The political hang-wringing has been shameful over what to call the vicious murders of five servicemen in Chattanooga. No one dares label it terrorism. Even the FBI employed gibberish to explain that procedural semantics dictated its reference to the killings as "terrorism."
But representatives of the federal crime agency went to tortured lengths to point out that it had no evidence that the premeditated killing rampage was an act of terrorism.
The word-spinning would be almost laughable if this was not such a serious matter. Jihad inspired Muslims are plotting to kill U.S. military personnel worldwide. This latest incident in Tennessee confirms what most in the intelligence community know. There is an undeclared war on the military.
The combat is being waged by ISIS, a savage band of terrorists who have publicly called on sympathizers to kill those who wear the military uniform of the United States. Despite the group's chilling mandate, the president and his government refuse to acknowledge the terrorist threat.
Although its own men and women are being murdered, military service branches have chosen procrastination over action. The Army and Navy have studied the issue of violence for countless months without unveiling a single plan on how to protect its members. The dawdling is disgraceful.
There no longer can be any doubt about the ISIS-motivated campaign to slaughter as many members of the U.S. armed forces as possible. The bloody carnage in Chattanooga was the work of a 24-year old Muslim who had been radicalized. He left a trail of telltale signs all over social media.
Official reports emerged that the cowardly killer conducted Internet searches on martyrdom for several days prior to the shootings. Writings unearthed by investigators revealed the Jihadist was "displeased" with the U.S., particularly its former war on terrorism.
Within days of the Chattanooga massacre, police in Britain arrested two Muslim relatives who were plotting terror-related attacks against personnel at the largest U.S. air base in the country. According to British prosecutors, one of the men was planning to detonate a suicide vest once inside the base.
There was no hesitancy by British authorities to identify the conspiracy as terrorism.
On the heels the arrests in Britain, a pair of ISIS collaborators were arrested in Italy for threatening to carry out a terrorist attack on a U.S. military base in the northern city of Brescia. An Italian prosecutor said the men planned to travel to Syria for military training to prepare for the siege.
There was no demurral on the part of Italian brass in designating the scheme as terrorism.
How then do you explain the reluctance of the Obama Administration to call slayings of U.S. military personnel the work of Islamic terrorists?
There are some who attribute the denial to political correctness. Others postulate the president is secretly a Muslim. The opinion here is that neither is correct. This is about his conceit and the president's all-consuming desire for an inflated legacy.
The president wants to be able leave office touting his record for keeping the country safe from terrorism through dialogue and detente with Islamic nations instead of the use of force. One of his first acts as president was to expunge the words "war on terror" from official pronouncements.
However, his approach has not made the country immune from Islamic-inspired assaults. Even when the evidence clearly points to terrorist attacks on the home front, President Obama has used deception and weasel-wording to avoid assigning blame where it rightly belongs.
There can be no other rationale for an administration to brazenly lie to the American people when it labeled the Fort Hood mass murders "workplace violence." The killings in 2009 were the work of an Army major and Muslim linked to the notorious Islamic terrorist Anwar al Awlaki.
Thirteen people were gunned down and more than 30 injured in a hail of gunfire. Victims and family members sued the federal government for negligence in 2012 because it dodged legal and financial responsibility for the shootings by referring to it as "workplace violence" rather than a terrorist attack.
Until this president acknowledges the scourge of radical Islam, nothing will be done to protect America's military on its home turf or abroad. His stubbornness and callowness will increase the danger to those who serve the country while emboldening the enemy to launch more attacks.
The President of the United States has a sacred duty to safeguard those who voluntarily answer the call to protect the country. If Obama is not willing to confront the enemy attacking the military, then Congress must step into the breech, demanding the president fulfill the duties of his office.
A country that won't protect its armed forces is a nation in moral and political decline.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015
Iran Nuke Deal: Death To America
Never has a deal between two nations been greeted with such polar opposites as the Iran nuclear pact. In America, a truculent President Obama and a fawning media called the pact a historic milestone aimed at normalizing relations. Across the world, chants of "Death to America" rang out in Iran.
Therein, lies the problem with the Iran nuclear deal, trumpeted by a president desperate to burnish his legacy. The painful lesson, which America should have learned by now, is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. No deal, no matter how ironclad, is destined to unravel once sanctions are removed.
Make no mistake about it, Iran is a terrorist nation. The president's Central Intelligence Agency calls the country a "state sponsor of terrorism" in the world. The nation is ruled by a mullah, an unelected supreme religious leader. Iranians are subjected to strict religious laws that suppress women.
