I am discussing my recent American Thinker article on Drug Prohibition over at Talk Polywell with the usual back and forth between the Social Conservatives and libertarians. I kind of recapped my arguments and the points I thought important in a comment which I think might be helpful to repost (edited) here.
I just posted the American Thinker link to Rev. Donald Sensing's blog Sense of Events. The Rev. Col. Sensing was quite pleased with the heads up. He is a Rev. because he is ordained. He is a Col by the grace of God and the US Army.
What you [one of the commenters at Talk Polywell] fail to comprehend is what this could be like if the MSM takes this up and the lefties go into full screech mode on this. I have yet to see in the comments here an answer to this question:
About 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused as children.
Very sympathetic even if they are slamming smack. I would play those who want to continue persecuting such women as brutes. If I wanted to hurt the Rs. And you know the Ds are desperate for ammunition. In any case we shall see come Oct. 2 - 4.
Also my intel tells me that college kids are desperate to find a race war to fight (one of my righty friends was complaining about that very thing on a blog) . Just like their heroes from the 60s. Well they have it. Once they get the message.
This is also very good on the subject of why the Rs are blind to dangers in the battle space.
But it goes further. For years and years, the left has behaved with extreme hypocrisy on issues of race, ethics, and pro- vs anti-American stances. The response that the right delivers is to point out this hypocrisy in a polite manner, expecting the left to acknowledge their error and not repeat it in the future. Needless to say, the left has no problem with hypocrisy and projection, and has no intention of changing this. Yet, the Republicans still fail to notice that pointing out such examples of hypocrisy has no effect on the debate. The definition of insanity, or at least stupidity, is repeating the same action a number of times, and expecting a different result, but Republicans fail to see that the character of their opponents is far too uncivilized for the toothless tactics that Republicans restrict themselves to.Everybody who is dislikes my arguments has spent a lot of time telling me why I'm wrong or "it won't work". I have yet to see a post suggesting how one might counter such propaganda.
Take, for example, the African-American vote, which usually goes 90-96% for Democrats. This is true even if the Republican candidate is black and the Democrat is white (as was the case in 3 major races in 2006). An examination of recent history quickly reveals this loyalty towards Democrats as more than a little odd. George Wallace ran for President as a Democrat on a segregationist platform as recently as 1976 (note that this was after Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' approach). Furthermore, Robert Byrd, a senior leader in the KKK, was a US Senator in the Democratic party until 2010. These facts would make it less surprising for blacks to vote 90% Republican than the current reality of the opposite. But this yet again shows how poor Republican messaging is. The party of George Wallace and Robert Byrd still manages to get 90% of the black vote, due to the left's tireless propaganda in black neighborhoods, and historical revisionism in school textbooks in inner-city public schools. As a result, the black vote is not even remotely available to Republicans, and with African Americans being 11% of the US population, for a Democrat to win a nationwide election, he only has to get 40 out of the remaining 90% of votes to be cast. The Republican, by contrast, has to get 50 out of the remaining 90%. That is correct, for a Republican to win, he has to get not 50 out of 100%, but 50 out of 90%.
Me? I have been working this issue for 12 years with vigor. If I had a counter I'd tell you. So here is my best shot:
There are two possible counters a spoiling attack - but you lack the resources for that. Or strategic retreat - and you haven't the brains for that. So you will not give an inch and the Russian Army will grind you to dust.
Is all this enough to support the President? Maybe. Will it cost races that otherwise might be won? Surely.
I am getting indications from my friends who watch such things that the President may be gearing up. So far the indications are tentative. But again - we shall see.
There are only 3 counter candidates on the R side. Ron Paul - who has no chance for the R nomination. Gary Johnson who is getting very little traction. And tada - Sarah Palin.
In an e-mail to Eric I laid out what the Republicans are doing wrong and some of the possible attack points:
I see a LOT of hubris among the Rs lately. Don't get cocky kids. You will make mistakes.
I have tried out the arguments in my American Thinker article at several places that get a fair amount of R traffic and I have yet to see a counter. Pity because you and I have been warning of the danger for years. Without much to show for our efforts.
Let me count some of the the possible attack points Democrats might use:
1. Racism - that energizes college kids and Blacks
2. Abusing abused women - there go the women
3. Legalization - there go the men (they favor it at a 57% rate)
4. The Constitution - that grabs some TEAs
5. It will separate some libertarians from their current socon allies
There are probably more but that is a good start.
Further - there have been some changes at ONDCP that lead me to think that ∅ is getting ready to take advantage.
I'm hoping that Gary Johnson can get some traction or that Sarah "we have better things to do" Palin gets in. Ron Paul is correct on that issue but he has no chance with the Republicans because of his Blame America First stance on foreign policy.
Cross Posted at Classical Values