Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Anti-Romney Vote (Thomas Sowell)
Creators Syndicate ^ | February 8, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

Posted on 02/08/2012 9:22:21 AM PST by jazusamo

A funny thing happened to Mitt Romney on the way to his coronation as the inevitable Republican candidate for President of the United States. Minnesota, Michigan and Colorado happened. Rick Santorum beat him in all three states on the same day — and beat him by huge margins in two of those states, as well as upsetting him in Colorado, where the Mormon vote was expected to give Romney a victory.

The Republican establishment, which has lined up heavily behind Romney, has tried to depict him as the "electable," if not invincible, candidate in the general election this November. But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced, especially in a month when pundits had suggested that Romney might build up an unstoppable momentum of victories.

In a sense, this year's campaign for the Republican nomination is reminiscent of what happened back in 1940, when the big-name favorites — Senators Taft and Vandenberg, back then — were eclipsed by a lesser known candidate who seemed to come out of nowhere.

As the Republican convention that year struggled to try to come up with a majority vote for someone, a chant began in the hall and built to a crescendo: "We want Willkie! We want Willkie!"

If there is a message in the rise and fall of so many conservative Republican candidates during this year's primary season, it seems to be today's Republican voters saying, "We don't want Romney! We don't want Romney!"

Even in Colorado, where Governor Romney came closest to winning, the combined votes for Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich added up to an absolute majority against him.

Much has been made of Newt Gingrich's "baggage." But Romney's baggage has been accumulating recently, as well. His millions of dollars parked in a tax shelter in the Cayman Islands is red meat for the class warfare Democrats.

But a far more serious issue is ObamaCare, perhaps the most unpopular act of the Obama administration, its totalitarian implications highlighted by its recent attempt to force Catholic institutions to violate their own principles and bend the knee to the dictates of Washington bureaucrats.

Yet Romney's own state-imposed medical care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts leaves him in a very weak position to criticize ObamaCare, except on strained federalism grounds that are unlikely to stir the voters or clarify the larger issues.

The Romney camp's massive media ad campaign of character assassination against Newt Gingrich, over charges on which the Internal Revenue Service exonerated Gingrich after a lengthy investigation, was by no means Romney's finest hour, though it won him the Florida primary.

This may well have been payback for Newt's demagoguery about Romney's work at Bain Capital. But two character assassinations do not make either candidate look presidential.

If Romney turns his well-financed character assassination machine on Rick Santorum, or Santorum resorts to character assassination against either Romney or Gingrich, the Republicans may forfeit whatever chance they have of defeating Barack Obama in November.

Some politicians and pundits seem to think that President Obama is vulnerable politically because of the economy in the doldrums. "It's the economy, stupid," has become one of the many mindless mantras of our time.

What Obama seems to understand that Republicans and many in the media do not, is that dependency on the government in hard times can translate into votes for the White House incumbent.

Growing numbers of Americans on food stamps, jobs preserved by bailouts, people living on extended unemployment payments and people behind in their mortgage payments being helped by government interventions are all potential voters for those who rescued them — even if their rescuers are the reason for hard times, in the first place.

The economy was far worse during the first term of Franklin D. Roosevelt than it has been under Obama. Unemployment rates under FDR were more than double what they have been under Obama. Yet FDR was reelected in a landslide. Dependency pays off for politicians, even when it damages an economy or ruins a society.



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; sowell; thomassowell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last



Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono


Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!


Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

41 posted on 02/08/2012 1:21:17 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I also believe it would be very difficult for a candidate to focus enough energy and time to convince enough to make a big difference ...

I agree. However, if the candidate's "orientation," as it were, is wrong, he's also not going to get the votes of the thoughtless, unprincipled people ("independents") who may not be government dependents themselves, but don't see anything really wrong with it.

The candidate has to be able to show those people how big government/socialism is hurting them. To do that, he has to believe that there's just not enough Other People's Money to keep the welfare state racket going indefinitely.

42 posted on 02/08/2012 1:42:07 PM PST by Tax-chick (Email your grandmother!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
... buys a lot of votes at no cost to the administrator.

That's what Dr. Sowell says!

43 posted on 02/08/2012 1:44:27 PM PST by Tax-chick (Email your grandmother!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo


“The Romney camp’s massive media ad campaign of character assassination against Newt Gingrich.....won him the Florida primary.”