The country of 80 million mostly Muslims enjoy no freedom of the press. The CIA calls Iran a main source of sex trafficking and forced labor. The nation is a primary transshipment route for heroin to Europe. It supports some of the most brutal terror groups in the world, including Hezbollah.
Iran has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it cannot be trusted to abide by its promises to use nuclear facilities only for peaceful means. The independent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded as far back as 2003 that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
Past efforts by the IAEA to conduct inspections of nuclear facilities were rebuffed by Iran. Yet President Obama defends the new accord based on a provision for timely inspections. The whole deal hinges on an Iranian assurance the country will abide by this guarantee.
In the run-up to the bargain, President Obama repeatedly promised a final agreement with Iran would include "anytime, anywhere, 24/7 access" to the country's nuclear facilities. That provision is missing from the agreement. It has been replaced by a watered-down inspection timetable.
Notwithstanding the media's portrayal of the deal, no enforceable agreement actually exists today. There is only a broad outline of a compromise. That's why there have been dueling fact-sheets from Iran and the U.S. about what commitments each side has made.
The last time a Democrat president signed a similar nuclear agreement it ended in disaster. President Bill Clinton inked an accord with North Korea in 1994, designed to derail that nation's nuclear ambitions. Inspections by the IAEA were a key component of the deal.
Like the Iranian agreement, the media heralded the pact as ground-breaking because it would alter the relations between North Korea and the U.S., promoting lasting harmony and peace. Some Republicans opposed the agreement, but their voices were drowned out by the appeasement crowd.
As most know, the agreement collapsed almost as soon as it began. Once sanctions against North Korea were lifted, inspections became contentious. Enmity turned to open hostility after the CIA established evidence that North Korea was constructing a facility to develop nuclear weapons.
Today, by most estimates, North Korea has anywhere from 10 to 15 nuclear bombs. The lesson is clear: you cannot negotiate in good faith with untrustworthy regimes. The deal with Iran has no more chance of succeeding than the agreement with North Korea.
Despite Obama's assurances, the agreement will not improve relations with Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said as much two days ago. He went on Iranian state television to announce his country would continue its support for Hezbollah, Syria and other terrorist regimes.
Obama and his media puppets slam critics of the nuclear deal for favoring force over diplomacy with Iran. This is a canard the president uses to brush off honest concerns about his negotiated compromise. No politician on either side of the aisle has argued for armed conflict with Iran.
The U.S. should increase, not reduce, its sanctions against an Iranian government that refuses to halt its aggression around the world. The president should demand the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program as a condition of a deal and include anytime, anywhere inspections to verify compliance.
If the Iranians won't agree to those terms, then the country will remain isolated with a crippled economy and simmering discontent from young people discouraged by declining prospects for their future. Eventually, the country will collapse under its own oppressive weight.
The president likes to chide critics that his deal with Iran is better than no agreement. That argument hardly is an endorsement for the pact. Congress should soundly reject the Obama capitulation because it is unenforceable and does not halt Iran's efforts to build an nuclear arsenal.
Therein, lies the problem with the Iran nuclear deal, trumpeted by a president desperate to burnish his legacy. The painful lesson, which America should have learned by now, is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. No deal, no matter how ironclad, is destined to unravel once sanctions are removed.
Make no mistake about it, Iran is a terrorist nation. The president's Central Intelligence Agency calls the country a "state sponsor of terrorism" in the world. The nation is ruled by a mullah, an unelected supreme religious leader. Iranians are subjected to strict religious laws that suppress women.
The country of 80 million mostly Muslims enjoy no freedom of the press. The CIA calls Iran a main source of sex trafficking and forced labor. The nation is a primary transshipment route for heroin to Europe. It supports some of the most brutal terror groups in the world, including Hezbollah.
Iran has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it cannot be trusted to abide by its promises to use nuclear facilities only for peaceful means. The independent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded as far back as 2003 that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
Past efforts by the IAEA to conduct inspections of nuclear facilities were rebuffed by Iran. Yet President Obama defends the new accord based on a provision for timely inspections. The whole deal hinges on an Iranian assurance the country will abide by this guarantee.
In the run-up to the bargain, President Obama repeatedly promised a final agreement with Iran would include "anytime, anywhere, 24/7 access" to the country's nuclear facilities. That provision is missing from the agreement. It has been replaced by a watered-down inspection timetable.
