The latest scheme by establishment Republicans to undermine the conservative groundswell of the Tea Party and its stunning victory in the 2010 elections is to flaunt last week’s exit polls as proof that America rejects real conservatism and is now willfully shifting to the left. In this they are abetted by the Democrat propagandists as well as the “mainstream” media. Yet an understanding of those exit polls, interpreted in their proper context, is essential to an accurate assessment of the current political landscape. And so far, the “experts” are determinedly avoiding any presentation of the big picture. Doing so would simply not be advantageous to their agenda.
First, it must be clearly understood that exit polls are not the reflection of the entire mood and sentiments of the nation, but only of those who bothered to visit the polling places and then answer the queries of the pollsters. And while these numbers are significant, and have determined who will lead the nation in the next four years, they do not accurately reflect the attitudes of those who were too frustrated or disillusioned with the candidacy of Republican challenger Mitt Romney to make the effort to vote for him. Even a cursory analysis of the election returns offers a glimpse of something much more significant than the trite appraisals coming from the network talking heads.
Barack Obama received ten million less votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. Amazingly however, Romney received three million less than did Arizona Senator John McCain. So although Obama’s popularity fell significantly from the days when he was going to lower the sea levels and bring unity to America, Romney fared even worse. He did a poorer job of connecting with his base than McCain, the so called “Senate Maverick” who has made an entire political career of cozying up to liberals and betraying conservatives in his own party.
Fears among the conservative base that Romney would abandon them once in high office were the basis of his struggles to gain momentum during the Republican primaries. And though most Republican voters decided to support him once he clinched the nomination, a sufficient number could not bring themselves to do so, resulting in his poor showing on November 6.
Now, those same establishment Republicans who insisted that the party nominate a convincing “moderate” in order to broaden its appeal are seeking desperately to distance themselves even further from conservatives in the wake of his loss, in hopes of gaining acceptance from the left. The inanity and futility of this effort has been painfully proven on countless occasions, yet that reality is flatly rejected inside the Beltway. Instead, the usual suspects are working overtime to pander their way back into the good graces of their enemies.
Their latest ruse is to resume the push for amnesty for the twenty million illegal aliens now residing within our borders. The fact that this effort will only ensure that a greater number of disenfranchised conservatives will be driven from the party, and that the bulk of those new voters will move decidedly into the Democrat fold, is apparently of no great significance to GOP elitists. They must ignore the concerns of their base, accept the premise of their ideological foes, and proceed to commit national suicide under the misbegotten premise that somehow, this will miraculously improve their political fortunes.
Had these traitorous politicians trumpeted their intentions to betray America on the amnesty question prior to November 6, conservative disaffection would have been far worse, with no accompanying offset from Hispanic voters. Consequently, Republican numbers would have been even lower. And those vaunted exit polls would have been held up as evidence of an even more severe national movement to the left.
Unfortunately, many among the supposedly “conservative” punditry are shell-shocked, and likewise jumping onto the capitulation and pandering bandwagon, accepting far too many flawed and dangerous premises of the left, and disparaging the foundations of true conservatism. While this behavior is always a ticket to condescending nods of concurrence from liberals, in the long term its consequences always do far more harm than good.
The entire debacle of Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin stands as a deplorable testament to liberal success at manipulating and exploiting willing pawns on the right. Had Akin merely invoked the word “actual” instead of “legitimate,” when contrasting between real and falsified claims of rape, he may have been able to stay on message, contrasting his conservative track record against the liberalism of his opponent. Yet the Democrats saw a single Akin misstatement as an opportunity to create a horrendous ruckus and thereby derail his candidacy. Worst of all, the shrillness of their contrived hysteria was sufficient to spook a number of conservatives into dutifully joining the fray like a line of chorus girls. In the end, Akin was decidedly beaten by his Democrat opponent in a state that Romney carried by nearly ten points.
Had Akin’s attackers on the right been willing to redirect even a fraction of the energy with which they castigated him against Democrat Claire McCaskill instead (her own gaffes and dubious record certainly warrant such a response), he might have fared better. But that course required the courage to stand against a concocted media tsunami. Now, in the wake of his defeat, the situation provides fodder for those who would see Republicans abandon their principle in a futile quest to become indistinguishable from the Democrats.
If this appraisal sounds harsh, consider the senate race nobody is willing to discuss, Scott Brown versus Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. By all accounts of those inside Washington, “Republican” Scott Brown did everything properly from the moment he took the seat previously held by the late Ted Kennedy. Brown regularly sold out the conservatives who had elected him, opting instead to accommodate the liberals who would then enthusiastically work to upend his political career. Yet nobody expresses remorse over his duplicity or his squandered opportunity to elevate the standing and discourse of the Bay State. Worst of all, Democrat Elizabeth Warren to whom he lost, has a record of spewing absurdities that vastly eclipses anything ever uttered by Todd Akin. Nevertheless, both sides treated her far better than Akin.
Republican “moderates” (read: liberal Trojan Horses) regularly wreak havoc on the conservative agenda, yet any outcry from the grassroots is immediately shouted down on the grounds that the GOP must not impose “litmus tests” on its candidates. But let a true conservative stumble, even a single time, and suddenly litmus tests are the order of the day. While the Republican Party would never consider holding Scott Brown to even the most rudimentary political standard, in the case of Todd Akin the party elites were quick to be judge, jury, and executioner. And still conservative analysts wonder why the GOP cannot muster the resolve to effectively confront the problems facing the nation.
Republican Party losses on Election Day resulted from its willingness to conduct its campaigns, and ultimately to govern, within a framework dictated to it by the Democrats. Post election, “We the People” are only getting more of the same.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, along with AMAC Advantage, the quarterly publication of the Association of Mature American Citizens. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.