[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Mitt Romney: In Your Heart, You Know He’s A Loser: Are the Republicans deliberately throwing the presidential election? The economy is in a mess, and in spite of the Obama administrations pathetic attempts to conjure a "recovery" out of thin air looks like it is tanking. The European banks are on the verge of a meltdown, and the jobless rate in this country is much higher than anyone in officialdom is willing to acknowledge (although ordinary people know the truth). Whats more, Americas position abroad is none too good: after being driven out of Iraq, which is falling into the Iranian orbit, were well on our way to losing the war in Afghanistan, and the whole region is in turmoil. Israel is threatening to start World War III with an attack on Tehran, an act that would drive the world economy over a cliff. Would you want to be President when the price of oil is over $200 a barrel? Which brings us to the question that has been hovering around the edge of my consciousness ever since the Republican primary battle commenced: is the GOP deliberately throwing the 2012 presidential election? Yes, I know the Republicans hate Obama and all he stands for, and I certainly have heard them inveigh against the President in ways that would formerly have been considered off the reservation not too long ago. For example, trying to delegitimize a sitting President by questioning his US citizenship, and/or implying hes a "secret Muslim" I mean, really! Surely thats over the top, to put it mildly. And yet
And yet I am a firm believer in action over words: and if we look at what the Republicans are doing (or, rather, not doing), as opposed to what they are saying, its enough to arouse a certain suspicion that something just isnt right. On the one hand, the GOP is telling us Obama is leading us down the road to "socialism," that hes "appeasing" our enemies and stiffing our friends, and that hes basically destroying the country. On the other hand, they havent put forth a candidate who has a chance in heck of beating him. The leading candidate for the partys nomination is a caricature of everything voters are sick and tired of: hes a phony, a spoiled rich guy, an automaton whose words and actions convey, above all, an almost comical impression of inauthenticity. Furthermore, aside from these personal failings, Mitt Romneys record is uniquely suited to collapse before a well-financed and relentless assault from the President and his supporters. While the Republicans rail against Obamacare as a step toward "socialism," Romney is himself on record as having supported the very same "individual mandate" so abhorred by the GOP. As the former governor of a very liberal state, Romney wouldnt have lasted long as a "severe conservative" unless such "severity" now means issuing a proclamation of "Gay Youth Pride Day" and supporting tax-funded abortion on demand. When it comes to foreign policy, what is striking are the similarities rather than the much-touted differences between the two: in spite of Romneys rather unconvincing sallies at the President over Obamas supposed "weakness," when it comes to specifics its hard to see where Romneyism ends and Obamaism begins. Both want us to stay in Afghanistan as long as the military chieftains insist: both see the US as gate-keeper and guardian of "world order," and on the pressing issue of the day both continue to maintain Iran is developing nuclear weapons in spite of what our own intelligence is telling us. Going right on down the line, on specific foreign policy issues the difference" between them is chiefly rhetorical. Romney and Obama have repeatedly voiced their unconditional support for Israel, in spite of the fact that the real interests of the US in the region are ill-served by such an unreasonable pledge. Even when Romney lashes out at Obama for his "weakness" before "our number one geopolitical foe" hapless, declining Russia it turns out his actual position is practically identical to the Presidents: both want to use the threat of installing a missile shield over Eastern Europe to blackmail the Kremlin into joining the effort to isolate Iran and otherwise kowtowing to Washington. In short, there isnt a dimes worth of difference between the two when it comes to the vitally important issue of Americas role in the world which isnt all that shocking, come to think of it. After all, "politics stops at the waters edge," as a long-dead interventionist Senator (and badly-compromised turncoat) once put it, and that rule is strictly observed in Washington, where the bipartisan interventionist consensus brooks no dissent. Romney isnt so much a serious candidate for the presidency as he is a national joke: his record as a "flip-flopper," his inability to project anything remotely resembling sincerity, and his Richie Rich persona have all combined to turn him into a human piñata for both liberals and conservatives to pick apart. Which leads us back to the question I asked at the beginning: is the GOP deliberately throwing this election? It makes sense if we take the economic critique proffered by anti-inflationists like Ron Paul and Gerald Celente seriously: would you want to be President if were on the brink of another Great Depression? As the American dollar is destroyed, and the buying power of the average American is about to become the equivalent of a consumer in, say, Zimbabwe, is