Most people probably consider former President Jimmy Carter to be some kind of liberal, but that’s not how he ran for and won the nomination of his party. He was a centrist and moderate reformer, liberal only for his home state of Georgia. He was distinct from opponents like George Wallace in the South, from neo-conservatives like Scoop Jackson of Washington, and from liberals like Frank Church, Birch Bayh, and Sargent Shriver. If Carter represented a wing of the party, it was an emerging one. He came from the Southern wing of the party that accepted the righteousness of the Civil Rights Era. He was much more Blue Dog than liberal, and he governed that way, too, for the most part.
I was thinking about this when I read that George W. Bush will not be attending the Republican National Convention, let alone giving a speech there. Poppy Bush also declined an invitation, citing poor health. I hear that Sarah Palin didn’t even receive an invitation to appear. On the one hand, this seems like a whitewashing of history. On the other hand, it brings into stark relief the fact that Mitt Romney doesn’t really represent any faction of the Republican Party. He doesn’t represent Yankee Republicanism because he has completely abandoned the values of traditional New England conservatives in favor of the southern flavor of the national party. It’s not possible to find any issue where Romney is a moderate. This would not be true if Rudy Guiliani or Olympia Snowe or George Pataki were the nominee. There is no regional appeal to Romney. He will not compete for any votes anywhere between Delaware and Maine.
So, where is he taking his party? Carter helped solidify the New South and moderate his party’s racial views. Reagan created a conservative revolution within the GOP that his successor failed to reverse. Bill Clinton helped invent the New Democrats, the DLC, and the Third Way. George W. Bush pushed for compassionate conservatism, which meant big spending with no cops on the beat, and permawar as the cherry on top. Barack Obama created a new coalition and showed the Democrats a new way to win elections.
It seems like all our recent presidents, with the exception of Poppy Bush, have had a major impact on their party. But not Romney. He’s like an empty vessel. He might as well be Haley Barbour. Who could tell the difference?
The Republican National Convention is going to be weird. Dick Cheney might be the only Republican there who has ever been elected to serve in the White House. Maybe Dan Quayle will make it two.
And a Massachusetts conservative will give a speech that could just as well be delivered by Sen. Jefferson Beauregard “Jeff” Sessions III of Alabama.
Mitt Rommey’s sole motivation is to either avenge or outdo Daddy. Far be it from Mitt to repeat his dad’s habit of telling the blunt truth. In a GOP polarized between Javits and Goldwater, George Romney was a “moderate”. From a policy perspective he was an empty suit but from the character perspective George Romney played on his competence as Michigan governor and bringing American Motors back from the grave with “economy cars” and on his integrity in a time when politicians were just beginning to lose legitimacy as a result of the Vietnam War.
It is Mitt Romney’s character that is the “empty” in “empty suit”.
Mitt’s just a conduit for the 1% to consolidate their complete ownership of the country. The efforts at appeasement of the Tea Party faction looks a lot like the same playbook that was used to appease the religious right a generation ago. The GOP also stands for nothing. Everything they do is just theater.
Dragging along with him a party of non-consequential thinkers with a goal of making this a Company Store nation.
Pre-recorded.
Empty of content.
Ready to hustle the judges any which way he can in order to “win.”
Disgusting.
He is the reality TV candidate. There are two teams. Gradually the members of each team eliminate others both on their own team and on the opposing team until he winner is the last one left standing.
“There can be only one” was the tagline from an execrable series of films about semi-immortal beings who can only be killed by each other. “Highlander” was the name, I believe. Every time the hero killed an opponent…in a swordfight with magic swords…he had an earthshaking, orgasmic experience.
But here’s the point.
Reality TV show get big ratings.
UH oh!!!
Americans live in a media-induced trance state.
If the fix is in for Obama…and I really believe that it is…then it is going to be the media’s job to enforce that fix. Every once in a while a fixed fight tanks for some reason, y’know. If that happens? The United States of American Idol. But…hey…that can’t be so bad. We survived 8 years of G. W. Butch, right?
Georgie Boy ain’t coming to the convention?
I wonder why.
His being there would seal the fix.
But then again…if the fix gets too obvious there’s no money to be made from the rubes.
Oh.
Bidness as usual.
Later…
AG
My “read” was similar:
The political/economic elite have been doing well with Obama and they really didn’t have anyone like GWB who could unite the GOP fundies, crazies, and well-off and also bamboozle just enough so-called independents. All they seemed to care about was getting a “credible” GOP nominee to keep Obama on his toes serving the 1% and MIC.
Then somewhat recently, they seemed to smell the possibility of a win that would speed up the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama agenda. It was when the teabaggers, fundies, crazies, said, “Okay, we’ll support an out-of-touch, corporate raider, money off-shoring, job outsourcing, Mormon that has more positions on every issue than he has houses. So, they pumped money into rMoney. Lots of money. On a guy that they had assumed had been vetted. Oops! The savvy business people in the GOP ranks would recognize the investment in rMoney as a sunk cost, but the Kochs and others of their ilk believe that given enough money, rMoney can win.
We shall see.
Yes we shall.
AG
Just curious—if the political/economic elite are so happy with Obama, why is so much Wall Street money going to Romney and the Republicans?
Do you have the totals of big money that are going to the candidates? I think there are some significant divisions between corporate sectors that are often overlooked–and then there are the personalities as well.
A lot of firms and wealthy individuals contribute to both candidates for access but they tend to contribute heavier to the one they most want to win. And cut off completely the candidates they find dangerous to their interests.
What we know is the Jamie Dimon is definitely in Obama’s corner no matter how JPMorgan Chase splits its contributions. Where are the other financial services firms putting money (Wells Fargo and Bank of America are only symbolically not geographically Wall Street corporations).
The oil corporations, OTOH, are united behind the Republicans and Romney and that includes the Koch brothers.
So the best response to your question is that the Wall Street firms (Dimon especially) are not so dissatisfied with Obama that they cut him off completely. Which publicly allows him to be tarred with association with them, a fact that works to their advantage no matter the results of the election.
But it is the anonymous money that will be rolling out the big guns this year. And no one knows who is putting that up — even foreign governments or non-US-headquartered corporations. And much of that will have a layer of lobbyists that bundle and insulate it from scrutiny even more.
The real question is not who is providing the money now but when and what circumstances will they be calling in their chits.
TarheelDem said. As of 6/30/12, Romney had a slight advantage among big money (>$2,000) donors. $84 million to $60 million. Among all GOP POTUS candidates this election cycle, the total big money donations was $116 million, but doubt there were more than few unique maximum contributions to the “not-Romneys” that hadn’t maxxed out with Romney by 6/30.
Dimon may be more politically sophisticated than Diamond as who would be better to make substantial inroads into the privatization of public education and social security (the last two big pots of government funds that the banksters have been eying), Obama or Romney?
Mitt stands for naked greed and ambition. We have had presidents like him before. Their administrations usually didn’t turn out well.