Secular Right | Reality & Reason

Oct/10

24

The establishment strikes back, perhaps

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

2012 pieces are now being written. GOP mega-donors look toward 2012. The GOP plutocrats are obviously worried that someone with mass grassroots support like Sarah Palin might come to the fore. I’ve been skeptical about this in the past, but Barack H. Obama did it in 2008 with a combination of Wall Street money and the online fundraising component. I’ve said that the ads for Mitt Romney from the Right are just going to be too easy, so perhaps someone else will arise to take the establishment mantle?

19 comments

  • cynthia curran · October 24, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Not certain what will happen with Romeny or other Republicans. Obama has the support of the progessive wealthly and some of them are in Wall Street. What is interesting is Obama’s speeches against the Republicans is similar to his communist mentor Frank Marshall Daivs who complain about Harry Truman and Big business and Davis opposed the Marshall Plan which only either those in the far right or left in the 1940’w would have been opposed. Two College professors believed that Davis was a member of the communist Party and according to the FBI files he was a Communists. Davis was introduce to Obama as a teenger by his grandfather. I don’t think that Obama is a communist but a Fabian Socialist that uses business interest to advance his career and politcal goals.

  • John · October 24, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Like some of the donors, I am also underwhelmed by the current group. I’m still not quite so sure how conservative Romney is, given the Massachusetts health care bill, and his Mormonism will (unfortunately) hurt him in the general election. I like Palin’s views, but the fact that she quit as governor doesn’t sit well with me. Please, not that RINO Pawlenty, or the godawful Huckabee. I don’t know much about Thune.

    On the one hand, someone too conservative might lose, but I don’t want a McCain type moderate either. Obama’s approval ratings are at 45% now. If it stays that way, any decent candidate would be able to beat him. Find a good, experienced, conservative Senator or Governor, and nominate him. Fortunately, we still have plenty of time for one to emerge, and If Obama’s ratings don’t improve, a lot of people are going to be thinking about it.

  • panglos · October 24, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Don’t foret Christie – As Oprah and the Virginia Straw Poll go, so goes the nation.

  • Rachel · October 24, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    I’m sorry but Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are not well liked by most Christians — http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/29/god-the-gospel-and-glenn-beck/

    They don’t have the grassroots support as it is imagined. Most conservatives are concentrating on other candidates.

  • Rachel · October 24, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    I should know. I’m a Christian myself (although a non-American one).

  • iutygy · October 24, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Personally I have no dog in the fight and pretty equally abhor all sides of the equation. Nonetheless, I’m all for a good show and I would LOVE to see some sincerely wacked out evangelist who entirely ignores the old-money Right win the GOP’s primary and (by an act of God) the general election.

    How cool would it be to see the foot soldiers of a party’s electorate actually take the election? I mean the dude would have to actually ACT on his principles too. It’s no good for a Socialist-minded Hussein Obama to win the election and then just chill and allow the country to continue along without changing much (a requirement to have health insurance? really? that’s the best an anti-american leftist radical can do?)

    Yeah, so I’d love to see a genuine Christian Fundamentalist go and take the election and then run the country based on his principles. MAN that would be fun!

    [Of course the reason why I DON'T care about this election or the next one or the last one is because that will never happen. The country is run by the victimologist in cahoots with the plutocrats. Minimum wage will neither vanish nor be raised to a living wage of $20. The United States won't declare that it's accepted Gandhian principles and it won't invade Canada for its resources. Kids will not be taken from their parents if the parents raise them on a suffering, bleeding and dying skinny naked God and Hinduism won't be declared criminal because of its violation of that number one sin, idolatry. Nothing of any real import to 80% opf the country is liable to change solely based on who the president (or congress) is.

    We might get universal healthcare a couple of years earlier if the Democrats control all branches of government but we're going to get it anyway. We might be in a slightly larger war somewhere if Republicans are in charge but we're going to be in some war at least once a decade anyway. So until some miracle happens upon us and Osama looks like he's about to take congress and the judiciary, I really don't care what happens. I just hope there's some levity to the proceedings.]

  • SF · October 25, 2010 at 5:44 am

    As an independent and an atheist, I am intrigued by Scott Brown. He will have about as much political experience as Obama, a lot of charisma, and perhaps a certain amount of political incorrectness will appeal to voters.

  • Susan · October 25, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    The Palinistas hate, hate, hate Brown. Against all logic and his own oft-repeated statement that he probably wouldn’t vote lockstep with the Republicans, they expected him to be a Yankee Jim DeMint. When he didn’t, they turned on him with a vengeance. As far as they’re concerned, he’s nothing but a clone of Ted Kennedy. Ridiculous, but there it is.

  • Polichinello · October 25, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Despite the predictable disappointment with Brown, which should have been anticipated, the true believing Right can be practical when they think they have a winning candidate. Romney biggest problem is that he doesn’t look like a winner. Palin won’t go far either. We’re probably going to be surprised this time around by who shows up best. I’m still sort of betting on Pawlenty, who, while being an orthodox conservative, offers a mix of apparent competence, blue-state appeal and non-Southerness. Pence is another one to keep an eye on.

  • Lorenzo from Oz · October 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    Cynthia: Obama is a Chicago corporatist with progressivist outlooks. You don’t have to go any further than that to explain his behaviour. He refused to nationalise the banks, on the grounds “that’s not what we do here”, when such (temporary) nationalisation is fairly standard IMF-style response to financial meltdown.

  • Polichinello · October 25, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    Nationalizing banks here would have created a lot of problems, as it would have meant taking over a lot of institutions that hadn’t gotten themselves in trouble, such as BB&T. The bailout pulled the same trick by forcing all the banks to take bailout money under threat of excessive regulation for those who didn’t participate.

  • Susan · October 25, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    Polichinello, if we were still living in pre-Palin times, I’d agree with you about the pragmatism of the true believers. But I’m not sure that principle applies any longer. Palin has catered to all their fantasies of what the ideal candidate should be: one who prays regularly, one who requests “prayer shields” from her audiences to protect her from the demons of the Fourth Estate, one who reinforces her anti-abortion position by bringing her Down Syndrome child as a prop with her to rallies, one who embodies what they perceive (probably mistakenly) as all the solid working class values, one who’s not a member of the dreaded cultural/academic/east coast Elite…I could go on, but the point is made, I hope. The true believers hate Romney, and they’re not so crazy about Pawlenty, either. Pence doesn’t seem to engage their interest.

    As a side note, Christine O’Donnell has announced on the Christian Broadcasting Network that she will God’s voice in the Senate.

  • Polichinello · October 25, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    People are bitching about Brown’s vote on financial regulation, but none of them seriously think Coakley would have been better.

    As far as O’Donnell goes, the people most to blame for that are Mike Castle and the Delaware GOP, who acted as if the base should kiss their ring and pull the lever. They could have taken the votes seriously and appealed to them through a serious campaign (instead of pointing at O’Donnell and spluttering), or (if they insist on doing backroom deals), tried giving O’Donnell the nod for the DE congressional seat, which she would have, of course, lost, but better that than a senate seat.

    You won’t have the DE situation with the presidency. No one will be taking the nod for granted. I think we can assume that fairly safely. If they do, they won’t last past Iowa. All of them will campaign, and the base will settle on an orthodox candidate who gives them some serious nods on their issues.

  • Don Kenner · October 26, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    There are certainly some nut jobs among the tea party candidates (or those heavily influenced by the tea party movement). And there are some decent folk with some annoying, if typical, beliefs about the supernatural. But this movement and these stealth candidates are the result of a perfect storm: GOP incompetence and indifference plus Democrat/Obama hubris and economic lunacy (yes, I know, the lunacy began under Bush).

    Most likely we’ll get someone like Romney in 2012. Most likely he’ll win. If the stars are aligned and the gods are feeling generous, we’ll get a Ronald Reagan. But don’t count on it.

  • cynthia curran · October 28, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Well, Obama didn’t nationalized the banks because even in western europe nationalzing by the state of major industries is not in vogue these days and Obama has a lot of far left folks that can’t do what they could 40 or 50 years ago like Billy Ayers, Michael Kolsinky, and Q Young who wants single payer health care but in the US that hard. I still think Obama is a fabian and that popular also in Western Europe.

  • NYPRPhD · October 28, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Speaking from the Secular Left it’s difficult to envision any of the current crop of GOPers winning in 2012 against Obama. If the predicted GOP House takeover takes place and the chamber descends into trench warfare it will be even more difficult. The majority of voters know that political posturing from both sides is part of the electoral process but they want results when the shouting is over. The ideological zealots we see on the GOP side are unlikely to rise to the occasion.

  • cynthia curran · October 31, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Well, Obama is from the Midwest. The new Republican will also be from the midwest. Dems found out that the midwest is the swing battle ground, and Repubicans can’t go to the west, MCcain lost and Palnin doesn’t appeal outside of some places in the west and the south and maybe Oh and Mo in the midwest. Republicans can’t go back to the broder states, Calif’s still in the Dems mainly because the whites are more liberal and Texas and there are a lot less whites than in Nixon and Reagan area. Also, people are tired of poliiticans from Texas, and Rubio would be better in 2016.

  • cynthia curran · October 31, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    than Texas

  • Dear cynthia curran the divide is NOT between ''red'' vs ''blue'' state · November 3, 2010 at 8:09 am

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me