"Mitch McConnell isn't interested in running a national referendum..." & "Ted Cruz’... ran a campaign based on the Religious Right... his fund raising was heavily dependent on appeals to globalists and social liberals. How to explain the disconnect? A wink and a nod? And Cruz is far from unique among GOP senators.
Are Pro-Tyranny Mike Pence & "Silent about Hunter's Laptop" Bill Barr Backstabbing "Disgusting Coward[s]" or Traitorous "Controlled Opposition"?
Midterm: GOP's Greatest Self Inflicted Wound Or Dems Get Lashed Back?
I’ll admit: I try to present an optimistic attitude, because without optimism there’s no reason to continue the good fight. Nevertheless, I’ll also be the first to admit that most days I wake up and say to my wife: The world has gone crazy!
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Why do I bring this up? Well, because over the past week or two I’ve noticed that Mitch McConnell appears to be projecting a defeatist attitude rather than an optimistic attitude—even publicly suggesting that the GOP will lose seats in the Senate even if they win the House (as seems very likely). What’s going on? Am I the only one who gets the impression that Mitch doesn’t want to be majority leader if that means having to work with actual conservatives—the kind that won primaries with Trump’s backing?
Here are two opposing views. First up is Tucker Carlson speaking with Stephen Miller. A reminder: Miller—a former Jeff Sessions top aide—became a key Trump adviser and speech writer. Miller is a guy who wants to win, so it’s easy to see why his approach appealed to Trump. Fact: Miller’s issues were Trump’s issues, especially border security.
Here’s the video—it’s only a bit over 3 minutes—followed by my transcript:
Tucker: This has to be the simplest formula ever. Everyone hates crime--why aren't Republicans running on it?
That’s an easy one. The true answer is: Because they’re afraid of being called racist.
Stephen Miller: Zhou Baidan is the most unpopular president in American history. We should be looking at the largest midterm victory for Republicans--likewise--in American history. Instead, the forecasts are shrinking every single day. Why? Because Mitch McConnell isn't interested in running a national referendum that says, 'Elect Republicans and, in January, we seal the border; we reform law enforcement to go after criminals, not Republicans; and we end the war on America's children. No. What he wants to do is handpick candidates that he thinks will like Mitch and Mitch will like them, and if that means we have 48 seats or 49 seats, so be it--he gets to stay on as minority [Miller says "majority"] leader.
I especially like the bit about ending the war on American children—I think that would make a fantastic campaign theme. Miller is generally right, but doesn’t ask or answer the obvious question, although he kind of implies it later: Why is a guy like The Turtle the GOP leader if he doesn’t want to run on obvious issues? And the obvious answer is: Because the Big Donors aren’t behind those issues, and Mitch doesn’t think the Little Donors can make up for the loss of Big Donors. Worse, he doesn’t WANT the Little Donors to make up the difference because that would mean the party would be controlled by Trumpian populists.
We are witnessing, in real time, the greatest self inflicted wound we have ever seen. If Republicans went out every day and said, 'We have never had more illegal immigrants ever before this year than have been recorded in world history; we have increases in crime in our cities that no civilized nation has ever seen; and if you elect a Republican majority we will go in, in January, and we will take the first funding bill and we will attach to it a requirement that the border be shut, and a requirement that the FBI stop attacking their opponents and start locking up and breaking apart organized crime in America.' And you say that in every state and in every Congressional district in this country and you will win a landslide like you have never seen before. But nobody wants to step up and even make that promise.
Tucker: That's exactly right, and actually there's precedent for it. The largest landslide in the history of the American presidency was 1972 by a candidate who DID NOT WIN ON CHARM, but won on Law and Order. And you can mock Richard Nixon all you want, but he was right ...
Miller: 49 states.
Tucker: That's exactly right! So, again, how dumb are the people who run the party?
Miller: Well, a lot of people have been drinking the Frank Luntz Kool-Aid. I was a Congressional staffer for almost a decade! I went to all of these presentations! So what they do is they sit you down and they say, 'We ran a message and it says, Controlling wasteful Washington spending polls at 95%.' To which I would say, 'You know what else polls at 95%? I like cotton candy. I think airplanes are really neat and super cool. And I enjoy watching movies on Sunday.' None of that gets anyone elected! What gets people elected is pushing messages where there's nowhere to hide. 'I'm for putting violent criminals behind bars; I'm for deporting illegal aliens and you're not, so I win and you lose.' That's how you win elections.
Tucker: And how about that Rafael Warnock video where he seems to be committing spousal abuse? How did that go down the memory hole? I thought we were against that stuff!
Miller: [nods] Fight to win!
Again, Frank Luntz is an easy guy for conservatives to dislike, but it begs the question: How did Luntz gain and retain so much influence over Republican campaign messaging? There’s more to this—or so it seems to me—than Miller is letting on. I’m sure Tucker knows better, too. To get a clue, go back and follow Ted Cruz’s fund raising when he ran for the presidential nomination and compare that to his campaign rhetoric. He ran a campaign based on the Religious Right—he was going to win Super Tuesday by that appeal and knock all the others out of the race early on. Didn’t happen. But … his fund raising was heavily dependent on appeals to globalists and social liberals. How to explain the disconnect? A wink and a nod? And Cruz is far from unique among GOP senators.
OK, so here’s the opposing view, if you will. What I mean is, it’s not intended as a response to Miller or Tucker, but it’s campaign messaging coming from the Establishment that seems to hit the right issues, the ones that Miller favors. Ronna McDaniels is another person who’s easy for conservatives to distrust, but hear she is:
Admittedly, that’s a rather tepid title. But if you read down you get two key paragraphs in which Ronna strings together every single one of Miller’s issues. Nor does she appear embarrassed by GOP candidates:
These candidates are representative of a broader movement. They’re outsiders who love their states and are proud to be Americans. They’re moms and dads outraged by the poisonous propaganda being fed to kids in K-12 school curriculums. They’re working-class Americans, veterans, children of immigrants, and business leaders who bring real-world, practical experience to the table. Most of all, they’re concerned citizens who have been called into action by Democrats’ destructive agenda.
And voters are just as fired up. They know that under Biden and Democrats’ control, our country is on the wrong track. In the past year and a half, Democrats in Washington have wasted trillions of dollars, sent gas prices soaring, and pushed our nation into a recession. As families struggle to afford back-to-school shopping, summer travel, and energy bills, Biden and his party are working to make things worse. The border remains unchecked and crime in Democrat-run cities is out of control.
That’s why so many voters have switched their affiliation to the GOP and plan to vote Republican in November. It’s why Americans of all backgrounds are jumping into the fray and running as Republicans. And it’s why voters are backing bold, conservative candidates leading on the issues that matter most. There’s a new generation of Republicans rising. Democrats, take note.
There’s a test coming up that will at least answer Tucker’s question: How dumb are the people who run the party? Breitbart has the story:
Joe Biden Announces ‘Unity Summit’ After FBI Raid on Donald Trump’s Home
President Joe Biden is planning on hosting a “unity summit” to bring together Republicans and Democrats at the White House after the FBI raided former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced Biden’s plan to host the summit in a statement on Friday, noting the president wanted to “counter the corrosive effects of hate-fueled violence on our democracy and public safety.”
“The United We Stand Summit will bring together heroes from across America who are leading historic work in their communities to build bridges and address hate and division, including survivors of hate-fueled violence,” she wrote.
How did the GOP get in the position of having to respond to this type of transparent trolling? Why, by failing to denounce—very loudly and clearly, every single day—the hate-filled violence directed at ordinary Americans who assembled peaceably to protest election fraud, the violence of the Covid Regime, the violence of crime, the violence the violence at our borders, the violence inflicted on our children through indoctrination and gender surgery, and most recently the violence directed at President Trump and all of our liberties. Why is it that the GOP—speaking generally—has so little appetite for this fight for our constitutional order? As so often, it come down to money and convictions.