it really in the GOPs interest to take the White House this year? In spite of Romneys rhapsodizing over the joys of yet another "American century" on the way if he wins the White House, I suspect the judgment of the Republican Establishment deviates quite a bit from this rosy scenario. They know that, whatever the outcome of this election, the country faces what the Israelis call an "existential crisis," albeit not one embodied by the specter of non-existent Iranian nukes. And while the cause of the crisis is economic, the consequences will be felt in virtually every sphere, including the foreign policy realm. With a much-reduced ability to project military power overseas, the US will be caught in a conundrum: how to reconcile our image as a "great power" indeed, the worlds last remaining "superpower" with the gritty reality of a nation going into foreclosure. Ron Paul isnt the only one conjuring visions of America as Greece-times-ten, and it doesnt take much imagination to see how the march to austerity will be met here in this country, where Americans sense of entitlement is almost as well-developed as their taste for vulgarity. What happens when the bread-and-circuses stop, and Americans are forced to confront the grim reality of being broke? Back in the winter of 2008, when the economy was taking a major nose-dive and the too-big-to-fail crowd was threatening a financial version of the Samson Option, top US officials were quietly discussing the prospect of rationing food and fuel, and making plans to call out the military to keep order. Although President Bush was still officially in office, Obama was waiting in the wings, preparing to take the reins and one imagines the defeated GOP didnt envy him. Quite the contrary: and I doubt they ever want to be in the position Obama found himself in, which is why I believe it is quite possible that the Republican leadership by which I mean the Republicans big money backers have decided to throw the election this time around. The strategic thinking behind this can be summed up in three words: After them us! That was the slogan of Germanys Communist party in the 1930s after the fateful election which brought the National Socialists to power. The Communists, having rejected an alliance with the German Social Democrats on orders from Moscow, were convinced they would be catapulted into power as a result of the backlash from Hitlers victory at the polls a strategic calculation that had "backfire" written all over it, as Trotsky pointed out at the time. Before taking that historical note too far, however, I have to admit the idea of the Republican high mucka-mucks getting together and deciding it would be better for them to throw the election to Obama by putting up a loser like Romney does seem a bit far-fetched. Perhaps theyve convinced themselves, on one level, that Romney can actually win, while on quite another level they dont believe it for a minute. People usually have no trouble holding mutually exclusive beliefs in other areas, and politics is certainly no exception. In your heart, you know hes a loser now theres a campaign slogan tailor-made for the politics of Bizarro World. Which is all the more reason to believe theres some truth to it. If voters are in the mood to punish the Democrats somehow, and if they cant in good conscience do it on the presidential level, then isnt it more likely theyll take it out on the rest of the ticket? If Republicans can retain control of the House, that may be enough to keep them from regretting their loss at the top of the ticket. Another wave of victories on the state and local level will perhaps be enough to satiate them, at least for the moment, until they get another crack at the White House. Then they can sit back and blame the President for everything, as the crisis unfolds, while cat-calling from the sidelines: a perfect set-up for career politicians who have no principles, no sense of duty to the country, and no compunctions about defrauding their supporters. With Congress in their hot little hands, they can obstruct the Presidents domestic agenda and heckle him into getting more aggressive on the overseas front a perfect vantage point from which to observe the rapidly accelerating decline of the American empire. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#2. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
There is no two party system, hence it is not within the GOP to throw or throw up the election! Mr. Raimondo could make a better contribution by being honest. The power brokers/elite have picked our candidates and winners for decades. Therefore, Raimondo and all of his peers are part of the problem.
While I tend to agree with your opinion that the two party system is a fraudulent charade, not everyone agrees and not agreeing does not mean they are being dishonest. What I liked about this article is how Raimondo lays out the political stands of Obama and Romney in order to show that there really isn't a difference between them. As far as I'm concerned the more times that is done the better. Not that it will matter to the partisans. If Obama were to change parties next week Republican partisans would drop Romney and vote for Obama in two shakes of a lambs tale because it would put an "R" in the office. They have no values.
#15. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#5)
Agreed.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|