Why Mitt Can't Win

This is a really short post prompted by the new POLL showing the Newt Gringrich is about to pass Mitt Romney even n the "firewall" state of New Hampshire.  Here is the link: Poll: Gingrich, Romney in Dead Heat in N.H. 

Here's Mitt's problem in a nutshell. The Mitt Romney who was the excellent governor of Massachusetts could have won easily. I would certainly have chosen him over Barack Obama and so would many others. He was the perfect Republican, intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate and honest. He could have easily overcome the few issues where he didn't match the far right wing of the Republican Party. 


But that Mitt isn't running. Instead he reinvented himself into the far right wing Romney. His problem is that nobody believes him. Those who appreciated the bravery of the original Romney feel betrayed he has so easily abandoned his principles. And far right conservatives just think he's full of shit. 


His only support comes because the liberal media keeps telling Republicans, desperate for a victory, that Mitt's the only candidate who can beat Obama. But there is no passion there. Hell, there's no there, there. Mitt would go down to defeat in a pattern similar to John McCain. 


Republican's have no enthusiasm for Romney. There will be no grass roots effort. The election will be boring with everyone from both sides staying at home. 


Now, I'm on record saying nobody currently running can beat Obama, so it hardly matters. Newt, Mitt, Herman, Rick... they'll all go down to defeat. 


I've often said that a candidates ability to hold to his principles matter more to me that party or even political positions. With that standard it's not possible for me to vote for Mitt.

The Delaware Witch Trials

I must tell you I have really come to detest politics. Our "Party Trumps Principles" method of campaigning and promoting candidates is disheartening and distasteful. And now that the main stream media has abandoned even the appearance of objectivity, elections simply make me sad.

Therefore, even though I was simultaneously amused and outraged by the Delaware Debate between Democrat Chris Coons and the Wiccan, errr... i mean Republican Christine O'Donnell, I wasn't going to waste my time writing a blog post expressing my disappointment in the debate.

As I watched the debate (available below), I was following the comments by fellow observers on Twitter. The always brilliant Hunter Campbell captured the essence of the debate in well under the 140 character limit with this synopsis of the calibre of the questioning:

Wolf Blitzer: Ms. O'Donnell. Name all the elements
of the periodic table in reverse atomic number order.
Mr. Coons. Spell "cat".

Jim Geraghty, writing over at The National Review Online also captured the essence of the debate succinctly:

"The moderators were pretty awful. Both Blitzer and the local reporter seemed hell bent on… well, the metaphor burning a witch comes to mind."

Geraghty elaborated and, I think, understood the reality of the debate:

"Yes, Christine O’Donnell has a lot of quirks, a lot of questionable decisions in her past and a lot of evasive answers about those bad decisions. But it was pretty clear that neither moderator was all that interested in holding Coons’ feet to the fire or interested in what he had to say at all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the better of the two, was hell-bent on pinning down O’Donnell’s view on evolution. And he was the better of the two."

"This was the moderators’ chance to play hardball with their designated Villain Du Jour, and the fact that CNN aired much of this debate live illustrates that the MSM doesn’t just want to see O’Donnell beaten; they want to see her… well, metaphorically burned at the stake in the town square for her audacity."

My opinion of the debate was that O'Donnell is not well prepared for the rigors of the Senate, but that Coons is a weak, too far left leaning candidate that couldn't possibly win a contest against a better qualified opponent. But the looser? The looser was Wolf Blitzer who surrendered has journalist credentials and dispensed with even a modicum of impartiality.

The ultimate tragedy of Blitzer's journalistic betrayal is that if he had played it straight, O'Donnell would have clearly lost the debate, the goal Blitzer obviously wanted to achieve.

Instead, O'Donnell is surging in the polls. She's picked up ten full points since the debate. Blitzer muddied the water. Americans (and Delawareans it seems) don't like an unfair fight with dirty refs. The ganging up on O'Donnell has gone way, way too far. The crowd is now clearly on her side. That made this a blog point worth making!

Every Liberal SHOULD Oppose The Health Care Restructuring Bill

It is simply stunning to me that a single Democrat would vote for the convoluted, wasteful, bloated, complex and pork laden Health Care Restructuring Bill that is now in the early stages of reconciliation.

It is stunning to me that a President as bright and seemingly idealistic as President Obama would ever consider signing it.

This bill is a hopeless mess of bureaucracy that institutionalizes into law Sarah Palin's notorious death panels, fails to live up to President Obama's promise of being able to keep your current insurance, raises taxes through the roof and insures drastically higher insurance costs.

Worst, it will destroy the one part of Medicare that works so exceedingly well, the Advantage Program, that is a lifeline to many senior citizens.

It is literally a damned mess.

If we, as liberals, have any principles left, we cannot endorse a program that pays off the drug companies, actually prohibits or completely eliminates competition, rewards the insurance companies, taxes current health care programs, hides new taxes under every rock (most of which will hit low wage earners hardest), and fails to cover many Americans.

What the hell are the Democrats in Washington drinking. Virtually every American KNOWS this bill is a disaster that will completely destroy our current health care system, hurt the economy, hurt Medicare, raise prices, and ultimately ration health care. How is it that there are almost no Democrats in Washington that are as aware of the facts as the voters?

I am reminded of all this as I watch Senator Ben Nelson fight for his political life. Things are so bad in Nebraska that Nelson is going to be forced to air a political ad during the Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl Game and, literally, beg his constituents for forgiveness.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you Senator, but it ain't gonna work. When you sell out your principles for this load of crap, you will be punished by the voters who used to look up to you and used to respect you.

Nelson is just the first. You cannot vote for a bill so horrifically bad that every voter on earth knows is a failure and not pay the ultimate price.

They Shouldn't Call Them Parties, Because Nobody's Having Any Fun

Rather than principles, we Americans have mostly put all our thought, faith and loyalties into political parties, or often worse, cults of personalities.

That's why it's so damned easy to be accused of hypocrisy or to accuse others of hypocrisy. When we abdicate our principles, leave them on the sidelines, we have nothing to actually stand upon. We cast out random accusations at our supposed opponents that have little or no merit or worse, actually betray our stated goals.

We hit an all time low this weekend on two fronts: 1.) President Obama's address to school children today and 2.) Van Jones belated resignation as President Obama's Green Jobs CZAR, a position he should have never held.

President Obama is a superb role model. Here is a man our children should emulate. He is a model of intelligence, hard work, honor and success. You don't need to agree with his politics to admire and respect the man. None-the-less people who have long held that we should always respect and support the President of the United States, decided he shouldn't ever be allowed to actually talk to school children.

The position of certain right wing zealots is simple incomprehensible. Fortunately most credible Republican leaders from Laura Bush to Newt Gingrich have lambasted these folks and supported the President's address to our children.

Does the speech have political overtones? Yes, of course. It is unavoidable. And yet President Obama's speech hits the perfect notes and sets the ideal tone.

But wait, the nut jobs don't just sit on the right side of the table. When George H.W. Bush made virtually the same speech in 1991, the attackers were all Democrats. And they went way overboard, even going so far as to hold hearings "investigating" the President's gross misuse of funds to make a speech indoctrinating our students.

This was one scary attack led by none other than Speaker of the House Dick Gephardt: "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students. And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Here is, of course, the obvious problem for Democrats. If was actually wrong for the first President Bush to make such a speech, then today's Speaker of the House ought to be investigating and condemning President Obama. Nope! Bush was investigated only because he was a Republican and Obama is defended only because he is a Democrat.

Now on to problem #2. Over on the left some real zealots are trying to defend the indefensible Van Jones, just because a much hated right wing television commentator, Glenn Beck, made the discoveries into Van Jones' past that Obama's own people should have found.

It is absurd to "blame" Glenn Beck for Van Jone's own mistakes and misjudgements. Beck got lucky on this one. Don't worry, it will probably never happen again.

As a liberal or progressive would you tolerate for one second having David Duke in the White House, advising the President? Of course not. Well Van Jones is nothing less that a left wing David Duke. If you stand on principles, Van Jones cannot be defended.

Principled liberals are asking the important question: How did President Obama's team let this happen?

Principles versus Partisanship

"I love humanity, it's people I can't stand."
Linus van Pelt, Peanuts (Charles Schultz)

Tomorrow we will celebrate once again our wonderful freedom to choose democratically our leadership and government. The voice of the people will be heard. Your voice matters. Your vote matters.

For the last few years (or ten years in my case), the Internet has provided an amazing soapbox for each of us to state our ideas and advocate our positions. The free blog software and webspace provided by Blogger (and it's parent Google) and other providers is a great gift and a wonderful tool. And millions of us world wide take advantage of this great gift of democracy and freedom.

Certainly over the last few months opinions have flown from left to right, from one extreme (and I do mean extreme) to the other. I've read things I've found appalling, even abhorrent. Hate speech appears all too often. People feel so strongly about their positions they resort to extremes of hyperbole. Name calling is not uncommon. And lies and exaggeration fill the atmosphere.

Tomorrow the election is over. And, I must be honest, I don't expect the name calling or hyperbole to end. But most folks will dial it back a notch. And many will simply turn their attention to other issues and other interests.

If I had one hope for the post election period it is that all people would place principles above partisanship. Make decisions and state positions based on what is morally or ethically right, not what suits your party or candidate.

Let me provide one little example. If you, like Representative John Conyers, are appalled at the possible misuse of governmental power in the release of information about Barack Obama's illegal alien aunt, please also be equally concerned about the now proven horrific abuse of those same governmental powers in the release of information about Joe the Plumber.

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. To steal the blog tag line from one of my favorite bloggers (and often my ideological nemesis) Mary at Freedom Eden:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln