This is an ongoing series of my own right-leaning/wing (delete according to political preferences) commentary on various political issues, mostly related to President Obama, the Republican primary and the upcoming presidential election.
Conservatives can't make up their minds about Romney. Yes, the man has baggage. So does every other candidate on the field. Yes, Romney has a liberal track record.
Here's my own two cents on elections in general. The qualities that you look for in a candidate do not automatically include the ability to govern. It's perverse, but it's true. Since at least 1980, elections have been won by candidates who beat their opponents in two categories: the ability to communicate their message effectively, and the ability to rally an enthusastic band of followers. In these two respects Reagan and Obama are remarkably similar. H.W. largely rode Reagan's coattails, but it helps that his Democratic opponent was an imbecile. Clinton was nowhere near either Reagan or Obama, but again, his opponents were weak. Likewise, the ineloquent W scored well enough against Gore and Kerry, but Obama would have blown him out of the water the way he did McCain. McCain lacked both of these qualities, and that was why he lost; it wasn't because he was a moderate squish, or because he picked an awful VP candidate, but rather simply because he was wrong.
Now, as far as the Republican field goes, there are only two candidates who have a particularly loyal, enthusiastic following. I have to include Romney in this category, simply because his supporters never jumped ship the way Gingrich's/Perry's/Cain's/Bachmann's did. The obvious champion of the "enthusiastic following" competition is of course Ron Paul, the only one of those candidates with a true personality cult.
And as far as communication goes, Paul is simple, direct, and often far too blunt. His ideas are also way outside the mainstream, and it's going to be very hard for his followers to galvanize any hardcore social conservatives* or economic liberals. Romney's waffling hasn't hurt him that badly, and he's already given me a few reasons to vote for him that aren't "he's not Barack Obama."
These two things, communication and enthusiasm, are the reasons why Romney and Paul are doing so well, and why Romney will do well in the general.
*I recognize that Romney's having trouble with social conservatives as well. Still, his numbers seem good in both South Carolina and Florida. And I'd rather support a Mormon who acts in accordance with basic religious convictions than a mainstream Christian who does not.**
**(Edit 1-15) Er... on re-reading that last line it looks like I'm attacking Paul, when the barbs are meant for Gingrich and Obama.
Conservatives are attacking Romney's record at Bain. No doubt Obama is going to do this as well. Now, some of us, especially those who support Romney, love to point out the hypocrisy of Gingrich's super-PAC attacking free-market capitalism. Well, look, you bet your bottom dollar that Caesar Obama is going to attack free-market capitalism in the general, so my point from last time stands: the more chances Romney gets to respond, the better.
Besides, remember that whole "birth certificate" thing back in 2008? A Hillary staffer trumped that up during the primary, and Republicans fell for it, hook, line and sinker. We beat the story to death. By the time the general rolled around, the independents didn't care anymore.
Now, yes, the media is overwhelmingly on Caesar's side, but We the People are not nearly as stupid as our actions in 2008 would have you believe. We get sick of stuff being flogged to death. This is why Charlie Sheen is not front-page news right now.
I welcome the notion that Obama will run on class warfare in the upcoming election. Let him. Let the 2012 presidential election be a vote between free markets and class warfare, between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Whoever wins, we'll get what we deserve.
Gingrich et al are taking Romney's "fire people" quote out of context. Boo-hoo. This is politics, children. Point out that the quote has been taken out of context (and explain it to your independent friends), and move on.
Caesar wants another debt ceiling raise. Well, bypass Congress to get it. But then don't campaign against a do-nothing Congress, because it's certainly not tying your hands any.
Caesar thinks his recess appointments are constitutional. So apparently now the (Democrat-controlled) Senate needs to check in with Caesar Obama to make sure that they are actually in session.
Once again, I cannot wait until our next President appoints a textualist to the Supreme Court in the middle of the night and pretends that it's perfectly legal because Congress wasn't in session at the time.
The guy who did the hatchet job on Gen. McChrystle reports that Caesar Obama doesn't like photo-ops with the troops. I suspect the feeling is mutual.
The most conservative Congressman, Jim DeMint, recently said that Ron Paul's supporters are part of the GOP base and that we can't afford to alienate them.
I'm no expert, but my guess is Paul's supporters can be divided into three groups: constitutional federalists, libertarian hippies, and people who just like Ron Paul. Of the three, only the former can be expected to vote for anyone with an R next to their name who isn't Ron Paul or his son. Sorry, Senator, I disagree. You cannot attract the libertarians without alienating the social conservatives.
Romney and Paul are the only two Republican candidates on the ballot in Virginia. This will be an excellent way to see if my opinions expressed in the first section and the one just above this one are correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment