven that they aren’t trustworthy. They’re more trustworthy than MSNBC but they’re far from trustworthy.
Check out the opening paragraph of the St. Cloud Times Our View editorial:
St. Cloud has acquired a jewel of a park — in need of refurbishing.
The City of St. Cloud didn’t “acquire” George Friedrich Park. They fleeced SCSU President Potter when they talked him into swapping a beautifully wooded 50-acre plot even up for 5 acres of land that can’t be developed. The St. Cloud Times said that a) the Friedrich Park land is worth $328,000 and that the land just south of the National Hockey Center is worth $294,000. According to my calculator, that means the barren wasteland south of the Hockey Center is worth $58,800/acre and that the beautifully wooded Friedrich Park is worth $6,560/acre.
Does anyone seriously think that barren wasteland is worth 9 times more per acre than a beautifully wooded lot?
At least the Times took time to indict President Potter’s mishandling of the Park:
Improvements to Friedrich Park have been talked about for years. The land swap resulted from a collaboration between Kleis and St. Cloud State University President Earl H. Potter III. Kleis has added an important chapter to his legacy. His knowledge of the history of the community and the park is exceptional. But to his credit, he turned the knowledge into action.
Let’s assume for this discussion that acquiring Friedrich Park adds “an important chapter to” Kleis’ legacy. Wouldn’t it be equally true that refurbishing and restoring Friedrich Park would’ve added to President Potter’s legacy? The same lessons about St. Cloud’s history would still be there.
It’s true, though, that the Friedrich Park fleecing will be part of President Potter’s legacy. It’ll rank right up there with his lease with the Wedum Foundation, his hiring the Earthbound Media Group to rebrand the University’s image and his paying the City of St. Cloud to police their city.
Thus far, SCSU has lost $7,700,000 on the Wedum Foundation lease. Additionally, SCSU paid EMG more than $400,000 to rebrand the University. Since the time of the rebranding, enrollment has continued its decline and SCSU’s revenues have dried up. As for President Potter paying $720,000 for 3 years of policing, the injustice is that SCSU is paying for police officers that the City should’ve paid for.
Adding Friedrich Park to those financial disasters just makes President Potter’s ‘legacy’ one of financial foolishness.
This morning’s St. Cloud Times Our View editorial is mostly the type of stuff you’d expect from liberals trying to paint themselves as moderates. There is a section, though, that’s clearly liberal:
Now is the time to (pardon the pun) pave the middle ground between DFL and Republican proposals to stabilize long-term transportation funding.
Dayton’s plan does the most because it spends the most by correctly getting users of the state’s transportation system to pay more in gas taxes. Never willing to raise taxes, House Republicans would rather shift general-fund money into transportation. That’s a bad idea because the next Legislature could shift it back based on its funding priorities.
Instead, Dayton should accept a smaller gas-tax hike to a level that more closely aligns with Republican spending targets. Oh, and just call it a user fee.
I hope the Republicans immediately reject the Times’ proposal. The Times editorial board will rationalize their opinion on the faulty theory that compromise is automatically the right thing. It isn’t. Principled compromise isn’t the wrong thing. Compromise for compromise sake is foolish.
First, I’d argue that We The People should come first. It’s clear that the vast majority of Minnesotans a) prefer fixing Minnesota’s roads and bridges and b) don’t want to get hit with another tax increase. That means that the DFL would deserve the political nightmare they’d get in if they tried undoing the GOP transportation plan.
Next, I’d argue that it’s foolish to think that the DFL is interested in good faith negotiations regarding transportation. Move MN, the DFL front group that’s campaigning for a $13,000,000,000 tax increase, has consistently talked about Minnesota’s roads and bridges during their TV and radio interviews. The minute they’re off the air, though, they’re lobbying legislators for raising the sales tax on people in Washington, Dakota, Carver, Sherburne and Anoka counties to pay for transit projects that benefit Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
There’s nothing fair about that. It’s a major rip-off that benefits the DFL’s political base by taxing people more closely aligned with Republicans. If Hennepin and Ramsey counties want increased transit projects, let them pay for those projects. It’s immoral to force people to pay for things that a) they don’t benefit from and b) others benefit from.
There’s another flaw with the Times’ thinking. They say that “the next Legislature could shift it back based on its funding priorities,” which is true. What the Times isn’t taking into account is that people can let the DFL know that they’ll pay a steep political price if they get rid of the Republicans’ plan while replacing it with a plan that’s already been tried and failed.
If we implemented the Republicans’ plan and it fixed Minnesota’s roads and bridges, why wouldn’t the Times praise the Republicans’ plan? Further, why wouldn’t the Times criticize the DFL if they tried getting rid of a transportation plan that’s working?
Finally, Republicans should utterly reject the DFL plan in the strongest words possible because it’s been tried before and failed miserably. Compromising with people who’ve proposed terrible policies isn’t a virtue. It’s stupidity.
I appreciate Salena Zito’s latest column because, once again, it’s about what’s important to Beltway pundits and what’s important to real people living in America’s heartland. This week, Ms. Zito’s column focuses on the fight between getting distracted by gimmickry or focusing on fundamentals:
Though he never was called up to serve in Vietnam, Garfein, out of Fort Lewis, Wash., led an armored reconnaissance unit and a field artillery battery. “I’ve always felt a connection to the men who fought in the Civil War.”
His conversation turned to leadership, honoring the past, the government scandals of the last five years and the country’s future: “I was taught at a young age to value your community and to serve it. We need more emphasis on that from those who want to lead our country. “And we need to hold those in power in check; stop chasing the unicorns and start chasing and revealing the truth and demanding competency.”
A week later, more than two dozen reporters chased the next presidential cycle’s first unicorn, Hillary Clinton, around an Iowa community college on her first official campaign stop. The optics of that was as comical as a tiny car releasing scores of clowns into a circus ring. But it doesn’t amuse people like Garfein, who wish the media would chase down government corruption and incompetency with the same gusto.
The ‘reporters’ covering Hillary on the campaign trail are making asses of themselves. They breathlessly told us that Queen Hillary had ordered the burrito bowl from a Chipotle in Ohio. They informed us that she’d ordered the “guac”, though Jon Stewart noticed that they didn’t tell us how many napkins she took:
The media are, for all intents and purposes, Hillary’s puppets. For all the talk about how Hillary won’t get the same kid glove treatment from the media like then-candidate Obama did, it’s looking like the media isn’t exactly fired up to investigate Hillary. While she won’t get the slobbering coverage that President Obama got, she’ll get kid glove treatment.
This week, we saw the Hillary ‘correspondents’ do some embarrassing things. First, they acted like puppets chasing her vehicle around a community college building. This morning, veteran NPR political reporter Mara Liasson told media critic Howard Kurtz “For some reason that I’ve never understood, the public wants to know everything that the Clintons do.” That’s what Beltway reporters think about the people’s appetite for the Clintons? Seriously?
There’s no finer example of the difference between real reporters from America’s heartland and ‘reporters’ from inside the DC Beltway.
Last night on ‘On the Record’, host Greta van Susteren played a clip of Harry Reid saying something utterly outrageous, which isn’t surprising. Greta then asked her Political Panel why Democrats haven’t spoken up about Reid. Kirsten Powers’ response was the obligatory ‘Harry Reid has been effective’ chanting point.
I’m tired of getting that reply. There’s no justification for the disgusting things Sen. Reid has said, especially the lie that he told about Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. I know that Sen. Reid is protected from litigation because his statements on the Senate floor are covered by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.
Harry Reid’s actions condemn him. Reid didn’t think about troop morale when he said that “the war is lost” shortly after President Bush ordered the start of the Surge. It didn’t take long for Sen. Reid to be proven wrong. The surge worked.
Key question: What type of dirt bag puts a higher priority on criticizing the commander-in-chief than the puts on maintaining the morale of true American patriots who are putting their lives on the line?
Harry Reid didn’t hesitate in lying about Mitt Romney. He didn’t have proof that Mitt didn’t pay taxes. He didn’t care. Sen. Reid put a higher priority on winning at all costs than he put on being a man of character.
Key question: What type of political party sits silent while their leader repeatedly lies about the other party’s presidential candidate?
Frankly, it’s disgusting that a political party wouldn’t criticize a dirt bag like Sen. Reid. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t just without character. They’re disgusting to the core. They’re unrepentant. Their first concern is accumulating and maintaining power. Their next priority is to never criticize a fellow Democrat no matter what they’ve done.
Edmund Burke said something that Democrats should think about if they still have a heart. He said “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Right now, the Democratic Party is filled with people who a) apparently don’t have a heart and b) haven’t lifted a finger to criticize one of the nastiest politicians that’s ever served in the US Senate.
Key question: Are there any Democrats still in the Senate or in Punditland that will excoriate Sen. Reid and run him out of DC?
Kirsten Powers has done some honorable things. Still, last night, she didn’t do a thing to excoriate Sen. Reid. She had the opportunity to criticize him and take down the nastiest man in the Senate. Ron Fournier had the same opportunity. He didn’t lift his voice to excoriate Sen. Reid, either.
Key principle: Americans shouldn’t trust a political party that doesn’t care about ethical behavior.
The Democratic Party is infested with disgusting people who don’t have the character required to consistently do the right thing. During the last 6 years, they’ve consistently put doing what their special interests wanted them to do ahead of doing what’s right for the American people.
If people with character within the Democratic Party don’t rip the party away from the Harry Reids of the world, then the Democratic Party should be vanquished to the trash heap of failed political parties. They will have earned it.
Brian Beutler is one of the left’s most prominent attack puppies. He didn’t even wait for Sen. Rubio to declare his intention to run for the White House before launching an intellectually feeble attack. If this is the Left’s best shot, they’re in trouble:
Senator Marco Rubio, who will announce his candidacy for president on Monday, was supposed to lead a GOP breakaway faction in support of comprehensive immigration reform, but was unable to persuade House Republicans to ignore the nativist right, and the whole thing blew up in his face. In regrouping, he’s determined that the key to restoring Republican viability in presidential elections is to woo middle class voters with fiscal policies that challenge conservative orthodoxy.
His new basic insight is correct. The GOP’s obsession with distributing resources up the income scale is the single biggest factor impeding it from reaching new constituencies, both because it reflects unpopular values and because it makes them unable to address emerging national needs that require spending money.
It also happens to be the raison d’être of the conservative establishment. Challenging the right’s commitment to lowering taxes on high earners, and reducing transfers to the poor and working classes, will encounter vast resistance. Where Paul can appeal to the moral and religious sensibilities of elderly whites who might otherwise oppose criminal justice reforms, a real challenge to GOP fiscal orthodoxy will get no quarter from GOP donors.
If Rubio were both serious and talented enough to move his party away from its most inhibiting orthodoxy, in defiance of those donors, his candidacy would represent a watershed. His appeal to constituencies outside of the GOP base would be both sincere and persuasive.
The first point worth making is that Mr. Beutler’s opinion is based on his belief that conservatism has been rejected. Starting from the perspective that a political philosophy is antiquated means the person thinks that philosophy isn’t viable. The next point worth making is that Mr. Beutler believes that the book John Judis co-wrote with Ruy Teixeira titled The Emerging Democratic Majority is still Gospel truth. It isn’t. Third, Mr. Beutler apparently thinks that Rand Paul appeals “to the moral and religious sensibilities of elderly whites.” That’s delusional thinking. Rand Paul has a following but it isn’t with Christian conservatives. Let’s examine Beutler’s opinions one at a time.
Conservatism wasn’t rejected by the public. It’s been rejected by politicians like John McCain, John Boehner, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham. These politicians have spent too much time listening to the DC Echochamber. When conservative principles are applied, like they’ve been applied in Wisconsin and Texas, they’ve produced fantastic results. Further proof that conservatism still resonates with people is that Marco Rubio repeatedly got standing ovations in his announcement speech and Scott Walker, supposedly a guy who was too boring to be a top tier candidate, got rave reviews for his speech in Iowa.
Next, The Emerging Democratic Majority worked for a couple of election cycles before failing the last 2 cycles. It’s even more pronounced during the midterms. The number of state legislative seats, not to mention the number of legislative majorities that flipped from blue to red, was nothing short of overwhelming.
Finally, Rand Paul isn’t, and never will be, beloved by Christian conservatives. I won’t say that libertarianism and Christian conservatism fit together like metric wrenches fit together with standard bolts. They’re not that incompatible. Rather, I’d say they aren’t a close fit and leave it at that.
There’s no question that the Clinton Machine will do its best to bloody the Republican nominee. It’s their only hope against young, attractive candidates like Gov. Walker and Sen. Rubio and their reform-centric agendas. If they can’t vilify these candidates, Hillary can’t win.
That’s why Hillary’s consultants are drinking Maalox like it was Gatorade on a hot summer’s day.