I offer this analysis under the assumption that Ed Gillespie is not in this senate race just for the Bob Dole of it, as a party loyal slot-filler. I assume that Ed Gillespie 1) actually wants to defeat Sen Mark Warner in November, and 2) believes he has a strategy than can accomplish this objective. I also assume Ed hasn’t hired any of Eric Cantor’s crack political pollsters to move him in that direction. Plus, I like Ed Gillespie.
But paying attention to the manner of Cantor’s loss points to flaws of perception in Warner’s campaign, for Warner’s are also based on assumptions. For one, Cantor proved that there are some elections that can’t be won with money or name recognition, having outspent Dave Brat by over 20:1 with greater name recognition, 100:1. Secondly, the outrage against Congress in general, the Washington establishment more particularly, and the Democrat Party because of Obamacare with even more laser-like specificity, seethes so deeply in the voters’ souls these days it no longer can be measured…either by counting, or by decibel. When the people go quiet it’s time to pause and reflect. But the mood out here is of an open wound, a throbbing tooth-ache, Manilow music piped into your jail cell. And Cantor wasn’t just beaten, he was stomped. It reflects an anger brooding and sinister, so instead of loud protests, people have locked their jaws, jutted their chins, braced their backs, and march in somber unison, much like the mob that carried torches to burn Baron von Frankenstein’s castle down, Just don’t let the quiet fool you, every politician should know voters have this sort of capacity for incumbents this time around.
It is just for the contender to find that mood and tap it. So, if Ed Gillespie can capture a sense of this disquiet, he can win. Every Democrat is vulnerable right now, all of them, and Mark Warner’s campaign relies entirely on the fact that Gillespie won’t be able to exploit his vulnerabilities. because of it.
Warner is as vulnerable as he ever could be, for one, because he is an incumbent Democrat. Moreover, he lied. Worse, he lied about his lie, when he reneged on his promise to turn against Obama if Obama reneged on his promise that you can keep your doctor, etc, with Obamacare. He’s hoping Gillespie will not make an issue of it, in the spirit of sportsmanship and collegiality.
And from the focus of his early ads against Gillespie, Warner reflects his acknowledgement of this situation, for, instead of humility or shame, Warner has doubled-down on the theory that Republicans always shrink away from any fight, no matter how righteous it may be, if the Democrats offer to take that fight to be street. By pointing out early Gillespie’s prior “establishment” connections in Washington, Warner’s daring Ed to go there about his own. (“You don’t want to go there”–Eric Holder)
By the way, this “double-down strategy” (I used to think it was sheer hubris when I first saw it employed in the 90s, but have changed my mind since) was developed in the Clinton years, and I recall Fred Thompson becoming undone in 1997, as head of the Government Oversight Committee investigating White House misconduct in fund raising. Thompson tried to tie Harold Ickes, who worked under Hillary at the time, to questionable practices, but instead of retreating from clear facts and contradictory memos (sort of like the IRS scam today, if you don’t understand this pattern) Ickes doubled-down, doing everything short of daring Thompson to a knife fight in the parking garage if he continued coming after him.
Thompson was gobsmacked, and indeed retreated, (which also established a pattern that persists among Republicans) and while Ickes deserved jail time, I think he instead received a garland-littered exit from the hearings to an awaiting chariot. I hated him, but know he was a conquering hero to a lot of people in those quarters. So the vicious counter-attack, especially after being caught red-handed in a crime, or a lie (later turned into an art form by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Dali-esque media by Harry Reid) has been installed as standard equipment in every Democrat operative and candidate since. It’s been a proven winner.
So it is, then, Warner wants to contain Gillespie, locked in a small box of limited issues; jobs, economy, public service, “what I’ve done or can do for Virginia”, etc all to insulate his double-lie hidden in one lock-box, and to keep other vulnerabilities, i.e., Democrat liabilities to which he has subscribed, either wittingly or unwittingly, in a second one, away from public discussion.