Notwithstanding the media's portrayal of the deal, no enforceable agreement actually exists today. There is only a broad outline of a compromise. That's why there have been dueling fact-sheets from Iran and the U.S. about what commitments each side has made.
The last time a Democrat president signed a similar nuclear agreement it ended in disaster. President Bill Clinton inked an accord with North Korea in 1994, designed to derail that nation's nuclear ambitions. Inspections by the IAEA were a key component of the deal.
Like the Iranian agreement, the media heralded the pact as ground-breaking because it would alter the relations between North Korea and the U.S., promoting lasting harmony and peace. Some Republicans opposed the agreement, but their voices were drowned out by the appeasement crowd.
As most know, the agreement collapsed almost as soon as it began. Once sanctions against North Korea were lifted, inspections became contentious. Enmity turned to open hostility after the CIA established evidence that North Korea was constructing a facility to develop nuclear weapons.
Today, by most estimates, North Korea has anywhere from 10 to 15 nuclear bombs. The lesson is clear: you cannot negotiate in good faith with untrustworthy regimes. The deal with Iran has no more chance of succeeding than the agreement with North Korea.
Despite Obama's assurances, the agreement will not improve relations with Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said as much two days ago. He went on Iranian state television to announce his country would continue its support for Hezbollah, Syria and other terrorist regimes.
Obama and his media puppets slam critics of the nuclear deal for favoring force over diplomacy with Iran. This is a canard the president uses to brush off honest concerns about his negotiated compromise. No politician on either side of the aisle has argued for armed conflict with Iran.
The U.S. should increase, not reduce, its sanctions against an Iranian government that refuses to halt its aggression around the world. The president should demand the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program as a condition of a deal and include anytime, anywhere inspections to verify compliance.
If the Iranians won't agree to those terms, then the country will remain isolated with a crippled economy and simmering discontent from young people discouraged by declining prospects for their future. Eventually, the country will collapse under its own oppressive weight.
The president likes to chide critics that his deal with Iran is better than no agreement. That argument hardly is an endorsement for the pact. Congress should soundly reject the Obama capitulation because it is unenforceable and does not halt Iran's efforts to build an nuclear arsenal.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
The Immigration Shell Game
The senseless murder of a 32-year old San Francisco women has fanned a national debate over crime and illegal immigration. Tragically, her death at the hands of an illegal immigrant could have been prevented. The city of San Francisco sheltered the alleged assailant in direct violation of federal law.
Despite these facts, the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the culpability of San Francisco's politicians. Instead, the Obama Administration's lapdogs have trained their vitriol on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who had the gall to dredge up the issue of immigrant crime.
Whether you agree or not with Trump's remarks, the media eruption is nothing more than a shell game designed to shift the spotlight from the incendiary issue of sanctuary cities. There are more than 200 cities in 32 states and the District of Columbia that give safe harbor to illegal immigrants.
Starting in 1998, these American cities have justified their sanctuary laws under the guise of protecting "immigrant rights." In practice, these cities allow illegal immigrants to avoid detection and deportation. However, most have gone a step further, refusing to collaborate with the feds.
In 1996, Congress approved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which requires local governments to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on immigration issues, including the arrest and detainment of illegals.
San Francisco, like many other sanctuary cities, has refused to hand over convicted felons who are in the country illegally as part of their broad sanctuary policy. The alleged murderer in San Francisco had been found guilty of seven felonies and deported to Mexico five times. He was a known criminal.
After the San Francisco homicide, an ICE official confirmed that the department had "lodged an immigration decree asking to be notified" before the illegal felon was released. The agency's request to the city was "not honored," according to ICE spokesperson Virginia Kice.
In other words, ICE demanded that the illegal immigrant be handed over to the agency for removal from the country. The City of San Francisco denied the request. This is not an isolated incident as the Obama Administration and the media have attempted to portray.
The immigration enforcement agency issued a report last year that cites an increase in jurisdictions failing to comply with requests to detain law breakers. In 2014, the agency removed 86,923 convicted felons from the United States. That number would have been higher if cities had cooperated.
The federal government's own statistics confirm that 10,516 requests to detain felons were denied just by California sanctuary cities between January 1, 2014 and June 19, 2015. These numbers were supplied by ICE, not some anti-immigration group as Democrats often claim.
Department of Homeland Security records show than in a single eight-month period last year, these sanctuary jurisdictions released 8,100 illegal immigrants who were deportable because of their criminal records. A total of 1,900 were later rearrested 4,300 times on 7,500 offenses.
The homicide by a deportable illegal immigrant in San Francisco is not an isolated case. For the years 2010 through 2014, ICE figures reveal that 121 illegal immigrants held by the agency for crimes but eventually released went on to commit "homicide-related offenses."
Illegal immigrant crime is not a fiction created by Donald Trump. It is real, but the mainstream media and Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, have a vested interest in covering up the facts because their political agenda includes blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Addressing the crime issue will be difficult as long as sanctuary cities are allowed to skirt federal law and protect illegal immigrant felons from detention and deportation.
Sanctuary cities are protected by powerful, well-funded political interest organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
These activist groups, supported by big corporate donors and Democrats, have bullied politicians into turning their cities into havens for illegal immigrants. Often their efforts have been backed by misguided church groups, especially the Catholic bishops and local priests.
These ideological zealots and the cities who appease them are aiding and abetting criminals. If they oppose the federal statute that mandates cooperation on immigration issues, then they should work to change the law. Ordinary Americans don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Insanity has replaced the rule of law on immigration. The federal government has stood by and allowed this to happen. The Justice Department has every legal right to shut down the sanctuary cities. But that will never happen as long as President Obama is in office.
Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, will remain breeding grounds for illegal immigrant gangs, drug cartels and human trafficking. Citizens are put at risk by politicians more interested in the next election than in public safety. This is unconscionable even for a compassionate society.
How many more Americans will have to be murdered before their government enforces its own laws, requiring cities to cooperate with federal authorities?
Every candidate running for president of the United States should be required to answer that question.
Despite these facts, the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the culpability of San Francisco's politicians. Instead, the Obama Administration's lapdogs have trained their vitriol on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who had the gall to dredge up the issue of immigrant crime.
Whether you agree or not with Trump's remarks, the media eruption is nothing more than a shell game designed to shift the spotlight from the incendiary issue of sanctuary cities. There are more than 200 cities in 32 states and the District of Columbia that give safe harbor to illegal immigrants.
Starting in 1998, these American cities have justified their sanctuary laws under the guise of protecting "immigrant rights." In practice, these cities allow illegal immigrants to avoid detection and deportation. However, most have gone a step further, refusing to collaborate with the feds.
In 1996, Congress approved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which requires local governments to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on immigration issues, including the arrest and detainment of illegals.
San Francisco, like many other sanctuary cities, has refused to hand over convicted felons who are in the country illegally as part of their broad sanctuary policy. The alleged murderer in San Francisco had been found guilty of seven felonies and deported to Mexico five times. He was a known criminal.
After the San Francisco homicide, an ICE official confirmed that the department had "lodged an immigration decree asking to be notified" before the illegal felon was released. The agency's request to the city was "not honored," according to ICE spokesperson Virginia Kice.
In other words, ICE demanded that the illegal immigrant be handed over to the agency for removal from the country. The City of San Francisco denied the request. This is not an isolated incident as the Obama Administration and the media have attempted to portray.
The immigration enforcement agency issued a report last year that cites an increase in jurisdictions failing to comply with requests to detain law breakers. In 2014, the agency removed 86,923 convicted felons from the United States. That number would have been higher if cities had cooperated.
The federal government's own statistics confirm that 10,516 requests to detain felons were denied just by California sanctuary cities between January 1, 2014 and June 19, 2015. These numbers were supplied by ICE, not some anti-immigration group as Democrats often claim.
Department of Homeland Security records show than in a single eight-month period last year, these sanctuary jurisdictions released 8,100 illegal immigrants who were deportable because of their criminal records. A total of 1,900 were later rearrested 4,300 times on 7,500 offenses.
The homicide by a deportable illegal immigrant in San Francisco is not an isolated case. For the years 2010 through 2014, ICE figures reveal that 121 illegal immigrants held by the agency for crimes but eventually released went on to commit "homicide-related offenses."
Illegal immigrant crime is not a fiction created by Donald Trump. It is real, but the mainstream media and Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, have a vested interest in covering up the facts because their political agenda includes blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Addressing the crime issue will be difficult as long as sanctuary cities are allowed to skirt federal law and protect illegal immigrant felons from detention and deportation.
Sanctuary cities are protected by powerful, well-funded political interest organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
These activist groups, supported by big corporate donors and Democrats, have bullied politicians into turning their cities into havens for illegal immigrants. Often their efforts have been backed by misguided church groups, especially the Catholic bishops and local priests.
