Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Romney’s big win: How he did it and what now?”

Andrew Malcolm has his thoughts. I have mine: from reports I’ve heard and read — and in speaking to a friend of mine in Chicago — the Romney campaign literally flooded the Illinois media market with attack ads on Rick Santorum. That, and Illinois is mostly evil.

Keep in mind that this is the same Romney campaign that is on record as saying they won’t be attacking Barack Obama in the ways they’ve been going after their GOP opponents — that Obama is a good guy who’s in over his head, while Rick Santorum, eg., in a crazed, Biblebanging economic lightweight with no conservative credentials.

In a general election, this strategy is doomed: Romney will be outspent considerably by the President and the Dems, and the tactics he’s perfected in the primaries can’t and won’t work in a general election, particularly with the mainstream press campaigning on behalf of the President. On the issues, Romney will attempt to tout his business and leadership experience, but the Dems will counter by pointing out that Romney has said we’re now in an economic recovery; he’s said that gas prices are beyond the control of the President; that he’s the architect for the government-run health care law the Democrats pushed through Congress; that he, like the President, supported TARP and cap-and-trade, as well as a government “stimulus”; that the business experience he touts, as a cold capitalist speculator, led him to support a bailout for the 1% on Wall Street while alternately refusing to support a bailout for the lunchpail Joes who work in the auto industry, while the governing experience he touts can’t match the governing experience of a President with a full term under his belt — meaning in the end the Romney campaign will have less money to spend than the Obama campaign, it will have no real issues to run on that provide a stark contrast with Obama, and it will have gone out of its way to thoroughly alienate the base of his own party in an attempt to court the same moderates and independents who ultimately rejected John McCain’s similar strategy.

— And all that means is, Romney will, with the help of a bunch of GOP establishment kingmakers and their shills, have managed to buy the GOP nomination, after which he will be the one candidate running who has the least to offer in terms of an ideological contrast to Obama, and who least excites the GOP base.

And we wonder why we are where we are as a country.

When your allies are working for the other side — whether they know it or not — it’s time either to whip them in shape or else find other allies.

Problem is, this is the lesson we needed to take from 2008 and 2010. And I fear we missed our last opportunity to learn.

20 Replies to ““Romney’s big win: How he did it and what now?””

  1. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I suspect that if there were an option for either “uncommitted” or “none of the above” for Republican caucus and primary goers, we’d be looking at a very different race.

    Something to think about going into 2016.

  2. I Callahan says:

    Althouse is talking about how a number of pundits think that the only way to win an election against Obama is to get some prior Obama voters to see the error of their ways, which is impossible if those voters are offended by the way Obama is treated. In other words, be more condescending to Obama, but not his voters. The whole “he’s a nice guy, but in way over his head” schtick is some variation of that. Taranto has an article about this today.

    I’m not sure. That kind of thinking didn’t work for McCain. The left will put out all stops to make sure Romney doesn’t win, and they’ll play dirty, and the GOP will be left wondering what happened. Again.

    Dick Armey has a GREAT article in today’s WSJ (this one you don’t have to pay for) that hits on your themes:

    What Do Republicans Believe?

  3. LTC John says:

    “the Romney campaign literally flooded the Illinois media market with attack ads on Rick Santorum. That, and Illinois is mostly evil.”

    Yes to the first, and partially right on the second – we have many more stupid folks than evil… the difference between Mike Madigan and Dick Durbin – and the people who vote them in office.

    I guess my non-Romney vote did not matter so much. Damn.

  4. McGehee says:

    He’s going to be nominated with delegates from states he can’t possibly win in November.

    And his defeat will be blamed on the red-state voters who didn’t want him in the first place.

  5. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Geraghty had one yesterday. I think they’re all repeating Kevin Williamson, the guy at NR who wrote the book about Socialism, as well as the article pointing out Wall Street’s support for Romney as the guy most likely to back business as usual.

    Unfortunately, he’s also the guy who called Obama a manistream Democrat representative of a mainstream of liberal thought.

    I’ll try to find the link to the NR article. Obama not a socialist by Williamson’s light was a Corner comment I think.

