When I was a kid about eight-years-old, give or take, a friend taught me how to play chess. I explained the rules to my brother and from that day we played a lot of chess, if not too skillfully. I was always the one sweeping across the board announcing checkmate. Except for the problem that usually my checkmate was anything but. Michael was a grinder. He'd try to take bigger pieces while losing smaller pieces, or smaller pieces with no retaliation possible. I always believed his gameplay was flawed but never had the native ability to see far enough ahead to exploit his petty pawn-grabbing tactics. I continued to develop my strategy while he continued to employ the same aggravating piece grinding tactics. I realized I could—with judicious sacrifice—crowd all his pieces back in a corner of his side of the board. Sometimes I was able to exploit this poor development, but often found myself too poor in remaining pieces to deliver the coup de grâce.
Whenever Michael found himself losing and in an untenable position, he'd stall and then cheat. We didn't have a turn clock and didn't even actually know that such a thing existed. We could take as long as we wanted. Finally, I'd get up to use the bathroom or get some more tea, but when I came back the board would have a subtle difference that would allow Michael to avert his impending defeat. I could often even pinpoint which piece he'd moved, whether it was his or mine, but Michael would intransigently insist that the board was the same. I had no one else to play against—the friend who'd taught me had been left behind long ago as the Army transferred my father here and there across America. It was perhaps this unfortunate circumstance that informed my strategy and play style. It was only possible to defeat Michael with a sudden sweeping checkmate from the blue. Anything else and he'd stall and cheat.
It's these lessons we learn in childhood that allow us to understand the world and those people we share it with. My brother's tactics are evident in the way the Democrats handle the big elections. The 2012 election was the Republicans' to lose. After four years of scandal, over-reach, tragic foreign policy, economic stagnation, ruinous energy prices, tax increases, and a litany of economic cliffs nearly leapt from, it was ours to lose. Romney's strategy was to present himself as an unflappable financial guru who could turn around our economic woes as he'd done with the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics:
Scaling down the Washington office was one of the many moves that Romney made to wipe out the scars of profligate spending. Recruited in February 1999 to take over the beleaguered Olympic committee, Romney deferred his $280,000-a-year salary until the Games were over and its finances secure, then donated it to charity. (He had taken a leave from Bain Capital, but was still receiving substantial payments from it.) He got rid of catered food for board meetings and instead offered pizza at $1 a slice.The Democrats used the same aggravating tactics that they've always used. The skillful exploitation of the Trayvon Martin death was enough to sew up an automatic 100 percent of the black vote—13% of the population. Sandra Fluke got them another 18%. Obama also extended an olive branch to the LGBT community by backing gay marriage. Finally Obama sewed up the game by cheating. He had an operative—Jimmy Carter's grandson, James Carter IV—illegally videotape a private meeting at Marc Leder's house. In the tape we can hear Romney explaining—quite realistically that the 47% of voters dependent on government entitlements for their living would almost certainly vote for the party of government entitlements:
Romney frequently touts his success running the Olympics as an example of his strength as a chief executive. The experience also demonstrated his skills as an agile politician — one who touted the committee's new frugality and deftly parried questions about the role the Mormon Church would play in putting on the Games.
Grab all the low-hanging fruit possible, then cheat. That's how Obama won. That's how the Democrats play the game and once you realize this fact, once you realize that there's no-one else to play against, and once you realize it's either play by their rules or refuse to play at all, you'll realize that only a sweeping checkmate from out of the blue will ever win us the game. What kind of strategy will be sufficient to set up that checkmate? In chess, development of pieces is vital. We have to get those who'll be effective, to a place where they can act in the most forceful manner possible when the time comes. The 47% lesson should teach us that either we're actively playing the game 24/7 or we are conceding. There is not a single moment when our candidate is not under some liberal operative's surveillance! If you're a Republican candidate and you have skeletons in the closet, feet of clay, a weak moment, a foolish turn-of-phrase, or non-PC comment to share with like-minded friends—Smile! You're on Democrat Candid Camera!
Position is everything. Let them think the election is in the bag, then pull a Tortoise and Hare upset from the blue. It's okay to sacrifice pieces. That's what Romney was unwilling to do. He hunkered down and refused to take any risks. We can't win elections by taking more pieces off the board than the Democrats, because they're going to cheat. They're going to stuff the ballot boxes, they're going to bus illegal immigrants to polling booths all over town. They're going to block overseas military absentee ballots. They're going to recount and recount subtracting here and adding there until the equation balances in their favor. It's what they do and we know it, despite their intransigent insistence that the board is exactly the way we left it. No more getting up for tea and a bathroom visit. If you're running for office don't even blink.