Politico Buttresses Liberal Republicans at the Expense of Conservatives

The Old Media establishment hates all Republicans, certainly, but they tolerate liberal Republicans because those sorts of Republicans don’t rock the boat and are quite happy taking the scraps from the Democrats’ table. So, the media always does its best to promote liberal Republicans and will use them as a foil to destroy conservatives–the latter of whom they truly despise. Politico recently had a perfect example of this Old Media strategy.

In a piece discussing how conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives are lagging with their donations to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Politico had a perfect example of how the left frames the debate when they are pretending to “report” on what is going on with the GOP.

The story noted how many of the House conservatives most associated with tea party principals don’t seem to keen on giving some of the campaign war chests to the NRCC so that it can promote left of center Republicans–and who can blame them?

In a great example of agenda “journalism,” the left’s narrative was perfectly pushed in the third paragraph of the slanted piece by Politico’s Alex Isenstadt.

Here is that paragraph:

Their refusal to contribute to the House GOP’s political arm, coming as Republicans are getting thumped by Democrats in the money race, is causing heartburn and frustration among Republican strategists charged with laying the groundwork for next year’s races. They say it is reinforcing a perception of the conservative gang that they’re out only for themselves and don’t much care about advancing the party’s larger cause.

Notice the locus of power assumed by Isenstadt’s piece? He assumes that the liberal Republican is the one properly in charge of the GOP and the conservatives are the outsiders causing trouble.

The conservatives are “refusers” and a “gang” that “don’t care” about the party’s “cause.”

This sets up the left of center GOP as the proper leaders, the ones that should be in control, the ones that need to slap down these darn refusenick conservatives.

But why isn’t the GOP establishment coming toward the right? That is the real question, here. The conservatives and the tea party folks have given the GOP its only real wins in decades (the 2010 midterms and the 2012 race in the states among the governors). Further it is the conservatives that have the guts for the fight, it is their supporters that have the fire in their bellies, and it is the conservative grassroots that have been the only ones in the GOP that have tried to put forward any plans, campaigns and policy suggestions.

The folks at the NRCC have just sat there with a blank stare on their faces doing precisely nothing to promote “the cause.”

And that leads us to the next point as assumed in Isenstadt’s left-wing analysis. What the hell IS this “party’s larger cause” that he’s talking about?

The liberal Republican establishment has no larger cause.

They aren’t willing to fight against Obamacare, they only feign interest in cutting spending, they don’t have a goal, they won’t stand up to Obama and his party on ANY issue… so what the hell is their “larger cause” that Politico says the conservatives won’t support?

In fact, it is the conservatives that are offering a cause that the liberal establishment won’t pursue. So, Isenstadt has it precisely backwards. It is the GOP establishment that won’t support “advancing the party’s larger cause” because the NRCC and the liberal GOP establishment have no larger cause to push.

No wonder the conservative members of Congress don’t want to give cash to the NRCC.

Dem. Senator Dick Durbin Lies That Republican Said He Couldn't Stand to Look at Obama
Consumer Reports Says Stay Away From Healthcare.gov
  • Lawrence Westlake

    Presumably all 15 of Politico’s readers either will be titillated, confused or verklempt. Perhaps all of the above. In any case, the whole liberal Republican vs. conservative Republican thing is politically damaging under the auspices of a group which ironically falls into neither catetory: irrational, non-voting faux conservative poseurs. People who actually are Republicans — whether Goldwater-style, or Rockefeller-style, in between, or beyond those edges — vote for Republicans. Plain and simple. End of story. People who are not Republicans either vote for Democrats (directly or de facto, by staying home and not voting) or they vote for minor third parties (which also is a de facto vote for Democrats). Perhaps the most brutal irony with all of this is that by the standards of various fringe demographics within the talk radio/Internet community Ronald Reagan for example would be a “RINO”. Reagan was to the left of McCain on amnesty for illegal immigrants and he had no qualms with a skyrocketing debt ceiling to cover mandatory and discretionary federal spending, both military and otherwise. Reagan also realized on all fronts that 2/3 of a loaf of bread is better than starving. Reagan was in essence the anti-Levin, the anti-Beck, the anti-Malkin, the anti-Limbaugh and the anti-RedState.

    • jim_m

      LOL. Bruce up votes the historically illiterate Westlake. As if amnesty under Reagan had the same implications as it does today and as if the debt were 4x the GDP back then and we had nearly tapped out the global market for more debt.

      Just a note to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left. Reagan was roundly criticized as a moron but now Bruce will call him a genius because Westlake brands Reagan as a RINO.

      • Brucehenry

        I often, or at least sometimes, upvote the clever statement or amusing turn of phrase.

      • JWH

        Bruce up votes the historically illiterate Westlake

        I would describe Westlake as undecipherable.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yes, Reagan was a liberal Republican by Tea Party standards.

      Even if you don’t agree with that, Eisenhower, Nixon, Poppy Bush, Bob Dole were all pretty good guys who knew something about the world and how to govern. They would be “liberals” or “RINOS” now.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I keep hearing this one and my answer is always the same – So what?

        Lets not forget that by liberal standards, Bill Clinton was the first black president.

      • jim_m

        And Thomas Jefferson would be a far right Republican by today’s standards and not a dem. Judging people from the past and dictating where they would be today is meaningless mental masturbation. It has no relevance to the issues of today nor does it account for how that individual, having lived in today’s circumstances may have changed their thinking.

        • Commander_Chico

          Disagree. For example, I think we know what Joe McCarthy would be up to now.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Posting under the Nic Commander_Joe?

          • jim_m

            drinking probably

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Drinking while posting as Commander_Joe?

      • Vagabond661

        Makes you wonder what JFK would be now.

        • pork chop

          That’s an easy one.

          JFK would still be just another in a long line of philandering, ultra-rich, east-coast, liberal elitist Kennedys.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Dead?

          Still voting early, often, and Democratic?

    • The_Weege_99

      Ah, the liberal myth that Reagan would be a RINO. How droll and amusing… and completely false.
      People who offer up this canard are parroting liberal mythologists, and have not actually taken the time to do their own research. There is a difference between what a president believes and would like to do and what he can accomplish with a Congress run by the other party.
      Reagan, rather than whining like a little girl as Obama does, chose to advance his priorities by compromising with the Democrats on theirs. The amnesty was not Reagan’s, it was what the Democrats wanted in exchange for his tax reform, his military build-up, his containment of the Soviets, etc.
      Presidents are not kings, emperors or dictators, and if they want to get something done, they have to compromise and negotiate. This is something that leftist stooges and ideologues like Obama do not grasp.

      • JWH

        What would you give up to press parts of your agenda?

        • The_Weege_99

          It depends on what my agenda priorities were. Sure, one could be like Obama, demand 100% of my agenda be passed, then whine and pule like a little girl when the Republicans, elected to a majority in the House, declined to rubber stamp his agenda.
          But that is what an ineffective partisan hack ideologue president does, and they are willing to let the country go to hell rather than acknowledge the other party. That is why Obama whines about Republican obstruction and why Reagan didn’t whine about Democrat obstruction.

        • Jwb10001

          What has Obama given up to advance his agenda? Appears to me that Obama as the leader of the nation is struggling to get much of anything done now that he’s lost his super majority. It’s easy to pass healthcare and spendapolsa and Dodd Frank when you have a filibuster proof majority, not so much when you have to tolerate the opposition.

  • Vagabond661

    It becomes harder and harder to align myself with the GOP. Maybe time to be an Independant?

    • Hank_M

      You’re not the only one feeling that way.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE