THE DOM PERIGNON IS A BIT FLAT AND THE CAVIAR IS A TOUCH FISHY
I keep running into Iowa post-moterms that are variations on this:
Dems Can Barely Contain Their Glee Over Iowa Results
It's hard to say who was more excited Tuesday night: Rick Santorum, who came within eight votes of beating Mitt Romney or the Democrats watching on their couches at home.
The theory from the Democrats: if that's the best Romney can do, the general election is looking better and better....
Democrats pointed out that ... about 3/4 of caucus-goers last night chose someone other than the man who's been making the case he's the most electable for five years. More embarrassing for Romney: President Obama -- who faced no competition -- actually pulled out a competitive number of votes last night. Democrats say 25,000 Iowans turned out to caucus for the president....
Sorry, but I'm not ready to do a happy dance just because Romney's support is tepid and the turnout didn't suggest an overabundance of GOP energy. Republicans are lukewarm about Romney for the same reason they eventually became lukewarm (or worse) about Bachmann, Trump, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and (to some extent) Paul:
They're spoiled.
Think about it: Every election cycle, Republicans have the opportunity to choose from lots of candidates who promise to do very, very right-wing things the voters want them to do: Cut taxes. Saber-rattle in the Middle East. Gut regulations. Eviscerate the social safety net. Make extraordinarily partisan appointments to the Supreme Court and other federal judgeships. Adopt extraordinarily mean-spirited immigration policies. Restrict abortions. And on and on. Nearly every GOP candidate promises to do most or all of these things. And they mean it -- they will do them.
Now think about Democrats. What do we want? Single-payer health care? Laws that strengthen unions? A genuine, thoroughgoing reversal of military adventurism? Policies that actually reduce economic inequality? Gay marriage? Maybe a Dennis Kucinich will advocate all these things, but he can't be nominated. A minor-party candidate might advocate them all, but that candidate can't win. We can't get what we really want.
But Republicans can get what they want. They get an extraordinary amount of what they want every time they win an election cycle. And it's not good enough for them! They're spoiled! They want more! They propose extraordinary purity tests, and then reject candidates who don't meet them -- or can't meet them retroactively. They develop mad crushes on candidates and then reject them in response to these tests because what they want from every candidate is everything they ever wanted.
It doesn't matter, because once they've got a guy running against Barack Antichrist, they'll fall in line. But really, don't read too much into their current mood. It's just ... ennui.
****
I'm also reading a lot of predictions of GOP doom of this variety:
...Considering his lack of appeal to evangelicals and his late show of interest in the state, it's no surprise that Mitt Romney didn't seal the deal in Iowa. But that means the fight for the Republican nomination will roll on at least through New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida -- which is good news for President Obama.
Think about it. Ron Paul's going to spend the next two or three months attacking Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum's going to spend the next two or three months claiming he's the real conservative, not Mitt Romney. And Newt Gingrich is going to spend the next six months, or six years, getting his revenge by calling Mitt Romney a liar, or worse. And the longer they direct their fire at each other, the better it is for the Obama campaign....
Wasn't that what Republicans were counting on four years ago -- a protracted primary fight weakening their opponent? How'd that work out for them?
I suspect you're right, i.e., that GOP chances in the general won't be materially hurt by pre-convention invective. I do, though, enjoy the spectacle of the "non-militarist" Paul berating Newt as a draft-dodger duting 'Nam. (Of course, St. Ron dodged the bullets too, but more W-style; he let the USAF pay for his med school & then malpracticed in uniform for a while.)
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that many Democrats like me wouldn't have minded if Hillary won the nomination instead of Obama. Sure, I worked like a dog for his campaign, but if Hillary won, I'd have fallen in line and supported her.
And yes, we had the PUMA's (and the outside group of "R" CUNT's - sorry, but NO ONE ever uses the acronym that the "Citizens United, Not Timid" decision was based on - and for good reason).
But there was no 'Anyone but Hillary,' or 'Anyone But Obama' movements.
And unlike McCain, whom the base didn't like because of some of his bipartisan positions over the years, there's also that for Romney - AND the visceral religious hatred that base Evangelicals have for Mormons.
So, there is a difference.
Steve B over at WaMo had a post up earlier today about some of the Religious Right loons meeting in Texas to figure out who they're going to support as their 'Anyone But Romney" candidate.
There's a difference between 2012 for them, and 2008 for us.
We had two great candidates.
They have 7 ass-clowns and mental dwarfs, and the leader is a former Governor who was fairly Progressive, and a Mormon to add insult to their injury.
Yeah, but they're desperate to win this year. Last go-round, they'd had the White House for eight years and Congress for fourteen.
ReplyDeleteI don't actually think the Republicans are desperate to win this year. The foot-stomping, hair-tearing chunk of the base is desperate, but I'm starting to get the feeling that the institutional Republican party is a) resigned to Romney, and b) kinda resigned to losing.
ReplyDeleteI'll just reiterate what I've been saying for months and months: It's gonna be Romney, and he's gonna lose. Wanna bet cash money (or Paypal money)?
I stand with my previous observations: like 2008, the Republics are throwing the election to Obama.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Yeah, and as desperate as they are for at least another 4 to 8 years in the Executive Branch, as well as the Legislative ones, you have to wonder why they didn't spend more time grooming someone after Little Boots and McCain?
ReplyDeleteDid too many of them think that Palin would, or even could, be a credible choice - until she shot-off her mouth and proved to be even more ignorant, selfish, and incapable, than anyone suspected?
I don't know the answer to that.
But, it's telling to me that, just like in 1996, they found no one to put into the battle beside Dole, a not too popular choice.
And, if George W. Bush wasn't a "Bush," but named named Andy K. Shrub, he'd have had no chance for the nomination in 2000.
Little Boots was their only "credible" choice back then.
And they don't have another one until 2016 who's willing to chance it - until when Obama's done, and Rubio, or Daniels, Christie, or someone else, thinks they've got a chance at winning.
It's telling to me that no one but the current bunch of losers were around to run. They're saving what they consider their 'Up And Comers' the chance of losing in 2012, and hopefully putting together a winning candidate and strategy for 2016.
Romney, or whoever, is cannon fodder - that they HOPE will win, but don't expect to.
They are focused on 2016. And that may buy this country the time it needs to finally have the Republican base stop being the force that it has been, due to age, and demographic changes.
THAT'S the only optimistic thing I can cling to, so let me dream, can't you? ;-)
Ten Bears,
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the powers-that-be don't mind Obama so much, seeing as how the DOW and their porfolio's have recovered, but no one else has?
If he had thrown a bunch of those MFing crooks in jail, you can be sure that they'd have fought tooth and nail to find someone else other than Romney to be their credible candidate.
And that's the most damming statement that I can make about Obama.
Well, at least he's started to fight now, what with putting in Cordray and some NLRB members in as recess appointments.
Maybe Obama's finally wiped the bipartisan crust from his eyes, and woken up.
I'll just reiterate what I've been saying for months and months: It's gonna be Romney, and he's gonna lose. Wanna bet cash money (or Paypal money)?
ReplyDeleteNot yet. I've been saying for a while that Romney will beat Obama if the race is essentially a two-man race. I'm still waiting to see what happens with Americans Elect and the Libertarian Party and various wingnut fringe parties and Rocky Anderson or whoever the hell tries to be this year's Nader. One or more of them could crack 1% or 2%, which could be enough to throw states a la Nader in 2000. Or all of them could score 0.05% of the vote. We could have a clearer sense soon. I think Romney will wrap this up in about a month, and we'll see what AE does and whether disgruntled wingers start looking for Mitt alternatives. (But remember that Mitt is going to pick the wingnuttiest running mate he can pick who won't frighten the D.C. press corps -- I'm not sure who that'll be, but it might help him get over.)