Thread: The Pincer Movement Against Christine O'Donnell

September 24, 2010

The Pincer Movement Against Christine O'Donnell

By Lee Cary
2 Comments

Delaware GOP Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell is under attack from two directions by otherwise competing interests that, against her, share a common goal -- damage the Tea Party movement.

Consequently, she's caught in a classic double envelopment, known as a pincer movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement

The Democratic Party and its shills in the legacy media zeroed in on O'Donnell the moment she became the confirmed winner of the Delaware GOP primary. They immediately identified her as the most vulnerable Tea Party-related target of opportunity. And they've been on a relentless attack ever since, with the aim of keeping her hunkered down until their guy, Chris "The Bearded Marxist" Coons, wins the November election and they can declare the Tea Party defeated. http://www.thefoxnation.com/chris-coons ... ed-marxist

No surprise there. You personalize the opposition and then marginalize it. It's standard Alinsky-style community agitator tactics.

The Democratic Party today is governed by the Progressive left. Their shills in the legacy media overwhelmingly support the Progressive agenda. So, of course, their order of battle is to attack any outspoken conservative candidate aligned with the Tea Party movement, particularly one who beat out a moderate -- some would argue liberal -- Republican like Mike Castle. http://www.answers.com/topic/order-of-battle Had Castle beat O'Donnell, the Democrats would have been up against a Democrat-lite in the November election. They'd win with Coons, or they'd not lose much with a Senator Castle. No threat there. But the Tea Party movement, and any candidate aligned with it, represents a clear-and-present danger to the Progressive agenda.

So, the Democrats' attack on O'Donnell is perfectly understandable, since it reflects pure partisan politics. The other attacking force in the pincer movement also has a political agenda, but one within the Republican Party. It's about internecine combat.

The Republican blue bloods -- a term that originally referred to the aristocratic families of Castile Spain who wouldn't intermarry with Moors, Jews and other races, and maintained a fair complexion wherein their blood veins looked distinctively blue -- control the GOP. Until the ascendency of the Democrats' rule over Congress and the White House, the blue bloods sustained their "moderate" posture by compromising with the Democrats. Doing deals was easy because their political principles were fuzzy, and, among the old guard, still are.

Whether you favored an allegedly sure win by Castle, http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/ ... unite.html or would rather fall on the sword of principle and support O'Donnell, even though it may, as some suggest, forfeit one Senatorial vote in favor of repealing ObamaCare, it all stops being relevant when the ballots are counted. That is, unless, you're Senator Lisa Murkowski. If the election fat lady -- no disrespect intended starts to sing not your tune, you just duct tape her mouth, stuff her in a closet, and say, "Shut-up!"

The root of the problem is that some individual members of the U.S. Senate consider themselves part of the New Roman Elite. They'll do what it takes to keep their seat because with the seat goes great power.

Power to steer earmarks toward friends and contributors back home. Power to influence the appointments of judges and U.S. attorneys. To steer government contracts in the direction of cronies, and recommend friends to serve on prestigious-sounding government commissions and panels. Power to be references for other lawyers, since many of them are attorneys, seeking employment in platinum law firms that, in turn, funnel campaign contributions in their direction. Add to all that the honor of being called "Senator" for the rest of your life. Maybe even a well-paying job as a part time lobbyist, or a fellow in a think tank or foundation. Opportunities abound.

This river of power doesn't just benefit the elected politician. It flows down to the party strategists -- those wantabees who once upon a time took time off from their real jobs to pontificate during the silly seasons, but today are professional infantry in what Howard Dean has called the permanent campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6MvnZVsqNY The power river washes over the partisan pundits who hunger for insider information and access to the movers- n'-shakers they'll never be. It reaches the consultants who embellish their careers as talking heads on the TV news shows after managing high-profile campaigns, honored for their wisdom regardless of whether or not their candidate won or lost. Like Susan Estrich, who managed Michael Dukakis' 1988 Presidential campaign, and Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000, who pop-up like intrepid Janes-in-the-Box on the Sunday morning TV shows. Strategists, consultants, media pundits...like the camp followers, called "bummers," who were the flotsam and jetsam that followed Union Armies during the Civil War, foraging for food and looting the bodies amidst the carnage.

A full spectrum of power encompasses all the players from the Senator down to the mail clerk in the ad firm that cranks out campaign graffiti. It's why campaigns spend millions to win jobs that pay hundreds of thousands. All those peripherals run up the bill.

And it's the peripherals that explain the opposition to the Tea Party movement, both overt and covert, that emanates from the GOP blue bloods, who, like the blue bloods in Spain, don't want to intermarry with pedestrian conservative extremists. They'd never say it aloud, but it's all about maintaining purity of moderation.

Those are the two forces working the double envelopment on Christine O'Donnell. The New Socialist Democratic Party driven by the left, and the entrenched GOP blue bloods. Both feel threatened by a decentralized populous movement that bubbled up from the streets and, by their lights, is out of control. It is, because it's can't be controlled.

It'll be interesting to see if Delaware voters perceive the dual forces pitted against O'Donnell.

In the meantime, with regard to their negative public comments concerning her candidacy, Republicans in all roles would do well to consider the words of the legendary coach of the Texas Longhorns, Darrell Royal, who said, "Dance with the one that brung you." In Delaware, that's Christine O'Donnell. The voters there brung her. Now the blue bloods need to dance with her, like she's the belle of the ball, because she is. And then redirect their aim toward the "The Bearded Marxist."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/ ... st_ch.html

The Dem's have no platform so they marginalize "conservative" candidates while letting RINO's such as McCain continue on because with "moderate" republicans in control they can be used. Liberals fear white, Christian women more then any other candidate it's somewhat like holding up a cross to the devil just expect fire.

Sad to say some of the public falls for this crap and you hear the same tired phrases spread by liberals on conservative candidate's.

Voting is and always will be voting for the assumed lessor of two evils and from what I've seen past two years I will have no problem voting for conservatives no matter what the press says.