Quote:
I just want someone to cater to the middle of the roaders as most Americans are.
Obama by default, people prefer a guy who does nothing, to a firebrand who does too much.
|
I basically agree. The GOP leadership (an oxymoron, it appears) has the unnerving habit of taking viable, sane candidates and turning them into raving extremists, at least in the eyes of the electorate. Look at Bob Dole: a decent enough candidate, but the GOP "advisers" turned his public image into that of an "angry, old, man", obscuring his sense of humor and humanity. Then they did the same thing to McCain. The many jokes on late night talk show about McCain as the"grumpy old granpa" also obscured a man who had much to offer. (Not that being saddled with Palin helped his campaign.) You can go back all the way to Goldwater against Johnson in 1964 (the first campaign I volunteered on at the age of 13). I have a deep respect for Barry Goldwater and admire him as straightforward individual who could be trusted to speak the truth as he saw it and, more often that not, he was correct. But the campaign that was run on his behalf also made him out to be this angry, raging guy who was possibly going to start WW3. Johnson, not the most popular of persons, even with the cachet of being JFK's VP, really hammered on this and was able to defeat Goldwater...
This morning, on the radio, the local news station had an item about the electability of Obama versus Romney. It was interesting to hear that on the topic of likability, Obama far outpolled Romney. This is something the GOP must address, but I fear they will simply fall back on old habits and make Romney out as a raving Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity, etc. icon. As was said in a campaign of the past, where the GOP also lost, "It's the economy, stupid!" They can try to play to Romeny's strengths in this area (he outpolls Obama on economic issues) but, knowing the GOP leadership, it'll instead be more of the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, flag waving, bible thumping, and whatever else they usually run with as a sideshow instead of dealing with the real issues that interest and affect the "middle of the roaders" like jobs, economic recovery, and stability here in the U.S. Oh, I'm sure the GOP leadership will address the economic issues; they'll just do it as they always have, with platitudes, slogans, and vagaries. Neither party seems to have learned much from the effect Perot had in the 1992 elections. He was mocked by both parties for his presentations, using charts and graphs to explain to the electorate the economic problems and his possible solutions. But Perot did get 20% of the total votes in the 1992 election (most of those votes at the expense of the GOP, btw) and, I believe, proved the electorate will listen to someone who will talk straight, lay it all out openly, and propose actual, possible solutions. I voted for Perot in 1992, because I could not, in good conscience, just vote for the "lesser of two evils". I may have "thrown away my vote", as some had told me, but I believe the 1992 election was a shot across the bows of both parties to give up the rhetoric and speak plainly and honestly without platitudes. I really didn't think Perot had a chance in hell of really winning, but I was "mad as hell, and not going to take it any more". I was surprised at how big a percentage of the vote he recieved in the election. The middle of the roaders spoke out with their votes, but the parties didn't really listen, particularly the GOP. It will be interest where they will take Romney...
...