Has the Republicans` Capitulation on Homosexualization of the Military Guaranteed the Democrats Victory in 2012?
Print Friendly and PDF

Is the GOP in the hands of Democratic saboteurs?

Its surrender on the homosexualization of the military was so abject that it made the French Army in 1940 look like 300 Spartans, and it squandered the advantage that ”Obama’s” malevolent leadership had given it.

Two months ago, I predicted that if ”Obama” can’t steal the 2012 election, he’ll declare a state of emergency, and cancel it. But if the GOP continues on its present course, ”Obama” will be able to confidently contest and win the election, because much of the Republican base will stay away, as it did in 2008.

The Party put up no fight on this issue–neither on the official level, nor via its opinion columnists and talking heads. The issue is huge in its own right, as well as being tied closely to the issue of same-sex marriage. Someone who will surrender on the queering of the military is almost certain to also submit to the homosexual destruction of marriage. The homosexual talking points in both cases are identical ”civil rights” tripe.

The GOP’s biggest constituency is Evangelical Christians who, though they are not at all as conservative as the MSM paints them, e.g., they are soft on immigration and race, will not yield on homosexuality. If GOP leaders and consultants are seeking to run Evangelicals out of the Party, as neocon country club Republicans Bill Kristol and David Brooks dreamed of doing at least as far back as 2000, when they began promoting John McCain as party standard-bearer, they are doing a great job of it.

(That’s David Brooks, as distinguished from David Frum — they’re not the same guy, are they?)

Back in 2000, my old Toogood Reports colleague, Jim Antle, said that following Kristol and Brooks’ advice would guarantee the GOP a future as a permanent minority party.

[Kristol's and Brooks’] political strategy in essence was this: Jettison the boorish white Southerners — a Weekly Standard bete noire held responsible for much of the GOP's troubles within its pages — and their Christian right friends, as well as other elements of the Republican coalition easily caricatured by the Democrats. Replace them with a party that chablis-sipping sophisticates from the Northeast who dress like Tucker Carlson would be more comfortable with. Sprinkle generous amounts of happy talk about reform. Voila! A new majority is born....

What is to be gained by reading the GOP's backbone constituencies out of the party in exchange for better coverage from the New York Times? It ought to be said that when the party looked more like what Kristol and Brooks envision, it was consigned to permanent minority status.

Most of all, this formulation is utterly devoid of moral and intellectual substance....

Bill Kristol goes party-building by W. James Antle III, Enter Stage Right, March 13, 2000.

Far from gaining it softer coverage, in recent years the GOP leadership’s betrayal of their base has resulted in ever more vitriolic denunciations from the Times. If you don’t respect yourself, don’t expect anyone else to respect you.

Given the Party’s demographic decline since 2000 via the nation’s ongoing immigration disaster, which the Party’s leaders and consultants have exuberantly supported, I believe that alienating the Evangelicals would result in the Republican Party ceasing to exist as a national party, at some time in the next 10 years.

Note that eight years after he began promoting McCain as presidential timber, when the Senator finally got the nomination, Brooks, by then working as a columnist for communist New York Times publisher Arthur ”Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., stabbed McCain in the back, denouncing the running mate McCain had chosen, Sarah Palin, as "represent[ing] a fatal cancer to the Republican Party," and soon after the election, made his new loyalty to the John Doe calling himself ”Barack Obama” official.

Although McCain’s naming of Palin gave him a big surge in popularity, Palin is a populist, and Brooks hates populism. Which is to say that Brooks hates the Republican base. Those are Palin’s people.

And since McCain’s pursuit of Brooks’ electoral strategy–fighting with both hands tied behind his back–was dooming him to defeat, and Brooks is, above all, a political courtier, it was time to abandon ship.

But in blaming Gov. Palin for Sen. McCain’s looming defeat, Brooks was reversing responsibility, as if politicians with the common touch were the biggest threat to GOP victory. That would have been news to George W. Bush.

So much for Brooks’ desire to help the Republican Party.

In the case of McCain, whose career had consisted of stabbing his party and his voters in the back, Brooks’ betrayal was poetic justice, but that didn’t help the country.

(That’s David Brooks, as distinguished from David Brock — they’re not the same guy, are they?)

More recently, in bending over for gay activists, the GOP’s ”leaders” acted as if they were taking orders from Brooks (Frum? Brock?), and seeking to curry favor with the latter’s New York Times’ colleague, Frank Rich, whose racist hatred of the Republican Party’s white base is no less rabid than that of Tim Wise, even if Rich doesn’t express himself quite as crudely as Wise.

What I wrote back in 2005, in opposition to Brooks’ argument on behalf of Rudy Giuliani as presidential nominee–that a ”responsibility” politician without convictions might go any way the wind blows–turned out to describe Brooks–and, unfortunately, GOP leaders, as well–to a tee.

A political party that would capitulate to it enemies, and brazenly betray its most loyal supporters, while supporting its own demographic destruction, is a party without a future. The GOP must do a flip-flop on homosexualization, or an Evangelical has to get the Party’s presidential nomination in 2012; otherwise, the Republican Party is finished as a national force promoting the interests of right-of-center white voters, and exists instead only as a form of organized political mischief, sabotage, and rent-seeking.

Print Friendly and PDF