2012: An Electoral Mess in the Making?

We're Not in Kansas Anymore

So you like Newt?  Or you hate Newt?  I remain ambivalent. At the moment, this is not what concerns me, no, not in the least.  I can see the writing on the wall.  As The Daily Caller launches hit-piece after hit-piece, including Sunday evening’s column by Ann Coulter, I see what’s going down.  One after the other, Republicans are being put up and knocked down, because to fall from the first rung of a ladder is of little consequence but perhaps a temporarily bruised backside, but to plummet from its top rung may land you in political rehab or worse.  Certainly, it’s clear to me that this systematic approach to eliminating opposition has been underway for some time.  It’s not that I was particular to Gingrich, or Cain, Perry, Bachmann or anybody else who fell from the top, as my own preferred candidate never entered the race, but it is the manner in which this is being done that seems so transparently dishonest to me.  The permanent political class may have their fix in, but it may yet backfire on them. There are many irregularities looming in the 2012 election cycle, and it promises to be quite unconventional indeed.  It may get even uglier.

It’s not that the candidates who have risen and fallen have been without their flaws, some decidedly worse than others,  but something about this just seems all wrong.  It’s as though we’re being guided step-by-step through every one of them, and just when they begin to show promise, they are clobbered by gaffes or scandals or something.  I have a feeling the next one to be put up for display will be Rick Santorum.  I already see signs moving in that direction.  After Santorum?  Huntsman?  Is there enough time?  You see, the only one who hasn’t been run up the flag-pole in this fashion so far, apart from those mentioned, is none other than Willard “Mitt” Romney.  If you’re like me, you look at that bit of information, and you take it to heart, because if any of them have been due an undressing on the basis of their record, who have been at or near the top for any substantial period of time, it would have to be the Mittster.  He seems to be following the notion of remaining steady, while avoiding “peaking early.”

Since it’s clear that whomever is driving this wagon-train has a batter grip on the reins than either you or I might have suspected, I have a suggestion for conservatives and Tea Party patriots, and you might want to think about this intently: If you’re tired of seeing your candidates go up in flames, and since time is running out, we’d better do one of two things, and do it fast:

  • We must choose one and coalesce behind that candidate with the best record and fewest warts, or:
  • We must find a new candidate, already vetted.

Otherwise, prepare the way for Mitt.   If you won’t choose one, a candidate will certainly be chosen for you.  The “inevitable candidate” will live up to that billing after all, and the permanent political class will have its man, and we can all join hands and watch Willard’s election night concession speech next November, an outcome I firmly believe will be just fine with the establishment that claims not to exist.  If that’s okay with you, I don’t suppose there’s a single thing we can do but accept it.  So many of us are already disheartened by many factors in this election cycle that one can almost see the layer of discontent building within the Tea Party and conservative base of the Republican party.

As all of this goes on, we also have the growing plot of Americans Elect.  I’ve told you about my concerns with this group before, and frankly, there is a new Salon.com article that confirms some of my earlier concerns, but also  magnifies them. It now turns out that they won’t be telling us who their contributors are, and to make that possible, they’ve changed the the organization in order to avoid those disclosures.  From Fred Wertheimer at HuffPo:

Americans Elect was registered as a federal political committee until last October, when it switched and claimed it was a “social welfare” organization under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. The reason for the switch appears quite clear: to keep secret from the American people the donors supporting its political activities.

To be clear, I still don’t know what this means, except that I’ve been seeing their ads pop up more frequently around the Internet including DrudgeReport and TheBlaze among many others, but I don’t think any sane American should buy into an organization trying to elect a candidate to the Presidency that will not even disclose its contributors, and actively moves to change its legal form to avoid said disclosures.  Additionally, there are some apparent irregularities in its process, identified by the left-leaning but nevertheless thorough(at least in this case) Irregular Times.  Also from the Salon piece, they’ve set up a committee that can overrule what the on-line vote tells them anyway:

So they’ve reserved for themselves the power to overrule it,” says Rick Hasen, a professor at UC Irvine law school and author of a lengthy critique of the group.

