The Democrat Candidates in 2008 - Difference between 2008 and GOP 2012 - Zero(Image MSNBC.com
If memory serves, the 2007-2008 Election cycle on both sides of the political aisle was heated, disorganized and at times, ridiculous - as a matter of course, no-one on the Democrat side had the “nomination in their pocket” until the Convention, as opposed to the nearly anal drumbeat on the side of the GOP that Huckabee must go to give McCain time to “fight” whichever DNC candidate emerged.
As a matter of course, American politics are messy, as are politics universally, but more so now with the plethora of talking heads, and elitists who apparently lack recall past yesterday – touting the GOP field as undecided with no clear front-runners and ups and downs in the polls. In 2007, there were few choices on the Democrat side; Clinton came into the race the perceived nominee publicly, while the DNC had plans for a one-term Illinois Senator, come Hades or high water. As a result, in July of 2007, both Clinton and Obama were battling(New York Sun), up until the convention where Democrat Leaders decided to use the Super-delegates (former and sitting Congressional Representatives) to choose Obama over Clinton in a battle that resulted in a great deal of salesmanship on the part of those in control of the Democrats: the Kennedys, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, etc., all pushed the Jr. Senator from Illinois over the top – the last vote being Nancy Pelosi and her daughter Christine. It was up to the wire drama.
Fast forward 2011, with the media insisting (along with the establishment GOP) that Mitt Romney is “the one”, while the balance of the candidates are “afterthoughts” – specifically Newt Gingrich who has more legislative experience and a solid record as, of all things, a Republican, than anyone on that stage. Gingrich’s biggest mistake is running against Romney and the political machine that is the beltway and the National GOP (who’s only apparent interest in this General election is taking control of the Senate).
What the American electorate must understand is that elections are contests, and the purpose is not for the national party to choose, rather those members of the electorate, be they Republican or Democrat, or “other”.
In fact, in the case of 2011, the problem with Mitt Romney is two-fold, he was not a popular choice in 2008, and he is without a doubt, the least popular of choices in 2011 – unless of course, he’s the only choice. It is not fair to Romney, and it is not fair to Gingrich, Paul, or any of the lower tier candidates one can expect to see eliminated after the first three contests. It is especially not fair to the American voter, the one who has the right to make the choice, and who may not particularly care a whit what the talking head, GOP or otherwise, thinks. If one can stand to spend more than 10 minutes watching Fox News, one gets the impression rapidly that it is the Romney Channel; in much the same way as MSNBC was the Obama Channel from 2007 to 2008. Is there really a difference between Romney and Obama? - Ideologically possibly, but as far as being chosen by the party not the people, absolutely not.
The fact that individuals like Ann Coulter, Rachel Maddow, Christ Matthews and Chris Wallace obviously have the hubris to get behind the “establishment” (there is no other more appropriate word for a candidate that, pre-primary, has the backing of the Beltway) choice believes their ability to cram the “message” home to the American electorate at every turn, actually helps the candidate. Yes, Obama did get elected President, but at a cost to nomination process, as the Super Delegates supplanted those delegates who had traveled from fifty states to represent and choose the candidate of their choice, allegedly based on the popular vote. Had the elite stayed out of it, Hillary Clinton would be president.
These are not wild musings, rather facts, and the fact that the same nonsense is practiced by both parties, complete with surrogate “journalists” touting the will of a party over the people should not be lost on anyone.
Those individuals in the early voting states, who are at this point undecided, are undecided because they have choices. There are six: Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Bachman from which to choose – are they all perfect – no. However, the argument can be made that in 2007, the field was less than perfect on the Democrat side, and that imperfection was brought all the way to the Convention.
Therefore, with all the GOP hype over Romney, and the Press picking and choosing the candidates, it is up to the GOP voter, to go to the mat for the candidate of their choice – and let the chips fall where they may. If the candidate is imperfect, it means that the candidate is human – which is a plus. If the candidate has baggage, and it’s out there now for the world to see, it means that candidate has been vetted ad nausem, the negative ads run by super pacs, were run in 2007and 2008, perhaps those Republican voters weren’t paying attention, but there was plenty of angst and barbs between candidates on both sides to go around.
In fact, as stated, the only difference in 2011 is that there are still so many candidates to choose from, something one should consider a plus, not a negative. What remains the same? The Romney is the best candidate message, and the negative advertising from Super-Pacs attacking the former Massachusetts one-term (3 years) Governor’s closest rival – see Mike Huckabee.
The end result of the 2008 race may be doomed to the lessons of history, and in that case, one would see an underdog come out on top in Iowa (it was the negative advertising that sunk Romney in 08, and yet, he’s still hitting hard), in New Hampshire, the race may take a surprising turn as well, there is that feisty old Congressman from Texas who is playing a big factor (one Ron Paul), and appealing to both non-traditional Republicans, Students and yes, Tea Party Activists. Polling aside, and one who reads this blog understands the respect for polls, but the reality of the poll is that it is predictive only – a crystal ball of sorts, that can be , given the sample – dead wrong.
The State being ignored completely at the movement is the Tar Heel State, the Gateway to the South and the Gateway to the nomination regardless of political party. It is where Romney lost in 2008 and where McCain and Huckabee were, silently the two left standing. It was where Hillary Clinton was upended by Barack Obama, and that is where, from an historical perspective, as well as a predictive standpoint, the one state that matters in this process. Whichever candidate has the strongest showing in South Carolina will be the nominee.
Does it really matter which of the candidates are chosen by the people? Not a bit – what does matter is that the candidates be chosen by the people rather than the Elite – the last men standing on those podiums in September debates will have to face the public, for good or ill, and should that individual be Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul facing Barack Obama in the televised (nationally and internationally) debates, one has to ask oneself, who would one choose, and then, should the nominee be less than perfect, would one sit out ones privilege to vote, or would one hold ones nose and head to the polls and vote for their respective party nominee? The election, to this mind, will come down to a party politics as usual – with Democrats on one side of the booth, and Republicans on the other, and those Independents and others, with whom the Presidency rests, those who are least likely to choose up until they walk in the booth and pull the lever, or what-have- you, will make the decision. That decision will not be made by the National GOP, or talking heads, or past or present members of Congress, or the DNC – in the end, the choice will be the candidate who appears to have the most differences, the one who clearly articulates a message of resurgence of the American People the one who has the ability to understand foreign policy form the onset and the one who the American Electorate feels they can trust. According to the latest Gallup Poll – right now, it’s no-one! (Gallup).
In the final analysis, regardless of all the hyperbole, the process is fine, and working as it should, negative ads and all, and in perfect timing.
No comments:
Post a Comment