How big money may have hurt Romney

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Londoner, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. Londoner
    Offline

    Londoner Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,140
    Thanks Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    285
    Ratings:
    +1,702
    First,

    The country is divided into three parts:

    The far Right, the far left, and a vast centrist middle comprised of people who lean a little Left or a little Right. Indeed, there are many secular, pro choice Libertarians who support the social agenda of the Left, while supporting the economic positions of the Right. Republican candidates should come out of the primaries in a position to capture these people.

    George Bush and Karl Rove appealed to this centrism when they aggressively tried to pull Latinos into the GOP Tent.

    Bill Clinton appealed to this centrism when he declared the era of Big Government over, making the largest cuts to Welfare in the programs history and putting Richard Rubin (who is a legit Free Market guy) in charge of his financial team.

    And Reagan appealed to this centrism when he worked with Tip O'Neil to strengthen Social Security.

    Fast forward to the Republican primary season. Sheldon Adelson poured money into the Gingrich campaign, which allowed Gingrich to move far, far Right. Romney had no choice but to move extremely Right on issues of immigration, woman's issues, and general rhetoric about how Obama was a dangerous anti-American socialist. This coupled with Donald Trump and Sara Palin forced Romney to take positions that would alienate the large center which he would need to win a national election.

    Big Money allowed Gingrich to bombard Romney on his Bain Capital record (and it gave Obama's big money a working formula)

    In order for the GOP to compete in national elections they have to build a bigger tent, one that includes moderates and Latinos and is more responsive to woman's issues. They cannot allow their primary season to be dominated by their most extreme elements. There are many center Left Americans and "Reagan Democrats" in the northern industrial states who could have easily voted for Romney (just as they voted for Reagan and Bush). Unfortunately, those voters were tremendously alienated by a primary season which seemed only to include a vanishing white electorate, mostly north of 250K.

    The Republicans are better than this. They should take their party back. They shouldn't allow big money to force their presidential candidate to move so far Right that he can't convincingly get back to the center. Believe it or not, there are many decent hard working Americans who don't agree with the far Right any more than they agree with Michael Moore.

    Big Money prevented Romney from harvesting that vast electorate that voted for Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon. You can't win a national election if you are forced to dance to the big money of Sheldon Adelson.

    Are there any Republican moderates out there who want a less rabid primary season in hopes of making it easier for your candidate to appeal to more Americans? Do you think it's a good thing that Big Money can be used to force your candidates to support positions that do not have enough national support? Is it worth re-organizing the party to include a broader base, like your party once did so effectively?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    The Republicans cheated the only candidate capable of beating Obama this time around: Ron Paul.
     
  3. Londoner
    Offline

    Londoner Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,140
    Thanks Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    285
    Ratings:
    +1,702
    Exactly.

    Big Money will not let Ron Paul in the door.

    Listen, I don't support a lot Ron Paul's vision, but there are parts of it which I LOVE.

    In fact, had Ron Paul been in office from 2000-2008, we would never had the Iraq War.

    And he would not have let the Fed lower interest rates to the point where money flooded into the housing market. He would have let the market set the rate and the result would have been 2 trillion dollars less going into what turned out to be the most destructive, far reaching bubble in American history. George Bush pressured Greenspan and the lending agencies to stimulate his dead economy with money that simply was not real. He allowed the big financial players to triple their leverage -- allowing them to place bets that they could not cover. He allowed lending agencies to loan money to illegal aliens who were in prison. This literally happened. Why? Because the lender was able to turn around and sell the loan to Wall Street who securitized it and took a huge profit by selling it to investors .... while at the same time creating hedge funds which bet against these same securities. In Ron Paul's America you don't place bets you can't cover with the expectation of being bailed out when your criminality comes to pass.

    But - again - big money won't let Ron Paul play in the sand box because he doesn't believe in giving subsidies and bail outs to the special interests that own Washington.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    A relatively accurate assessment.

    The problem is, however, even if most republicans agree with this assessment, many, many miles of the primary road runs through hard radical right Christian fundamentalist territory.

    It’s difficult to imagine a GOP candidate running for his party’s presidential nomination bypassing that much political real estate.
     

Share This Page