Establishment Republicans in Washington broadly share the Democrats' view that the government should manage the economy. They may favor a somewhat more pro-business set of policies than their Democratic colleagues, but they still act as if government policy is the starting point for all economic activity.
Republican voters reject this view. They are more interested in promoting free market competition rather than handing out favors to big business. They detest corporate welfare and government bailouts, even though their party leaders support them....
If Romney loses in November, the Republican base will no longer buy the electability argument for an establishment candidate.
If Romney wins and does nothing to change the status quo, the economy will falter....
२१ सप्टेंबर, २०१२
"Romney May Be the End of the Line for the Republican Establishment."
Opines Scott Rasmussen.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
I agree with that - I saw a clip last night of Pelosi and Boehner and some other D.C. mahoffs doing a ceremonial nail pounding and thought to myself "these Beltway critters are all clueless". They act as if everything is sorta OK and they only have to tweak a few things to make things all better. They are avoiding the looming mathematical reckoning.
Right on both counts and the economy's gonna do a lot more than falter.
This seems true; better yet, the fault line runs between Romney and Ryan.
And I mean that in a good way. I think Romney's experience in private equity equips him to deal with this transition.
Barry Soetoro? Crony Capitalism for his friends, Socialism for the rest of us.
Romney, for me as a liberal, is a win-win. I want Obama to win of course. But Romney is probably more likely to get Obama/Romneycare cemented in place. Also, it will probably take a reasonable moderate Republican like Romney to regain focus on climate change and pass reasonable legislation to deal with it.
Romney, for me as a liberal, is a win-win. I want Obama to win of course. But Romney is probably more likely to get Obama/Romneycare cemented in place. Also, it will probably take a reasonable moderate Republican like Romney to regain focus on climate change and pass reasonable legislation to deal with it.
If Romney loses in November, the Republican base will no longer buy the electability argument for an establishment candidate.
Romney needs to find a way to lose as a rightwing nutjob, not an establishment moderate. It's the only hope for the Republican Party. Romney doesn't love his country or all Americans, maybe he loves his party enough to lose in the right way.
Again, you have to go back to the nitty-gritty of what the Romster did in MA.
As I've said, I think his sensibilities are more Conservative than many would want to admit - that's why the People's Republic didn't like him. He was nowhere Lefty enough.
Whether he's Conservative enough to use a Conservative Congress to give him some cover to let Romney be Romney (I heard a line like that once) is what has a lot of people going into the voting booth with their fingers crossed.
Andy R. said...
If Romney loses in November, the Republican base will no longer buy the electability argument for an establishment candidate.
Romney needs to find a way to lose as a rightwing nutjob, not an establishment moderate. It's the only hope for the Republican Party. Romney doesn't love his country or all Americans, maybe he loves his party enough to lose in the right way.
Mr Bell, Mr Howell, please pick up the white courtesy telephone.
We all know that if elected Romney would be the most moderate Republican president since Ford. But Romney is running, pretending to be to the right of Newt. Simply bizarre.
An obama win will solidify him as the Hoover of the 21st century. A figure that can be reviled by anyone not a democrat. I don't want to live through those times, but that is the reality.
Andy: America had a choice last time between a guy acknowledged as extremely to the left or a center-right Republican. They chose to go far left, then they lash-backed by picking up a lot of centrist-right and Tea Party types. Americans don't know what they want over the last several elections.
Look at Jay's point: Obama, with a solid base in the House and Senate (enough that at some points he could easily have beaten a filibuster with a sop to one of the Republicans from Maine), and he got very little of what he wanted done. Just a few minor fix-its here and there that had broad appeal and the Affordable Care Act.
Americans -say- they want a centrist, like John McCain or Mitt Romney or, even comparatively to Obama, George Bush. But, Americans are reactive and don't really plan ahead in their voting patterns.
nailed it!
When Romney wins the teaparty (that is to say, us) have to keep on him and push this establishment back into the American model.
nailed it!
When Romney wins the teaparty (that is to say, us) have to keep on him and push this establishment back into the American model.
Lone, you just expressed the essence of good government.
Romney is going to govern to the right if elected, the TEA Party faction of the party will push congress in that direction and he won't go against that. And Boehner is a fool if he thinks the new members who were elected on a more small government platform are going to kiss his ass. The TEA Party has defeated enough RINO's to scare them and they know that they will be challenged in the mid year primaries. The power is shifting.
Romney doesn't love his country or all Americans...
Other than hog what do you love, Andy?
I honestly think if voters were less all over the place, we'd be making a lot more headway. The problem is voters are too reactionary. We've had repeated wave elections in Congress, and we're seeing again a lot of issues in the presidential election getting short shrift so we can talk about Romney's gaffes instead of, you know, that the administration lied to us about Libya. If we had a more informed voting populace, we'd get better candidates from both parties.
Marx.
And forcing the bullshit down everyone's throats.
gk1 said...
An obama win will solidify him as the Hoover of the 21st century. A figure that can be reviled by anyone not a democrat. I don't want to live through those times, but that is the reality.
9/21/12 9:52 AM
Whats scary is the Obama and Bernancke (who is a scholar of the Great Depression) are doing pretty much the same thing as Hoover and the then fed chairman did in 1930-1932. And with pretty much the same results. Indeed the God of liberal economics, JM Keynes thought at the time that Hoover was acting sensibly. Ironically the only ones since the banking crises of 2008 who acted sanely and were right were Bush and Paulson who stopped the run on the banks. Otherwise the banking system would have collapsed and with it the economy. Everything else since then has been a failure and a horrendously expensive failure at that.
That comment is in reference to Andy R and what he likes besides hog.
Blogger gave me the "Conflicting edits" warning three times and made it disappear and redo.
I forget the quote the fourth time.
But the real question is what are the Lefties going to do after Romney wins and they have been exposed for what they are and how bereft they are on ideas.
"An obama win will solidify him as the Hoover of the 21st century."
Hoover lost re-election in '32 57.4/39.7 ...
Bush43 ~ Dow
((( George W. Bush leaves office today with the Dow Jones industrial average off 2,306 points from when he took over: The worst performance for any U.S. president. )))
Wall Street Journal ~ Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
Jobs created per year in office: 375k
blessings
Obama One Of Five Presidents To See Dow Jones Gain More Than 50 Percent Over First Three Years
blessings
shiloh said...
"An obama win will solidify him as the Hoover of the 21st century."
Hoover lost re-election in '32 57.4/39.7 ...
Bush43 ~ Dow
((( George W. Bush leaves office today with the Dow Jones industrial average off 2,306 points from when he took over: The worst performance for any U.S. president. )))
Wall Street Journal ~ Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
Jobs created per year in office: 375k
blessings
8.2% unemployment.
For the last 4 years.
You got anything other than: Bush!?
No?
Didn't think so, kid.
I remember when the rich getting richer while the poor got poorer was considered a bad thing.
How's that lower average income and higher unemployment doing?
Blessings!
March 9, 2009 ~ 6547 ~ Dow closes at post 1997 low - 53.8% below its Oct. 2007 high.
Dow currently at 13,617 up (((7070 pts. ))) from it's March 9, 2009 low.
blessings
gk1 said: "An obama win will solidify him as the Hoover of the 21st century. A figure that can be reviled by anyone not a democrat. I don't want to live through those times, but that is the reality."
The difference is that Hoover did not corrupt the electoral system, and it was possible for FDR to get elected. If Obama retains power for another four years, the electoral system will be a sham, and no Republican will be able to win the presidency for the foreseeable future.
Let the record show Matthew Sablan does not dispute Bush43 was the worst president in American history, especially when it comes to economics/job creation!
blessings
"and no Republican will be able to win the presidency for the foreseeable future."
Ad nauseam con whining aside, the party of Lincoln continues to implode!
And Martha says, that's a good thing!
blessings
The 'establishment vs. grassroots' thing is wildly overdone. There's not much of an 'establishment' any mroe in either party, and the 'grossroots' never speaks with a single voice.
As for Romney I think he is a better and more complex man than these chin-puller pieces assume. You can't be a success in the venture capital, turn-around business he was in, and not have an ability to adjust quickly to changing realities. His instincts on the economy are of the 'less gov't is better' sort, and that's all for the good.
The premise of this piece -- that as a matter of 'conservative principle' we could ever disentangle business and gov't -- is, frankly, ridiculous. American society is too fractured, there are too many conflicting interests, and too many unavoidable areas where business and gov't must overlap, that separating the two spheres is a non-starter. It's an exercise in more-or-less, not either-or.
Sean Trende has a similar piece today at RCP, arguing that whoever wins the election may have cause to rue the day. His point is that the financial meltdown has a long way to go before any real recovery sets in. He foresees lots of pain, and many losers from the continuing economic crisis, and believes that, as a result, the team in charge for the next four years is likely to become the target for a lot of voter anger in the '14 midterms and beyond. Trende refers to a 2008 article by Stu Rothenberg from June 2008 which argued that a McCain win in '08 would have led to civil war in the Rep party (because McCain's policies on so many issues were opposed by the conservative base).
It's a remarkably pessimistic view of both America and its politics, and depends heavily on making straight-line projections in a dynamic environment. That doesn't mean that the projections will turn out to be wrong, but it definitely means that there's no reason to think they will turn out right.
The key takeaway is that, to avoid the problems Trende and others see, we need a strong leader with a sensible approach to these economic problems. We know what O proposes (more of the same). If that floats your boat, good luck. Romney is the only alternative, and (IMO) on balance, not a bad one.
Andy S. said...
Romney needs to find a way to lose as a rightwing nutjob, not an establishment moderate. It's the only hope for the Republican Party. Romney doesn't love his country or all Americans, maybe he loves his party enough to lose in the right way.
This statement is the best evidence so far of my hypothesis regarding Andy's true identity.
So shiloh, who really has benefitted from the rise of the Dow Jones over the last several years? Do you even know why it has gone up? Do you actually believe anyone who has a professional level understanding of the stock market and the ability to make money from it, gives Obama credit for it?
The differences between the two parties, and the two candidates are pretty massively exaggerated by proponents of both sides and by the press.
The Republicans and Romney are proponents of an economy run by government regulated cartels.
The Democrats and Obama are proponents of an economy run directly by government bureaucrats.
There is a minor difference, which I believe makes the Republicans more favorable.
Business trusts Romney. He has experience managing and working with business. Business hates Obama because he comes to businessmen hat in hand for campaign financing and then calls them blood sucking vampires in public.
The differences are slight, but they do favor Republicans.
I hope you all took advantage of the stock market bottom of 2008 and early 2009 when a herd instinct caused people to sell everything to include stocks in solid companies.
Once that paranoia faded people rightfully recognized that solid companies that pay solid dividends were at bargain basement prices.
Also, where else are people going to invest money with interest rates at virtually zero and the bond market a looming train wreck.
Are these companies hiring people? Do they have real growth? Or have they just re-established their equilibrium?
The sugar high of quantitative easing won't sustain these markets -- only true growth can sustain them. By all means do enjoy the run, but know when to cash out.
the worst president in American history, especially when it comes to economics/job creation!
The Democrat War on Math continues. Real numbers (through May) here.
Do you even know why [the stock market] has gone up?
Mr. Obama support Quantitative Easing because he hates the 99%! (Who spend more on gas and groceries than stocks...) Good to know.
Shouting - disagree to some extent. This is where you have to distinguish between the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party people. Back in the day, sure the Republicans were the party of big companies, who could get together and split up markets and the like. Wasn't there a Rockefeller who made it to VP under Ford, or something like that - before his nephew went over to the dark side and ran as a Democrat in WV?
But, the tea party people are of red middle America, which is made up of small and medium sized business people, trades people, and, yes, much of the old industrial unions. And, they see the disadvantages of cartels, because they aren't part of them, but rather, see them used to squash people like them. And, a lot of those Country Club Republicans, who run those big companies have moved over to the Democratic party, along with Big Firm lawyers, etc.
But, you may have hit on something - that belief in cartels as a way to do business is becoming a good way to distinguish between the old-style Republican establishment, and the new breed, who most likely oppose such.
Besides, it is a small step, as we have seen, between having large business cartels running the country and Obama-style crony capitalism. And, yes, we have seen it before - with Italy and Germany picking Fascism over Communism as their choice of socialism. Concentrating on the economic side of Fascism and Nazism (and excluding the nationalistic), that is what they were - big company cartels engaging in crony capitalism, to the extent that, in Germany, a number of the biggest companies were provided with cheap labor from the concentration camps in trade for their help by the government.
Obama wanted a bigger stimulus, Reps said no. Obama has proposed several jobs programs, Reps won't even bring them up for discussion.
Filibuster usage by Reps at an all-time high notwithstanding, the voters have figured out the above yin/yang of Rep ad nauseam obstructionism.
btw, a good portion of the stimulus was tax cuts.
>
Again, try to imagine if Tip O'Neill ((( just said no ))) to all of Reagan's economic proposals.
blessings
Obama wanted a bigger stimulus, Reps said no. Obama has proposed several jobs programs, Reps won't even bring them up for discussion.
Correct.
The Tea Party stepped in in 2010 and forced the Obama admin to slow down the borrowing and spending.
Result... the stabilization of the financial and housing markets.
An interesting set of thoughts.
@retread, @andy r.,
It doesnt matter what Romney runs as.
Because the US remains a center-right nation, the Obamamedia will portray Romney as the rightmost right winger in written history, and ask why he can't be a reasonable moderate like [insert dead Republican who can't defend himself here].
If Republicans and Democrats aren't identical twins they're fraternal. Being unable to distinguish between them is what has brought me to the point of half believing that politics is a huge puppet show fixed in advance.
There are other explanations but simple paranoia is tempting when the new boss is just like the old boss for generations on end.
I'd throw BO out just to watch him cry. But I don't care much either way. If losing doesn't shake up the Republican party I'll move deeper into paranoia I guess.
Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.
machine said...
Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.
Fuck you, machine. Denounce the cult of personality, then I'll listen.
I love how terrible Ann Romney is.
Jay Retread said...
it will probably take a reasonable moderate Republican like Romney to regain focus on climate change and pass reasonable legislation to deal with it.
I can't believe there is anyone who honestly believes the legislation being pushed in response to global warming will actually deal with global warming.
Jay Retread said...
Romney, for me as a liberal, is a win-win. I want Obama to win of course. But Romney is probably more likely to get Obama/Romneycare cemented in place. Also, it will probably take a reasonable moderate Republican like Romney to regain focus on climate change and pass reasonable legislation to deal with it.
Although not a card-carrying liberal I originally felt like this also. Knowing almost nothing about Romney I at first assumed that he would be a soulless bureaucrat who would take a solutions-orientated rather than an ideological-orientated approach to problem solving. Now, as far as I can see, he will be a complete rerun of Bush, a foolishly belligerent foreign policy combined with a domestic policy focused on tax cuts for the rich, at a time of increasing income disparity. His comments on the 47% indicate that he buys into the idea that we should be increasing the tax burden on these people. It is clear that he will further facilitate the off-shoring of American jobs. The republican party has a large fraction of working class males amongst their supporter, although this is largely for ideological reasons at some point economic self interest does kick in. Picking Thurston Howell as the party's leader is looking like and increasingly bone headed move in this particular economic environment, as Gingrich pointed out repeatedly.
This being said I still think he will win. I think support for Obama is overstated in the polls and if an election was held today he would probably lose.
shiloh said...
March 9, 2009 ~ 6547 ~ Dow closes at post 1997 low - 53.8% below its Oct. 2007 high.
Dow currently at 13,617 up (((7070 pts. ))) from it's March 9, 2009 low.
blessings
Unemployment 8.2%
If Romney loses and/or the Republicans don't hold one or the other of the houses of Congress, it's over for Republicans, period!
We have a President who "has demonstrated the competence of Carter with the integrity of Nixon" (per Dr. David Gelertner of Yale). Yet he polls a 48% approval rating. Arguably, people are not stupid enough to have missed that Obama is the worst Prez in modern history. So what is going on?
Bottom line, the education system, news media, RINOS and Democrat smears have diminished the Republican brand, mostly with misinformation about Republicans and what's good for the country.
Romney has made his mistakes, but he is obviously an accomplished man, while Obama obviously is not. Only a dupe, a committed partisan or an ideological leftist could be persuaded to vote for Obama. Apparently then, many people are voting against the Republican brand.
If they carry the day, Republicans, and the country, are toast.
Concur Rasmussen. Durden says neither election nor 1600 Penn Ave. control or affect the situation. Bernanke does. QEternity, making money from nothing because if he doesn't, game over. Same point Rasmussen makes: let the game be over and let's get on with life. Bernanke has made a slave state. Slaves don't like that. They will be free. Hear the growls. They will find ways to be free and as they do the massive internal destruction carried out over decades will externalize and itself be laid waste. Just about everybody is preparing for it now.
