The Inevitable Mitt Romney,Boring and Good News
Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 2 January 2012
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
(Brazil) on 2 January 2012
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
Translated from
by Jane Dorwart.
Edited by Andrew Schmidt.
The Republican presidential primaries already had its preliminary. It resembles a reality show with its challenges and eliminations. To the dismay of many activists, armchair spectators and the press, the spectacle runs the risk of being really quick and anti-climactic. Now on Tuesday of next week, we have the first primary in the state of Iowa and the Tuesday following will be New Hampshire's turn. There is a certain fluidity in the polls and in the voter's feelings, but there is a strong possibility that Mitt Romney, who was never the favorite of the more rigid base, the most purist and conservative of the Republicans, will win these two steps. Doing so, he will, for all practical purposes, open the path toward his nomination as the candidate to run against Barack Obama next November.
There is yet a bit of suspense and a potential for an internal self-destructive battle. The eccentric Ron Paul could still win in Iowa (something improbable). There is a limit of tolerance for the extremist honesty of Ron Paul (known for railing against public spending and preaching a foreign policy of isolationism), now as revelations pop up about his willingness to accept the support of white supremacists, racists and anti-Zionists and the most insane among conspiracy theorists of this or that.
There is also an escalation of desperate support for Rick Santorum, a sort of a Last Mohican among conservatives who seek to have anyone other than Mitt Romney. But Ron Paul and Rick Santorum do not have anywhere to go beyond Iowa. If doubts persist for several rounds of the primaries, the greater the Republican self-flagellation will be.
Even a solid second-place finish in Iowa would be enough for Romney to crystallize an early triumph. Boring for us journalists. Bad news. At least this reality-show will lose the emotions; we will feel the the lack of gaffes and bizarreness. The latest of which occurred when the ineffable Texan governor Rick Perry welcomed the possibility of more Canadian oil in the U.S. so that the country will have not have to depend on "foreign sources."
It will also be, clearly, bad news for Barack Obama, because it will show the resigned calculation of Republicans that a more moderate candidate (although with little charisma) is the most effective weapon against the Democratic president seeking re-election. But it will be good news for a country, which needs a more serious, more mature debate about the future. And I would have to be a very over-the-top liberal like the ultraconservative Republicans to not admit to the valuable contribution that the Republicans and Romney bring to the agenda, as in the debate about the appropriate size of the government and limits of its actions.
It is fundamental for the fiscal and mental health of the country to have a Republican Party that counterbalances the Democratic paternalism and the swelling state. But I, personally, find it insane that a party is incapable of including (or even respecting) Americans with more moderate social, moral and religious positions, even those advocating fiscal conservatism. Neither does it make sense to set promises in stone about never, ever raising taxes (unfortunately Romney participated in this farce).
There will be many opportunities throughout 2012 to speak of the presidential race, but in the first days of the year I would like only to emphasize that is practically inevitable that Mitt Romney is feeling relieved with his recent performance. In a recent rally in the evangelical territory of Sioux City, Iowa, the Mormon Romney (many evangelicals consider Mormonism simply a cult) did not pander to the base with the typical discourse of mentioning the three G's (God, guns and gays). And when he did criticize Obama (and his effort to create a society of entitlements and not of opportunities), Romney did not call forth the talk-radio cliches about the evil socialist president or the danger of the Muslim law of Sharia in the U.S. if Obama stays in power. The tone was more monotone, but that is for the best: More reality and less reality show.
There is yet a bit of suspense and a potential for an internal self-destructive battle. The eccentric Ron Paul could still win in Iowa (something improbable). There is a limit of tolerance for the extremist honesty of Ron Paul (known for railing against public spending and preaching a foreign policy of isolationism), now as revelations pop up about his willingness to accept the support of white supremacists, racists and anti-Zionists and the most insane among conspiracy theorists of this or that.
There is also an escalation of desperate support for Rick Santorum, a sort of a Last Mohican among conservatives who seek to have anyone other than Mitt Romney. But Ron Paul and Rick Santorum do not have anywhere to go beyond Iowa. If doubts persist for several rounds of the primaries, the greater the Republican self-flagellation will be.
Even a solid second-place finish in Iowa would be enough for Romney to crystallize an early triumph. Boring for us journalists. Bad news. At least this reality-show will lose the emotions; we will feel the the lack of gaffes and bizarreness. The latest of which occurred when the ineffable Texan governor Rick Perry welcomed the possibility of more Canadian oil in the U.S. so that the country will have not have to depend on "foreign sources."
It will also be, clearly, bad news for Barack Obama, because it will show the resigned calculation of Republicans that a more moderate candidate (although with little charisma) is the most effective weapon against the Democratic president seeking re-election. But it will be good news for a country, which needs a more serious, more mature debate about the future. And I would have to be a very over-the-top liberal like the ultraconservative Republicans to not admit to the valuable contribution that the Republicans and Romney bring to the agenda, as in the debate about the appropriate size of the government and limits of its actions.
It is fundamental for the fiscal and mental health of the country to have a Republican Party that counterbalances the Democratic paternalism and the swelling state. But I, personally, find it insane that a party is incapable of including (or even respecting) Americans with more moderate social, moral and religious positions, even those advocating fiscal conservatism. Neither does it make sense to set promises in stone about never, ever raising taxes (unfortunately Romney participated in this farce).
There will be many opportunities throughout 2012 to speak of the presidential race, but in the first days of the year I would like only to emphasize that is practically inevitable that Mitt Romney is feeling relieved with his recent performance. In a recent rally in the evangelical territory of Sioux City, Iowa, the Mormon Romney (many evangelicals consider Mormonism simply a cult) did not pander to the base with the typical discourse of mentioning the three G's (God, guns and gays). And when he did criticize Obama (and his effort to create a society of entitlements and not of opportunities), Romney did not call forth the talk-radio cliches about the evil socialist president or the danger of the Muslim law of Sharia in the U.S. if Obama stays in power. The tone was more monotone, but that is for the best: More reality and less reality show.
Next article![]( "Nuclear: The American Veto")
