Tag Archives: 2012 Election

Romney the Faux. Romney the Winger. Romney as Capitalist Giant. Romney as GOP Nominee? Maybe not.

Mitt Romney has so screwed up being what he is that being ‘fake’ is now his claim to fame.

I liked the old Romney, the business guy Romney, the pragmatic Romney, the Romney that could be governor of the bluest state in the nation and get things done, the RINO Romney.

Yes, Romney had to adapt or die for 2012. 2010 sent a message: the right wing sez we don’t have a plan, and we’re not interested in discussion, but the GOP will do things our way or pay for it.

It boggles my mind however that someone that is so rich is willing to sell their soul for so little.

What the election of 2010 did was to hold core Republicans hostage to a fundamentally attractive theme: ‘balanced budgets, less spending, less taxes, etc’ that they had to embrace — but the hostage taking comes in that Republicans cannot now honestly address the issues without being labeled a RINO. To fix our deficit and debt problems requires the old Romney, the Romney that sets aside dogma to seek a balanced solution.

Just imagine if a Republican were to say ‘climate change is real and dangerous’ or ‘war must be paid for just like social benefits’ or ‘tax increases of some sort must be on the table’ … no wonder the few dream GOP candidates of 2012 refused to enter the race. They would be skewered for being RINOs and then washed down with a cup of tea.

As for Rick Santorum. He is on a hot to trot winning streak! He will siphon off enough delegates that it will stop Romney just short of the gates of victory. I don’t think that Santorum will get the nomination … but I don’t think that Romney will either … not without a brokered convention.

Santorum is what Romney v2012 is not: authentic. I don’t like Santorum. I won’t vote for him. But he is authentic.

======

Mitt’s Real Problem

Mitt’s real problem is that he is Republican.

A Republican in 2012 is expected to embrace dogma. Such a person needs to focus on ‘beating Obama’. Truth doesn’t matter — and Mitt has excelled at making this so through his heavy handed PAC campaigns.

The GOP’s problem as I see it is that it has made Obama the objective. Beating Obama overrides all other concerns.

That is failure in and of itself.

The GOP has lost its soul in search of a way to beat someone that it has demonized — yet there is not a single Obama policy that is much different than that embraced by Republicans in the past.

So to make Obama look ever more left the GOP has moved further to the right.

Republicans no longer debate issues. They slur each other as to how close they are to the fringe ends of the right side of the flat earth.

Adapt or die. Darwinism is alive in the GOP.

Romney adapted by embracing the fringe (only figuratively as it is not in his DNA to follow through) and now he is paying the price. He needs to quickly reembrace being a giant of capitalism. Capitalism is agnostic about such things as tax increases and social policy so long as budgets balance and the people are happy — and that requires Democrats and independents like myself being happy too.

Mitt – we hardly knew you. And we probably never will.


Regards and thanks to Paul Miller: I borrowed a number of his thoughts on how Romney should portray himself in 2012 and his success as governor of America’s bluest state.


Note – I consider myself conservative. But I’ll be damned if I am going to join the fringe (a rather large fringe — maybe half of the GOP) in its crusade against a man.

Ideas matter. Facts matter. The marketplace of ideas is not alive and well within the GOP.

Truth in advertising: at the moment I very much hope that the GOP gets crushed in 2012. It really does need a ‘come to Jesus’ moment where conservative principles and traditions come to matter once again.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pragmatic Conservatives Exist? How I see 2012.

Question – a reader in a discussion group on Facebook asked: “William – just for a matter of perspective, my understanding is that you consider yourself a conservative, is that correct?”

Hmmm… could be a trap.

The author had not really identified their own perspective. Earlier in the day I had gotten a broadside from another Facebooker when I posted the picture below.

Election 2012 - Republicans for Obama

The broadside writer wanted to know: “Why do you post crap like this? There are no real “Republicans for Obama” – only pretend Republicans trying to give an extremist legitimacy.”

Maybe. Maybe not.

My purpose wasn’t to support either Obama or to support these Republicans.

There seems to be no discussion these days that isn’t a bit dangerous to one’s reputation.

+++++++++

Back to the question:

“William – just for a matter of perspective, my understanding is that you consider yourself a conservative, is that correct?”

Yes. I do consider myself a conservative.

