This came up in one of the threads on Teddy, in relation to Romney's electability and character. Rather than respond to Smurf and O'Sullivan there, I am running this here because I think it is an interesting topic and brings up the larger issue of what the elections in 2010 and 2012 will be about.

Here is my take:


The next several elections will be about money. There is a strong and growing pragmatism combined with a deep fear in the country right now. Anyone who can make a serious and forthright case for policies that promote economic growth and address the deficit will receive a hearing.

Ideology is dead for now, across the spectrum. I am well aware that it can and will come back, but at this time the economy, the deficit and job creation - with real, measurable results - are the primary issues.

That is as true for the GOP as it is for the Democrats. If Huckabee or Palin is the nominee, the GOP will remain out of power in the White House. They have strong appeal on specific issues, but I do not believe they are credible on the economy or as leaders. There is a circus/cartoonish element that makes it difficult to take them seriously.

But right now the left-wing Democrats are the ones in power and they are bearing the brunt of the recession and their own failures. The Dems are now finding out the hard way that they have been completely wrong regarding the last two elections. They have made the huge mistake of assuming that Americans were demanding a return to the 1930s. They are watching their popularity and their credibility implode - and refuse to admit they were wrong. They are even treating their own blue dogs as an obnoxious nuisance. (I am very impressed by their independence in the face of the Pelosi/Reid steamroller)

They assumed that the fear and shock of last fall's crisis would produce a desire for a dramatic lurch to the far left across the country. This was an astonishing (and fascinating) mistake.

Mammoth government programs with enormous spending and tax increases have found little support, and a great deal of angry and active opposition. However the health care debate is resolved, it has been a public relations debacle for the left in leadership, and has revealed a serious lack of leadership skills on the part of both Obama and the congress.

The Cap-and-Trade bill is now essentially dead. Why does it even exist in a deep recession?

The takeover coup of GM and the forced firing of the CEO was a stunning assault on a private company, and revealed a contemptuous disregard for the shareholders, that might have made Roosevelt shudder (or cheer...)

This extraordinary misinterpretation by the Dems is one of the most interesting developments in recent political history. They are destroying their own victory. It is remarkable to watch, and one of the examples of why politics is so fascinating.

As for Romney: I agree with O'Sullivan that he is an opportunist. I do not trust him. I am not saying I support him personally, but there is a great deal I don't know about him. The number one issue for me in a politician is integrity. Yes, the irony....I know.

But I still look for it. With Romney I do not see very much of it.

However, I am saying that he has a good chance at the White House. He is an extremely successful businessman. When it comes to money, he knows what he is talking about. The flip-flops and the vague, illusory quality of his speeches vanish and he suddenly starts talking about something he understands. He is a shrewd, tough, savvy player who knows very well what policies need to be put in place. He also knows how to explain it in clear terms without condescension. It is just the economy I am talking about here.

That will resonate, especially in comparison with Obama's ludicrous fantasies about the economy and the debt.

This recession is characterized by deleveraging. Of all the types of recession, this one lasts the longest and is the most difficult to address because none of the usual remedies work. We just have to push through it until the debts are paid down. The only serious mistake is to interfere too much, with huge spending programs and tax increases that punish business, and to demonize the business community - which the left-wing Dems are often guilty of doing.

The initial stimulus might have been necessary as a psychological shock absorber. Last fall we really were on the verge of an economic meltdown and panic that would have fed on itself. I'm not sure about the stimulus - but a serious case can be made for it. A black hole of deflation was avoided and that was a real threat for a while. Unlike inflation, there are no clear remedies at all for deflation once it takes hold.

The way it has been spent has been a stunning failure. But the original idea did serve to calm down the markets.

But the other plans by the Dems to spend and regulate are an almost literally unbelievable mistake, and indicate the left has learned nothing.

It seemed four or five months ago that they would have the reins of power for many years to come. There is almost nothing left of that assurance now as one mistake follows another and the economy remains flat.

The field is now wide open. The GOP may benefit - but only if there is a change towards pragmatism and away from the spiteful and provincial tone of recent elections.

For me, the choice of Romney is a difficult one. I respect his acumen and experience on the economy, and it is desperately needed. But I don't respect him as a man. That is more important.

Of course, the group who will benefit the most are Independents. They do not have the focus or the clarity or the cohesion. But if they fielded a viable candidate (not an eccentric like Paul or Perot) they might transform the US.

Excellent post.
One of the things brought out by the health care debate is a passion by the public not seen since 9/11. As well as a distinct bull shit detector that Americans have always had, but unfortunately only bring out during a major crises.
George Bush was elected due to 9/11.
The next President will be elected because of this crises, and the one coming next year.
You are absolutely dead on that it will be driven by fear, as was the election of 2004. And the one who can make people feel secure, is the next President.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

Yes, exactly. Security is the name of the game.

