I'm disappointed by the Florida primary. I expected Mitt Romney to win but not by such a large margin. What most disappointed and surprised me was the large amount of money spent by the Romney campaign versus his rivals.
To state the obvious, this was not a level playing field. Money was not the only difference but it was a significant factor. For those voters not already committed and with only a cursory interest in the issues, the overwhelming advertisements by the Romney campaign had to have had an impact.
The wide disparity in the candidates' expenditures has complicated an already acrimonious nomination process. Romney's advantage in assets, coupled with personal attacks on his opponents, has further increased the risk of a divided party. Furthermore, it plays into the hands of the Obama campaign by emphasizing what divides us.
Money can defeat individual candidates but ideas are more inspiring and powerful. Conservative Republican ideas are especially compelling in our current situation. Each of the Republican candidates should be highlighting the party's conservative principles and positive ideals: adherence to the Constitution, individual liberty and opportunity, free enterprise and smaller, limited government.
They should point out that the Republican agenda, reflecting these ideals, would lead to a reinvigorated America and an improved economy. They should draw a stark contrast between the liberal Democratic agenda versus the Republican agenda: between the prospect of even more government and more control versus individual choice and liberty, between more spending and debt versus financial stability and economic prosperity.
Each candidate should start this process now. They should highlight relentlessly the superiority of conservative Republicanism as opposed to the bankruptcy of liberalism. And they should keep at it until election day.
To state the obvious, this was not a level playing field. Money was not the only difference but it was a significant factor. For those voters not already committed and with only a cursory interest in the issues, the overwhelming advertisements by the Romney campaign had to have had an impact.
The wide disparity in the candidates' expenditures has complicated an already acrimonious nomination process. Romney's advantage in assets, coupled with personal attacks on his opponents, has further increased the risk of a divided party. Furthermore, it plays into the hands of the Obama campaign by emphasizing what divides us.
Money can defeat individual candidates but ideas are more inspiring and powerful. Conservative Republican ideas are especially compelling in our current situation. Each of the Republican candidates should be highlighting the party's conservative principles and positive ideals: adherence to the Constitution, individual liberty and opportunity, free enterprise and smaller, limited government.
They should point out that the Republican agenda, reflecting these ideals, would lead to a reinvigorated America and an improved economy. They should draw a stark contrast between the liberal Democratic agenda versus the Republican agenda: between the prospect of even more government and more control versus individual choice and liberty, between more spending and debt versus financial stability and economic prosperity.
Each candidate should start this process now. They should highlight relentlessly the superiority of conservative Republicanism as opposed to the bankruptcy of liberalism. And they should keep at it until election day.
Having not followed the Republican primary in Florida all the closely, was there a reason Gingrich didnt spend as much as Romney? As far as I know, he is sufficiently bankrolled to do so.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we get a different perspective in Indiana, but all of our media highlighted the attacks Gingrich waged on Romney, calling him pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, etc.
Another thing I miss is any semblance of a plan from Gingrich or Romney. All the stump speeches focus on what is going wrong and vague promises about improving jobs/the economy.
I would happily vote for someone I feel has the commitment and drive to create renewed fiscal discipline in this country, but I find it hard to believe that we will get anything different when electing either Gingrich or Romney. Cuts are easy to speak to in generalities, but when you have to send the entire department of education packing, it becomes a lot more difficult.
Ryan
ReplyDeleteAccording to media reports, Romney (and his supporting super pacs) spent $17.8M in Florida versus Gingrich's (and his supporters) $5.5M. As of the end of election day, Romney had $19M in funds available versus $2M for Gingrich ($1M if you deduct outstanding liabilities).
It was evident by the preponderance of ads in Florida that Romney had an advantage.
As far as to where the money comes from, that is not readily apparent or available since the candidates seem to drag their feet in releasing their lists of donors.
It's interesting that you have a different perspective as to attack ads in Indiana than what voters saw in Florida. From what I saw, both Romney and Gingrich used attack ads. But Romney's were more evident by the sheer volume. I don't know what media you listen to, but I would wonder if there isn't some bias there.
The question of vague promises is a long standing one. Remember, candidates are trying to win elections and to attract as many voters as they can. In the splintered society we live in, any position that is too specific may attract one set of voters but lose another. As a result candidates talk in vague promises and platitudes. Obama used such a technique in 2008 with his mantra "Change you can believe in". He didn't explain what he meant so each voter filled in the blanks. Now you see where that got us.
There is no real solution- voters must make a judgement as to the credibility of each candidate, his record and most of all, at least to me, his character.