Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. Now what? - The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romney-is-the-republican-nominee-now-what/2012/04/09/gIQAN6fU6S_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
....”Find somewhere to break with conservatives: Romney will not lose this election because the base isn’t excited about him. (They aren’t but they dislike President Obama so much it should make up for any doubts they retain about Romney.) He will lose the election because voters in the political center viewed him as too much a creature of the ideological right for them to vote for. (In a recent Gallup/USA Today poll of 12 swing states, Romney trailed Obama by nine points among independents .) What Romney needs to change that dynamic is a public break from the far ideological right of his party, a, for lack of a better description, “Sister Souljah” moment. He needs to prove to independents that he is not in the pocket of the tea party wing of the GOP, which, while it clearly helped Republicans win back the House in 2010, appears to be turning into something of a net negative in 2012. Romney’s best (recent) opportunity to do just that came in the furor set off by Rush Limbaugh’s comments about a female Georgetown Law School student named Sandra Fluke . He passed on that chance — likely due to concerns about inflaming the conservative base right at the moment when the nomination seemed won (or close to it). Now that Romney is the close-to -unquestioned nominee, he needs to find something to put a bit of distance between himself and the party’s right. And the sooner the better.”....
RRD:So Romney needs to denounce the very people whom he will need to win in 2012,since they will support him no matter what he says or does.Or as Mike Murphy once put it:the base will vote for a bag of cement so long as it has a R or D after it.The fact that most of the base of the GOP has frantically tried to find someone,almost anyone,other than Mitt Romney to be their candidate,is all the more reason to alienate and enrage these people,since the more feces you throw at them the more energized they will be to fight for you. Right? Just so that we are clear:the path to victory for Republicans is this:
1.Nominate someone hated by the base.
2.Take positions to the LEFT of the independents you are wooing.
3.Spit in the faces of the people whom you will need to go door to door for you,so as to get the votes of those undecideds who may never even decide who to vote for.(Who will put up your signs?Blank out.How can you motivate people to support a candidate who spits on your values?"You'll do something Mr.Rearden") 4.At one and the same time that you are spitting on your supporters to get the votes of those who aren't your supporters,you must also abstain from attacking your enemies,lest the independents dislike you.Do this even as you are smeared day in and day out,since the Independents hate it when Republicans(but never Democrats) run negative campaigns.Indeed,praise your opponent,denounce those who criticize him justly,say,(like Mccain),that he is "a good man",and that "we have nothing to fear from his presidency".
When "they pull a knife",instead of "pulling a gun",pull a flower and give it to your enemies,and a knife to stab your supporters in the back.
In short "loveth your enemies and hateth your friends". Aren't you glad we have such intellectual titans advising the Republicans.Of course the Post writer knows that this is a path to suicide,that is why he is encouraging Romney to pursue this course. The question is will Romney listen?
Perhaps not to the Post,but will he listen to his own moronic advisers?
Republicans do not win by spitting on their base,they win by energizing their base.
Democrats win by pretending to be centrists or Conservatives.Republicans win by running on Conservative Positions,by promising to cut taxes,& by attacking their opponents as tax & spend liberals who are weak on defense(which they are).
No Republican since Reagan has ever won by alienating his base and following the G.H.W.Bush-Dole-Mccain path to defeat.
But Robert could Romney win if he promised to dismantle the welfare state?
No,but he needn't ”distance himself” from the Teaparty either.The Teaparty is a loose-nit group of fiscal conservatives & Obamacare opponents. Rather than attack and alienate the Teaparty,if he is intelligent, he should say something along the lines of the folowing:
"I don't endorse or agree with everything said by anyone and everyone in the Teaparty,and of course there are evil people in every group,but the Individuals who make up the Teaparty,by and large,are our husbands and wives,sisters & brothers,fathers and sons,and mothers and daughters.
The animating ideas & principles of the Tea Party are:a love of the Constitution,concern with out of control spending,fear of higher taxes,and opposition to having the government tell us how to live our lives through laws such as Obamacare.
Now if the Teaparty stands for these things,(and it does),what then do their opponents stand for?
Do they hate the Constitution?We know that Newsweek published a picture of the Constitution being put through a paper shredder.Are they tax and spend liberals?Do they support having the Government micro-manage our lives?The answer to the latter two questions has been given to us by this administration over the past four years.No,I am not running against the teaparty,I AM running against Barack Obama."
This is what any sane Republican would say.
But of course Romney will not say any of these things.The reason he will not say these things is not because they will not work,it is because the Rockefeller Republican Strategists,who are advising Romney DO NOT WANT IT TO WORK. They want to win on their own terms,or not at all. In saying that I do not mean to imply that they are unwilling to win by saying things that they do not believe in,or that they are unwilling to win by supporting politicians that they don't agree with.
That would be admirable.
But they have already been deceptive when they claim that they ”just want to win”.
Were they interested in winning,really winning,they would study Reagan's campaign,& they would study G.W.Bush's campaign.