With this in mind, Warner has the hutzpah to attack Ed Gillespie as a charter member of the Washington establishment in much the same way as Obama, that he is a Washington outsider trying his dead level best to tame that damned town. It’s not that Warner wants anyone to tbelieve this swill, mind you, it’s just that he doesn’t want the conversation to go somewhere else.
Warner is possibly more aware of his own vulnerabilities than Gillespie. He knows his Obamacare double-lie, so he knows where he is exposed, (like a gladiator’s armor, in that soft open area between his backplate and his breastplate). So he must take the Gillespie team’s eye off those areas altogether, and make it extremely unpleasant for then to try to go there. He must also divert Gillespie’s gaze from those other places Ed can pick up votes which Warner cannot counter.
So, my thinking is, Ed Gillespie should consider taking the debate with Warner to those other places. That is, of course, if he is in this to win.
The Sarvis Shield
….shields as many as a third of Virginia voters, and not just the 7%-10% Sarvis and other faux libertarians can accumulate directly. It is those other voters Sarvis & Co have been put in place to keep isolated.
In Virginia, betting money is saying Warner doesn’t even need Sarvis to beat Gillespie, so why bring him up?.
But it isn’t just the votes Sarvis can garner, but the ones Sarvis can bottle up, all because of his “issues”, which are not libertarian at all, and the stigma so-called “moral issues” carry for easily a third of Virginia voters who are now asking who their standard bearer will be, now that the Republican Party appears to have dumped them. Many inside the GOP have been trying to shake this bunch off the Party’s trouser cuffs since Reagan left office.
Robert Sarvis is a self-identified “libertarian” whose entry onto the political stage in Virginia was paid for by leftwing Democrat money, and the franchise he seems to represent is a broader plan concocted by the Left, the Washington Post a key media player, where today several more “new libertarians” are potential impediments in several key senate races the GOP would like to take from Democrats.
This needs to be seen for what it is, a long term project or stratagem to isolate a large bloc of GOP voters by removing from debate a body of political concerns by saying those concerns aren’t political anymore. And as I said, many Republicans are fine with that. Perhaps maybe even Mr Gillespie.
But if you’re a history buff, take note that this is exactly the same strategy used by the then-new Democratic Party in 1824, by taking the slavery issue off the table, for thirty five years wrangling in Congress over everything but slavery, until finally, our nation was nearly destroyed when that untreated cyst finally burst in 1860. Nearly a million men died.
The proof is in the pudding with these “new libertarians”. When you think of libertarians you think of strong constitutionalists. But constitutionally Robert Sarvis is like a prostitute…with no visible means of support. His camp followers in Virginia have largely redefined constitutional rights and protections in terms of their own appetites, extending those constitutional rights all the way down to the state and local level. In other words, to hell with the 10th Amendment and local control, as witnessed by the gay marriage debate, where, instead of protecting the right of gays who form a union with one another, as protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, they more particularly want to take that one word, “marriage” and claim it as their own as well, denying the states the right and power to declare what and is not a “marriage”. To “new libertarians” the constitution matters littie as a framework of governance, but more a guarantor of personal license, and is marketed just enough to scintillate tiny minds.
Democrat and leftist timing on this is impeccable, as the generational opportunity can only come every two-three generations. Well funded third parties have always been able to garner 5%-10%, that’s no surprise, but these only target key “moral issues” the Left wishes to bury, in part because burying them can take as many as 30% of the GOP out of the game altogether in part because the GOP no longer represents other non-religious political issues, such as small government. Since Reagan the GOP has slowly morphed into a big-government party not that unlike the Democrats, making it more and more difficult for small-government and religious-based Republicans to continue with the GOP after their central platform issues have been buried. Theres no fall back, anymore, and I doubt many Republicans even see this change in the political math.
The Left’s target here is religion, for it stands in stark opposition to the status statists wish to acquire for their own god.
So why would I mention the Sarvis Shield versus the religious right in an election where it is not likely to be an issue?
Two reasons actually. First, this is that exposed spot in the Mark Warner’s armor, and on one level, at least, he knows it. This is where he is vulnerable, for he has no parry to Gillespie’s thrust. This is where Ed Gillespie can get votes by the tens of thousands Warner is counting on staying home, by a simple well placed ad, and few added sentences on s stump speech.
And the second reason,why would any Republican want to move into top management on a sinking ship?
For you see, all those “moral issues” everyone is so afraid to speak out about without aggravating the women with incontinent thighs and the foot-stomping gays, can be debated without once picking up a Bible. (I’m pitching this notion to religious groups, too. who are none too keen to hear Darwin and God mentioned in the same sentence, but this is politics, not church.)
But the moral issues opposed by the several religions in America, even those that are beyond legal debate, such as abortion and divorce, all have an impact on the survivability of a culture, and these are all are recognized by Science as endangering to any society’s survival.
If the Left can bring in “survival endangering” policies into our political discussions of the envirtonment and climate, surely to goodness Republicans can do the same about cultural decay and rot, especially since we have to look only to Europe and Russia to see firsthand what climate scientists can only speculat about in rising sea levels, global warming and polar bears who can’t swim.. Consider Western Europe who, as a group of individual ethnicities, have already debauched and bred themselves into non-existence, only their funeral services will not be for another generation or so, when the last true Belgian is buried. And little did the Russian people know that from 1922-1992, as they lost their moral codes in exchange for a state-based religion, that the free (and promiscuous) fun they would enjoy would deny them the required fixed stars in their heavens that guides a “free and moral” society. So today, they are neither.
The break-up the American family actually explains these little cretins running around calling themselves “new libertarians” in the first place, if you’re interested in the math of unintended consequences. A society that permits gay unions with equal legal protections, at the 2% range where it actually exists, suffers no survival threat at all, but the legal destruction of the institution of marriage can be fatal.
In other words, Ed, the Republican Party has been peeing all over the very “survival-values” that can keep this national state afloat, all because those values happen to also be religious, this offending an insanely small minority. And it has been because the GOP has been out-schemed, out-flanked, and out-planned by leftist thinkers who shouldn’t be able to shine your shoes.
If people of faith can understand the compatibility these issues on two parallel tracks, surely the GOP can as well.
These are long-term problems looming for America, and I for one do not want to lay our future in the laps to a few million libidinous unmarried women, aged 21-35, and horny gay men, neither of whom, by disposition, can seem to see past next month.
Still, they have been allowed to set the political tone for the other 93% every election cycle.
Thus we are watching “a common morality”, which every society must have, being cynically removed from the national debate for short term political opportunity.
One difference between the two parties today is that Democrats have no difficulty whatsoever in telling 40% of the American voters they don’t want their vote, while Republicans cannot summon the courage to tell anyone this, much less the 17.3% (2.3% gays, 5%professional unmarried women with incontinent thighs, and assorted atheists, anarchists and Marxists, 10%) who have been conditioned to hate everything about us the past forty years. What’s hard about this? The GOP should only want the votes of those who are willing to accept certain rules of civilized behavior…and survival…and yes, while those laws are found in the Bible as well as many other holy books, a “common morality” is understood among Darwinists who understand the general laws of cultural survival.
The other difference is Republicans don’t have to lie (another survival-endangering sin). Democrats do. I’ve never understood this, and I certainly believe the Republicans don’t understand the math of why this makes a difference.
It is Mark Warner who has sold his soul and in doing so, locked himself in a box. (This is true of most Democrats, in fact.) What Mark Warner has never done is have to stand before the people of his state and try to explain those lies away, and his entire campaign this year will be to prevent having to. do so. For he will not be able to do it.
Repackage morality as a Darwinian, non-religious issue, and watch how many people of common sense but with no particular religious belief, will come around to you cause, destroying the Sarvis Shield. Move away from the boiler plate arguments about jobs and economic development, and go for the survival issues (that exposed soft spot between the armor plates) Democrats most fear…and cannot defend) which the people are especially susceptible to in these times, and you have a winner. If you really want to be a leader in the Senate, these are the real issues that will make you one. Otherwise, senators don’t lead, they palaver.
These are cards you can play… that is, if you really wants to win, Ed.