But third, and by far my most important reason for wanting Romney to win big, is that an Obama win of any sort would be a horrible set-back for the Tea Party, given that the Tea Party has now thrown its considerable weight behind Romney. A big Romney win, on the other hand, will greatly strengthen the Tea Party, and I think that would be very, very good.Me, I'm not so sure. Firstly, I'm not so sure that the Tea Party is backing Romney in any big way. Indeed, the last year's procession of I'm not Romney candidates in the primaries suggests pretty strongly that much of Romney's support is because he's the I'm not Obama candidate.
Second, it seems that the Tea Party has been concentrating on state level (and local) elections, building a base inside the Republican Party. Sort of like a wasp laying an egg in the fat Establishment caterpillar to devour it from the inside. Whether this will be successful or not remains to be seen, but in any event seems to be far indeed from Romney and the current presidential election.
Then again, who knows? Maybe I'm wrong on this*. I'm still mulling over how I expect things to turn out during the Romney Administration.
* I thought I was wrong once, but was mistaken.
10 comments:
Wait: you mean to tell me that the Tea Party hasn't already been co-opted by the Republican bigwigs?
Not that I'm cynical or anything.
The only way I see a Romney win being a win for the Tea Party, or any of the more liberty minded groups, is that it is a major loss for the Democrat party. Even knowing that statist Republicans are on our list of political foes does not stop a defeat of statist Democrats from being a good thing. In that light, it is a strategic victory, although we will certainly need to keep close notes, in order to oust the rest of the statists down the line. A Romney win puts cracks in the D party, allowing us to neutralize their threat piecemeal. The knowledge that we will have it all to do over again with the R party should not deter us from seizing this victory.
Romney's not saying the things I want to hear. A mainstream Republican that was governor of Massachusetts, passed a health care bill that served as the model for Obamacare, and has been all over the map on his positions? Not for me.
I had to be won over to the idea that he was any better than the current President, and I'm still not sure that we won't be sorely disappointed if he wins. A Tea Party candidate he is not.
I find it exceptionally astounding the best candidate the Republicans could put up is only capable of being more or less tied with an incumbent such as the one presently in office.
Tea Party or not (I think the Tea Party has come and gone), and Romney victory or not, it smells like the Republican Party is ready to follow the footsteps of their preceding party, the Whigs.
Like the impeding hot war, devastating events seem to be waiting for the proper triggering event ... perhaps an Obama victory? A Romney win will at best delay the inevitable
Q
ASM826, do you give any credence to Romney's claims that he thought RomneyCare might be right/within authority for some states, but that the same thing at the Federal level isn't?
Romney has an advantage that is very useful in this election. If you go back into Barack Obama's electoral wins that put him on the presidential circuit, there's a strange and consistent pattern of David Axelrod getting previously sealed court records unsealed to use against opponents.
Remember Jeri Ryan ("7 of 9")? She was divorced from her husband Jack, running for Senator in Illinois, in a very messy divorce. They both agreed to seal the records to protect their kid. Axelrod to the rescue, and Jack drops out of the race. Alan Keyes replaces him. Victory Obama.
With a squeaky clean Mormon married to the same woman for his entire adult life, there are no records to unseal. Suddenly, their most reliable tactic is unusable.
And, btw, re: Indeed, the last year's procession of I'm not Romney candidates in the primaries suggests pretty strongly that much of Romney's support is because he's the I'm not Obama candidate. that's certainly an "and your point is...?" We never get ideal candidates. We never even get a choice between good and better. It's always between bad and worse. It's life. I'm an engineer, I deal with suck-o reality every day. I'm used to it.
Rick C,
No, I do not. Any system that takes from the producers and gives to the non-producers is socialist on it's face. I have no respect for it at all.
I think what we are missing here is this is NOT a crucial win for Liberty. This is a crucial LOSS for Statists. With an R in office, we can actually let the media do their job for four years, while we concentrate on rebuilding and rejuvenating the base of Goldwater Republicans. If Romney wins and we stay engaged, we can be on much better footing in future races. Its a misdirection play- send the Dems and Media off to squabble with Romney while we fortify our positions and root out the traitors.
I didn't particularly trust the polls when O was said to be ahead, and I don't particularly trust them now either, but then and now my guess is that R will win by a lot. Not because of the Tea Party, though, more because O has governed from so far to the left (60 Democrats on party-line vote for Obamacare, in particular). That makes it easy for R to gather up voters in the middle while leaving the Republican-not-in-name-only base to be energized by O (voting holding their nose while muttering 'the enemy of my enemy'). If so, then regardless of the strength of the Tea Party (which I suspect is considerable) the lesson people should draw from the Presidential election is not anything new about the Tea Party, merely a reminder not to plan to win a general election after governing too far from the center.
There is a clear tension between practical electoral victories and brand management.
The Republican Party is better at practical electoral victories and awful at brand management.
With Obama v. Romney the consequences of a further 4 years of Obama makes the brand management issue that Romney presents relatively insignificant.
Likewise, Brown v. Warren is a clear case -- particularly when you consider that Brown is likely the most conservative person that is electable statewide.
Then, you have a Cruz v. Dewhurst type match up where the primary winner goes to the Senate. So the TP people are free to kick the establishment around.
Post a Comment