Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Republican Campaign: Pander v. Pander

Since I'm obsessed with being painfully honest, I think I have to give Romney a bit of a plug. He really wants to give his constituents, whomever he perceives them to be, what they want. So when he runs for senator or governor in the liberal state like Mass (my home), he gives convincing assurances about reproductive choice. His Republican constituency in 2011 is more conservative than those of 2008, so he's had to get more conservative. If he gets to the general election or White House, I expect more changes to please the wider audience.

The important point, though, is that he wants to make the wider populace happy, not just a narrow slice. He's a likeable, wonky-but-not-too-technocratic, Mr. Fixit with a soft-conservative foundation.

This puts him miles ahead of Gingrich, who wants to burnish his own legacy and power above all else... then the power of his cohort... then somewhere down the list is the general good of the country, conservative principles, or whatever.

I think I know which panderer would be less worse for the country. Hands down, it's Romney.

 ...but ... What are the other choices again?


Anonymous said...

Obama is the other choice, of course, unless you hold to the biased assertion of many that he is a failed president.

He has failed, mostly politically, but rewarding those who sought that failure with every breath, action, and word they projected since he was elected, is an even worse outcome then letting him have another try. First and foremost, it REWARDS political intransigence rather than punishes it. It's a lesson that both parties will learn and employ for a generation, unless the GOP so totally swaps the Dems that they can complete the job of selling off the economy to the wealthy while engaging the populace in witch hunts.

I, for one, would move to Canada to avoid seeing that eventually close up.

ModeratePoli said...

Obama is not the other choice in the Republican race. It's too early for me to write such a post for the November election.

As for rewarding political intransigence, I wouldn't want to do that. That result would be one consideration among many, and not an insignificant one.

Anonymous said...

OK, MP, point taken. I agree that Romney is in the sweet-spot of GOP politics. Unforuntately for him, that's not a good thing because today's GOP is anything but sweet. To win the nominiation, you have to be in the GOP's sour spot.

Who can be tastiest toward Obama? Who can talk down the economy the most? Who can turn show the most distain for the unemployed? Immigrants? The poor? That's the person who will win the nomination.

Romney isn't good at that. He's too nice a guy and he tried to do stuff in Mass. that would make him popular in the liberal state.

In the private sector, people don't question the boss since he controls fates and livelihoods. That's what he's used to. Challenge him and he falls apart. "I know better!" only gets him so far.

I don't agree with the pundits who have concluded he has the best change to defeat Obama. He wears thin on people quick, and Obama -- while flawed -- is rather welll regarded personally and a majority of the country still thinks he wants what is best for them. Romney running as a private-sector "problem-solver" sounds suspiciously like Dukakis in 1988.

ModeratePoli said...


Romney can believably run on a platform that boils down to:

"I won't do anything stupid, and I won't let Congress do it either."

Newt can't run on that platform, and I don't think Obama can either. I'm not saying it will be Romney's platform, but at least it's possible. We'll have to see.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Romney wouldn't do anything stupid on his own, but to secure the nomination and the presidency, if that occurs, he'll have to pledge complete allegiance to the worst of the GOP ideologues. He may not do so gleefully, but I disagree that he would prevent Congress from doing anything stupid.

As soon as the GOP is in charge again, their concern for the national debt goes away, just as it did under Bush. First they will blame Obama and liberals for as long as they can and use that to bootstrap ANOTHER huge tax cut for the wealthy for "job creation". When the disaster ensues, where will they go? Probably a neocon war with Iran, or a return to Iraq or something like that because "Obama blew it".

Don't you see!! All they have is the blame-game and tax cuts and have ever since Reagan. I very much doubt that Romney could resist the tide even if he were inclined to, which I'm not sure he is. Romney may have been your governor, but he's not in the role anymore. His new client is Wall Street and the top 1% and he know it.

It's clear. Either a flawed Obama gets reelected or this country is toast. Even if it takes a veto, Obama would at least be able to keep a GOP Congress (or half Congress) from doing anything truly stupid.

ModeratePoli said...

Ok Anon, you've helped me evolve some more (evolution is embarrassing, but not too painful).

When it comes to THIS congress, Obama is more likely to stop them from doing something stupid than Romney is. So if they get Obama, that's what Congress deserves for being stubbornly irrational.

Still, do you take my point that Obama didn't stop the LAST Congress from doing stupid?

New bumper sticker: Divided government prevents stupid.