I have to admit I'm getting a little fed up with the post-super-tuesday blather of the media. It came to a point for me this morning listening to Joe Scarborough talk about how unsettled everything is, how Romney "can't close the deal" - all the usual stuff we've been hearing for months, but then he feels to add that he thinks that rather than encourage candidate(s) still in the race to consider dropping out at this point, the Republican Party should try to get some new candidate to jump in to the race still at this point! Wow.
OK...a little reality check here, folks. First, let's consider the basic options for Republicans at this point:
(1) We continue this split, pitched battle, everyone trying to tear down "the other guy" and in particular everyone but Mitt trying to tear down Mitt to try to gain an advantage. This path still seems likely, and has a good chance of taking this primary battle all the way to May or June or even to the nominating convention in Florida. And yet at the end, Romney is still very likely to win, albeit in a weakened state due to the constant digs and attacks at him by fellow Republicans.
(2) One or more current candidates drop out of the race at this point. Start with Ron Paul...I think he should consider getting out as he has won no state after 20+ state votes. That said, he has his own agenda and I think there's very little chance of him dropping out. Then Gingrich...I think there is the strongest case for him to drop out, since he has won only his home state and one neighboring state in 20+ contests. I don't know why he wouldn't drop out, other than his massive ego. But, never, never underestimate the ego of Newt Gingrich. Then there's Santorum. On the one hand, he has the strongest case to make in terms of not dropping out, however...it's already been shown that he has little to no chance of accumulating the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. He has shown a strong but limited "base" of voters which he has been unable to expand from, and which would lead him to be extremely vulnerable against Obama even if he were the nominee. And, he has shown himself and his campaign to be amazingly inept in terms of basic organization, including not even getting on the ballot in some states and districts within states, etc. If Gingrich dropped out, then Santorum at least could claim a chance to start increasing his delegate take (though Romney would as well) and continue for now.
(3) We continue the contest, but with conservative activists, media, and voters generally starting to give stronger support and rationale and defense to Romney, allowing him a better chance to make his arguments and his connection to voters, strengthening him along the way to the nomination.
(4) Some 'new guy' enters the race, as Scarborough suggested. This would be utter disaster. For one thing, just as only Romney still has the mathematical possibility of achieving the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination, a 'new guy' would not have a chance to go back to the 20+ states who have already voted to get delegates. They also could not legally get on most state ballots going forward. Thus, they would have no chance to get enough delegates to win. So, their only chance would be for party leaders to secretly work things behind closed doors to twist or change the rules, etc. to try to force the way for the 'new guy.' Talk about chaos. You really think Republicans and voters generally would not react negatively to those kind of tactics? Ridiculous. This is the stupidest idea I've heard. And I used to think Scarborough was reasonably intelligent. Whoops.
Also keep in mind one other key fact: Republican party people, not Romney or the other candidates, are more to blame for the current situation. They are the ones who decided to push the state Republican parties to make their choice of delegates proportional to the vote, rather than "winner-takes-all." I'm not saying there's not some appeal to doing it this way, but recognize the impact of it for what it is. If these rules had applied in 2008, I am certain that John McCain would have had the same kind of fight on his hands against Romney and Huckabee going all the way to the convention. The different rules this year are what's making it harder for Mitt. Not to say he can't do better connecting to...specifically...'very conservative, rural, Evangelical voters' and also to some degree to lower income 'blue collar' workers. But that is a challenge that can be met. The rules of the primary process are something Romney can't control or change...but it has to be handled the best way possible, and the difficult challenge created by the party rules this years compared with previous elections should be recognized, I would think, by pundits and media and bloggers.
Still, as they say 'it is what it is' and Romney and Republicans generally should have a clear idea of what they are facing and the path forward. To me there's no question that for conservatives/Republicans, this is the time to work out our strongest support of Mitt Romney. Leave the other candidates to determine their own fates. If Romney starts to get more and more support, the other candidates will see the writing on the wall. That, in turn, will allow Romney to finally get over the top in terms of delegates and support. Then we can unite and turn our energized attention to beating Barack Obama. And that goal is worth our every effort.
Commentary on the political campaigns across America this year, with focus on the 2012 Republican Primary, the 2012 US presidential campaign, as well as the battle for the US Senate and the US House of Representatives in 2012.
4 comments:
I couldn't agree more, T! I've learned a lot about media that I thought was on "our side." first, all of this brokered convention talk is just an attempt to gin up controversy. Reporters don't report anymore. It's all about ratings. Second, I still thinkT many don't want a Mormon President. They know that they don't want a Mormon, but they also know that santorum doesn't have a chance, so they look for someone new.
Third, no one in media is pushing for Gingrich or Paul to get out bc both of them bring entertainment value and is good for their ratings.
Liberal media loves Gingrich bc he spends so much time attacking Romney. They know Romney will be the front runner and weakening him has always been their goal. So frustrating!
Thanks for nothing GOP!!! Did u get the new primary rules from Obama and Media Matters?
Wow is this a Republican page or a Romney page. First off I'm a huge Ron Paul Supporter so this may seemed biased but let me show you how I got there. I think the easiest way for me to make a decision is to just look at the people pulling the strings on these puppets. Mitt Romney is finically backed by Bank Of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase. Now if Jesus was running for President I wouldn't vote for him with this kind of backing. Ron Paul is backed by the people of America and their donations. Sounds more like We the People with Ron.
To be fair let me size the 2 guys up.
Lets assume that all the candidates are all Mormon because to pick someone because they are Mormon, Jewish, Or Born Again just seems like a fashion show voting process you saw in High School. You know those cheesy posters with glitter that say If you like Ice Cream vote for Steve. So the whole Bias of voting for someone because they are Mormon is childish and adversely not voting for him because he is mormon is just as bad.
I would vote for Mitt Because
1. He will reduce taxes by 20 percent.
2. He wants get rid of Obama Care
3. He has worked in the Olympics and is a business
man.
Oh ...he looks like Ronald Reagan...this was told to me by a guy at 24 hour fitness while in the spa.
That is the basic message I have gotten from every Debate.
Why I would vote for Ron Paul
1. End wars and get troops out of other people countries. We are not benefitting from the oil In Iraq and the opium drug rings in Afghanistan.
2. Free Markets put us back on a gold standard
3. End the Federal Reserve. This private company built by private bankers in 1913 controls the printing of money and interests rates in our country and others. As long as this is around we will be in perpetual debt. A slave to the system.
4. End the income tax (this is huge) This is illegal to our constitution and was implemented by bankers to slave us to a government.
5. Cut 1 Trillion dollars right from the start. Spending and constant growing of government is allowing the Fed to devalue our dollar and will be felt with higher inflation.
6. He isn't supported by any of the big banks.
7 Out of the 4 Obama include he doesn't want war with Iran. He wants Diplomatic Talks.
So out of the 2 I pick Ron Paul. He would go down as one of the best presidents ever. I agree with Mark that there has been mass manipulation of the media. The blatant disregard of Ron Paul has been bad.
I believe the Media is owned ...the voting is owned and we are owned by the banks. I would love Ron to win but it wont happen. Obama will be rigged into the system and we will probably have a default on our currency.
If you guys have any other reason to why I should vote Romney let me know. I only saw the 20 percent tax reduction and end of Obama care. To me he looks like a typical political sell out to the banks.
Kevin Petersen,
Ron Paul' lack of electability is the reason his bold policies do not attract media attention. If one takes a close look at his policies, one discovers that they are unrealistic at best. While many libertarian ideas are compelling, the U.S. is not going back to a gold standard, the fed and the department of education are not going to be abolished, and an immediate elimination of the income tax would need to be accompanied by a decrease in spending that is much more than $1 trillion.
Furthermore, please explain how Romney is a puppet to BofA, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan? Might it be true that Romney receives support from financial professionals in part because they feel his capital markets expertise would be beneficial to the Chief Executive of the U.S.? Before denouncing these "evil" institutions, consider the benefits that you have reaped or may one day reap from their very services.
Jaran
Jaran
Ron Paul is getting no attention from his big ideas because the major media is bought and paid for by the elitist that don't want the power back in the peoples hands. I also have taken a close look at his ideas and and they do seem realistic to a free citizen. You claim the US is not going back to a gold standard....ummm why not? Why does that seem like such a bad unrealistic thing? You are pretty much saying that you like a central bank that has no restrictions to print and devalue your paper Federal Reserve Notes. I personally want a monetary system that is pegged to something making markets fair and free. You want the Federal Reserve to tamper with interests rates and expanding balance sheets. This is nothing but a slavery system that will eventually be abused and be caused to hyper inflate then default. Mean while a huge wealth transfer occurs during the default to people with real tangible things like gold silver food ect.
Also I would love to see a bigger cut in spending....the closer to zero the better we are as a nation and more self sufficient. We don't need socialism.
These banks are evil. They rig all the paper markets with their high speed trading computers. They front load all of their mortgages with no collateral. They offer credit cards with no collateral. They use fractional reserve banking to expand their balance sheets almost to infinity. They manipulate the commodity markets by the multiple off 100 in the options market. They are holding onto 80 percent of the foreclosed homes off the market right now to keep the markets from taking a dump. ect...I just can't really believe you would defend a bank. The process of creating debt out of thin air and collecting interest is evil.
Ron Paul does not take money from the banks. Mitt Does he is a sell out period and the strings from the bankers have been tied...that is why they donate..... For kick back city.
Post a Comment