Consider 2008. If Republican voter turnout had been what it was in 2004, we'd be talking about President McCain's reelection campaign. People looked at what the GOP establishment put on offer, decided that it was Bob Dole 2.0, and stayed home.
Consider the recent Florida GOP primary, and Mitt's "great victory". Every county that Mitt won had a lower voter turnout than in 2008; every county that Newt won had a higher turnout than in 2008. Every one. (Can't find link, but you'll see more about this over the next few days)
Consider South Carolina. Turnout wasn't just up from 2008, it was way up from 2008. Newt won. Turnout in Florida was way down from 2008. Romney won. The numbers are actually stunning. In politics, they're about the only thing that doesn't lie.
And so to the GOP Establishment and Mitt's "electability" - yes, Newt's negatives are higher nationally (after Newt tried running a positive campaign focused on Obama in Iowa and Mitt buried him with negative ads). Yes, Mitt's negatives are much lower - but the press hasn't yet started in on him (they're keeping their powder dry) and Obama will do to him what he just did to Newt with negative ads.
And a bunch of people are looking at him as the man with no core, with no agenda other than getting elected, and they're fixin' to stay home in November. In their millions:
The Tea Party is a collection of people who felt compelled to transition from citizens to activists in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. Many sacrifice time away from family, work, and life in a desperate attempt to save the nation they love, from their perspective. My concern is that the Tea Party will recoil from supporting a Republican Party that is headed by John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney.Mitt and the GOP establishment are making a huge gamble that the voters who caused the historical sweep in 2010 will take any crap sandwich they offer up. Vote for Mittens, or the Republic gets it.
...
The Republican presidential stakes kicked in, and Rebecca engaged. Her hopes rise with Rick Perry's entrance, but then "he gets hammered for stupid things, and drops." She thought about Herman Cain, "but his lack of campaign management was disconcerting." She never really thought Bachmann would make it to Florida, and says "Erick Erickson has educated me too much to cast a vote for Rick Santorum." She considers Ron Paul's views right on a number of accounts, but thinks his foreign policy is "crazy."
"So here I am, supporting Newt Gingrich," Rebecca says. "I'm not in love with Newt, but I trust him more to stay true to conservative ideals. The guy pushed Clinton right, for goodness sake. I only trust Mitt to stay true to himself."
So, Rebecca, about Mitt: why not Romney this time?
"I don't trust him, and I don't think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it's nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn't very much to make in a year," Rebecca said. "I don't begrudge him his wealth - he worked for it and earned it and that is admirable. But I hate his lack of awareness of how super-wealthy he is. His flip-flops are legendary."
"Oh, and he invented Obamacare."
But they're not just betting the Oval Office, they're betting all the House and Senate seats as well. If two million people decide to just stay at home, that not only leaves Obama in the White House, it leaves Harry Reid as Majority Leader and may even put Nancy Pelosi back in as Speaker. Because those two million voters won't be casting ballots for Republicans in the down seat races either.
And so, the question is why would they do this?
The only reason that makes sense is that the GOP is owned lock, stock, and barrel by powerful political interests determined to keep the government feeding them non-competitive rents - like the incandescent light bulb ban that means we'll pay twice as much money for bulbs. That was passed by the Republicans, remember.
And so, people will stay home. I may actually vote - for Obama. At least when he's grotesquely expanding government and driving the economy off a cliff, he'll be happy about it. I don't expect that I'm the only one. Heck, I may even vote in the Georgia primary and write "Obama" in - that might even make the news.
All you people saying "get Obama out at all costs" and "Romney is the electable candidate" are, I'm afraid, sadly mistaken. Romney is Mr. 25%. The base can't stand him. He's a dirty campaigner. He has no core - he's so hollow that if you tapped him he'd "ping". When the Independents learn what he's all about (and make no mistake - the Press and the Democrats will make sure they learn), he's toast.
Other than that, he's awesome. He's just going to take the whole party down with him. At least that way, the Tea Party and Opposition will stay energized during the next four years. And the business interests controlling the GOP establishment? They'll do just fine buying sweet, sweet government imposed rents from the Obama Administration. And right now they're trying to panic you with a "Vote for Romney Or Else" story. Yeah, it's maybe a good time to panic.
Good grief, I sound like a tin foil hatter. Anyone want to point out where I went wrong, please go ahead. This is seriously bad juju, and I'd be delighted to be wrong. I just don't think that I am.
27 comments:
I'm afraid I must concur.
