I was off yesterday, going about some personal business, and had the rare opportunity of catching a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh on the radio. As usual, he was engaging in some interesting inside baseball speculation.
Rush was saying that the Republican establishment pushed Romney so hard, not because they thought he had a particularly good chance of beating Obama, but because they figured that Romney would lend strength to “down ticket” candidates at the national and state levels (senatorial candidates, gubernatorial hopefuls, etc.). And now that Romney’s gaining on Obama in key swing states, and it appears that he has a decent chance of winning the election after all, the “experts” seem to have been caught by surprise and are kind of baffled as to how to respond to this serendipitous turn of events.
The lesson to take away from this – or rather the reenforcement of a lesson that we should have learned several times over – is that the Republican establishment is too clever by half, and is in need of serious reform (or perhaps “replacement” is a better term). While it is obvious that advancing in the Senate and House is a vitally important goal, it is not self-evident that nudging along a presidential prospect in whose ultimate victory you have little real confidence is good strategy (the fact that the candidate's chances have improved considerably over time is beside the point). When party leaders have reached the stage where they feel that elections must always be finessed rather than won (or, for that matter, lost) on basic principles, then the party has truly ceased being anything other than an incumbency protection racket. And in the end, the party will not even be able to sustain that mission, for the people - perhaps, at first, fitfully and uncertainly, but finally with the clarity of perception that comes from long observation aided by instinct – will condemn it to the fate of the Whigs.
None of which is intended as a dig at Romney. I support him wholeheartedly in his contest with Obama - or Boondoggle McSteezy, in commenter Rebecca's delightful coinage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Replacement. Total, complete, massive replacement.
As soon as freakin' possible.
Just how would a person with no "coattails" help candidates downstream? A strong winning national candidate brings people with him, not the opposite.
What we are seeing is just the opposite. This is a groundup election, as was 2010, with the Tea Party doing the heavy lifting. The Senate will be won inspite of Romney.
The only downstream help Romney could provide is putting somebody like Marco Rubio on the ticket.
YoJ: That's what I don't get, either, unless the GOP brass figured that more Republicans would make the effort to actually drag themselves to the polls to vote for Romney, than for Santorum or Gingrich, thus helping down ticket candidates in states where the races were considered fairly close. Doesn't really make too much sense.
A major problem though is, who else would do better than Mitt ? One thing for the primaries is how it can sort "wheat from chaff". Think of how Perry was exposed, and Santorum, is he truly someone who could appeal nationally ? Gingrich, a consummate politician with enough baggage to cause huge issues in a hard campaign. Ron Paul, well, at least he has some good policies, but a few that would almost certainly turn off a majority of voters. Of course, all IMHO.
I don't really know enough about the motivations of the leadership of the GOP, but it isn't completely off the wall to think that they might have concluded that Romney offers the best choice to defeat Obama. Otherwise you do risk the McGovern solution.
Ed: You may well be right. Rush was, after all, speculating (I think).
For what it's worth, Rush also thinks Romney might win in a landslide.
My opinion: the moss-covered GOP "leaders" have become atrophied, irrelevant, dinos(RINOS), interested only in their own future (reelection).
Case in point: Richard Lugar
As to Romney winning, it may be more realistic to say Obama is working hard to lose.
Mittens is closest to the traditional mainstream candidate. He doesn't scare them and they think they can "do business" with him. He is not going to go hog wild in the election cycle and say things that will hurt their interests.
Mittens is furthest from the Tea Party. Don't discount this. The establishment Repubs hate the Tea Party. Maybe by downstream they meant their candidates. Romney would help their candidates against the Tea Party challenges. We are battling not only Obmaa but establishment Repub candidates all over the country. Add Tea Party wins in Utah, Indiana and Texas to the existing conservative bloc in the Senate and you are now talking real money. This has to scare the Trent Lotters who control the Party.
I think the Yojimbo is right. This election cycle is not going to fix the dysfunction in our government. That's going to take years of hard work and not giving in to business as usual.
(Hey, we had so much fun thinking up new names for President Bushaliburton McChokepretzel, I think we should do Obama the same honor, even though Bush's nicknames were in fun, and Obama's are mere description).
My experience with the GOP Establishment is that they're way more concerned with maintaining control of what party apparatus there is and getting money from big donors [who also want favors from govt].
They appear totally uninterested in having large numbers of actual voters support them in the name of good, smaller, less tax-oriented govt.
Post a Comment