These ideological zealots and the cities who appease them are aiding and abetting criminals. If they oppose the federal statute that mandates cooperation on immigration issues, then they should work to change the law. Ordinary Americans don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Insanity has replaced the rule of law on immigration. The federal government has stood by and allowed this to happen. The Justice Department has every legal right to shut down the sanctuary cities. But that will never happen as long as President Obama is in office.
Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, will remain breeding grounds for illegal immigrant gangs, drug cartels and human trafficking. Citizens are put at risk by politicians more interested in the next election than in public safety. This is unconscionable even for a compassionate society.
How many more Americans will have to be murdered before their government enforces its own laws, requiring cities to cooperate with federal authorities?
Every candidate running for president of the United States should be required to answer that question.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Attention Republicans: Stop Making Stupid Mistakes
Republicans have no shortage of candidates for the White House. There are former governors. Sitting U.S. Senators. A retired United States Air Force Colonel. An accomplished female chief executive officer. An ophthalmologist and one of the premier neurosurgeons in the country.
It's an impressive and growing list. But pundits are worried the field is too large and unwieldy. They fear a fiercely competitive race will leave the eventual presidential contender's reputation battered. The nominee's campaign war chest will be empty. Those are legitimate concerns.
However, the alternative is to allow the Republican establishment to hand-pick a nominee. Better for the party to let voters decide, even if it is messy and potentially divisive. Sure the media will exploit the diversity of views among candidates, focusing on the most bombastic comments.
But the biggest issue facing Republicans is their penchant for making the same mistakes in the last two elections. Whoever emerges as the GOP standard bearer will be doomed to electoral failure unless the party changes its approach to the primaries and the general election.
Here are three stupid mistakes the Republicans cannot afford to repeat this time around if the party hopes to reclaim the Oval Office:
1. Stop all the personal back-biting in the primaries. During the last two presidential primaries, Republican candidates spent the warm-up for the general election trashing each other. The bitter process sabotaged the presidential nominee's stature. In both cases, the Democrat opponent Barrack Obama took advantage of the GOP's guerrilla warfare. As one example, Republican Newt Gingrich unmercifully attacked Mitt Romney in 2012 in the South Carolina primary, zeroing in on his wealth and alleged unethical business tactics. The verbal mugging mortally wounded Romney, despite his having the nomination all but sewn up. During the general election, Obama's operatives seized the theme and ravaged Romney's character. Romney never fully recovered. This time every single GOP candidate should take a pledge not to employ personal attacks during the primary. Instead, they all should focus on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee. Clinton is the enemy, not fellow Republicans. The candidate that best demonstrates he or she is unafraid to torpedo Clinton's record and her personal conduct should be awarded the nomination. The last two Republican presidential nominees lacked the combativeness it takes to win a cutthroat election.
2. Stop caring what The New York Times writes. The last two general election cycles Republican candidates have pandered to the liberal media, softening their positions on critical issues in an effort to curry favor. It doesn't work. And it doesn't matter what The New York Times thinks anyway. Consider this: the three largest liberal media print outlets The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have a combined daily circulation of 2,728,635 in a nation of more than 300 million people. They have no influence on elections any more. Catering to the liberal media has never helped a Republican candidate in the last 25 years. Even the big three television networks' nightly news shows are no longer relevant. The latest figures show about 22.1 million people watch one of the three evening news programs and audiences are dwindling. Meanwhile, social media, especially Facebook, has become a news powerhouse. For example, the Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of Facebook's 1.44 billion monthly users get their news from the social media Goliath. President Obama effectively used social media to reach the young and minorities. GOP candidates need to spend more time and money on social media. Ignore the current media dinosaurs.
3. Stop focusing the communications effort on old white men. Here are some illuminating facts compiled on the last presidential election by the Roper Center for Opinion Research. Romney carried both white men and senior citizens by sizable margins. He won white males 59 to 39 percent. Romney did equally well with voters over the age of 50, winning by a five point spread. Romney even won independents 50 to 45 percent. But he still lost. Obama made up the difference with minorities, racking up huge margins with African-Americans (93 to 6 percent) and Hispanics (71 to 27 percent). Equally as important, Obama decisively carried the youth vote (ages 18-29). The president had a 60 to 37 percent advantage. That margin coupled with an increase in young voters help swing the election for Obama. Republicans must change those dynamics if they are to recapture the presidency. They cannot ignore blacks and Hispanics, ceding the vote to the Democrat. Part of the answer is to use social media to reach potential voters. However, it also means tailoring communications to a younger generation. But, let's face it, it will take more than a youthful message. These voters are naturally attracted to hip looking and sounding candidates. Yes, it is superficial, but winning is all that matters. Just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney.
GOP faithful need to stow their fears about the number of candidates who are seeking the nomination. That will be sorted out by the voters. However, if those running for the nation's highest office repeat the same mistakes of the past, they will gift-wrap the election for Hillary Clinton.
If Republicans have not learned their lesson by now, then the GOP is destined to extend its current losing streak.
It's an impressive and growing list. But pundits are worried the field is too large and unwieldy. They fear a fiercely competitive race will leave the eventual presidential contender's reputation battered. The nominee's campaign war chest will be empty. Those are legitimate concerns.
However, the alternative is to allow the Republican establishment to hand-pick a nominee. Better for the party to let voters decide, even if it is messy and potentially divisive. Sure the media will exploit the diversity of views among candidates, focusing on the most bombastic comments.
But the biggest issue facing Republicans is their penchant for making the same mistakes in the last two elections. Whoever emerges as the GOP standard bearer will be doomed to electoral failure unless the party changes its approach to the primaries and the general election.
Here are three stupid mistakes the Republicans cannot afford to repeat this time around if the party hopes to reclaim the Oval Office:
1. Stop all the personal back-biting in the primaries. During the last two presidential primaries, Republican candidates spent the warm-up for the general election trashing each other. The bitter process sabotaged the presidential nominee's stature. In both cases, the Democrat opponent Barrack Obama took advantage of the GOP's guerrilla warfare. As one example, Republican Newt Gingrich unmercifully attacked Mitt Romney in 2012 in the South Carolina primary, zeroing in on his wealth and alleged unethical business tactics. The verbal mugging mortally wounded Romney, despite his having the nomination all but sewn up. During the general election, Obama's operatives seized the theme and ravaged Romney's character. Romney never fully recovered. This time every single GOP candidate should take a pledge not to employ personal attacks during the primary. Instead, they all should focus on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee. Clinton is the enemy, not fellow Republicans. The candidate that best demonstrates he or she is unafraid to torpedo Clinton's record and her personal conduct should be awarded the nomination. The last two Republican presidential nominees lacked the combativeness it takes to win a cutthroat election.
2. Stop caring what The New York Times writes. The last two general election cycles Republican candidates have pandered to the liberal media, softening their positions on critical issues in an effort to curry favor. It doesn't work. And it doesn't matter what The New York Times thinks anyway. Consider this: the three largest liberal media print outlets The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have a combined daily circulation of 2,728,635 in a nation of more than 300 million people. They have no influence on elections any more. Catering to the liberal media has never helped a Republican candidate in the last 25 years. Even the big three television networks' nightly news shows are no longer relevant. The latest figures show about 22.1 million people watch one of the three evening news programs and audiences are dwindling. Meanwhile, social media, especially Facebook, has become a news powerhouse. For example, the Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of Facebook's 1.44 billion monthly users get their news from the social media Goliath. President Obama effectively used social media to reach the young and minorities. GOP candidates need to spend more time and money on social media. Ignore the current media dinosaurs.
3. Stop focusing the communications effort on old white men. Here are some illuminating facts compiled on the last presidential election by the Roper Center for Opinion Research. Romney carried both white men and senior citizens by sizable margins. He won white males 59 to 39 percent. Romney did equally well with voters over the age of 50, winning by a five point spread. Romney even won independents 50 to 45 percent. But he still lost. Obama made up the difference with minorities, racking up huge margins with African-Americans (93 to 6 percent) and Hispanics (71 to 27 percent). Equally as important, Obama decisively carried the youth vote (ages 18-29). The president had a 60 to 37 percent advantage. That margin coupled with an increase in young voters help swing the election for Obama. Republicans must change those dynamics if they are to recapture the presidency. They cannot ignore blacks and Hispanics, ceding the vote to the Democrat. Part of the answer is to use social media to reach potential voters. However, it also means tailoring communications to a younger generation. But, let's face it, it will take more than a youthful message. These voters are naturally attracted to hip looking and sounding candidates. Yes, it is superficial, but winning is all that matters. Just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney.
GOP faithful need to stow their fears about the number of candidates who are seeking the nomination. That will be sorted out by the voters. However, if those running for the nation's highest office repeat the same mistakes of the past, they will gift-wrap the election for Hillary Clinton.
If Republicans have not learned their lesson by now, then the GOP is destined to extend its current losing streak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)