For a political party or for an individual, winning elections is usually a challenging task, an uphill battle–unless you’re the incumbent. On the other hand, losing elections is as easy as pie, as simple as not putting your heart and soul into the task of winning.
Just ask John McCain.
This coming November and two years after that Republicans have a rare opportunity to reclaim the House and Senate and, should they show they’re worth it, to win back the presidency in 2012.
It would be an almost unprecedented achievement, following two successive trouncings by the Democrats after which, just as in 1964 and 1976, they were declared over and done with, dead as a political party by many in the mainstream media.
At this point in time, the off-year election and the presidential election are the Republicans’ to lose given the widespread sentiment of anti-incumbency, the continuing collapse of Obama’s favorability numbers, and of his presidency, and given the overall dissatisfaction among the electorate with the state of the economy and the union.
Americans got more change than they bargained for with Barack Hussein Obama and are more than ready for a reversal.
Nevertheless, with minimal effort, Republicans are eminently capable of losing.
There are three surefire methods of blowing the upcoming elections: divisiveness, lack of commitment, and, in 2012, nominating a nobody to take on the current somebody in the White House.
Mit Romney’s dad, George, famously said he was going fishing on Election Day 1964, the clear implication being that he would not be voting for the Republican Party’s nominee.
He and other Rockefeller Republicans effectively abandoned Senator Barry Goldwater and thereby were in part responsible for the debacle that was the Viet Nam War.
Goldwater lost in a landslide to LBJ.
Forty-six years later, the seeds of a similar divisiveness are being sown by various Republicans.
Yesterday, he left the Republican fold to join 4 other Republicans to vote for the Democrat-sponsored, Harry Reid “jobs bill” and helped it pass.
Before the vastly pared down bill had reached the president’s desk, internet GOPers were all over him, denouncing his vote, calling him a turncoat, a Benedict Brown, a RINO, and branding him in scarlet on Drudge.com: http://bit.ly/9L4P1N
Those critics were also driving a wedge between moderate and conservative Republicans, a wedge that could insure future Democrat victories.
Brown is a New England Republican. Worse, he hails from the belly of the beast, Massachusetts, and now sits in the chair previously warmed by one of the most liberal politicians in American history, Ted Kennedy.
Scott Brown, who never represented himself as a conservative, won’t have the usual six years to make his mark and prove his mettle in the U.S. Senate; he must stand for re-election in 2012.
As Brown said with exasperation over the criticism, “I’ve taken three votes. And to say I’ve sold out any particular party or interest group, I think, is certainly unfair. So, I think it’s a little premature to say that.”
Amen, Senator! Unfair, premature, and stupid.
If his critics think that posting comments such as, “We campaigned for you. We donated to your campaign. And you turned on us like every other RINO” are constructive for the party, they’re fools.
The astute Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made more sense when he said, “We don’t expect our members to be in lockstep on every single issue.”
Let’s leave lockstepping and goosestepping to Obama’s Democrats and put aside minor grievances in the interests of not having major complaints if the Dems prevail in the next two elections.
I’m more than ready, considering the alternatives, not to sacrifice conservative principles but to sacrifice obstinacy for compromise.