Throughout at least the past three consecutive extended presidential campaigns and election cycles, the majority of related TV news and commentary has continually played an unethical role with voters that has shirked its responsibility in honestly vetting candidates.
Personalities across the spectrum of all media, to varying degrees, have repeatedly assumed the role of deciding for prospective voters of their audience who can and cannot win presidential elections, especially for those running as Republicans.
Yes, even some Fox News commentators have been among these voices. It seems to have become quite predictable for viewers and listeners that when you hear a line such as “This is the candidate with the best chance of winning the presidency,” it is used to describe the prospective candidate with the least in common with the conservative Republican base.
This phenomenon (already unethical) has also become so one-sided that it is as if a long-term dirty pact has been made among weak Republican candidates, the media, and the Democrat party–that would appear to be fully funded by the latter.
The still relatively new (yet already tired) concept is that, among modern American Republican voters, the only viable candidates with a shot at the presidency are those who have at least partially aligned themselves with the Democrat platform.
Those in the media’s trusting audience who have taken this advice with them to the polls have shown that this concept is 50% effective.
Their influence has successfully helped to determine the Republican presidential nominees. It has not, though, ever won a single general election for president throughout this dangerous experiment, as of yet.
Thus, all conservative and Republican voters have been left with the choice between a weak Republican candidate and not voting at all.
Independents, moderates, and blue-dog Democrats have been left with the choice between semi-liberal candidates and full-on liberal candidates.
These past general elections have proven that few voters throughout the political spectrum care much for indecisive leaders. Most folks would rather vote for someone who leans strongly toward their party’s platform as either liberal or conservative.
Even though the Republican establishment’s push of weak, moderate, fence-straddling candidates has never worked in a single general election, they keep on plugging away, trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I’ve heard that as a definition of insanity, and it seems as fitting in this case as any.
So, even though we’re still over a year away from the next presidential elections, the moves now being made by the Republican Party seem to be business as usual, yet again.
For a while, to the dismay of the conservative base, it seemed that we might have Mitt Romney as a choice that, at best, could have inevitably provided the clear choice against Jeb Bush, the liberal Republican the establishment continues to push upon us.
Now we’re left with a few others, thus far, to choose from. Among these are Marco Rubio, an overall pleasingly conservative candidate, but one who is weak on illegal immigration; Rand Paul, a reform-minded conservative, but one who is a bit scary to the base on foreign relations and national security issues; Mike Huckabee, who is very articulate with the conservative message but scares some away who view him as too populist; and possibly Ben Carson, an energizing conservative figure, but one who is weak on gun rights issues.
Standing head and shoulders above the rest, with all considerations toward his constitutional eligibility aside, is Senator Ted Cruz–but that’s a subject for another time.
Then, there’s Scott Walker, who is beginning to build upon the following he first created in his political career, as a charismatic figure who arguably presents the party’s platform as well or better than anyone we’ve seen in a long time. Although he has yet to prove himself to the conservative base as a leader who would tow the mark across the spectrum of issues that matter to them, time will tell if he can sell himself as such.
On a recent Fox News segment of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly commented that Marco Rubio would have to concede on the front of immigration in order to win the Hispanic vote–and thus have a good shot at the White House.
This is just the type of mindset that’s destroying the Republican Party, and frankly the country itself.
How long until we and our leaders as a majority finally learn the lesson taught by Ronald Reagan–that in order for the Republican Party to survive, we must present “bold colors, not pale pastels”?
We must give the people drastically different, clear choices at the ballot box because, to additionally quote country music legend Aaron Tippin, “you’ve got to stand for somethin’, or you’ll fall for anything.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/can-win-well-judge/#wkqpZ3a6QBdKeuLQ.99
