In one story I encountered on WND used-to-be Democrat Pollster Pat Caddell laments the fact that the political corruption of media integrity (a concept that is, but need not be, an oxymoron) now leads to the wholesale suppression of vitally important facts. His comment had particular reference to the elitist faction media’s almost universally deceptive reporting with regard to the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
But a Washington Post story I linked to from WND illustrates that this corruption is an endemic result of the overall corruption that seems tragically characteristic of anything that has to do with politics and government in America these days. The story’s headline reads “In Missouri, clergy in the fray of Akin race, seeing it as start of a ‘battle for the soul’ of GOP.” Now the battle between the GOP’s elitist faction leadership and the Party’s largely conservative voter base has been ongoing since at least 2006, when grassroots disaffection with that leadership handed control of the U.S. House of Representatives back to the Democrats. But more telling than the article’s false pretense about the start of the battle is its failure to allude in any way to the fact that the GOP’s 2012 Presidential candidate lined up with the elitist leaders who are adamantly seeking to destroy Todd Akin’s campaign for the U.S. Senate, even if that jeopardizes the GOP’s chance to regain control of that body. As I pointed out back in August, the statement the Romney/Ryan campaign issued when he did so “focused on making it clear the Romney/Ryan team disagreed with Akin’s position (also taken by Paul Ryan before he became Romney’s running mate) that the victimization of the mother by rape does not warrant the victimization of the child by abortion.” The statement was a reaction against Akin’s principled pro-life position, not the possible electoral consequences of his awkward reference to “legitimate rape”. “They mean to make an example of him” I continued, “in order to terrorize other GOP candidates into avoiding or surrendering that principled position.”
Thanks to Abraham Lincoln’s statesmanship, the Republican Party’s commitment to securing the God-endowed unalienable rights acknowledged in America’s Declaration of Independence has indeed been the defining quality of its soul. By choosing to side with the GOP’s elitist faction leaders on the basis that he did, Romney put himself at the head of the forces within the GOP who seek effectively to relinquish that quality.
The Presidential election is surely the most important and pervasive political event happening at the moment. Yet Romney’s name is nowhere mentioned in the Washington Post article. The GOP nominee sides with those who would rather see the Democrats retain control of the U.S. Senate than fail in their efforts to make sure no GOP politician is allowed to get away with taking the GOP Platform seriously. But this highly significant fact is nowhere taken account of in the Post’s so-called reporting.
Readers of this blog know that my mind refuses me the luxury of ignoring the implications of such a telltale silence. Thinking it through in this case, it’s clear that any mention of Romney’s leadership role in the anti-Akin lynch mob could lead people to ask themselves “What’s in it for him? Doesn’t he want the GOP to control the U.S. Senate?” Such questions might lead them to consider the pattern of Romney’s career since assuming the role of a conservative convert. He appeals for votes with emphatic claims of conservative views on the right to life, the defense of marriage, and opposition to government centered socialist economic approaches. Yet he ends up imposing gay marriage in Massachusetts, and signing on to a health care plan for his State that included government funded $50 co-pay abortions and coverage mandates that coerced religious conscience. Of course, he only went along with these betrayals of conservative principle because he had to work with the nasty, bad old Democrats who controlled the State legislature, right?
If the GOP wins both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate Romney loses the fig leaf conditions that provide cover for the otherwise obvious inconsistency between his conservative rhetoric and his consistently leftist actions. The U.S. Senate is particularly important. If the Democrats lose control, how could Romney continue the almost anything but conservative pattern seen in his Judicial appointments in Massachusetts?
If Romney’s professions of conservatism are true, his leadership of the Akin lynch mob raises questions about his tactical political competence. But if they are false (as his record emphatically indicates), the fact that he sides with the “Off with his head” attitude of Karl Rove and the GOP’s elitist faction leaders makes perfect sense.
That being the case, mentioning his role as the Akin lynch mob’s ring-leader could interfere with the effort to gull the GOP’s largely conservative grassroots voters into accepting his plainly suspect claim to deserve conservative support. What then is the significance of the Washington Post article’s silence in this respect? Is the Washington Post quietly guarding Romney’s vulnerable conservative flank? Given this possibility, what sane conservative should really believe that it’s safe to swim in Romney’s waters without a way to deal with the leftist sharks whose support he may quietly be attracting? Wouldn’t it make sense, therefore, for such conservatives to give serious consideration to the Platform Republican Approach to the 2012 election. Call it stocking up on shark repellent. If and when Romney wins, real conservatives will be glad they did. And what’s more important, America’s liberty will have a real chance to survive the elitist faction’s assault against it.