The GOP’s Suicide March

[Geee]

National Review:


‘Are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago?” — Former presidential candidate Rick Perry

It’s the campaign line of the year, and while the author won’t be carrying it into the general election, the eventual nominee will.

The charge is straightforward: President Obama’s reckless spending has dangerously increased the national debt while leaving unemployment high and the economy stagnant. Concurrently, he has vastly increased the scope and reach of government with new entitlements and oppressive regulation, with higher taxes to come (to offset the unprecedented spending).

In 2010, that narrative carried the Republicans to historic electoral success. Through most of 2011, it dominated Washington discourse. The air was filled with debt talk: ceilings, supercommittees, Simpson-Bowles.
What’s the incumbent to do? He admits current conditions are bad. He knows that his major legislative initiatives — Obamacare, the near-trillion-dollar stimulus, (the rejected) cap-and-trade — are unpopular. If you can’t run on stewardship or policy, how do you win re-election?

Create an entirely new narrative. Push an entirely new issue. Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope.

This charge, too, is straightforward: The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat-cat donors over people, political power over everything.

It’s all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement — blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney — plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter.

[Rokke]

Sigh. I used to really enjoy reading Krauthammer. Romney's vulnerability as a "venture capitalist" will not go away the second he becomes the Republican candidate. It will become worse. The solution isn't to ignore it now so that it is fresh meat for the Obama campaign. The solution is to decide if it's a real vulnerability and whether it renders him an unelectable candidate.

I can't count the times I've heard Newt's baggage renders him unelectable. Yet, when the media attacks him on it, he uses the attacks to his advantage. If Romney is really the solid candidate the Republican elite believe he is, let's see him turn the attacks on him to his advantage. If he can't do it now, he won't be able to when the country is really looking at him as November approaches.

I want a candidate who can take challenges head on and fight back. I want a candidate who doesn't rely on Washington intellectuals to carry his water. In fact, I want a candidate Washington intellectuals don't like. Guess I'll keep reading Krauthammer. If nothing else, he's helping me decide who I don't want.

[Valin]

Sigh. I used to really enjoy reading Krauthammer. Romney's vulnerability as a "venture capitalist" will not go away the second he becomes the Republican candidate. It will become worse.

 

I would also add Romneycare. I think that as far as the primary goes he is weaker here than with Bain.

[Rokke]

Sigh. I used to really enjoy reading Krauthammer. Romney's vulnerability as a "venture capitalist" will not go away the second he becomes the Republican candidate. It will become worse.

 

I would also add Romneycare. I think that as far as the primary goes he is weaker here than with Bain.

I agree. And I find it incredible that Romney still doesn't have a coherent response when he's pushed on that issue.

[RandyM]

Sigh. I used to really enjoy reading Krauthammer. Romney's vulnerability as a "venture capitalist" will not go away the second he becomes the Republican candidate. It will become worse.

 

I would also add Romneycare. I think that as far as the primary goes he is weaker here than with Bain.

I agree. And I find it incredible that Romney still doesn't have a coherent response when he's pushed on that issue.

 

 

I keep thinking surely to God that Romney's handlers have held some brainstorming sessions on developing coherent responses to the venture capitalist and Romneycare issues, among others. But, as you say, we haven't heard 'em yet.

 

I would expect his machinery to do better than that.

[Valin]

Sigh. I used to really enjoy reading Krauthammer. Romney's vulnerability as a "venture capitalist" will not go away the second he becomes the Republican candidate. It will become worse.

 

I would also add Romneycare. I think that as far as the primary goes he is weaker here than with Bain.

I agree. And I find it incredible that Romney still doesn't have a coherent response when he's pushed on that issue.

 

 

I keep thinking surely to God that Romney's handlers have held some brainstorming sessions on developing coherent responses to the venture capitalist and Romneycare issues, among others. But, as you say, we haven't heard 'em yet.

 

I would expect his machinery to do better than that.

 

You're not the only ones to be asking. There are those (on TOS) who would say there is a good reason why he can't really defend it.

 

I don't care about Bain, and this was a mistake on Newts part. don't see anyway to attack Romney on Bain without sounding like an OWSer.

[Valin]

1st let me state if Romney or Santorum is the candidate I will do everything I can to see them elected.

 

Now

 

I've been thinking about this, and I have come to a conclusion. Fine people like Krauthammer are interested in winning this election, and make no mistake that is real important, but I think that is as far as their thinking goes...(please feel free to take me to task about this). IMO that's not enough given the situation.

 

Say either Romney or Santorum become president, and serve out their two terms, will Washington have been really changed at the end of their term? Will the Congress still be voting to raise the debt ceiling, will the the EEOC still be telling employers who they have to hire, will the bureaucracy in EPA, Dept ED, NTSB, or any of the hundreds of panels/agencies/boards/Depts still be telling the States and you and I how we are to live our lives? Will your State government still be under the thumb of Washington DC? Will State redistricting still be held hostage to federal courts? Will 60% of American citizens still be receiving more monetary aid from the government than they pay in taxes? Will the size of the Debt/Deficit still be increasing? What concerns me is I believe nothing will really change in our political culture, even if these two fine good Conservatives win and serve two terms.

 

This is why I support Newt Gingrich. Because of the 4 candates left only two have really talked about how bad the situation is & and what to do about it. One of these two is clearly...reality challenged, so that leaves me with really only one choice...even with his warts issues baggage ex wives and all, because he is the only one who has (as far as I can see) spent time thinking writing speaking about what kind of nation we are.

 

 

This all came together tonight watching two older Newt Vids from 09.

 

 

&

 

 

I don't believe Santorum or Romney are radical or revolutionary enough (fine wonderful as they are) to begin to deal with what is coming.

 

(As always I reserve my God given often used right to be wrong)

 

Addendum: Something I heard Mark Levin say a couple of month ago (I paraphrase)...."It has taken us 80 years to get into this situation, and it going to take a long while to get out."