The first paragraph:
Mitt Romney is enjoying at least the fourth public loss of confidence by conservative elites since winning the nomination. The first came in June when Rupert Murdoch and others complained that he was not taking the fight to Barack Obama. Then in July, he was faulted for thinking he could skate to victory by running only as the anti-Obama. Then in early August, GOP veteran voices again counseled against the passive campaign and urged Romney to be bold by picking a vice president with some substance. Now the fever arrives again from a variety of conservative quarters that he is not giving voters a reason to vote for him.
Interesting, right? As I’ve watched this campaign unfold, I haven’t actually noticed this because of the fact that Romney just flat out hasn’t given any specifics about his policies, which seems to be hurting him.
However, he has taken the fight to Obama, but not in a way that may be noticeable outside of swing states. While I was watching the DNC on Fox News (because their counter-point coverage was way more interesting than anyone else’s), the ticker flashed that campaign media spending is up 95% since 2004. That includes everyone, not just Romney.
But that’s gotta mean he’s taking the fight to Obama, right? I, and anyone else in a non-swing state, probably haven’t noticed, though, because we aren’t being inundated with political ads all the time.
My problem with the Romney-Ryan campaign is that exact lack of specifics–and it’s not just his campaign, but Obama’s too. I don’t know why it’s happening, but maybe it’s the private interests behind the scenes that haven’t quite figured out what they want from the next president. But that’s probably just paranoia.
The last paragraph, though, is the one that I really want to touch on (and get kinda paranoid about, too):
If Obama wins, Romney’s lack of specifics will rob Obama of the leverage he might gain from truly vanquishing the GOP’s ideas. Republicans will conclude that Romney lost because he was a bad candidate and didn’t sell conservative principles. There will be no reason to back down in future fights with the president because the ideas undergirding their beliefs won’t have been discredited by a Romney loss—only Romney will have been discredited. Tea Party activists will draw this conclusion as well. The ideas didn’t lose; the candidate did, in part because he didn’t stand up loud and proud for conservative ideas. Any Republican politicians who compromise with the president or backs down on conservative principles will have a target on their back in the next election cycle. Anyone who shrinks from a fight will be considered no better than Mitt Romney.
See, Romney’s campaign seems to be running in the smartest way possible. Republicans seem to have nothing but wavering faith in Romney (he was their #2 through all the polls up until all the other, cash poor, candidates dropped out), and so running a vague campaign is probably the best way to go about things.
If Romney wins, they win. If he loses, they win, because Republicans can continue their stalwart and filibuster tactics in Congress for another four years, preventing anything significant from happening again, and then running in 2016 with someone better (Christie-Rubio 2016?).
It’s all planned! It’s all a Hoax! …right.
So two last thoughts: maybe the congressional and senatorial elections are far more important for this election than the presidential. And, no matter who wins, what the fuck are we supposed to do about all this national debt?
I think the latter thought scares me more. It’s just going to continue getting worse unless we do something radical, like dissolve the federal reserve and move back to a gold-based currency.
I still think the best solution is the one nobody in Washington DC wants, but what the founding fathers were willing to do: dissolve the entire structure and start over. Maybe even with direct democracy–which really is the only way to really know what the people want…