What passes for conservatism these days is mostly a reactionary push back against a world that has changed and some folks know that their days are numbered. Their days are numbered because they have chosen to embrace a political ideology that is at the same time just as much exclusionary as it is generational. Except for Ron Paul’s fans, the Republican Party is older, overwhelmingly a party of caucasian America, and seemingly tone deaf as to how others see America.

I myself am a caucasian so the issue is not with that as a cause. The cause of the numbering of the GOP’s days is that Republicans have played so long to themes embraced by those that have enjoyed white privilege that its tone deafness just feels normal for it. What? Problems? No, the average GOPer sees the rest of the world as having problems but not it. Maybe not. Except for RINOs. RINOs see things in a multitude of colors – ergo they have got to go too. They are a cancer in the Republican Party. You either see things as black and white, good or bad, evil or our way.

Election 2012 - "The Plan"

Election 2012 - "The Plan"

Until 2009 I considered myself a Republican. I considered myself a conservative Republican.

I was active in the Tea Party at the very beginning. Met many fine people. Met many strange ones, too. Most of the strange ones are still there but the pragmatic conservatives have moved on.

The Tea Party very quickly attracted a different sort of conservative: those full of anger. There are those that say such a depiction is full of bull droppings. But it is not. Perhaps they were mad at themselves — hopefully they were because they had won almost total control of U.S. national government and they botched it. They did such  a poor job that conservatives like myself no longer wanted to be associated with the party.

Reality is that you don’t have to be Republican to be a conservative. It is a good thing too as many conservatives in the Republican Party are what I consider wingers: they’ll do and say whatever they believe it takes to get the party back into power.

There is no real home for pragmatic conservatives at this time. Most still cling to calling themselves ‘Republicans’ but I don’t think that such will survive the election of 2012.

In 2010 it appeared that the conservatives surged back to power. What I saw was that our country was still very much in the depths of economic downturn. There was no good news with Obama’s name on it, and a very angry 24/7 campaign to attack Obama and to demonize Democrats paid off. (It didn’t hurt that most Democrats jumped at seeing their own shadow. That was extremely helpful to the 2010 GOP election efforts).

However, a recent study of policy positions rated Obama THE most moderate president of any Democrat since FDR’s day. His positions (except for health care) are scarcely different that President Bush’s. There are conservatives and libertarians that realize that. (Outside of the party we conservatives don’t think in talking points.) Add in just a tad of good economic news and people will come to  stop and to think about that. People think much clearer when their homes aren’t being repossessed.

So as a pragmatic conservative I spend much of my time battling to save what little good remains of the ‘conservative’ bumper sticker.

Liberals aren’t evil. Neither are philosophical conservatives that believe that we are all in this together.

My prediction for 2012 — although it is still early in the game: Obama wins reelection courtesy of the GOP and many of the angry nutters that have the loudest voices. Democrats retain the Senate. And as for the House of Representatives … the Dems get it back by 10 seats.

Yes, I am conservative. But that doesn’t make me blind and tone deaf. Although, you just never know.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

IOWA – the GOP Holy Trinity Wins: One Party with three very different faces.

Romney squeaked/eked out/slid into the winning spot in Iowa by a whopping 8 votes.

Not able to pull off a real win in an uberconservative state, all the true conservative Romney haters are getting their story ready  that the GOP will lose in 2012 because of Romney.

Romney provides conservatives with a ready made stabbed-in-the-back excuse for not winning in 2012.

The problem is that the right can’t put forward anyone capable of presenting a winning story and getting votes because of it. Even if Santorum had managed to absorb more of the Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich votes it would have amounted to less than half of Iowan caucus voters. Shabby times in conservativeville.

The other two candidates that also won in Iowa were Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum is now the default darling of the crony capitalism ‘our next war is in Iran in 24 months’ far right and Ron Paul is largely the polar opposite of Santorum, with Paul appealing to a youth-fueled and old codger alliance of very independent minded supporters that want less debt, less war and more guarantees on their personal freedoms.

With Iowa over, the GOP’s new Holy Trinity of flip-flop, tin foil, and far right wander off to We Ain’t Iowa to see if the party continues for them in New Hampshire.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

2012, Politics, Idealism and Choices … and about Ron Paul, too.

“Ron Paul, for all his faults, is the only Republican who gives a damn about civil liberties and isn’t a neocon warmonger.”
— Bruce Barlett, 2011.12.23

Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan economics guru, 2008 Obama voter, and Ron Paul critic … that Bruce Bartlett.


I accept that Ron Paul will never be able to explain racist comments which appeared in some of his newsletters.

Racism is unacceptable to me. I reject all things racist. However, when I look at the 2012 election options: choices are slim — and that includes whether to vote for President Obama.

For now I will continue to support Ron Paul. He has 30 years of actual votes to consider. Maybe he has some darkness in his heart but when it comes time to vote he is one of the few to vote for liberty for all and to demand actual transparency in our government. … I would vote Huntsman given the chance but he will never appear on my ballot in Virginia so for now I will continue to support our crazy ol’uncle Ron Paul.

Politics makes for strangeness in life.

I am an idealist at heart but we need to admit that idealism doesn’t pay bills, protect your civil rights, guarantee balanced budgets, or prevent wars.

We need to move beyond voting for people that say that would do X, Y and Z given the chance. Inevitably most, once elected, vote the party line or flip due to some ‘new perspective’.

New perspective is good but when has President Obama ever had the backbone to use a veto when he threatened it? And when has he led from the front battlelines of an issue rather than at the 11th hour once the poll results are in?

As for Republicans, may God save us.

Gingrich would be darkness with a grandfatherly face. He would challenge the power of the courts to enforce laws, he would/has shutdown the government to make his point-of-the-day, and he is beholden to those that support him with contributions of hundreds of thousands or recently even a $20,000,000 contribution. Please don’t tell me that Gingrich is the answer. I will vote Obama first.

Perry. Am not voting Perry.

Santorum and Bachman – see Perry. All are social conservatives. If fear of racism is a qualifier for whom you vote then race-based policies are more likely to come from social conservatives than libertarians. Am not accusing any of racism, but since I am discussing Ron Paul and the prospect that racism is the boogeyman that we should fear in 2012, well my thoughts are as stated above.

John Huntsman – yes, could vote for him. He will not appear on Virginia’s state ballot so my remaining option is Romney.

Romney – I could possibly vote Romney but that is not a guarantee. Romney was generally a good governor of Massachusetts but he has repudiated much of what he achieved or previously believed. He is a serial flipflopper. Romney is an opportunist — although a good hearted opportunist. He means well. Yet Romney will veer significantly towards the right if that will get him votes. And he will veer back to the center too if that is where the electorate resides. I like the center, but I don’t like pandering veerers.

Ron Paul – while he is accused of having made racist commentary in his newsletters he is one of the few to have voted against almost every law restricting our rights and freedoms. He did so when only several others in his party had to guts to vote for freedom in the face of fear after 9/11. He has been willing to buck his party on so many occasions that his American Conservative Union (ACU) ranking in the mid-2000s were so low that he qualified as one of the most liberal congressmen in the Republican party. Yes, he is America’s crazy ol’uncle. He says sometimes the most astounding, and upon repeated occasions, maybe even embarrassing things. But his heart is good and his proven action in voting has been predictable and for the greater good.

So yes, I continue to support Ron Paul in 2012. I do so contradictory to many of my ideals. But politics is about more than ideals. It is about working with the cards that you’ve been dealt.

2012 is a year of really, extremely bad choices. So my bad choice is Ron Paul … for now.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

A sign of the times? A Lefty from New Jersey writes about his 2012 presidential choices.

When folks talk among friends or close associates they often say the most interesting things.

How often is it that political discussions quickly degrade to versions of books like How to talk to a Conservative/Liberal?

The remark below is from a political discussion group on Facebook:

“… don’t know at this point if i can support a red OR blue candidate…will be looking seriously at any independents that might get traction. of the repubs, romney seems the most harmless, 4 more years of plain white toast…ron paul the most exciting, maybe too exciting. i own a company in NJ and though i am a lefty i don’t think chris christie is all bad…really though, looking for someone, ANYONE untied to corporate/financial/partis​an bullshit to create some kind of buzz!”

The response was to the question: Which candidates are you supporting or could you potentially support in 2012?

So if a Lefty from New Jersey doesn’t think Chris Christie is all that bad then maybe America really does have a change coming.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized