With talk continuing to bubble up of Warren challenging Hillary for the Dem slot in 2016, with even some rumors swirling about that Obama might explicitly or by implication back Warren as a true progressive made in his image over Hillary - which god I hope happens, Bubba would just go nuts with that, it would be seriously on between the Obama and Clinton camps and be such a delight to watch - but regardless, either way it seems pretty clear a woman will top the donkey ticket in 2016 which means the identity politics game plan honed to perfection by Obama will be in full rut, a devil spawning coupling that will of course be endorsed, sanctified wholeheartedly by the media - indeed, the rut, as with Obama, will be entirely dependent on the enabling of the media - in essence, when it comes to identity politics and the left, biased media plays roughly the same role for the political process as alcohol does at a frat party.
Which is why again I wonder why I do not hear Nikki Haley's name mentioned more often as the GOP candidate in 2016 - or Susana Martinez for that matter. All through Western style democracies conservatives are swimming against the same current - a media sympathetic to the left that doesn't want the right to win even if in objective terms their ideas have demonstrable merits - it's all about ideological purity for the left. Increasingly the electoral cudgel of choice for liberals is to leverage this huge media advantage through the shameless pandering of identity politics - Obama has shown how to exploit this strategy to its fullest effect. To me this skewed playing field deliberately distorted by a media corrupted by bias is a growing menace to the 'legitimacy' of democracies everywhere. I'd say there are three ways to push back and maybe even neutralize the threat. The easiest way is if you're lucky enough to have a parliamentary system where the left wing vote is split between moderate left and uber lefty parties as conservatives you can come to power by slipping between the two despite media bias working against you - this is how it works in Canada and the UK amongst others - Canada has had conservatives in power for several years now but the main reason for that is the left wing vote is split between four parties whereas there is only one right wing party [if there was only one left wing party you'd probably never see conservatives holding power in Ottawa] - but of course this flanking move is not an option for conservatives in America. For the GOP you really only have two options for defeating the media advantage of the left: nominate candidates who are so good in front of the camera that they are completely comfortable going into enemy territory and managing to not only survive, but win; or nominate an 'identity' candidate yourself and thereby kill the media narrative off at its proximate source.
So again I ask why we're not hearing more about women like Haley being the candidate in 2016 - matching identity candidate for identity candidate sounds like a silly way to run a superpower because it is - but it's also the only sure way to mitigate the noxious and corrupting effects of a media bias that is already gearing up to install Hillary as president in 2016 simply because it's time for a female chief executive. Yes of course the liberal press will still carp on idiotically about how only a left leaning woman can truly represent the interests of women etc etc - but that will be a win for conservatives because it will force Hillary [or Warren] to embrace the left - if you run a woman against Hillary or Warren you will take away their ability to masquerade as moderates the way Obama did so successfully.
To me the logic of this is obvious so I'm not understanding why talk of a female candidate is not getting more play amongst the chattering class.
Which is why again I wonder why I do not hear Nikki Haley's name mentioned more often as the GOP candidate in 2016 - or Susana Martinez for that matter. All through Western style democracies conservatives are swimming against the same current - a media sympathetic to the left that doesn't want the right to win even if in objective terms their ideas have demonstrable merits - it's all about ideological purity for the left. Increasingly the electoral cudgel of choice for liberals is to leverage this huge media advantage through the shameless pandering of identity politics - Obama has shown how to exploit this strategy to its fullest effect. To me this skewed playing field deliberately distorted by a media corrupted by bias is a growing menace to the 'legitimacy' of democracies everywhere. I'd say there are three ways to push back and maybe even neutralize the threat. The easiest way is if you're lucky enough to have a parliamentary system where the left wing vote is split between moderate left and uber lefty parties as conservatives you can come to power by slipping between the two despite media bias working against you - this is how it works in Canada and the UK amongst others - Canada has had conservatives in power for several years now but the main reason for that is the left wing vote is split between four parties whereas there is only one right wing party [if there was only one left wing party you'd probably never see conservatives holding power in Ottawa] - but of course this flanking move is not an option for conservatives in America. For the GOP you really only have two options for defeating the media advantage of the left: nominate candidates who are so good in front of the camera that they are completely comfortable going into enemy territory and managing to not only survive, but win; or nominate an 'identity' candidate yourself and thereby kill the media narrative off at its proximate source.
So again I ask why we're not hearing more about women like Haley being the candidate in 2016 - matching identity candidate for identity candidate sounds like a silly way to run a superpower because it is - but it's also the only sure way to mitigate the noxious and corrupting effects of a media bias that is already gearing up to install Hillary as president in 2016 simply because it's time for a female chief executive. Yes of course the liberal press will still carp on idiotically about how only a left leaning woman can truly represent the interests of women etc etc - but that will be a win for conservatives because it will force Hillary [or Warren] to embrace the left - if you run a woman against Hillary or Warren you will take away their ability to masquerade as moderates the way Obama did so successfully.
To me the logic of this is obvious so I'm not understanding why talk of a female candidate is not getting more play amongst the chattering class.