As for 2012, I suspect this will be the least election cycle for the Republican party as we know it. If Mittens ekes out a victory the transformation will be somewhat quieter and more gradual; if Obama trounces him - which will lead to down-ticket disasters for Repubs - it will lead to one of two things:
1) A bloodbath at the top which will extend to state organizations as disgusted and very angry conservatives attempt to restore the Republicans to their mission, or;
2) A shift to a new and completely separate organization as those angry people realize the Republican party is so corrupted it is neither worth saving, nor possible to save.
I'm putting my money on #2, which I think will happen even if Mittens gets to sit in Obama's chair, although more slowly. By 2016 the Republican party will start wearing asterisks; it'll have its conventions, the newsies will interview its figureheads, people will still use the name. But, it will be an also-ran, scurrying along in the shadow of a more effective, more conservative, broader-based effort. The party probably will not completely go away, just become irrelevant over time.
The sooner the better.
Remember James Carville's maxim: It's the economy, stupid. It hasn't improved to any great degree, and we'll be looking at $4 gasoline this summer at a minimum, and close to the $5 gasoline that Pres. Obama said he wanted to see in this country to force people into fuel-efficient and alternate-fuel cars.
Stop worrying about Romney's negatives and start looking at Obama's, instead. Obama has already placed two anti-gun justices on the Supreme court; with another term, he'll probably be able to place one or two more, and then say goodbye to the Heller and MacDonald decisions, because if the fucking statists don't reverse them outright, they'll gut them.
I think it is funny that so many republicans oppose Ron Paul's foreign policy and call it crazy. Paul's policy can best be described as "mind your own business." This country was fiercely isolationist until WW2. The Japanese changed the minds of the "America First" isolationist movement on Dec 7, 1941.
After all, the current interventionist policy has brought us Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iran's current government, and Cuba. The current course of foreign policy as promulgated by both of the largest parties is a disaster. Paul's may not be the answer, but it can't be any worse than what we have now.
Funny thing is, I am not even a Paul supporter, and I can see that.
"Remember James Carville's maxim: It's the economy, stupid."
But you forget that it doesn't always work both ways. You have to remember that this stupid country voted for this Marxist to begin with. The word was out on him long before the election.. who he was, who his friends were, etc etc. and they voted him in anyway simply because they hated Bush and Chaney.
Well, I'm 'still' going to be hoping for change in 2012 (e.g. Obummer GONE)!
I'm not a political purist. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate.
So in November I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils. I'll be voting for the Candidate posed to hurt me the least.
That's Barack Obama, I'm sad to say.
I made my declaration June 3rd. of last year.
SORC™
And I remember that edition of National Lampoon. I was 16.
Bob, I think that you just said "vote for Mittens or the Republic gets it."
;-)
Ted, I have news for you: the Republic is already getting it, good and hard, as Mencken would say. With Obama we have a gun-hating President who won't take advice on Supreme Court nominees; with Mittens, he'll at least pander, until he's safely won a second term. And who knows? By then, Rand Paul or another worthy Republican may step forward, and we'll be spared a second Romney term.
First task is to get rid of Obama.
Divemedic, "The Japanese changed the minds of the "America First" isolationist movement on Dec 7, 1941."
And what's changed that we should go back to our isolationist ways? I betcha Iran, Russia, and China would LOVE that, but I bet that wouldn't make the Islamofascists leave us alone, even though bin Laden claimed it would.
I've been thinking about this some more since I commented above (anon @ 0741).
BP, I think you've correctly identified the issue: "elect some Republican, any Republican, or the country gets it."
There's a real danger to Romney, and the turnout figures for Florida indicate it. There's so much disgust with the entrenched power structure at the top of the Republican party that there is a real risk that many voters will simply stay home, either in protest, or in disgust.
That could return Obama for another 4 years, and has the potential to allow Dems to maintain, or even increase their majority in the Senate. Should the Republican majority in the House be reduced, or even lost, we're in deep yogurt. Do you think Issa would be able to subpoena DOJ files in a Dem-majority House?
My big fear is a pure Marxist in the White House, one who has demonstrated he has no respect for the Constitution; should he enjoy majorities in both houses (or even a near-Dem majority with enough RINOS)and have the ability to pack the court system all the way up to SCOTUS with like-minded socialists, I wouldn't consider it unexpected to see him show even more disregard to the Constitution. Who would make him obey it?
