We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 10. 2012
Many Republicans are falling into a false dichotomy, between social and other issues, instead of focusing on the common thread that unites these issues, the gross overstepping and inadequacies of the Obama administration.
Astute commentators are pointing out that President Obama is strategically steering the national conversation toward social issues – inequality or contraception, as examples -- in order to neutralize his weaknesses in other areas. Republicans, it is said, are either playing into Obama’s re-election playbook or allowing themselves to be neutralized in stressing Obama’s failed economic and foreign policies, which are part and parcel with his social policies in undermining American and global freedoms.
The serial rallying of many conservatives to the non-Romney contender of the month is central to proving this point. Deep anger at the Obama administration fuels the desire for a more “red meat” candidate. This is largely unfair to Romney and fails to stress the commonality among Republicans on the core issues. Instead, it falls into the Obama trap of a false dichotomy between social and other issues.
Romney's campaign had tried to calmly sound the theme of competence in facing the common thread of the Obama administration’s failures: incompetence and ideology. Romney tried to remain the gentleman he is but, defensively, instead has had to fiercely attack his opponents who fiercely attack him. This has consumed resources and credibility, and detracted from the attractiveness of the core Republican issues: the gross overstepping of the Obama administration into personal lives, crony mismanagement of the economy, and alienation of allies left adrift by Obama fecklessness in facing anti-Western foes. The social policies of the Obama administration should not be faced in isolation, allowing Democrats to draw in social liberals, but be placed in their proper context of more indicators of class warfare that undermines the freedoms of all to succeed or to have private moralities untrammeled by Washington.
Democrats are smiling, as well they should. The Republican primaries are shielding them from the main thrust of the Republican message while Republican contenders for the nomination savage each other, weakening unity, and fall into the Obama traps on stressing social issues.
Newt Gingritch was a false vessel for conservative hopes. Rick Santorum, a more consistent and saner conservative, lacks the attractiveness to a wider audience of those on the cusp. Mitt Romney, however, while not a red-meat orator has the unique ability to present the Republican theme in a manner, with conviction and deep understanding of the intricacies, that doesn’t antagonize moderates. Romney is not charismatic but he is competent, and has the abilities to deracinate Obama’s pretensions and unify a majority around stopping the Obama administrations’ transgressions that weaken us in all ways. Romney may not be red-meat but he is meaty. It’s about electability, and that with adequate confidence that together with a Republican Congress a new administration in Washington will accomplish more Republican and American priorities.
Moreso than his opponents, Romney is what Republicans need to win, and what America needs to unseat Obama. I’ll vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination. But, I’m not happy at being part of many of my compatriots playing out a self-destructive temper tantrum that could lose the election.
Get over it: there is no Reagan available, nor was Reagan all that fond memories say he was.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This speech by John Coleman was taped during the first Clinton administration. Set aside the Committee of 300 stuff, if you like, but do pay attention to the comments on how far we'd roamed away from The Constitution and into socialism. Fifteen-odd years later? Now it's REALLY scary.
Insulting allies less willing to sell out their principles may not be a winning strategy.
Romney has proven he can’t articulate anything with more depth than a bumpersticker slogan. He might be adequate for Republicans who are content with their long-term minority powerlessness.
Romney, at this point, may be our best option. But he has to find his voice. He was doing better early in the campaign while others were fighting it out.
His quiet then gave him an air of superiority and unwillingness to get into the dirt. Since he began to be attacked, he has become ham-handed and lost his way.
This isn't to say he can't win, and it doesn't mean he's my first choice. But at this point, Santorum and Gingrich are being 'used' by Democrats to destroy the Republican campaign. I hate to say it, but they really are not viable options in any way, shape or form.
Others think the candidate I support, Ron Paul, is not viable. That may or may not be, but he has not gone far out of his way to undermine Romney, I think because he realizes it's best to make sure the probable front runner has the best chance.
Obama's handlers have taken a page from the Karl Rove book and are using wedge issues against the Republicans. This is smart politics in the short run, but will work against Obama in the long run. Rove sought to create a permanent Republican Majority and did a very good job of it, all but the permanent part. Obama's handlers are not as audacious, and realize Rove's strategies can play well with their candidate.
Why? Because Obama is so lame he is whatever the electorate projects upon him. He is a 'savior'. He is an 'average guy'. He is a 'professor of Constitutional Law' (not really, but so many believe it, it becomes true). He is the Canby from "The Phantom Tollbooth".
Romney's kids don't look multiculturally correct enough. Does he have something against girls, ethnics, etc? One must wonder...
I'm not feeling the "conviction and deep understanding" that Romney brings to Republican themes. I sometimes wonder whether he knows what they are, such as when he supports collectivized healthcare or indexed minimum wage increases. It's as if he didn't like many leftist policy proposals, but wasn't sure what to put in their place or why.
But I agree he'd be an improvement over Obama and I'll certainly vote for him if he's nominated.
Texan 99 ... I like the attitude with which you approach this choice we must make. We need to decide personally that any moral person is better than Obama, and cling to that conviction if we want to win the election. The 'poo-flingers' in the White House No-Brain Trust will try to distract us with criticism of one candidate or another, but if we hold fast to what we do know [that we want less government intrusion rather than more and smaller more localized government rather than centralized government]. No candidate is going to be perfect, but what a candidate refuses to do is just as important as what he insists on doing.
Insulting? And you use the phrase "sell out their principles," as a calm, objective recitiation of the facts, I suppose.
I'll take the bait. Such posturing and self-congratulation are morally empty. Disagree with Romney and complain he is not conservative enough all you like - I might even agree with you. But I have been listening to this crap since 1988 at least now, and I'm sick of it. It is not morally elevated, it is lack of contact with reality. There is no one good enough to deserve your vote, in any election (okay, Maggie Thatcher came close). Deal with it.
Take a look at who runs for office in other countries and what choices they have there. Should all the "real" conservatives simply refuse to participate, then?
So instead of a candidate who "lacks the attractiveness to a wider audience..." you prefer one who is unatractive to the core. A self-defeating strategy methinks.
Republicans are defeating themselves.
They seem to be trying to nominate a Reverend-in-Chief.
Boy do I wish we had a Mitch Daniels or a Rand Paul in the race. At a time when a majority of the electorate is begging for an anti-Obama we just don't have anyone with anything close to solid credentials and an electable personality who is wiling to stick their neck out and run. Like a lot of republicans I will hold my nose and vote for whoever comes out of this fiasco but we desperately need a leader
Tut-tut, "Dai Alanye. Methinks you are making up statements and reaching conclusions which I never made. Our genial hosts like a good, reasoned argument, but you and I can't have one, I'm afraid, because you don't listen to others or state your positions clearly. This is a favorite ultra-liberal trick, because most of you never learned the rules of debate. You need to define your terms before we can discuss them.
Meanwhile, I'll wait for you to organize your thoughts.
Rand Paul may be a 'great man' in the early stages right now. No bells and whistles, but pure understanding of the great principles.