I’ve been meaning to write this for a couple of months now. No sense waiting any longer. Want to know who is going to be the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election? Mitt Romney. Want to know who is going to be elected president? Barack Obama. That’s it. I have spoken. No need to continue to read or listen to any political pundits, debates, news reports, etc.
Want more about why I know this? It’s not involved. The Republican establishment does not want someone to come in and really rock the boat. They want someone who will be willing to support the Republican party line, not someone who wants to define it. This comes down to nominating the lowest common denominator – Mitt Romney.
What about Newt? While in reality he is as much an establishment Republican politician as any other Republican, interested in maintaining the governmental status quo, the Republican party is scared by anyone with strong rhetoric, and Newt’s mouth gets him into trouble at times (not to mention a shaky past political and personal history).
There is no real interest in changing politics in Washington, only changing the party in power. Less government is not on the agenda, as much as Republicans mouth the words. Less government means politicians have less power. It is the nature of the beast to breed and perpetuate itself. It is a pipe dream for any citizen to expect a politician to legislate away their own purpose for being. Therefore they will nominate the person least likely to work for any real changes.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney will not produce any excitement among conservative Republicans or libertarians. Support for Romney will come down to “anyone but Obama,” which is the same thing that got Obama elected – “anyone but a Bush successor.” Will “anyone but Obama” be sufficient to win the election? I don’t think so.
The problem is that there will not be sufficient contrast between Romney and Obama. Obama is a hard-left liberal, but Romney is a middle-of-the road, or actually slightly left-leaning, Republican, and that will not be enough of a difference to get the average “independent” voter to give up on the candidate that they elected in the last election.
The truth is, Obama has too great a liberal base to be beatable. Almost all blacks will vote for him because he is black. The majority of Hispanics will vote for him hoping that a second, “lame duck” presidential term will allow him to give them what he has been afraid to give them in his first term. The “greenies” will see no other option than to vote for Obama, particularly if he can put off a final decision on the Keystone pipeline until after the election. Every welfare, food stamp and unemployment recipient will want to keep him in so they don’t get their lifestyle changed. There will be a good number of senior citizens who will be scared that they could lose social security or medicare benefits and will vote for Obama thinking that he will prevent that from happening. Most union members will also support Obama, in spite of the fact that his policies have hurt their employment opportunities.
On top of that, the economy is starting to improve. Some time ago here I wrote that the economy would improve regardless of (or in spite of) the government’s efforts to “fix” the economy. I also said that Obama would take credit for it despite the fact that his programs have had no real positive effect. People won’t care about the reasons for an economic improvement. If they feel things are improving they will no longer feel as strongly about blaming the bad economy on Obama.
In the end, Obama wins. He then goes on to use his lame duck term to promote his radical left agenda and in 2016 a Republican will be elected. Let’s hope that by then there will be a way to reverse course. Better yet, let’s hope that by then there will be the will to reverse course.
I sure hope I’m wrong.