Cable television is littered with “Republican consultants” who hate Republicans and consult no one. To the extent that they even worked on Republican campaigns, they were losing ones. MSNBC and CNN are a veritable jobs program for these frauds, sending them out almost on the hour to second the talking points of their liberal patrons.
One of the principal goals of the liberal media is to give unsolicited advice to Republicans that will hurt them and help Democrats. Usually the advice consists of urging the GOP to run de facto Democrats who call themselves Republicans. So, naturally, the media treated the victory of Roy Moore as ominous news for the GOP. Out came its farm team of phony Republican consultants to bat around “the issues his victory raises.” This occasioned a lot of insiderish babble about “Todd Akin,” as if audiences vividly remembered his campaign and the supposedly monstrous lesson the GOP learned from his defeat.
A positive — the populist energy behind Moore’s victory — was quickly turned into a negative in the media’s coverage. “Roy Moore’s victory in the Alabama Senate primary sent shock waves through the Republican establishment Wednesday, portending a GOP civil war as outsider candidates in other states threaten to challenge incumbents,” reported the Los Angeles Times gravely. “The potential showdowns are reminiscent of the tea party uprising that just a few years ago cost Republicans the majority in the Senate. Now President Trump’s populist rise to power — honed by his former advisor Stephen K. Bannon — has generated a new wave of long-shot candidates capable of upending the 2018 midterms.”
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is true. Who cares? If Moore “threatens” a GOP majority in the Senate, it is a meaningless one. The rank-and-file is supposed to be terrified at the prospect of losing a “majority” led by the likes of Susan Collins?
In truth, the only thing Moore threatens to do is to turn a useless majority into an effective one, and that the media can’t abide. Consequently, it pushes the lie that the populism of the Tea Party and Trump pose a grave risk to the GOP.
The Times story reads like propaganda its reporter cobbled together after a conference call with a who’s who of failed Republican consultants:
On Capitol Hill, Republicans braced for more incumbents to resign rather than face challenging nomination fights.
As a result, Republican professionals who until recently felt that their control of the Senate was secure because the states holding elections in 2018 mostly lean red have started to worry. The departure of incumbents and the rise of candidates who Democrats easily can attack as extreme might put their majority at risk, they fear. At minimum, the new wave of challengers likely means more money spent and a Senate Republican Caucus that will lean further right, and be harder to control, after the next election.
So here we have “Republican professionals” who played no role in bringing the GOP to power full of “worry” that they may lose it. But the last sentence in that paragraph is even more absurd: even if the Moores win, they will “be harder to control.” To whom does that phrase refer? The aforementioned vaguely described Republican professionals? The editors at the Los Angeles Times? Hosts on MSNBC? Senators “harder to control” is the media’s euphemism for Republicans who might actually vote for Republican bills.
It is good news, not bad news, that Republican consultants and pols who wasted millions of dollars on Luther Strange’s run have less influence over the GOP. Only the liberal media would have the gall to put that kind of spin on Moore’s grassroots victory. All of the media’s prattle about a “civil war” in the GOP, which is surely one of the longest civil wars in history (the media has been reporting on it since the Goldwater run), is designed to defeat Republicans or neutralize them.
The media could not care less about the GOP’s “majority” status. It simply wants to block conservatives from participation in politics. Notice that the moment one of them wins a race the audience is immediately told they are “losers” bad for their party. And who supplies this analysis and prognostication? Largely, “Republican consultants” who have never won a major race in their lives or from the Karl Roves who still try and dine out on hollow victories from years ago. Rove’s latest column is a hatchet job on Moore and an attempt to con the GOP grassroots. He pretends to share their disgust with the GOP’s dysfunction, never mentioning that he supported the squishes responsible for it. His smear of Moore and any “copycats” he might inspire — containing the usual blather about wasted resources in contested primaries — is intended not to reform a feckless GOP but to protect its most entitled members.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.