That would be a prescription for civil war; it wouldn't occur during Obama's next 4 years (assuming he was in office only 4 years; it wouldn't surprise me that a sufficient disregard for the Constitution coupled with increased federal control over most of society might persuade him that "the country needs me to continue in office") but sometime within a decade a sizable portion of the country would decide going to the cartridge box is the only way out.
That will not be the slightest bit pleasant for either side, and there are those who would be tickled pink to see the US consumed by internal turmoil, allowing them to undertake risks they would not consider were the US awake, alert and engaged internationally.
So, yes, I'm afraid it's a two step: vote for any Republican who has a chance to defeat Obama, and support non-Dems down ticket, then start the process to a) replace that Republican and; b) go gangbusters on not letting any political party dictate such a group of inadequate choices ever again.
Random thought: Anyone else think the Republican VP choice will be incredibly crucial?
It's tough to stump for a candidate that I don't think can win, but I'm still pulling for a third party run (there's a candidate out there that would sit well with a large population of swing voters from both parties). If a third party candidate could lose the election with 30% of the vote, that would leave the other wrong lizards splitting the remaining 70%. Even a solid showing in the popular vote, with no electoral votes, could start the shakeup that pulls people away from the binary political machine. We still fall prey to the false dichotomy that's been presented to us. Media sources and insiders have been telling us, 'Its Obama or Romney' for so long, we've gone ahead and started believing it. We've learned to ignore them about gun(owner) control, why can't we seem to shake them off for this subject?
I wish I had something to add, but you covered it. We're screwed because the Republican establishment is as out of touch as others claim (rightly, IMO) that Romney is.
I think you pretty much nailed it, BP.
What I'd love to see, though, is what Gerard Vanderleun would say to this. I would hope he'd have something more intelligent and thoughtful to say than anything to the effect of "shut up and vote for Mittens." I can agree that conservatives should be doing their Long March (tm) through the institutions, but anyone who thinks that's going to start with Slick Willard -- or that he's ever going to be a legitimate part of it -- is delusional at best and a blithering idiot at worst.
http://ninepoundsledge.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-solution.html
Today is Ayn Rand's birthday. It's also Groundhog Day. I think if Ms. Rand popped out of the earth today and saw what was going on, we'd get four more years of Democrats, shadow or not.
Oh, I'll vote in November. Just not for Slick Willard. I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary, and I'll write him in in the general if I have to. I'll vote anti-Democrat downticket (probably -- I voted for Richard Cordray for Ohio AG over Whiny Mike DeWine -- but I repeat myself -- because Cordray's record on gun rights is objectively better than that gun-grabbing RINO turd's), but my conscience is entirely clear.
WV ingleoc -- yep, that's where we're headed: Ingsoc, only we can't even spell it right.
"...he's so hollow that if you tapped him he'd "ping"..."
Sorry- he's so hollow and dull he'd just thunk.
If he's the nominee, I'm staying home, regardless who they select as his running 'mate'.
There's not one good thing about Mittsy- he's a traitor to the Constitution and makes no bones about it. People say to not dwell on his shortcomings- and they are many- and concentrate on getting rid of the POS now in the Oval Office. But I can't see changing saddles on a dead horse, and a vote for one is the same as the other. I ditto that with Gnewt.
IMO, regardless which of those three gets in, this country's headed for a civil-class war and there won't be anyone trying to prevent it. I doubt Santorum is worth a vote, either, but could be persuaded. Maybe. Hell, I'm not even sure Paul could make a difference since he'd have to contend with the current crop of 530 special interest operatives now entrenched.
"...Random thought: Anyone else think the Republican VP choice will be incredibly crucial? Anon 11.51.
No, not this time. Palin made a huge difference for McTraitor last time around. But this time, I don't care if they have Jesus as his running mate, neither Mittsy nor Gnewt will get my vote.
I've said this in other places and I'll say it again here.
I am a conservative, not a Republican. I voted for Perot twice, and make no apologies for it.
And I will not vote for the loathsome and despicable Massachusetts Mitt. We see how he treated his state's gun owners, signing into law their onerous "assault weapons" legislation, even worse than Klinton's '94 ban. We see how many conservative judges he nominated for his state's courts: zero. Massachusetts Mitt refuses to talk to the Tea Party representatives, refuses to be seen in public with leaders of pro-life groups, and on and on and on.
Are you afraid Obama will sign a comprehensive amnesty before Romney gets the chance to do it? Are you afraid Massachusetts Mitt won't take the opportunity to "reach out across the aisle" and put more Marxist cranks on the Supreme Court? Are you afraid it won't be Romney's signature signing the next big "assault weapons" ban into law?
If the Republicans nominate Mitt Romney, I will stay home on Election Day and clean my guns. If the Republicans want my vote, they know where to find me.
Matt: You have to remember that this stupid country voted for this Marxist to begin with. The word was out on him long before the election.. who he was, who his friends were, etc etc. and they voted him in anyway simply because they hated Bush and Chaney.
Not really, Matt. You have to remember that for all the chatter about 'new media,' in 2008 the large majority of people were still getting their news from the mainstream media. Which was completely in the tank for Barry Lackwit. We who read conservative blogs and/or listen to conservative talk radio knew who and what Lackwit was, but the majority of people saw what the media wanted them to see: Lackwit as the anti-Bush, the man who would end the coddling of Wall Street, avert the looming economic depression, balance the budget, end the wars, cut spending, restore America's standing in the world. What they got was the exact opposite in every way that matters. I think that will make a difference, although I don't know how much.
So what will happen this fall? I don't entirely trust the polls that say Lackwit's approval is in the tank, but I don't entirely disbelieve them either. Then again, I don't really think it matters much. This isn't the last-chance-to-change-things-before-Gotterdammerung election. That already happened. It was called 2008, and Gotterdammerung won. I really don't see any way to salvage things anymore. Do you?
Are we as a nation, that far gone? All hope lost? Giving up so easily?
How's the saying go? I'll botch it most likely but, all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
kx59: For my entire adult life I've been watching candidate after candidate declare that he'll be The One That Changes Things. The one that cuts government spending, reduces government overreach, reverses the relentless creeping growth of the federal fungus.
Then they go to Washington and get corrupted within days, if not hours. No spending cuts. No reduction in government. Not even that God of Conservatism, Ronald Reagan, actually succeeded in cutting the federal budget. If anything, the ones who chatter the loudest about cutting government are the ones who expand it the most.
Why should I believe that any election has the potential to change things anymore?
No, the only answer I see now has nothing to do with ballots. Same consonants, but different vowels.
Sir, it isn't about "doing nothing," it's about refusing to accept the premise that voting for Slick Willard is doing something.
I'm going to side with TinCan Assassin, and urge all those saying "I'll stay home" to instead vote for a 3rd party/independent/write-in candidate of their choice. Stay home and you get lumped in with "the people who just don't bother voting" and ignored. You're not a voter, so the politicians won't bother expending effort to make you happy.
Sure, there's always a movement to bring out the people who stayed home at the last election, but it's generally nothing more than a token effort, and it's almost always either vague or focused on the "moderates", because there's little to no information to go on about why they stayed home
If you vote - and it doesn't matter who it's for, even Mickey Mouse - you are counted as a voter. Your vote might not make any difference in this election cycle, but it's recorded and there when the party apparatchiks start looking at who they want to push as a figurehead in the next election. ("Hey, this Libertarian Party guy pulled a lot of votes last time. We should get someone who will pull those voters back to the Corps*, er, party.") Voting gives them something to look at to figure out why you didn't vote for the Party-Approved candidate.
* The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father.
I've been saying it for quite some time. All they have to do is split the vote, and Herr Obama is in for another term. And he will be, because me, and a lot of other folks like me will NOT vote (and haven't) for another milque-toast RepubliKrat.
Let me just suggest you spend the next few minutes (five, tops) reading "Ten Things You Should Do If You’re An “Anybody But Mitt” Republican"
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/01/ten-things-you-should-do-if-youre-an-anybody-but-mitt-republican-and-one-you-should-not/
Impatient? Let me summarize:
1. Keep things in perspective
2. Relax
3. Remember The Positive Influence You Do Have
4. Go shooting
5. Remember the alternative
6. No, Remember The Real Alternative (..."I hear those among you who say you’ll sit this election out. ”If the party loses because they didn’t go conservative enough for me, it’ll teach them a lesson”... Political parties don’t “learn lessons” – they reflect the will of those who show up. And if conservatives – and all you libertarian Ron Paul supporters – don’t show up, then the “establishment wins."...)
7. Third Parties Are to “Parties” What Near Beer Is To Beer.
8. Be honest
9. Numbers count
10. Checks, Balances (...Because the only “lesson” you “teach” by staying home is that you’re unreliable and marginal. Don’t be that.)
Post a Comment