"Apparently then, many people are voting against the Republican brand."
Yes, on ideological grounds, they're convinced Republicans aren't big enough, serious enough Robin Hoods. They don't have enough pathological altruism.
Tea Party movement calls bullshit on pathological altruism wrapped in Sherwood Green of romantical economics.
"Fuck you, machine."
Typical Althouse con reply.
blessings
shiloh said...
Typical Althouse con reply.
Not true, Shilho! I follow machine's machinations with interest; he's part of an experiment. I would never treat you that way, so it's not at all typical for me--let alone an "Althouse conservative."
blessings, take care
cubanbob said...
Romney is going to govern to the right if elected, the TEA Party faction of the party will push congress in that direction and he won't go against that. And Boehner is a fool if he thinks the new members who were elected on a more small government platform are going to kiss his ass. The TEA Party has defeated enough RINO's to scare them and they know that they will be challenged in the mid year primaries. The power is shifting.
===================
Yes, the power is shifting.
In the last 40 years, the power is shifting as states that once could vote Republican have moved solid Democrat.
California, New York, the States of New England except Massachusetts, Illinois were once real possibilities and candidates like Bush I had success there.
Solid Republican "South" States like Virginia, N Carolina are now more likely to go Democrat.
Republicans have lost ground with women due to Right to LIfe Crazies and Hispanics as 2nd Gen hispanics find Democrat ideas align more with them than trickledown from the Owners.
Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada are all in play for Democrats.
Republicans are the party of 30-year old stale ideas, much as the Democrats in the 70s were when they exhausted FDR's wish list.
No one believes in Trickledown as they see wages stagnant for 30 years and created wealth continuing to go to a small inner circle at the top of most enterprises.
No one believes free trade is a win-win anymore.
No one believes that tax cuts for the rich the past 12 years have fueled a Jobs Creators engine.
Even the Tea Party has struggled fielding extremists that lost elections a centrist would have won....they just attacked too many people that vote. (See Angle, Perky Christine)
And women, and many educated people that know the Dems hurt them ecoomically still find it difficult to vote because they see The Base of the Republicans as Strange Fundies in the South that reject evolution, fatcats of Wall Street, Zionist Israel Firsters, too many people that dislike blacks and hispanics always popping up in Republican ranks here and there, gun nuts, Right To Life Hysterics, Ayn Randian Social Darwinists.
hombre said...
If Romney loses and/or the Republicans don't hold one or the other of the houses of Congress, it's over for Republicans, period!
We have a President who "has demonstrated the competence of Carter with the integrity of Nixon" (per Dr. David Gelertner of Yale). Yet he polls a 48% approval rating. Arguably, people are not stupid enough to have missed that Obama is the worst Prez in modern history. So what is going on?
====================
1. Obama commands the slavish loyalty of blacks on skin color no matter what - 96% loyalty. So thats 13% of the 48%.
2. Women that vote Democrat because Fundies, Social Darwinists that want to dismantle the social safety net for Freedom!!, and Right to Life crazies scare them. They have given Dems a commanding 63% lead in their ranks. 10% edge. They can be turned on security and economic issues towards Republicans - but the stench of Wall Streets collapse and Neocon wars of futility cling still to the Republican brand
3. Diehard liberals, progressive Jews, and Hispanics that now culturally vote Dem - add 10%.
4. Government union employees that are totally committed to Democrats now - add 8%.
5. The shift in workers that now see the Owners and Bosses as the enemy eager to offshore their jobs and take all the profits for the top dogs....add more Democrat margin.
6. And there is the Hope&Change youth vote.
--We all know that if elected Romney would be the most moderate Republican president since Ford. But Romney is running, pretending to be to the right of Newt. Simply bizarre.--
Newt is right?
In the last 40 years, the power is shifting as states that once could vote Republican have moved solid Democrat.
California, New York, the States of New England except Massachusetts, Illinois were once real possibilities and candidates like Bush I had success there.
IL is 2nd to Cali in debt & the idiot Quinn wants to raise the minimum wage again.
It's gonna collapse.
We're broke.
So IL is an example of doing it wrong. The Combine - both sides did this.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा