 |
| Source NewHour |
In short the whole argument has centered around the question “Can Romney beat Obama?”
This is the wrong question.
Over the last several months I have been advocating a new theory. I imagine that I am setting myself up for criticism from both my friends in the GOP establishment and in the Tea Party (yes, I am leaving out my friends on the left because they don’t participate in Republican politics). This, however, is the way I see it. Here it is: Obama can’t be defeated. But don’t give up in despair!
My theory is that incumbents cannot be defeated -- they lose.
Think about it. Bush Sr., Carter, Hoover. They all lost their office not because someone else showed up with a better message. They didn’t lose because some “electable” candidate toppled them. They didn’t lose because the other side’s base showed up in droves. They lost because their first term was seen as a failure of leadership.
They did such a bad job that people showed up to vote against them.
What does that mean today? It means that the ball in in Obama’s court. No matter who the GOP ran against him that person would have been nothing more than what Romney is: the other guy.
I personally have a lot of hope that we will see new leadership in DC. I believe that Obama deserves to lose because he has been a failure of leadership. Unlike Clinton in the 90s, Obama hasn’t worked with the Democrats in the House and Senate (let alone the Republicans). He has made bold declarations about his beliefs, but has been unable to put those beliefs into practice.
Not a single Democrat voted for his “budget” because it was laughable. He has not walked across the aisle (like Clinton did) and worked with Republicans on a single issue. He has doubled the already huge national debt and has no believable plan to pay it off. Even if you agree with his ideas, he is a failure of a president.
I hope that people will see that in November. Because Obama cannot be defeated, but he can lose.
 |
| Source:White House Flickr |
So theoretically--speaking only in terms of winning the election--it doesn't matter who Republicans run against Obama?
ReplyDeleteYou may actually be right. I sometimes think that may have been true in the 2008 elections, with all the anti-Bush anger built up on the left.
In my role as nitpicker, Obama has not doubled the national debt. Leaving aside the question of residual spending policies, the total federal public debt was about $10.6x10^12 when he took office, and it has risen to $15.7x10^12, or about a 48% increase. Still mind bogglingly large, but not double.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info. :-)
DeleteI agree with Derringer Dick that the 2008 elections were, partly, about Pres. Bush Junior (well, his party) losing. People were ready to kick the Republicans out, and it didn't matter too much who the Democratic candidate was, although President Obama was helped along by some folks' desire to vote in the first black president.
ReplyDelete