Based on news reports this morning, Mitt Romney has 407 committed delegates or 53% of those chosen thus far. If he continues at this pace, he will win the nomination before the convention. Some argue that Romney may be derailed from obtaining the nomination if one (or two) of his opponents drop out. That is not a given for it is just as possible that Romney's margin may increase if he can manage to hold on to his base support and pick up some of the voters of the candidate(s) who leave the race.
There have been some suggestions (by mostly liberal pundits) that the Republican Party is so split over the paramountcy of social and fiscal issues as well as the candidates' conservative credentials that Obama will almost certainly win in November. I think that the Party is able to fight on both fronts. As far as political differences, we need only remember that past primary opponents have resolved their differences to campaign successfully in the general election (Kennedy and Johnson in 1960, Reagan and Bush in 1980 and Obama and Clinton in 2008).
We should also be mindful that the country did not get into this mess in one year or even one term but over several decades. Nor will we turn the ship of state around in a short period of time. A doable short term goal is to defeat Obama first and to cancel his most egregious programs.
There is, however, a need for a long term vision of conservative governance and why it is superior to the liberal view. Republicans need to consider not only gaining the Presidency (as well as control of both Houses of Congress) in this election year but to lay the foundations for future successes. This is essential if we are to solve our problems for the simple reason that it will take some time to resolve our multiple difficulties and put (as well as maintain) the country on a sound footing.
There have been some suggestions (by mostly liberal pundits) that the Republican Party is so split over the paramountcy of social and fiscal issues as well as the candidates' conservative credentials that Obama will almost certainly win in November. I think that the Party is able to fight on both fronts. As far as political differences, we need only remember that past primary opponents have resolved their differences to campaign successfully in the general election (Kennedy and Johnson in 1960, Reagan and Bush in 1980 and Obama and Clinton in 2008).
We should also be mindful that the country did not get into this mess in one year or even one term but over several decades. Nor will we turn the ship of state around in a short period of time. A doable short term goal is to defeat Obama first and to cancel his most egregious programs.
There is, however, a need for a long term vision of conservative governance and why it is superior to the liberal view. Republicans need to consider not only gaining the Presidency (as well as control of both Houses of Congress) in this election year but to lay the foundations for future successes. This is essential if we are to solve our problems for the simple reason that it will take some time to resolve our multiple difficulties and put (as well as maintain) the country on a sound footing.
While I think the 2008 Democratic primary process was contentious, I dont think the contenders (Clinton and Obama) were as different in their views as Santorum and Romney. Im not sure if the desire to unseat Obama is enough to get the Republican vote out in masse. Santorum excites the social conservatives, but doesnt appear to offer much beyond that. Romney looks like a man willing to do/say anything to get elected. Maybe it is naive to desire a candidate that truly believes what he says and is prepared to maintain an unpopular position. You are right that we have gotten hear over years/decades. Voters have short memories. They voted out all the Republicans in 2008 because of the state of the economy. Then, they did the same thing to the Democrats in 2010. Both parties are beholden to the banks, so the only changes I see coming if we get a new president in 2012 would be minor. I would love to see a Republican candidate that inspired people like Obama did in'08, but Im not seeing it. I would really like to see a classical fiscal conservative debate Obama so that people have a chance to hear two disparate views discussed intelligently.
ReplyDeleteRyan: Thanks for your well thought out comments from someone who obviously cares. I do agree on the general thrust of your comments but not in some specifics. There is some matter of dispute over the differences between Romney and the rest of the field and it has to do with "big government" solutions versus a more conservative approach. The fact that he supported and defends the Mass. health care program doesn't help his cause with conservatives who are suspicious of his conservative credentials. Would they bury the hatchet if Romney is the candidate? It all depends on how badly they want to defeat Obama.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Romney is personally an honest man. As to his policy positions, he is trying to "thread the needle" to appeal to as many voters as he can especially looking forward to the general election. That is generally smart politics but frustrating to those who want to hear more details. What is hurting Romney is that he is not an inspirational speaker (or lacks charisma whatever that really means). Obama certainly had that knack in 2008 but to most of us conservatives, he has turned out to be a poor president.
I agree with you that the country needs to hear a debate on fiscal policy. I think the conservative view is the best approach to solving our deep-seated problems and has the benefit of being in consonance with our Constitution and our heritage of personal freedom.
According to 2009 data (the latest available) from the IRS the top 50% of income earners paid 97.7% of all Federal income taxes in that year while the bottom 50% paid just 2.3%. That's just income taxes. Since higher income earners are typically employers their payroll taxes should rightfully be added to their overall tax burden.
ReplyDeleteSo, what's a "fair" tax code? According to Obama and the liberals THIS is unfair meaning the top 50% must pay even more.
The problem with this argument is Obama will eventually "run out of income earners". Simply put, there aren't enough millionaires and billionaires in the World (let alone the United States) to raise the levels of income he needs to pass his agenda. That's true even if the income tax were 100%.
So, what's he going to do? What he must. That is, he'll keep walking down the income brackets until he captures YOUR income bracket. Simple math tells us that Mr. Obama is either naive, dishonest or incompetent when he states that incomes taxes are going up for "just" those making $250,000 a year or more. That simply won't cut it for the liberal agenda so be on the look out for that number to start sliding down. They'll do it quietly so PAY ATTENTION!
Anonymous: I agree with your comments. I would add that we are now in a global economy and taxes are one of the major considerations for investors. If taxes in this country are not competitive, capital (and jobs) will go elsewhere. It will be a spiral that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to remedy.
ReplyDelete