  6. guinspen says:

    Chicago lawmaker charged in bribe case wins primary

    Derrick Smith, appointed a year ago to fill a vacancy in the Illinois House of Representatives, was leading with 76 percent of the vote with more than 80 percent of the ballots counted, according to the Chicago Board of Elections.

    Federal prosecutors said they recorded Smith accepting $7,000 in cash from a government informant in exchange for writing a letter supporting a state grant for a day care center.

    Smith was indicted by a grand jury, arrested, and freed on bond. He has yet to enter a plea in the case. If convicted, Smith could face a maximum of ten years in prison.

    “It was a very unfortunate situation and circumstance,” said U.S. congressman Danny Davis, a Chicago Democrat who supported Smith.

    Davis said he asked voters in overwhelmingly Democratic Chicago to elect Smith despite his legal troubles because Smith’s Democratic opponent, Tom Swiss, was a past chairman of the Cook County Republican party. Chicago is a part of Cook County.

    “(Swiss) was kind of making use of a bit of subterfuge which would give you no reason to think he would be a Democrat,” Davis said, explaining why he backed Smith.

    Davis said he expected the indicted lawmaker to resign before the November general election, giving local Democratic officials the opportunity to pick a substitute.

  7. geoffb says:

    Unfortunately, he’s also the guy who called Obama a manistream Democrat representative of a mainstream of liberal thought.

    I’ll try to find the link to the NR article. Obama not a socialist by Williamson’s light was a Corner comment I think.

    Or Socialism is the mainstream of Democratic “liberal” thought.

  8. geoffb says:

    “It was a very unfortunate situation and circumstance,” said U.S. congressman Danny Davis, a Chicago Democrat who supported Smith.

    So many “unfortunate situations” for the Dems.

  9. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Well Geoff, that’s what one would think, but the context was more along the lines of it’s a waste of time to call Obama a socialist.

    This whole line of argument is remeniscent of Heinlein’s quote about punishing the creative and productive and calling the consqequences bad luck.

    It’s not you fault stupid idealistic Obama voters, he was just unlucky. Better luck next time!

    That’s going to be Obama’s rationale for reelection. Not My Fault. Why the hell would we want to concede that?

  10. PatrickS says:

    Flooded the zone with negative ads, is correct. I got at least a half dozen robocalls in the far west suburbs, each one more outrageous than the last, but obviously coordinated because they covered different subjects. Made Santorum sound like Jenjhiss (spelled like Kerry pronounces it) Khan.

  11. Ernst Schreiber says:

    When your allies are working for the other side — whether they know it or not — it’s time either to whip them in shape or else find other allies.

    I’ve been curious about the people managing the Romney campaign myself.

  12. geoffb says:

    Problem with an Etch-A-Sketch is if you shake it up a bit it forgets everything.

  13. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The more disturbing part of the whole Etch-A-Sketch gaff is that the idiot consultant/advisor —whatever the hell he was— accepted the premise of the question: Romney’s been forced over to the hard right thanks to wingnut recalcitrance and is in danger of being too conservative to win the general.

    If the media and the establishmentarian moderate/rinos succeed in rebranding Romney as the face of conservatism, then the conservative movement is finished.

  14. palaeomerus says:

    ” If the media and the establishmentarian moderate/rinos succeed in rebranding Romney as the face of conservatism, then the conservative movement is finished.”

    ‘Till the need donations and things go to shit when they don’t really change anything. Shit that won’t work won’t work. in the long run won’t work in the long run. But it is a huge setback. And it’s probably the end of the GOP itself as a meaningful brand. that stands for anything but old fads and a snotty attitude that they hope disguises their failure.

  15. leigh says:

    …as a meaningful brand[.] that stands for anything but old fads and a snotty attitude that they hope disguises their failure.

    That sounds like the donkeys, too.

  16. McGehee says:

    Problem with an Etch-A-Sketch is if you shake it up a bit it forgets everything.

    No wonder it’s signed onto the Romney campaign.

  17. SDN says:

    paleo, this is why I stopped sending money to politicians and put it into prep. This country is past the point of anything besides surgery.

Comments are closed.