I absolutely reject the idea that a negative ad campaign - all by itself - can seriously harm any nationally known candidate running for president.

The ESSENTIAL ingredient is news coverage of the ad campaign.

If the MSM amplify and agree with the ads, then - and only then - will the candidate suffer.

If the MSM ignore the ads, there will be almost no impact.

If the MSM criticize the ads, the candidate running the ads may actually be harmed.


44 posted on 02/08/2012 2:17:26 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
"Those people"

I rent to THOSE PEOPLE, they don't listen to any of this. All they know is their welfare check date and when to apply for Sec 8 housing. That's it.

They don't listen to the news, or read the things we do, they don't care.

I have sat down and explained the system to them, they just listen with that DUH look on their face. When I tell them they are more of a slave now than ever, they don't get it.

I've tried, but they simply have no reference for any type of support system, and they don't know how to make the first step and break away.

Once the system broke up the family unit, no fathers in the home, it is hopeless for those mothers.

45 posted on 02/08/2012 4:02:16 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

People who work with the underclass do tend to despair of their capacity for improvement. Nonetheless, some do change their lives on their own or with help. As for the majority, “tough love” in the form of cutting off the handouts might help. If nothing else, it’s hard to see how the results could be worse than what we have now.


46 posted on 02/08/2012 4:17:10 PM PST by Tax-chick (Email your grandmother!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

>> The ESSENTIAL ingredient is news coverage of the ad campaign <<

I must respectfully disagree. I think there have been a lot of negative campaigns over the years that “flew under the radar” and yet were successful. It’s especially possible these days, when negative info can be spread quickly, cheaply and widely by robo-calls and social media. In other words, the MSM isn’t always a necessary player.

Now some of these stealth campaigns have used downright false information and succeded mainly because they were so late in a campaign that the attacked candidate didn’t have time to respond. But I think they are rare, at least when we consider the POTUS races.

So, leaving aside those late “blind-side” attacks, I think that by and large there are at least three essential elements that determine the success or failure of a negative campaign:

1. The seriousness of the negative charges. E. g., a negative campaing against Romney that only harped on his dog-crate incident and his speaking French isn’t going to do him fatal harm.

2. The truth of the negative charges. Outright falsehoods will, if propagated early enough in the campaign and discovered as groundless by the voting public, will be ineffective, maybe even backfire. But if you attack Newt with a true charge, like being chummy with Pelosi, it’s pretty hard for him to claim he didn’t sit on that couch.

3. The response by the attack victim. Kerry may have lost the 2004 election because of his basic failure to respond to the swiftboat tsunami. And Newt may have torpedoed himself in Florida by over-reacting to Romney’s assault.

On the other hand, the above having been said, I think you’re basically on the right track when you “reject the idea that a negative ad campaign - all by itself - can seriously harm any nationally known candidate.”


47 posted on 02/08/2012 6:16:09 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
They are never going to cut off the handouts, its a political thing now. We are stuck with paying, they are stuck in receiving.

Remember, they get it all from Obama's STASH. They don't know where the money comes from, and don't care.

Those people will never hear any Republican message, yet believer everything a Democrat will tell them. Oh well.

48 posted on 02/08/2012 7:41:53 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
They are never going to cut off the handouts, its a political thing now. We are stuck with paying, they are stuck in receiving.

Remember, they get it all from Obama's STASH. They don't know where the money comes from, and don't care.

Those people will never hear any Republican message, yet believe everything a Democrat will tell them. Oh well.

49 posted on 02/08/2012 7:42:23 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Thanks for posting this article. T. Sowell is a gem!

I’m so tired of the *get along ...go along* Republicans, who are leading us down the path of inevitable destruction.


50 posted on 02/09/2012 9:42:41 AM PST by Daffynition (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Yes many people have changed and Star Parker is a great example but I believe they are generally the exceptions.

Heck, Romney changes every election, and multiple times between!

51 posted on 02/10/2012 6:52:38 AM PST by Egon (The difference between Theory and Practice: In Theory, there is no difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Egon

LOL!

Well said!


52 posted on 02/10/2012 8:33:13 AM PST by jazusamo (Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson