The phenomenon of identity politics has been a disingenuous practice that’s played out over the broad lifespan of politics. One of the main tools that we’ve seen particular advancement in, especially from the current political realm, is the use of the mainstream media, who have more brazenly, and more consistently, rallied for liberal-turned-statist Democrats (perhaps they always have, but that’s another topic) over Republicans, whether of the establishment brand or principled conservative. They’re feverish zeal is felt with that much more intensity and exuberance when it comes to taking down those principled conservatives who don't fit their contrived molds, and who threaten the very fabric of their support for statist ideology, with politicians who strive towards a complete remake of American society.
There have been a couple areas that we’ve witnessed excessively nasty sniping: the particularly venomous attacks aimed at our conservative women, and the overreaching marginalization or irreverent dismissiveness towards black conservatives. Perhaps these two categories are treated as such because many in the liberal media have determined that the vast majority, if not all, female and black demographics (and the same could be said of Hispanics), should be unquestionably voting for their Democrats, particularly for all the special interest and government subsidies that the Left has lured and ensnared these groups with for so many years. They feel that these votes have essentially been bought and paid for! And this practice has extended to the point that even some defeatist Republicans and media pundits have bought into the notion that such first principled conservatives, which the media has come to readily dub ‘the far right’, can neither win these groups over, nor ever beat the extremely beatable Barack Obama, or a combination of both. And much of this rationale, we’re told by these same media elites no less, is particularly dependent on those mysterious independents, who both the media and establishment fail to grasp actually share, with a huge abundance, our conservative values! These stereotypes promulgated by the media, and bought into by our own, MUST end in order to save our nation.
Some interesting discussions took place on Rush Limbaugh’s show this past week that delve deeper into the discriminatory actions of the mainstream media in their efforts to monopolize elections in this country, particularly the presidential race, and maintain victory for statism, both in its champions and its enablers.
The discussion surrounding our conservative women, specifically in regards to our female presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, ensued with a gentleman, who, although claiming conservative principles, was too wrapped up, like many, in the idea of beating Obama at any cost, even at the cost of abandoning that principle which he laid claim to… Rush proclaims, “Yes, we can nominate one of us." (condensed quotes):
CALLER: I agree we should not nominate candidates who are either near RINOs or middle of the road because we need a return to conservative values. But given how leftist Obama is and the need to beat him, doesn't it make marketing sense to at least position the Republican more to the center and to the right of Obama in the campaign rather than the far right? Stated differently, the farther we go to the right, the more votes we risk losing. And, frankly, as a conservative, and I think there are a lot of people out there like me, I'd vote for almost anyone against him, so my vote's not at risk, and yet the independents' votes might be.
RUSH: Well, give me a definition, if you will, of far right. Give me a person who is far right.
CALLER: In my view the far right candidate out there right now is probably Michele Bachmann.
RUSH: And you think she's too far right to get the nomination?
CALLER: I think that a lot of independents would not vote for her.
RUSH: Why?
CALLER: Not only for her ideology but also for other reasons.
RUSH: Well, no, what other reason? I can't read your mind.
CALLER: She's a female.
RUSH: Oh. Okay. We're not ready for the first female president, particularly a right-winger?
CALLER: Correct.
RUSH: Why? What does that mean?
CALLER: Well, I think it's a double standard. I think if you're, as in a lot of other things, if you're a Democrat or a liberal and you're a female, that's a plus. Look how the female Republicans are treated by the media and by virtually everyone who isn't a conservative, they're --
RUSH: Okay, now, let me just ask you a couple quick questions. This is what I ran into last night. "We gotta focus on winning. Whatever it takes, we've got to get rid of Obama."
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: And the assumption is -- and I think it's incorrect -- the assumption last night, the assumption in your call is that a conservative is not gonna win, 'cause that's what you mean by conservative. When you say far right-winger, I know what you mean. You mean a conservative. And my point of view is that if we don't nominate one of those, we can kiss it good-bye. If we try to go Obama light to please these mythical independents, we lose.
CALLER: Yeah, if we lose the election, I think we lose the whole country.
RUSH: No. I'm telling you I disagree with you. If we nominate the person you want, we lose. If we nominate a watered down anything because we're afraid to be who we really are, 'cause that turns people off --
CALLER: I wouldn't like it, but I would hold my nose like I did the last time and still vote for the Republican. Where else am I gonna go?
RUSH: Well, look, we find ourselves in a real dilemma here in this country. On one side of our mouth we say we gotta get rid of this guy or we're gonna lose the country and then we want qualifications on saving the country. Now, either you are for the Constitution or you're not. Either you are for traditional values that have defined the institutions and traditions that have made this country great. Either you are for them or you're not. You are either for capitalism or you are not. You know, when we start calling ourselves what the left calls us, when we start saying we can't nominate one of us too far to the right, we are responding to the characterization that the left places on us, and we are accepting this assault and legitimizing it by responding to it.
Where's it written that a woman would not appeal to independents? I think that a woman could appeal to the so-called independents. That's another thing I've been told. "Rush, you ought to act like you love the independents. You ought to act like they're your favorite people, that way they'd do what you want. You ought to, Rush. If you criticize the independents, Rush, they're just gonna run away from the Republican Party." I don't criticize 'em; I criticize the way they are characterized. At any rate, we've been there, done that. I just think a woman would appeal to these so-called independents.
The fact that media liberals trash our women doesn't mean they can't attract votes, but I'll tell you, that's what so many of our people think. I can't get away from it. I can't get away from people who think Palin's a guaranteed loser, and they're cool with it. I take it to the logical next step and say, "You're telling me we're gonna have to nominate somebody the media doesn't dislike. We're gonna have to nominate somebody the media doesn't criticize. Sorry, it isn't gonna happen." There are a lot of contradictions in what people tell me. Now, let's say this. If we had nominated Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter rather than Ronald Reagan, what do you think the outcome would have been? Remember, Ronaldus Magnus was said to be too far to the right. Ronaldus Magnus, the Republican mainstream, he's just too far out there. He's the guy that did the Goldwater speech, you know, come on. This guy's too unstable. We want this guy in charge of nuclear weapons? We had Republicans saying that.
Right, okay, so let's go out and find the equivalent of Gerald Ford to put up against Barack Obama, and you tell me what happens. You just tell me. Go out and find your favorite moderate, put 'em up against Obama, and you tell me, what's the outcome? This notion that traditional conservatism, fealty to the founding of this country can't win is preposterous. I think it's responding in total defense to the left, exactly how they want us to.
And Rush is exactly right about that. We must not legitimize these liberal claims about conservatives! A conservative principled woman can absolutely attract votes…that’s why McCain received as many as he got before he destroyed his own campaign, it was all about Sarah! And the threat that she poses to the liberal establishment, and who women are supposed to vote for, is precisely why the media hordes attack her so. An interesting article appeared last week in The American Spectator questioning if Sarah Palin is Michele Bachmann’s ‘Goldwater’…definitely worth a look at!
Let’s move on to a demographic that we’re told is not even supposed to exist: the black conservative. How this is surmised is astonishing, seeing that it was the Democrats that maintained dominion over a pre-civil war slave-trading South and continued to support segregation afterwards until the Civil Rights movement, which many Democrats opposed as well, brought relief and the truth of equality instilled in our Declaration (but that’s also a topic for another discussion).
The effort to marginalize and openly mock our black conservative candidate, Herman Cain, is in full force with the liberal media, that is, whenever they do decide to mention him. Over the span of a few callers, Rush discusses how the American Left lives to destroy black conservatives and “Why the Left hates Herman Cain.” (condensed quotes):
CALLER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to get your opinion on why Herman Cain isn't getting more attention in the media, whether it's TV or print media. Half the time they don't even list him as a candidate for president, and the polls that they're, you know, reflecting, you know, various newspaper articles... I mean, when you see him at these Republican debates, I know that some of the time Fox has on that device that measures, you know, the audience response? And he seems to be getting the highest numbers. He seems to be, you know, very smart gentleman that a lot of people like. Yet he's not getting the media attention that I think that he very well deserves. I mean, if Herman Cain didn't go to the CNN Republican debate, I don't even know if his name would have ever been mentioned on CNN.
RUSH: Well, the best answer that I can give you when you're talking about people like CNN and others, I just think it's no more complicated than they don't think he can win. I'll bet you if you could get the producers, the assignment editors, the people behind the scenes that you never see who are responsible for what stories get covered -- the people who are out there assigning, "Okay, Biff. I want you to go follow Herman Cain around a couple days. See what Herman Cain's doing" -- those assignments aren't being made because I don't think these people think Herman Cain has a chance. I don't think they even think he's a serious candidate.
