Far Right pundits are beside themselves
with the looming prospect of a Romney candidacy in the November
presidential election. The tirades overflow with the hated
characterizations; “moderate”! “Bay State liberal”! “flip
flopper”!, “centrist”! and of course the ultimate condemnation,
“RINO”! Certainly Mitt Romney has not emerged as the ideal
candidate. He does indeed lack charisma, is prone to inexplicable
gaffes, and has failed to excite the Republican base. However there
has never been a “perfect candidate” and unfortunately, the
previous Republican “front runner”candidates, Michelle Bachmann,
Rick Perry, and Herman Cain, were all fatally flawed. As the flaws
became apparent , Republican voters kept shopping, leads in the polls
changed rapidly, and early primary victories were spread among the
three survivors, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Ron Paul is still
running but it is a fringe candidacy based on a coterie of stubborn
libertarian supporters, which does nothing but further divide the
Republican vote.
Leaving aside the first few labels,
the overused pejorative “RINO” needs an explanation. What is a
“Republican in name only”? Voters become Republicans by
registering as such for purposes of voting in primaries. Do
registrars require background checks, loyalty oaths to fixed
principles like opposition to abortion, balanced budgets at any cost,
or opposition to gay rights, before accepting a Republican
registration? Of course not, but then who determines what a “real
Republican” is? Certainly not the talk show hosts, bloggers and
opinion columnists. The Republican Party is the conservative party.
Conservatism as a political philosophy is about small (in relative
terms), less expensive, and less intrusive (than liberal) government.
Political conservatism is not the same as social conservatism. A
person can be an advocate of small government etc. and not support
the mostly religious based social conservative agenda in its
entirety. Nor does conservatism require self defeating purism in the
face of complicated economic and political realities. Individuals,
registered Republicans and independents decide their own positions
along a conservative leaning spectrum based on specific issues.
So, keeping with the zoological
metaphor, who are the alleged RINOs and who are the allegedly “real
Republicans”? If Rick Santorum is the accepted example, then the
latter are the GIRAFs i.e 'Genuine Ideological and Religious
Anti-government Fundamentalists. But what are the important policy
differences between the RINOs and the GIRAFs? Which of the
Republican candidates espouses reductions in federal spending and the
federal deficit? Answer: all of them. Which of the candidates
supports reducing federal regulations on business? Answer: all of
them. Which candidates support lower taxes on businesses and
individuals and simplifying the tax code? Which support a strong
military and an end to world-wide apologizing for pursuing America's
national interests. Answer: all of them.
So Romney is a “RINO” based on the
orientation of his past support or opposition for legislation as
governor of liberal Massachusetts, the most egregious political
apostasy being the Massachusetts health care program. He has said
repeatedly that he opposes Obamacare, the national version, and there
is simply no way, if elected president, that he could “flip flop”
to support it. But the larger issue in the primary race is: should
the race be determined by simple minded labels and contrived
divisions of the Republican Party into two political sects, the RINOS
and the GIRAFS?
According to those on the far right who
declare themselves the only “true conservatives”, GIRAFs must
conform to the beliefs of the Tea Party, which itself is an amalgam
of people with different views but with respect to the economy,
generally agree with the above mentioned components of conservative
theory. However, the movement's public identity has been created
by the opinions of self appointed “leaders”. Added to this, it
appears that the “true conservative” GIRAFs must also identify as
part of the religious right, who in the current primary contest
insist on candidates campaigning on social issues largely settled, or
soon to be settled, by the courts i.e. abortion, (Row vs. Wade:
1973), gay marriage, “intelligent design” vs. evolution.
Thus Rich Santorum, actively competing
with Newt Gingrich to become “head GIRAF”, thinks he can win the
presidency in a national election by campaigning against recreational
sex, gay rights, college education and iconic president, John F.
Kennedy. His vision for America's future is somehow stuck in the
past. Thrice married and one time “player”, Newt Gingrich wants
to be a GIRAF but may actually just be an angry FOWL, (“
Fool-around Out of Work Lobbyist”).
In any case, the 59 million Americans
who voted for John McCain, another alleged RINO, are looking for a
common sense candidate who will appeal to the multitudes of
disappointed moderates and independents who regret their vote for Obama in
2008.
Since there are no objective
qualifications to be a Republican except for self identification,
“RINOs” are mythological creatures like unicorns, but GIRAFs
actually exist as a subset of the GOP. Assuming that Santorum is
their standard bearer, these creatures are on a path to great
disappointment as the nomination struggle is currently unfolding.
Currently (3/8/12) Romney has won 14 of 23 states primaries or
caucuses. Santorum has won 7 and Gingrich 2. Of the 3.9 million
votes cast for these three candidates, Romney has won 46%, Santorum
28% and Gingrich 25% (rounded). The trend is clear. Electability in
the general election remains the fundamental concern of most
Republican voters. Santorum's bizarre social views have overshadowed
his economic conservatism and have little appeal to the wider
national electorate.
But the remaining states present an
even more bleak picture for Santorum. His political base so far has
been those states in which religious evangelicals represent a
significant percentage of Republican voters. Thus he won in IA, CO,
OK and TN. He also won in ND a low population state that Romney did
not campaign in, and MN with help from economic conservatives. Of
the remaining 31 states as well as Puerto Rico and U.S. territories,
only six offer similar voter profiles: KS, AL, MS, MO, WV AR, and
four of these state allocate delegates to the Republican national
convention on a proportional basis. This means that even if
Santorum wins the largest number of popular votes, Romney will still
get delegates based on his percentage of the vote, even in Santorum's
home state of PA. While Santorum will get delegates in the other 25
states that select delegates based on a proportional basis, these
states do not fit the voter profile that so far has provided Santorum
with his somewhat limited success, so in each case Romney should
continue to build his lead. Santorum will have to win very big in
these states just to catch up in the delegate column.
Thus, barring a complete melt down on
Romney's part, he should achieve the necessary 1,144 committed
delegates by late June. He will however emerge as a weakened
candidate, with the hoof prints of the GIRAFs and the peck marks of
the FOWL, all over his body and with the Obama campaign eager to
exploit the wounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment