February 29, 2012

Inevitability Triumphs!

GOP establishment types seem very excited this morning that Mitt Romney was able to win both one of his several “home” states — amassing 16 delegates to Santorum’s 14 (Romney won 41% to 38%) — and the state that keeps sending John McCain to the Senate. As a Republican. This, to them, augers well for their anointed candidate, serving as a sign that at least some in the GOP base have, if not exactly embraced Romney, at least begun to realize that if they don’t get behind this guy, he’ll spend and spend and spend until he destroys every other GOP competitor, one by one by one.

– Which, for the time being this tepid embrace of the latest inevitable GOP “moderate” pretending to be a conservative, means that the powers behind the (potential) GOP throne, who insist they don’t really even exist as such (Karl Rove? A puffy, ubiquitous figment of our imaginations! An avuncular “analyst” with no real horse in this race) won’t have to huddle behind closed doors and beg either Chris Christie or Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels to please please please jump into the GOP primary race and save the country from having a full-throated, unapologetic conservative choice against Barack Obama.

The only thing worse than not being in power, evidently, is having to rely on the votes of those who, in order to put you there, keep insisting that you accept a severe diminution of power. And after watching the Democrats get to have all the spending and redistributing fun, that just won’t do.

Plus, you know: Hobbits. Ew.

It’s time we face facts: the GOP establishment, which controls the money and the organizing apparatus essential for most effectively promoting Republican candidates, mistrusts the conservative base far more so than it does the Democrats with whom they share a mutual desire: power, control of the national purse strings, and a belief that, by virtue of their elected positions, they should be making the choices for an American public that, truth be told, they don’t much care for in the aggregate, and don’t much care about, save for their necessity as votes to propel them to positions of authority.

Or perhaps the real problem is that I’m out of touch with what the country needs. In which case, my apologies.

Carry on.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:10am
20 comments | Trackback

Comments (20)

  1. Well, Jeff, you may be out of touch with the country, but you’re definitely NOT out of touch with what the country needs. Let me sound arrogant by saying the people in this country have no idea what they need. Years of social engineering by the education, media and entertainment complexes have rendered the country an unthinking mess.

    I think all of this is inevitable. It was a good run – 236 years – but it had to end sometime.

    As a whole, I’ve pretty much given up on the human race. Each time they do something smart, they do two stupid things. I really feel sorry for the people on this board who have kids – you more than have your hands full, and those kids will bear the brunt of what Americans have wrought.

  2. It’s time we face facts: the GOP establishment…mistrusts the conservative base far more so than it does the Democrats with whom they share a mutual desire: power.

    Could just as well have left it at that. It’s the old Heinleinian dichotomy once again: those who think we should be free, and those who think we should be controlled. Doesn’t matter whether they have our best interests at heart, or whether they crave power for its own sake. In the end, all of them think of us as pawns.

    I’m glad we’ve kept the pressure on the Establishment in the national race. Frankly, I’m surprised that we’ve done as well as we have, given the advantages enjoyed by the Romney machine the machine currently using Romney as its face. I still doubt our ultimate success, and hope that the coming season’s battles don’t cause us to lose sight of the equally important battles closer to home.

    We need to make sure that whoever winds up in the Oval Office quickly grows to hate every minute of it.

  3. We’re still a long way from the Convention.

    What’s clear at this point, however, is that Romney only wins the nomination in spite of the base. Which means he’s not going to feel beholden to us, and probably won’t see the need to even throw a bone in our direction once in a while.

    Think George W. Bush and “I kicked Gary Bauer’s ass” (or whatever he said in declaring the conservative movement nonexistent).

  4. About that Antle piece: Romeny is neither libertarian nor traditional (or soc-con, if you prefer), and he sure as hell isn’t fusionist.

    But his allies have done a bang-up job of playing the two against each other.

  5. Rush just explained how Santorum either wins or ties the Michigan delegate count, even though Romney won the headline.

  6. There is no delegate count from Michigan yet. Michigan awards 2 delegates to the winner of each Congressional district and then 2 more in proportion to the state total vote.

    The latest I can find is that Romney has won 7 districts, Santorum has won 5 and leads in the remaining two but one is by less than 100 votes. If these things hold then each should get 14 delegates from Congressional district votes and the 2 statewide should be split one for each giving each 15 delegates.

    The 2 undecided districts could if they go for Romney change that count to either 17 – 13 or 19 – 11 in Romney’s favor. None of it will be completely official until the State and districts conventions in mid May.

  7. Good piece here by Nate Silver on the fuzzy delegate math.

  8. It appears Romney won Oakland Co. by 31,565 votes or so. He won the state by 32,387, a difference of a mere 822 tallies.