Paying off debt, keeping a home and finding a job are the focus now and will be for many years to come. "Change" is no longer the word of the moment. It seems to belong to another time.

This has not happened since the generation that grew up during the Depression and fought WWII returned home and wanted stability above everything.

This new pragmatism can have a very positive result -but the road there will be (and is) painful.

Yes.
Americans lived in excess, bought $400,000 homes when they could only afford $100,000 homes...bought two new cars when the couldn't afford one...bought a 42" plasma and dropped it in a 10' x 10' living room...etc.. etc. etc.
It was unsustainable. The next economy will and MUST be built on tangibility and not debt excess.

You know Tim...I looooong for a candidate that dares to speak the truth to the American people....finally I think they are ready to listen.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

I notice that Romney got some brief but positive coverage of his health care plan in Massachusetts. Essentially a predecessor to Obama health care, minus the public option. I don't know if it works, but it is sort of a test ground for what to expect at the federal level. If it happens.

'Romney care' touted as a model for national health care reform - CNN.com

I think he has obvious intentions to run in 2012, but it is way too early to tell.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I once wondered where the coverage for it is...I didn't wonder long.
Talk about stealing the thunder.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

Maybe reelected as his first election was prior.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Romney cannot win because he touts Reganomics and conservative economic policies all the time. These policies cumulated into the crash of October 2008, demonstrating their ineffectiveness. A Republican touting these failed policies of deregulation and letting the private section run free is not going to get anywhere, especially a used car salesman like Romney.

People are also starting to see the light on health care as the current health model is also a consequence of letting the free market run free in a for profit system. The result: double the cost and the worst coverage.

__________________
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Vice President Dick Cheney (2002)

You say that like you actually believe it.

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

He means it and it's true. As iamwhatiseem points out, Reaganomics is the reason we are here in our current mess. We need to put taxes to what they were pre Reagan blow up the deficit bafoonery and reimplement trade policies that actually incentivise American Industry, rather then rewarding investment and production in foreign Industry. America went nuts under Reagan, and has since actively worked against it's own interests.

And you can't see that these two things are completely contradictory?

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

Hardly so, given Mitt flip flopped right over on all that too, as I'm reminded after a lunch trip for fun to the sports club for some sports bets and megatelevision with friends, another issue Mitt flipped on (gambling).

He bashed Reagan until he was for him come 2008 to hustle gullible GOP voters (even voted for liberal Democrats as an independent given he didn't even want to be associated with the party until he ran as a 'second liberal Democrat' on the state GOP tickets as a means to advance himself).

Romney on Reagan on Vimeo

And once September hit and the crash, and if he was still in the race, I'm sure he would have flipped right back to Mitt's other side of the burger.

Well, Mitt was for that too (and even did a big package in MA) before he was strategically against it for the 2008 GOP primary. So who knows what Mitt would do in any office. I only know what Mitt will do to self-advance himself.

__________________

Just as an FYI to other posters and also to answer your post vis-a-vis Romney and economics, I'll repost my other post in the other thread here:

What if a Republican wins Kennedy's seat

As I wrote in reply to Danny above, Romney is just as bad with flip-flops on the economy and/or Reaganomics. There is simply no way whatsoever to tell what this person would actually do.

And I believe he has no chance to get elected POTUS if the GOP nominates him for 2012 or any other time. He couldn't even win his own primary in 2008 as enough people started to figure out his chameleon character in addition to his 'resume inflation' lies (lifelong hunter, marched with King, etc), sleazy attacks on fellow GOP members with real issues and records, etc.

Insofar as 2012, Romney is the ultimate 'own goal' by the GOP for the Dems, especially considering the GOP's overwhelming line of attack on Kerry as a flip flopper, and Kerry was really only across the map on one issue (the Iraq war) and a very complicated and factually ongoing one at the time to boot, not all issues. This is just a tiny taste of what would be coming on him:

YouTube - NEW!!! Mitt Romney Never Flip-flops like Kerry Attack

He'll be ridiculed into the ground, and there is an ocean of material to work with. It would make the GOP look grossly insincere on all issues and fronts to dare put up such an obvious fraud and turn its own past campaign themes back on them that cannot be defended in the breach given he is a complete chameleon. It would be a landslide loss, and deservedly so for having zero issues and character integrity to nominate him.

And why would anyone who really believes in the staple GOP platforms want this person anyway? IMO, this guy really nails it:

Mitt Romney: Political Chameleon Charlie’s House

__________________

I think what we really need now is change. I am to the point that I would support a recall if a good enough reason could be found. The Letter below says it very well.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009...lou-pritchett/

There is no recall provision in the US Constitution. Obama is constitutionally entitled to his current term as all elected POTUSes have been. The voting box in 2012 is the answer for those that don't desire him to serve another term.

I don't blame the NYT for not printing that. It's a clearly liberal paper IMO in its editorial members and ownership, but that's not something fit to print in any major paper.

__________________