If Only I were More Like Dana Loesch

John Ziegler
Sometimes the response to a column can be more illuminating than the original essay, especially when is the subject deals with the nature of voters from your own side of the ideological divide. This was probably the case with my most recent effort where I lament how conservatives have clearly created a scenario where President Obama is now a heavy favorite to be re-elected.

The reader reaction to my analysis that the primary process has needlessly destroyed Mitt Romney's "electability" and left us without a viable option who can beat Obama, was both extreme and largely irrational. A look at the comment sections both here at the American Thinker and at Hot Air is almost literally a window into the soul of Republican primary voters as well as the very phenomenon of which I wrote.

The overt hatred of me (which I honestly don't care about) and of Mitt Romney (about which I actually do care) would be comical if it were not also so damaging to the cause of beating Obama, which the vast majority of these people seem to claim is their definitive goal.

What is so incredibly frustrating about this is that, while reasonable people can and should disagree over the best way to end the Obama presidency, none should be conflicted about the reality that there has been more than enough time to pick that lane. There should also be little controversy (despite what Sarah Palin would like you to believe) that an intense and destructive fight at this stage is beyond counterproductive to the ultimate cause.

Unfortunately, I strongly believe that, thanks to this needless hesitation and infighting, this cause has probably already been lost and, yes, this makes me rather angry. This is especially true when I strongly suspect that many of those influencing the debate don't (for economic reasons) actually want Obama to lose. If you also want Obama defeated, all of this should make you mad as well.

The most bizarre and telling retort to my column came from CNN contributor and the editor of Big Journalism, Dana Loesch. In a post entitled, "Blaming Grassroots for the Failure of Inevitability," Loesch appears to be upset that I am blaming the core conservative voter for not rallying around Romney when the real culprit is Romney himself. 

This assessment might have been potentially legitimate if not for several important factors.

First, incredibly, Loesch herself (along with her husband) voted for Mitt Romney in 2008! According to a blog post from her at the time she did it enthusiastically. But it wasn't just that she voted for Romney (well after Romneycare passed) for president, but then she tried to hide the evidence that she did so as she reinvented/branded herself as a "Tea Party" leader.

Personally, being someone particularly attuned to and offended by media personalities who pretend to be something they aren't, I think the fraud aspect is actually worse than the hypocrisy angle, but in a rational world (yeah, right, I know) either would immediately discredit her on this issue.

Secondly, there is such a shocking lack of substance to her "argument" that I am honestly confused as to what it really is. The best I can tell is that she feels compelled to stand up for her "people" (you know, the ones who would never "sell out" and vote for Romney just because he could have actually won) and seems to pretend, without coming close to actually making it, that there is a rational case to be made that Rick Santorum could possibly beat Obama.

Finally, to the extent that she is correct that I am blaming the conservative "grassroots" (my column specifically blames five entities, none of which are the voters themselves), the evidence is overwhelming that I am actually being overly kind to the conservative "base."

So, since I am being accused of unfairly attacking the "grassroots," I think it is now time to finally tell the full truth about these voters that personalities like Loesch make believe that they represent.

The people who are costing us a golden opportunity to beat Obama by not coming together around the guy who was by far the most electable candidate are the very same conservatives who:

Refuse to vote for a Mormon because of their "strange" religious views, while simultaneously believing that the world was created in six days, less than 10,000 years ago.

Gave us Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell as losing Senate candidates in 2010.

Think that Donald Trump is a conservative and who, like Trump, were dead wrong about Obama's birth certificate.

Who once thought Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were the saviors.

Still think that Herman Cain was a credible candidate who has never harassed a woman.

Thought that Newt Gingrich could get Obama to agree to seven, three hour debates and also not get completely destroyed by the media.

Are so naïve that it has never occurred to them that most members of the conservative media have a strong economic interest in the primaries going on forever and for Obama to be re-elected.

Don't realize that Sarah Palin has a series of massive conflicts of interest when it comes to how the primaries turn out and somehow don't see that the absurdity/hypocrisy of her "endorsing" Newt Gingrich destroyed whatever credibility she might have still possessed.

Don't understand the basic political differences between a midterm election and the presidential variety and that what happened in 2010 has nothing to do with what will occur in 2012.

Actually think that the media and the Democrats have pretended that Romney is the most electable as a "trick" to get us to pick the candidate whom they really want to face.

Can look at a guy who got both a post-graduate business and law degree from Harvard in just four years (while raising two young children) with zero personal baggage and who says all the things they want to hear, and says, "Nah, I think we should go with the guy who endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey and lost Pennsylvania by 18 points in his last election."

So yes Dana, I guess I do have a problem with the conservative "grassroots." But as you can see it is obviously based on nothing more than a slavish allegiance to the establishment and my own lack of philosophical purity and courage in my convictions. I so wish I could be as brave and consistent as you and your friends and simply stand quietly by as you lead us to near certain defeat in order to achieve suspect objectives.

John Ziegler produced the documentary film "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted." Its website is www.HowObamaGotElected.com

Sometimes the response to a column can be more illuminating than the original essay, especially when is the subject deals with the nature of voters from your own side of the ideological divide. This was probably the case with my most recent effort where I lament how conservatives have clearly created a scenario where President Obama is now a heavy favorite to be re-elected.

The reader reaction to my analysis that the primary process has needlessly destroyed Mitt Romney's "electability" and left us without a viable option who can beat Obama, was both extreme and largely irrational. A look at the comment sections both here at the American Thinker and at Hot Air is almost literally a window into the soul of Republican primary voters as well as the very phenomenon of which I wrote.

The overt hatred of me (which I honestly don't care about) and of Mitt Romney (about which I actually do care) would be comical if it were not also so damaging to the cause of beating Obama, which the vast majority of these people seem to claim is their definitive goal.

What is so incredibly frustrating about this is that, while reasonable people can and should disagree over the best way to end the Obama presidency, none should be conflicted about the reality that there has been more than enough time to pick that lane. There should also be little controversy (despite what Sarah Palin would like you to believe) that an intense and destructive fight at this stage is beyond counterproductive to the ultimate cause.

Unfortunately, I strongly believe that, thanks to this needless hesitation and infighting, this cause has probably already been lost and, yes, this makes me rather angry. This is especially true when I strongly suspect that many of those influencing the debate don't (for economic reasons) actually want Obama to lose. If you also want Obama defeated, all of this should make you mad as well.

The most bizarre and telling retort to my column came from CNN contributor and the editor of Big Journalism, Dana Loesch. In a post entitled, "Blaming Grassroots for the Failure of Inevitability," Loesch appears to be upset that I am blaming the core conservative voter for not rallying around Romney when the real culprit is Romney himself. 

This assessment might have been potentially legitimate if not for several important factors.

First, incredibly, Loesch herself (along with her husband) voted for Mitt Romney in 2008! According to a blog post from her at the time she did it enthusiastically. But it wasn't just that she voted for Romney (well after Romneycare passed) for president, but then she tried to hide the evidence that she did so as she reinvented/branded herself as a "Tea Party" leader.

Personally, being someone particularly attuned to and offended by media personalities who pretend to be something they aren't, I think the fraud aspect is actually worse than the hypocrisy angle, but in a rational world (yeah, right, I know) either would immediately discredit her on this issue.

Secondly, there is such a shocking lack of substance to her "argument" that I am honestly confused as to what it really is. The best I can tell is that she feels compelled to stand up for her "people" (you know, the ones who would never "sell out" and vote for Romney just because he could have actually won) and seems to pretend, without coming close to actually making it, that there is a rational case to be made that Rick Santorum could possibly beat Obama.

Finally, to the extent that she is correct that I am blaming the conservative "grassroots" (my column specifically blames five entities, none of which are the voters themselves), the evidence is overwhelming that I am actually being overly kind to the conservative "base."

So, since I am being accused of unfairly attacking the "grassroots," I think it is now time to finally tell the full truth about these voters that personalities like Loesch make believe that they represent.

The people who are costing us a golden opportunity to beat Obama by not coming together around the guy who was by far the most electable candidate are the very same conservatives who:

Refuse to vote for a Mormon because of their "strange" religious views, while simultaneously believing that the world was created in six days, less than 10,000 years ago.

Gave us Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell as losing Senate candidates in 2010.

Think that Donald Trump is a conservative and who, like Trump, were dead wrong about Obama's birth certificate.

Who once thought Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were the saviors.

Still think that Herman Cain was a credible candidate who has never harassed a woman.

Thought that Newt Gingrich could get Obama to agree to seven, three hour debates and also not get completely destroyed by the media.

Are so naïve that it has never occurred to them that most members of the conservative media have a strong economic interest in the primaries going on forever and for Obama to be re-elected.

Don't realize that Sarah Palin has a series of massive conflicts of interest when it comes to how the primaries turn out and somehow don't see that the absurdity/hypocrisy of her "endorsing" Newt Gingrich destroyed whatever credibility she might have still possessed.

Don't understand the basic political differences between a midterm election and the presidential variety and that what happened in 2010 has nothing to do with what will occur in 2012.

Actually think that the media and the Democrats have pretended that Romney is the most electable as a "trick" to get us to pick the candidate whom they really want to face.

Can look at a guy who got both a post-graduate business and law degree from Harvard in just four years (while raising two young children) with zero personal baggage and who says all the things they want to hear, and says, "Nah, I think we should go with the guy who endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey and lost Pennsylvania by 18 points in his last election."

So yes Dana, I guess I do have a problem with the conservative "grassroots." But as you can see it is obviously based on nothing more than a slavish allegiance to the establishment and my own lack of philosophical purity and courage in my convictions. I so wish I could be as brave and consistent as you and your friends and simply stand quietly by as you lead us to near certain defeat in order to achieve suspect objectives.

John Ziegler produced the documentary film "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted." Its website is www.HowObamaGotElected.com