Conservatives, Romney, and Electability

Hey yourself, Larry. I had to laugh at your vow to steer clear of politics, only to be depressed by sports. Does this mean politics is less depressing than game loss? LOL

INRE your opinions:

The GOP hasn’t sold the country on the strategy of fixing the long term debt problem through radically restructuring entitlements.

I don’t doubt that the GOP hasn’t “sold” anything effectively. And I won’t sit here and pretend that I like much of what I see in the current and past proposals. But one thing the unsold country does know is that the current path is unsustainable, and that the current admin and Dem party are advocating more of the same spending. As is usual with most elections, the choices will be less about support for one party/candidate over the other, and the pick between the lesser of two evils.

And right now, when media (and you) proposed two evils have barely a hairline of difference between the two, it’s not likely you’ll have happy voters anywhere. Thus when you have somewhat disgruntled liberals, like yourself, looking for an acceptable option, you tend to leap for Romney.

In one fashion, the 2008 vote was for a radical lurch to the left with Obama’s proposed government intervention in healthcare, his stated desire for single payer, tossing even more money after the unpopular TARP bailout, plus the continued promises to make the wealthy pay the way for others.

That hasn’t worked out so well, as most of the nation of all political stripes has noticed. And now the opportunity is ripe for a lurch in the other direction in both fiscal responsibility and less government intrusion into the free market. At least those will be the talking points.. even with RINO Romney as a nominee. I, for one, don’t believe it mind you. Despite the looming debt and the absolute truth of entitlements dragging us under, I don’t see the political will of any elected pol to go for the spending juggler.

Gingrich wants to make SS optional for younger citizens. So does Ryan. This scares the bejeebers out of seniors, because they know that support for maintaining something akin to current benefits will disappear, once the system is either privatized or made voluntary and the majority of voters no longer care about maintaining the current system for current beneficiaries.

Hummm… Larry, if SS is as you have attempted to say it was all these past months – solvent and able to pay the current beneficiaries without going bankrupt – why would the current and near to retirement age beneficiaries have to worry? Or is this a tacit acknowledgement that accommodating for beneficiaries payment 55 and over is really being supported on the back of current working folks, not on the system? i.e., robbing Peter to pay Paul?

I don’t see a problem for weening everyone off, but it will entail the trust fund cashing in the IOUs to cover the last of those running thru the current system. Of course that will mean that Congress, who’s spent it in the general fund, will either have to borrow the money to pay back SS, or cut their spending appropriately to pay back the IOU debt to the trust fund. I vote for the latter, myself.

The GOP hasn’t sold the country on the strategy of fixing the long term debt problem without raising taxes — especially on the uber-wealthy.

I believe that Nan G has pointed out to you that increased avenues of revenue are not necessarily a tax increase on any segment – “uber wealthy” or not. And I think that most of us are in agreement that the IRS needs serious reforming.

But again you need reminding that rollbacks of the *Obama* tax cuts (and they became the Obama tax cuts in Dec 2010 by continuation of the Bush policies) only constitutes $81.5 billion out of the stated “lost” $544.3 billion due to that tax policy. Seems a bit absurd to nail the “uber wealthy” for $81.5 bil, and ignore the larger $462.8 bil if the political mouthpieces are serious about increasing revenue, don’t you think?

Needless to say, increasing taxes on anyone in this economic climate is one dumb arse move….

With the failure of the Super Committee, two things are scheduled to happen on Jan 1, 2013.

I’m not sure you get the game played in the backroom, Larry. The Super committee was never meant to succeed. Indeed, what they would have to agree upon… spending a couple of trillion less than the proposed 9-10 trillion over the next decade… is such a pathetic farce that it’s hard to believe anyone bought into this dog and pony show at all.

Neither party would benefit from success. The GOP knows they’d take heat because it was a pathetic farce and amount. The Dems didn’t want to acquiesce to anything that smacked of substantial cuts or reforms to the entitlements. Both parties figured, when the time came, they’d just extend the deadline because it’s in their power to do so.

Obama threatens veto of any such effort, but in this case, he’s bucking both parties… neither of whom want the across-the-board cuts. I’d say it’s quite likely that Obama’s veto would be overridden.

But all this is different political posturing by both parties going into a bloody election year. Since you’re in to predictions, I predict we will not see a budget until after 2013… if even then… and there will be no substantial reform to spending, size of government or entitlements in between. All will remain as the pigskin in the air for debate fodder, while all Americans of all political leanings live the consequences of their dilly dalliance.

So Obama is going to run on that. He’s promising to veto attempts to avoid sunsetting Bush tax cuts (at least on the wealthy). He’s going to veto attempts to avoid the sequestration trigger, absent a deal to his liking.

Here’s the one thing that is escaping your analysis, Larry. Obama cannot effectively run on his record. He is reduced to only demonizing the alternative, and hoping that everyone figures a GOP POTUS will be more scary than he is. Historically, that doesn’t work for incumbents. It might have worked for Obama in 2008, before he had anything more tangible on his record than community organizing, flashy rock-star rally settings, and piss poor choice in friends to examine. But now, he and his party would have to convince the nation that his attempts to fix the economy really have been working, and it just needs more time.

Obama knows this is a losing game, so attack mode is the strategy of choice… and just also happens to be the speciality of his Chicago thug campaign honchos. Whether that’s going to fly? I guess we’ll see.

The only voters up for grabs are the indy/swing voters, as usual. Everyone else is relatively predictable. Obama’s leftist base, as well as centrists are going to stick with him unless the GOP nominates Obama’lite in Romney or Huntsman.

But conservatives aren’t interested in pulling Dems away from Obama. Those they want will not be grinning with a Romney nomination. And the GOP is foolish to think that those, like me, who reluctantly pulled the lever for a RINO last time are guaranteed do the same this time. If the GOP does not get behind a conservative this time – when the political stars are aligned – the party will sign it’s own death warrant in the long run.

Oh yeah… I wouldn’t worry about Newt being able to straighten out the lies and mistruths either Romney, or the Dems, will attempt to float about SS. Actually, history and a solid and understandable presentation to the nation are two of Newt’s strong points. If he can live thru the character assault, communication with the voters is the least of his worries.