  9. Then I must have misheard Rush, because he was saying 17-13 or 15-15 Santorum’s favor (I thought).

  10. I’m going by what is in this WaPo piece Ernst.

    Incomplete results posted by the Michigan Republican Party show both Romney and Santorum leading in seven of the state’s 14 congressional districts. But Santorum’s lead in the Upper Peninsula-based 1st district is fewer than 100 votes right now, and his lead in the Detroit-based 13th district is tenuous because the totals are missing lots of votes.

    It’s the latest I’d seen before posting the comment.

  11. A reason emerges for the confusion.

    The confusion comes over new congressional district lines. For the last decade, Michigan had 15 Congressional Districts. However, Michigan lost a congressional seat because of population declines and new maps were drawn last year to shrink to 14 districts. Since the maps are still fresh, election officials were not ready to report results based on the new 14 congressional districts. Instead, the Secretary of State reported results by county and the old 15 congressional district map.

    The new maps, particularly in Southeast Michigan, joined new counties together, and, in some cases, split cities and neighboring towns into separate districts. That meant the Michigan GOP Tuesday had to individually call local clerks to collect and tabulate precinct results in oddly divided districts. It’s the Republican Party — not the Secretary of State — that will announce delegate totals based on their tabulations for the new maps.

  12. I really feel sorry for the people on this board who have kids – you more than have your hands full, and those kids will bear the brunt of what Americans have wrought
    Too true Callahan; it’s what keeps many of us out here fighting every day.

  13. “It appears Romney won Oakland Co. by 31,565 votes or so. He won the state by 32,387, a difference of a mere 822 tallies.”

    That sounds about right. Oakland County is by far the richest in the State, and one of the richest in the nation. Oakland County’s GOP was once a bastion of solid fusionist conservatism, much like the Detroit News editorial page.

    Both have morphed into cul de sacs of white-gloved, moderate group-think, deeply embarrassed by bitter clinger types and Constitution-wavers. The tribunes of privilege are, after all, insulated from the concerns of such folk, and probably aren’t all that unhappy with Obama anyway–he’s been pretty good for Wall Street, if a trifle feckless.

    I’m happy to say my congressional district went for Santorum.

  14. “Romney 2012: Because Who Wants To Run On Obamacare, Energy Prices or Liberty Issues, Anyway?”

    I’m really trying to suss out what people are thinking on Romney’s assumed electability. Is the plan for Romney to say at the debates

    “Look, Barack, you are a capital chap, truly capital. I can’t emphasize that enough. But you seem to be operating under a misunderstanding: you can only impose liberty-killing healthcare mandates, gigantic tax increases, insane energy policies and conscience-protection overrides against religious institutions at the state level. Your mistake was to try to impose them at the federal level, which simply isn’t cricket. That is the great, unbridgable gulf between our philosophies, and one which demonstrates what is at stake in this election. Nonetheless, once that outstanding fellow Pat Quinn completes his term, you can try it out from the Governor’s office in Springfield.”

    At this point, I guess, the electorate is supposed to have a collective V-8 moment, Romney gets elected, and then, profit.

  15. “Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles.” — Domesticated conservative David Brooks.

    Or in other words, witDavid Brooks values no principle above expediency. I think James Taranto nailed it. Never refer to David Brooks without the moniker domesticated conservative.

    Lots of nougaty goodness in this WSJ BOTWT: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577251512542949018.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

  16. I think the idea of Romney electability is predicated on the Delaware 2010 model. An establishment Republican will always be more electable because it is the conventional wisdom that the conservative base will generally vote for the establishment moderate, but the establishment will actively work to defeat a conservative if they beat out the moderate in a primary.

    The Republican moderates are the real “Taliban wing” of the Party.

  17. More on the delegate count.

    With 26 of the state’s 30 delegates decided, Romney and Santorum each have 13. Michigan awards most of its delegates based on results in each of its 14 congressional districts — handing out two for winning each district.

    Results were incomplete in the final two congressional districts as of midday Wednesday. But with 98 percent of the precincts reporting, Santorum had a slight edge in both. If his lead holds in both districts, Santorum would win a majority of the state’s delegates, or 17 to Romney’s 13.

  18. Can’t it be remarked to your credit if you’re David Brooks commenting on the Republican situation and Democrat Mickey Kaus seems to understand you (and your world) better than you understand yourself in it?

    Somehow, it doesn’t fit like it ought to.

  19. Taranto’s been on a roll lately.

    Maybe it’s just the contrarian in him in, though.

  20. I think the idea of Romney electability is predicated on the Delaware 2010 model. An establishment Republican will always be more electable because it is the conventional wisdom that the conservative base will generally vote for the establishment moderate, but the establishment will actively work to defeat a conservative if they beat out the moderate in a primary.

    It’s also predicated on the conventional wisdom that Republicans generally, and conservatives in particular always lose, except on those rare occassions when they fail to lose. That in turn is based on the longstanding notion that Democrats always win, even when they lose, as the media and Dem pols are quick to remind us all after every election.

Leave a Reply