Yet instead they pretend that history consists of ”extremists” like Goldwater & Mcgovern losing to ”centrists” like LBJ & Nixon.
When educated men and women continue to ignore reality,when they continue to ignore the fact that their strategy has been tried and has failed with G.H.W.Bush,with Bob Dole and with John Mccain,then it is reasonable to conclude that they really are not "just interested in winning".
They are interested in winning in a manner that will let them still be loved by liberals.
They are interested in winning in a manner that will let them keep their liberal friends.They are interested in winning in a manner that will garner them praise from the MSM for being "kindler,gentler,Republicans".
They wish to eat their cake and still have it remain after they eat it.
While the left is waging a battle to the death for the soul of this country,it is the Rockefeller Republicans who gave us Ford,who lost to Carter,G.H.W.Bush & Dole who both lost to Clinton,and who gave us John Mccain,a war hero,who managed to lose to a student of Saul Alinsky.
Such is the "practicality" of the dogma that elections are "won from the center".
By Contrast,only one Conservative,Barry Goldwater,ran on Conservatism & lost,and he lost in large part because of his own foolish statements about using Nuclear Weapons in Vietnam,and because the country had not yet seen the effects of LBJ's so-called "war on poverty".
But to return to the original question;will Romney follow the path of Reagan-G.W.Bush,or of G.H.W.Bush-Dole-Mccain. Let me put it this way: I have a vision that keeps running through my head over & over again:It is a image of a stadium with mostly empty seats,except for a few places scattered here and there.The seats with people are populated mostly by people who are not only physically old,but who LOOK old,spiritually.Old,spent,tired looking people with expressions of bovine indifference.
People who will occasionally hold up a sign for a few seconds & then put it away wearily.The signs tout ”progressivism”,& praise ”green jobs”,and speak about "saving the earth" from Global Warming.
People there speak of the nobility of govenrment service & the evil of money making.
They boast about how their candidate opposed the Bush tax cuts and fought for a cleaner earth.
It was the 2008 Republican Convention.
I suspect that the 2012 Republican Convention will look very similiar to it with some modifications.We will probably hear about "Progressive Federalism","responsibility conservatism",”Environmentalist Conservatism”.etc.
So,no I think that 2012 will be another train wreck.But it won't be the end of the Republican Establishment.No matter what happens Conservatives will blamed,and the mantra will be that the Republican party is too conservative,too "ideological",that Romney was,in essence,too good for us.Someday Conservatives may get it into their heads that insanity is defined as committing the same mistake over and over again,supporting RINOS,just this once,just to get through this one election,and then expecting a different result.
You won't get it.
....”Find somewhere to break with conservatives: Romney will not lose this election because the base isn’t excited about him. (They aren’t but they dislike President Obama so much it should make up for any doubts they retain about Romney.) He will lose the election because voters in the political center viewed him as too much a creature of the ideological right for them to vote for. (In a recent Gallup/USA Today poll of 12 swing states, Romney trailed Obama by nine points among independents .) What Romney needs to change that dynamic is a public break from the far ideological right of his party, a, for lack of a better description, “Sister Souljah” moment. He needs to prove to independents that he is not in the pocket of the tea party wing of the GOP, which, while it clearly helped Republicans win back the House in 2010, appears to be turning into something of a net negative in 2012. Romney’s best (recent) opportunity to do just that came in the furor set off by Rush Limbaugh’s comments about a female Georgetown Law School student named Sandra Fluke . He passed on that chance — likely due to concerns about inflaming the conservative base right at the moment when the nomination seemed won (or close to it). Now that Romney is the close-to -unquestioned nominee, he needs to find something to put a bit of distance between himself and the party’s right. And the sooner the better.”....
RRD:So Romney needs to denounce the very people whom he will need to win in 2012,since they will support him no matter what he says or does.Or as Mike Murphy once put it:the base will vote for a bag of cement so long as it has a R or D after it.The fact that most of the base of the GOP has frantically tried to find someone,almost anyone,other than Mitt Romney to be their candidate,is all the more reason to alienate and enrage these people,since the more feces you throw at them the more energized they will be to fight for you. Right? Just so that we are clear:the path to victory for Republicans is this:
1.Nominate someone hated by the base.
2.Take positions to the LEFT of the independents you are wooing.
3.Spit in the faces of the people whom you will need to go door to door for you,so as to get the votes of those undecideds who may never even decide who to vote for.(Who will put up your signs?Blank out.How can you motivate people to support a candidate who spits on your values?"You'll do something Mr.Rearden") 4.At one and the same time that you are spitting on your supporters to get the votes of those who aren't your supporters,you must also abstain from attacking your enemies,lest the independents dislike you.Do this even as you are smeared day in and day out,since the Independents hate it when Republicans(but never Democrats) run negative campaigns.Indeed,praise your opponent,denounce those who criticize him justly,say,(like Mccain),that he is "a good man",and that "we have nothing to fear from his presidency".
When "they pull a knife",instead of "pulling a gun",pull a flower and give it to your enemies,and a knife to stab your supporters in the back.