CALLER: It's a little bit like what you were talking about earlier, substance versus, you know, the Mitt Romneys of the world who have the perfect (garbled) hair.
RUSH: Yeah, there's no question that that's a component, too, absolutely.
CALLER: I mean, he's definitely got some substance. It's unfortunate that the Republican Party is reducing itself to looks alone and whether or not somebody can read off of a teleprompter. (giggles)
RUSH: Well, I don't know that the Republican Party has done that. Remember, the people telling me that that's what it's gonna take are Republicans. They were telling me that's what the Republicans better start doing. They better stop worrying about somebody who's pure, true, and blue on policy and substance; they better find somebody who can lie and is good-looking, cause that's what people want. The people are not deep, they're shallow, and they don't start paying attention 'til two days before the election (or three, maybe two weeks) and that's when you go after 'em big time. You don't waste any campaign money now. You don't waste a whole lot of time on debates. You wait 'til people are really paying attention, and you just hit 'em with good looks and say whatever you have to say to get elected. That was the theory I heard last night, and the theory was that's what Republicans don't do and that's why they lose. It's what the Democrats do do, and they win.
CALLER: Then nobody goes to the polls to vote anyway, so (giggles) it's very unfortunate.
RUSH: Well, not true. Presidential races, the turn out has been pretty large last three, four times around.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: You know, I'm like you. I heard that theory, and I know there's an element of truth to it to some people. The fact that that might describe a majority of voters, that's not pleasant to contemplate. But your question about Herman Cain. I don't know if you've ever watched golf on television, but I'll give you a little analogy. During the Masters, Rory McIlroy was leading the tournament, and he was blowing everybody away (just as he did recently last weekend at the US Open). On Sunday, after the front nine, he had a meltdown, and they stopped covering him altogether. You couldn't get a single shot of Rory McIlroy. They stuck with the leaders. I was watching it, and I wanted to see McIlroy. I wanted to see: How is he handling this? And the people I was watching with said, "Eh, he's out of it, Rush. They haven't got time to show you people who aren't gonna win." I said, "Well, I would like to see how he's dealing with this." But Rory McIlroy went from three days of start-to-finish coverage like Tiger used to get, and the minute he dropped out of the lead by two strokes, you never heard of him. It's just the way the media is.
CALLER: So, are you telling me that the media determines who's gonna win over a year before the election and then decides --
RUSH: No. No. No, no, no, no. I'm telling you that that's why they're not covering who they're not covering now. Not that they're right. I'm not telling you that they're right.
CALLER: -- if they're not covered by the media? That's what the unfortunate part is because I think Herman Cain has a lot to offer and he's got a lot of substance.
RUSH: Yeah, I agree, but it's not their job to get him coverage.
CALLER: But they're covering people that -- they're covering candidates that -- didn't even attend some of the initial Republican debates.
RUSH: Right. They're covering candidates that they hope will embarrass the Republicans. They're covering candidates that they hope will make people not inclined to vote Republican.
CALLER: That's my point, that the liberal media --
RUSH: Well, that's because media is not fair and balanced. The media, they're part of the Democrat political apparatus.
CALLER: They're always very shortsighted, in my opinion.
RUSH: Well, for them, yeah, but it is what it is. So if Herman Cain is to get noticed, he's gonna have to do something himself that gets him noticed -- and here comes the old debate. You do it with substance or you do it with, you know, walking around wearing women's underwear. Heck.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, I don't want to mention any names out there 'cause I frankly don't particularly like the names I would have to mention. They're already making fun of Herman Cain and the way he talks on television. They're already doing that. Now, they never did that with the Bamster, as you know. It was just the exact opposite. Obama, oh, my God, look at the crease of his slacks. Oh, my God, what a smart guy. David Brooks said he was destined not just to be president, he was gonna be a great one because of the crease in his slacks. And we're supposed to rely on that, conservative columnist for the New York Times. That's the criteria which we are supposed to accept Obama being qualified. "Smart guy, very serious candidate, Rush, very, very serious, a man of incredible depth, you can hear it. He's incredibly nuanced. He's elegant in the way he speaks, very, very eloquent and elegant."
I remember the commentators were marveling at the way Obama spoke and put syllables together. I can just tell you they're out there making fun of the way Herman Cain talks, just like they make fun of everything else about Palin. They make fun of everything about Palin. They make fun of Romney about being a Mormon and being a cookie cutter Ken doll. I don't know what they're making fun of Pawlenty for but they're making fun of Pawlenty, but they're not making fun of Obama. Herman Cain, if I had to say, Herman probably represents everything the news media says does not exist. Herman Cain is articulate; he is very highly successful; he is a conservative Republican who is black; and that is what they tell you doesn't exist, and that is a primary problem that Herman Cain has.
You identify yourself as a black conservative and you may as well be admitting that you're a whore or a prostitute, an Uncle Tom, you've been bought off, whatever, you aren't real. It's not possible for a black person to be conservative. The way the media and the left look at this country, a black person who is conservative is a black person who would agree with the whole notion of slavery and would wanna be a slave owner. That's how bad it is that is how devoid and distanced from reality that they are. But I mean the media will not even admit that somebody like Herman Cain can exist. Look what they do to black Americans who identify themselves as conservatives.
Now, if you want to talk genuine intelligence, if you want to talk real depth of education, Shelby Steele, writer, professor, economics, stuff appears in the Wall Street Journal. Thomas Sowell, a brilliant economist, philosopher, an incredibly deep individual. Our sometimes guest host, Walter Williams, ditto. These people don't exist. They are black conservatives. They are traitors. They don't deserve any legitimacy at all as far as the media is concerned, as far as the left is concerned. They don't even deserve respect. Legitimacy of any kind. And, of course, it's the height of unfairness. That's what it is. And that's one of the hard, cold realities of politics. It is what it is, and you have to deal with what it is day in and day out.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
CALLER: Longtime listener, first-time caller. I think you have left your putt a little bit short on your analysis of Herman Cain, though, and why the media is ignoring him. I agree with your first premise, hey, they don't think he's gonna win so let's ignore him. But I think the overriding factor is the traditional media sees the world through this prism of liberalism and they can't see straight and they see a black man with conservative, articulate values as a threat to Obama, and that's why they're ignoring him. Can you imagine Obama and Herman Cain having a debate with the topic of race in the United States or minorities in the United States, Cain would school Obama just like Netanyahu schooled him on the Palestinian issue.
RUSH: You may have a point. I hope you're right about that.
CALLER: I think that's exactly right. This is how these people think. I know how they think. I told your screener this. Obama went to Occidental College for two years.
RUSH: Well, yeah, I know how they think, too. And in a lot of cases they're not really threatened by some of our nominees. In other cases they are. I hope you're right about that with Cain. You could well be, too.
The fact is, these conservatives of strength, who move beyond the stereotypes placed on their principles, their party and themselves, are as capable of absolutely reinvigorating the conservative movement, despite what the mainstream media tells you you’re supposed to think about them.
And as far as the view of the establishment towards pandering to independents, they undermine the independents admiration for honesty, integrity and principle. If our guys need any further reassurance, just look at how many independents voted for The Gipper! And he didn’t exactly restrain his conservative convictions.
We’ve seen, and have come to know, exactly how leftist Democrats loath Reagan, but we’ve also heard moderate Republicans tell us that ‘the era of Reagan is over’ too. Both want us to believe that his brand of strong, unabashed conservatism can’t win, despite two landslide victories. Yet, when it’s time to get votes, they ALL, Republicans and Democrats alike, invoke Ronald Reagan. The two candidates that I’ve discussed above do more than merely invoke Reagan, they seek to live by the conservative principles that Reagan followed, passed down by the conservative fathers before him.
So when we have a statist in the White House that only 3 in 10 say they will vote to re-elect, don’t tell me that this isn’t a golden opportunity to witness the much needed fruits of another conservative ascendancy! Now is not the time to buy into the defeatist product that the liberal media and establishment would sell us. Republicans, conservatives, independents, even disenchanted Democrats, we can nominate a principled leader, despite any limitations that the media would impose on our candidates. I'm not say that we must vote for a black man or a woman, but I am confessing that along with the gloves, it’s time for us to take their blinders off as well to make the BEST choice for 2012!
