Posted on 10/07/2012 4:23:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
IN countries with parliamentary systems, political parties rarely lack for formal leadership. When the British Tories or Canadian Liberals are out of power, they have an official prime minister-in-waiting standing by, and a “shadow cabinet” as well. There’s jockeying for influence behind the scenes, but there’s always somebody out front who can claim to speak for the party, setting its agenda and making a case to the country as a whole.
Not so in the United States. Here, parties in their out-of-power years tend to slip into low-grade civil wars, with rival camps inside Washington and various warlords — er, governors — squabbling on the periphery. Not coincidentally, the parties tend to look their worst during these periods: fractious and solipsistic, intellectually confused or ideologically extreme, with opportunists grabbing for the megaphone at every opportunity.
The Republican Party has been effectively leaderless for almost six years, ever since the 2006 midterm elections made George W. Bush’s lame-duck status official. John McCain was so mistrusted by conservatives that he probably would have felt like an interim figure even if he hadn’t gone down to defeat in 2008, and after the general Republican rout that year, the party’s public image was suddenly defined more by media personalities — from Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck — than by any of its elected officials.
The Limbaugh-Beck moment passed, but the vacuum remained — and for most of his two years of campaigning, as a primary candidate and then as the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney conspicuously failed to fill it. He seemed content to take his party as he found it...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Not so in the United States. Here, parties in their out-of-power years tend to slip into low-grade civil wars, “
Pubbies, maybe. The dems, in their out-of-power years, consolidate their hold on information, education, and food supplies.
GOPe? Maybe. CONSERVATIVE? NO! NO! NO!
If he wins, Romney will be the head of the party. The President always is by default. If he turns into a squishy moderate in office, he’ll quickly stop being the head of the party because enough voters are awake, they’ll abandon any leader who lacks the principles to lead. Our voters stuck with Bush until about 2006 when we realized the party had lost it’s core, and the party got knocked out of power. The same would happen, but in less than two years this time.
The GOPe, maybe, but the Tea Party has the GOPe’s days numbered.
It could be if he ignores the Leftist Media, Karl Rove and the rest of the Progressive Political Establishment and listens to people like Paul Ryan instead.
Romney is on probation. Most in the GOP are voting against Obama, not for Romney. After all Reagan started as a Democrat and moved right. Romney could learn from his lesson.
Media commentators may have a disproportionate amount of influence here (due to their access to the big megaphones) — but, no one ever assumes that they represent any particular political party.
Look there was a primary.
Romney won.
Vote for another candidate in the next primary. I’m voting for Palin next time, if she runs.
But the nomination is long, long over.
Vote for Romney.
Golly gosh and gee - still can’t get over it and still can’t open your eyes to see a much different Romney than all have been warning about.
It could get a lot worse. He went to the middle on the lightening issues like the ones you mentioned. I am speaking more on the big issues....health care, taxes, spending, etc. He's saying mostly the right things now. It is up to us to force him, the House and Senate to stay there. As we all know, they have the tenancy to move off those positions later, especially when the media puts the heat on.
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.