In short "loveth your enemies and hateth your friends". Aren't you glad we have such intellectual titans advising the Republicans.Of course the Post writer knows that this is a path to suicide,that is why he is encouraging Romney to pursue this course. The question is will Romney listen?
Perhaps not to the Post,but will he listen to his own moronic advisers?
Republicans do not win by spitting on their base,they win by energizing their base.
Democrats win by pretending to be centrists or Conservatives.Republicans win by running on Conservative Positions,by promising to cut taxes,& by attacking their opponents as tax & spend liberals who are weak on defense(which they are).
No Republican since Reagan has ever won by alienating his base and following the G.H.W.Bush-Dole-Mccain path to defeat.
But Robert could Romney win if he promised to dismantle the welfare state?
No,but he needn't ”distance himself” from the Teaparty either.The Teaparty is a loose-nit group of fiscal conservatives & Obamacare opponents. Rather than attack and alienate the Teaparty,if he is intelligent, he should say something along the lines of the folowing:
"I don't endorse or agree with everything said by anyone and everyone in the Teaparty,and of course there are evil people in every group,but the Individuals who make up the Teaparty,by and large,are our husbands and wives,sisters & brothers,fathers and sons,and mothers and daughters.
The animating ideas & principles of the Tea Party are:a love of the Constitution,concern with out of control spending,fear of higher taxes,and opposition to having the government tell us how to live our lives through laws such as Obamacare.
Now if the Teaparty stands for these things,(and it does),what then do their opponents stand for?
Do they hate the Constitution?We know that Newsweek published a picture of the Constitution being put through a paper shredder.Are they tax and spend liberals?Do they support having the Government micro-manage our lives?The answer to the latter two questions has been given to us by this administration over the past four years.No,I am not running against the teaparty,I AM running against Barack Obama."
This is what any sane Republican would say.
But of course Romney will not say any of these things.The reason he will not say these things is not because they will not work,it is because the Rockefeller Republican Strategists,who are advising Romney DO NOT WANT IT TO WORK. They want to win on their own terms,or not at all. In saying that I do not mean to imply that they are unwilling to win by saying things that they do not believe in,or that they are unwilling to win by supporting politicians that they don't agree with.
That would be admirable.
But they have already been deceptive when they claim that they ”just want to win”.
Were they interested in winning,really winning,they would study Reagan's campaign,& they would study G.W.Bush's campaign.
Yet instead they pretend that history consists of ”extremists” like Goldwater & Mcgovern losing to ”centrists” like LBJ & Nixon.
When educated men and women continue to ignore reality,when they continue to ignore the fact that their strategy has been tried and has failed with G.H.W.Bush,with Bob Dole and with John Mccain,then it is reasonable to conclude that they really are not "just interested in winning".
They are interested in winning in a manner that will let them still be loved by liberals.
They are interested in winning in a manner that will let them keep their liberal friends.They are interested in winning in a manner that will garner them praise from the MSM for being "kindler,gentler,Republicans".
They wish to eat their cake and still have it remain after they eat it.
While the left is waging a battle to the death for the soul of this country,it is the Rockefeller Republicans who gave us Ford,who lost to Carter,G.H.W.Bush & Dole who both lost to Clinton,and who gave us John Mccain,a war hero,who managed to lose to a student of Saul Alinsky.
Such is the "practicality" of the dogma that elections are "won from the center".
By Contrast,only one Conservative,Barry Goldwater,ran on Conservatism & lost,and he lost in large part because of his own foolish statements about using Nuclear Weapons in Vietnam,and because the country had not yet seen the effects of LBJ's so-called "war on poverty".
But to return to the original question;will Romney follow the path of Reagan-G.W.Bush,or of G.H.W.Bush-Dole-Mccain. Let me put it this way: I have a vision that keeps running through my head over & over again:It is a image of a stadium with mostly empty seats,except for a few places scattered here and there.The seats with people are populated mostly by people who are not only physically old,but who LOOK old,spiritually.Old,spent,tired looking people with expressions of bovine indifference.
People who will occasionally hold up a sign for a few seconds & then put it away wearily.The signs tout ”progressivism”,& praise ”green jobs”,and speak about "saving the earth" from Global Warming.
People there speak of the nobility of govenrment service & the evil of money making.
They boast about how their candidate opposed the Bush tax cuts and fought for a cleaner earth.
It was the 2008 Republican Convention.
I suspect that the 2012 Republican Convention will look very similiar to it with some modifications.We will probably hear about "Progressive Federalism","responsibility conservatism",”Environmentalist Conservatism”.etc.
So,no I think that 2012 will be another train wreck.But it won't be the end of the Republican Establishment.No matter what happens Conservatives will blamed,and the mantra will be that the Republican party is too conservative,too "ideological",that Romney was,in essence,too good for us.Someday Conservatives may get it into their heads that insanity is defined as committing the same mistake over and over again,supporting RINOS,just this once,just to get through this one election,and then expecting a different result.
You won't get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment