Same Kool-Aid, Different Flavor

Oh Noooo!

I’ve noticed a subtle switch in the media now that Herman Cain is at least one of the front-runners. Cain was previously not a serious candidate because of the cold math of opinion polling. Now that the same polling puts him in a strong position, Republicans have taken to picking on his ads and overemphasizing statements to disqualify him as a candidate.

When Democrats were fighting for the soul of the party in early 2008, Republicans were engaged in a similar, but less publicized battle. There were three candidates with any staying power. Mike Huckabee was the cultural conservative who embodied the most of the Reagan mantle. John McCain was the experienced war hero who was willing to buck his own party and had the best chance against Hillary Clinton. Then there was Mitt Romney. He was considered the favorite of conservatives, some of whom became Obama supporters when Romney lost. Mitt was a flip-flopper on social issues, a veteran of big finance and what the bosses of the GOP thought a candidate should be. He probably had the best chance of beating Obama, Romney would have ditched the federal matching fund system and played every race and cultural card necessary to win.

As tough as Romney may be in an election fight, the 2012 race is not 2008. He and Obama are practically the same guy, and Obama has the (badly executed) experience. He also has the entire Democratic machine behind him. Romney has about half of his party’s machinery. I would prefer Romney, but mostly because he would be more accountable to the probama media. He’s not the problem so much as the way he’s being anointed,

Mitt Romney was touted as the conservative choice by Republican media pundits in 2008. McCain was mostly written off. Then a funny thing happened. The rank and file of the party just didn’t want to vote for him. Huckabee and McCain stayed in the race and Romney just couldn’t move in for the kill. In today’s post Tea Party world, Romney can’t even claim the conservative mantle. Instead, he’s going for electability. The GOP tried to use electability as a weapon when they realized Tea Party sympathizers would not vote for the party choice in a primary. They used the loss of Christine O’Donnell as justification for liberal Mike Castle. They claimed 4 Senate seats could have been won if the least Tea Party candidate were chosen, when 7 seats were due to the Tea party. If they had the choice, Jon Huntsman would be the nominee. He currently runs about 0% in polls.

Ultimately, this is not about Herman Cain. Before him, it was Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. It may be Newt Gingrich after him. This is about electing a president who wasn’t forged in the fires of party money and cronyism. It’s too late for Democrats. Their blue Kool-Aid man is chosen. Will the Republicans force primary voters to pick the Red Kool-Aid man?

Advertisements

About 1539days

I'm like a word a day calendar for executive disasters.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Same Kool-Aid, Different Flavor

  1. DeniseVB says:

    Kevin over at Hillbuzz had a good rant about the party picking the candidate Romney, or the cucumber and mayo sandwich as he calls him 🙂

    Not too much enthusiasm from the Dem/Indie wing of the voters. It seems Cain is stirring more interest as he’s just a great guy with real life, up from the boot straps experiences.

    It’s the GOPs election to lose in a year when the Hot Air garden gnome can beat BO.

    Looking forward to the Gingrinch/Cain “Lincoln-Douglas Debate”. No biased moderators, just a 3 hour discussion. It could be a game changer 😉

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Romney’s campaign theme should be “Hold your nose and vote for Mitt!”

  3. votermom says:

    Mitt : Obama as Kerry : W

  4. yttik says:

    “Will the Republicans force primary voters to pick the Red Kool-Aid man?”

    Good question! In my state in 2008, the Republicans darn near picked Ron Paul. Some counties, he completely swept it with 83%. Republicans up here felt like McCain was being shoved on them and they didn’t like it. I suspect they’re going to be really rebellious about Romney.

  5. DeniseVB says:

    These are desperate times at #OccupyWhiteHouse. Not sure if they’re trying to turn Michelle into James Carville or Alan Grayson?

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/10/28/michelle-gop-curb-freedom-speech-religion/

  6. WMCB says:

    About 20 to 30% of the R party loves Mittens, as do most of the punditry and party poobahs and big donors. The rest don’t want him.

    I’d root for anyone but Mittens as the R nominee, not because I think Romney would be so much worse than say, Cain, but because I think the R voters have a right to pick their own damn candidate without the power structure putting their thumb, feet, and big fat ass on the scale.

    I have a LOT of sympathy, after 2008, for average nobody primary voters getting steamrolled by the machine – the fact that they are conservatives does not matter. It’s wrong, and it’s corrupt.

    Cain’s gaffes and missteps don’t seem to be hurting him much. Why is that? Because he has very obviously made quite a few. I think it’s because people are willing to overlook his faults, for the sake of sticking it in the eye of the media, the pundits, and the party cocktail circuit trying to shove Romney down their throats. It’s not that people are deceived, or unaware of Cain’s faults – and thus his support will drain away once those faults are spotlighted. Nope. They see them.

    But they think he’s a normal guy, a nice guy, a guy who has not lived and breathed politics his whole life, who might view DC with eyes closer to theirs. They like him as much for who he is (and who he is not) as for any policy position he may or may not hold. I still have doubts he can win the R nomination. But I think that making a dent in his support by either attacking his positions or attacking him politically is not going to be as effective as the others think. That only works if those things are the reason people want to vote for him. They aren’t.

    And BTW, another thing about Cain is that he is very Reaganesque. Most people think that Reagan got the majority of his support because people agreed with his policies. Nope. People liked Reagan. He didn’t pull Democrats and Independents because they loved them some conservative supply side theory. Baloney. He pulled them because he had charisma, and a ready sense of humor, didn’t seem to be a stuffed shirt or take himself too seriously, and exuded an unshakable belief in America that was as natural to him as breathing.

    • 1539days says:

      People also really hated Carter.

    • myiq2xu says:

      You can make lots of gaffes on issues that people don’t really care about. And voters are forgiving of politicians they like and trust. Just ask Bill Clinton.

      • WMCB says:

        Yep. That whole “not taking yourself too seriously” charisma thing is something both Clinton and Reagan had. Cain has it, too.

        There is a reason why these two presidents who are so VERY ideologically different remain the 2 most popular presidents in the modern era. The people loved Clinton and Reagan. It’s not because the voters are schizophrenic or stupid. It’s that there are intangibles, things to do with who the man is that affect voter opinion. Those things have little to do with ideology or policy proposals.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Bravo! The media likes to dwell on those GOP gaffes and missteps, but Obama/Biden get a pass?

      My vote will go to content of character, and it won’t be Obama. 😉

  7. 1539days says:

    About the time Romney announced, a lot of Tea Partiers got the “vote for Romney or stay home?” question. Ultimately, most of them said they’d vote for him over Obama. That was the first wedge to force Romney on voters. If anyone but Romney = President Obama, you have no choice.

    The funny part is that the old guard GOP are the crybabies. They were the ones who stayed home in Delaware or voted write-in when their candidate lost a legitimate primary. They were probably the ones who let Obama win when Romney lost the nomination. They are the other Kool-aid.

    • Mary says:

      But this one is James Johnson, the very man who promoted all the Fannie/Freddie crap, increasing & increasing the portfolio of crappy mortgages in the portfolio because the executives’ bonuses were based on quantity and not quality. The same man who wined and dined the CBC (huge campaign donations, including Senator Barak Obama) so they’d fight off any efforts at reform, usually indignantly playing the race card.

      The man took millions in his golden parachute when he retired. That’s taxpayer money, ya know.

  8. DeniseVB says:

    Hmmm, tasty, from Huffpo:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/barack-obama-campaign-donors_n_1063428.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl17%7Csec3_lnk1%7C108157

    Tens of thousands of people who together gave millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign have gone missing this time around. Their failure to give so far may signal that some of the president’s earliest supporters have lost enthusiasm.

    At the same time, Republican rivals like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have been gaining financial strength in parts of the country that were instrumental in swinging the last election for Obama, according to an Associated Press analysis of new campaign finance data.

  9. gxm17 says:

    I am hoping Cain is still in it on Super Tuesday so I can vote for him. His politics are pretty much the polar opposite of mine, but damn I can’t stop myself from liking him. Mittens not so much.

    • Mary says:

      Me too. 🙂

      But I gotta tell ya……if it gets down to a choice of Mittens or Obama……I’ll hold my nose and vote Mittens. I won’t do it cheerfully, but I’ll do it.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I’m not voting if it’s Mitt Romney. Or I might vote third party. I don’t know. But two people will absolutely not be getting my vote next year: Obama and Romney. F*ck the power elite on both sides.

Comments are closed.