Ladies and gentlemen, I smell rats – several of them.  I don’t know where this is all leading,  but I know this much: All of the ongoing machinations are intended to fool the American people, one way or the other, and whatever the particulars of the motives behind the scenes, you can bet that they are not benevolent.  You conservative and Tea Party folk had better figure it out fast, because I think your time is nearly up.  This process has led us on a wild goose chase in search of one non-Willard “Mitt” Romney after the other, all to leave us with…Willard?  Is that the deal? If you’re satisfied with that, so be it, but if not, whatever you may do, look not to Americans Elect until they’ve given full disclosure.  The four top candidates they’re tracking include Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, and Barack Obama.  If that doesn’t tell you something about the direction of that organization, nothing will.  Caution, my friends, extreme caution, but also, I believe, it is coming down to it.  Don’t be so quick to fight among yourselves that you’re divided and thereby easily conquered.  Don’t say things in haste to your fellow conservatives and Tea Party brethren that you damage your ability to fight side-by-side.  If you want to defeat Barack Obama, and stand any chance of restoring the country with a real conservative, it’s going to take all of you.  In just more than three weeks, we will have the Iowa caucus, and if you haven’t coalesced behind a candidate by then, or at least very shortly after, we’ll likely take what we’re given.  We’ll be stuck, again, but this time, “being stuck” may well mean: Obamacare forever.

Or worse.

Leave a comment ?

11 Responses to 2012: An Electoral Mess in the Making?

  1. With the elections coming I am not seeing any vote in favor of (pick one) anyone but am seeing simply votes against. It's not that Newt is a preference as much as the preference being to get obama OUT. Same with Mitt should he be "the one" it just means were not voting for him but voting against obama and then suffering the consequence yet again. It would be nice to have an election in which our vote was FOR someone and not a desperate vote AGAINST someone. When our election process is corrupt so are the votes cast. Voting to get one out is hardly a beneficial vote when the one who gets in is just as bad in some degree or more. When nothing changes, nothing changed.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        Time is running out.

        Ask yourself, "who is the most conservative GOP candidate?". Once you think you've found the answer to that question then ask yourself, "can we afford to NOT have a constitutional conservative in the White House this time around?". Just any Republican will not do this time around, I'm afraid.

        I've never subscribed to the ideas of "voting against" candidates", or "wasting my vote". I'll vote for who I believe is the most able and trustworthy, period.

  2. Anne says:

    I'm for the 'already vetted' candidate, God willing, she'll get in.

  3. Laurie says:

    Hear Hear–my thoughts exactly Mark. It's like a sniper,,,they concentrate on one target and shoot them down then move on to the next. And I don't care which one it is,,,they use the same tactics. Why, because the dems have nothing to run on really, they know it. They must distroy as much of the republican hope as possible even before the nominated one appears. They feel by doing so, half the battle is already won. Their message is:See all those repos are unethical, hypocrits, idiots, and more. By attacking them singularly,,they are attacking them all. And trying to start infighting also is part of that game. I decided on my pick, but I also decided,,no matter what….I will stand strong for that one,,,period. There is strength in unity…I hope it comes soon.

  4. RayR says:

    Sorry but I just don't think Americans (as a whole) have the insight to understand what is at stake here. We keep repeating the same mistake every election. That is simply uniting under one banner and staying with it to the end. We allow each election to become a choice between the worse of two evils. If that happens this time you can pretty much kiss this country goodbye.

  5. Mark, I can't help but reflect back on Oct. 5th when Palin said she "was not running at this time". I noted that statement word for word. That could mean "at this time" meaning this election cycle. It could also mean on that date with options to change her mind later. It was carefully worded in my opinion.

    Now this woman has the best political IQ of any of the candidates out there. One former opponent called her "alley cat smart".

    Now, would she not have seen what is shaping up here? Would she not have been able to see where this is going? If she had thrown her hat in the ring instead, she would have gotten the same treatment that you just described here in your article.

    But Palin knows what she has to deal with in political enemies and how they work. She was the late comer in all of her previous elections. But look how this is shaping up. All of the candidates are one by one set up and beaten down as you so well have written. Why go thru that?

    I still believe Palin loves this country as much or more than I do. She sees what we have in options, and there are no options that people have gotten excited about.

    Her clarion call from the past debates with opponents was, "America deserves better." And she knows we want what she believes in.

    Can she still get in even at this stage and have a better than even chance to win? YOU BETCHA!!!!

  6. David Diaz says:

    Mark, I do not trust Romney, there is just something about him, it's an uneasy feeling, the same I felt about BHO. And, if that Americans Elect
    is not disclosing it donors, you can bet George Soros is in on it!!!!!

  7. We've reached the point that the media have way too much control over decisions that should be those of the electorate.

    Can't voters do research and make a decision based on political platform instead of sucking up the media's swill?

    I do agree that all of those anti-Obama need to unite behind one candidate.

    On the other hand, if we've reached the 1980 tipping point, any GOP candidate who runs against Obama will win. In my view, Reagan won in 1980 only because his opponent was Jimmy Peanut; lifelong Democrats fled Carter in droves and pulled the lever, once and once only, for the GOP candidate in 1980.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: