Many of our readers know that I've long described Romney as a whore, which, by the standard descriptions I apply to most politicians in the US, is actually somewhat above the median. Romney can historically be counted on to modulate his positions according to his electorate. However, of late, I've begun to wonder if he might not also be an educable whore.
Romney has been one of the first politicians, certainly on the national presidential stage, to actually start talking about solutions on the national question involving self-deportation. This is one of the most important observations on the national question, going back to Operation Wetback. For every illegal you deport, if you show you're serious about enforcing the law, lots more will self-deport, which is much cheaper and doesn't make for tear-jerking media coverage.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/january-31-2012/fla-vote-winners-are-latino-dignity-self-deportation.html
Another interesting story by way of the Washington Post. Apparently, not satisfied with simply avoiding what I deemed 'Gross Political Malpractice' in a previous post by insulting Ron Paul, and more importantly, his supporters, Romney has apparently been quietly forming ties. This shows better judgment than I thought likely from him. It also illuminates the possibility of a 'grand bargain' between supporters of the Pauls and more conventional Republicans come convention time. Could the stupid party do something profoundly not stupid?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html?hpid=z1
My suggestions for such a bargain would be to dial back the support for the 'War on Some Drugs' and the rhetoric substantially, and let the states go their own way on the issue. The cover can be an appeal to Federalism and States Rights. The second issue would be to recognize that the US can not afford to maintain its present level of military spending or its level of foreign 'military intervention'. The budget for such simply isn't there and defense and entitlements are the elephants in the budget room. Since talking about a sustainable entitlement reform is death electorally, this leaves the best option to greatly reduce the volume on the war drums and wind down the Empire.
Romney with the addition of a substantial chunk of Paul's independent support would have, IMO, a better than 50-50 shot of winning the presidency. But Paul's voters are more discerning than most, to buy them you actually have to pay them. Romney would need to persuade them that he can be THEIR educable whore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I've been wondering myself if it wouldn't be preferable to a have a supposedly "conservative" president consistently tacking left that he might appeal to The Cathedral (say a former Southern congressman... or Texas governor for that matter); or a supposedly "moderate" president consistently tacking right that he might appeal to the vast unwashed middle (say a former MA governor). The latter would seem to be the lesser evil. He would be, as you suggest, enough of a whore at least not to be committed to a particular political predisposition. Dubya, for example, stuck to his guns on Iraq and a host of issues not because (if ever) they were popular, but because he believed his positions Correct. Such a defect is unimaginable in someone like Romney. Put this down as one of the positives of being a whore.
Regarding the War on Some Drugs, there is one very unfortunate side effect to giving it up. High prison populations are doing a passable job of lowering crime rates across the board. Take away drug convictions and we'll have no recourse but to throw people in prison only for far greater crimes. More would-be criminals will undoubtedly slip through the cracks, thus making life much less pleasant in diversified areas. Still, giving up a piece of the War on Drugs in exchange for giving up on Global Empire is a trade well worth making... if indeed it can be made.
Steve,
Compromise on the War on Drugs is likely to hit primarily on MJ. Not many folks are actually in jail for possession of such. It is likely that over time drug consumption patterns will shift back towards pot and away from harder stuff---prohibition provably causes shifts in consumption towards the harder. But all that would likely be necessary is simply rescheduling MJ to account for its medicinal uses and to stop federal enforcement in areas where the states don't want it.
I'm surprised that Trump endorsed Romney over Paul. That's my only even vaguely relevant thought on the subject.
Post a Comment