Don’t watch Mit Romney. Watch the states, and the laws they are madly running around to pass in time for the General election. That’s what Republicans are really working on.
The public apparently learned from one right-leaning money man this week that the country just doesn’t hate the president. (Or rather that the country isn’t yet ready to hate him.)
So it seems the PACs are circling the wagons (a bit more aggressively than some might have first thought) to find ways not to get people to like Mitt Romney and vote for him, but to hate Obama and vote against the President.
One can assume that given the über-extreme religious, “character”, zero compromise, and lack-of-all-logic tests that the current manifestation of the Republican Party requires to deem worthiness – there are simply too many die-harder Republicans who will not vote for Mitt Romney Therefore, getting them to vote against President Obama is the only hope for the super rich and super PACs to keep passing their super laws.
It’s going to be one ugly election. Dirty, nasty, packed full of racial and religious subtexts and subtle keywords from the shadowed past. But that’s exactly what they want us to focus on while the real work gets done elsewhere. Republicans aren’t dumb, there’s always a plan.
I’ve hinted before in other posts that the rhetoric, word choice, really, will ultimately be the back-burning fire for Mitt Romney. Whether that comes from Mitt himself or from the PACs doesn’t matter.
But Mitt Romney doesn’t matter, either. Not in the big picture.
The PACs will backfire on Romney, but sadly I have a feeling that they won’t have the same impact on all of the extreme Republicans in the house and on the state level who seem to have some sort of immunity to all the anti-everything policies that they’re shoveling into place as fast as Republican-ly possible. And that’s exactly as is planned.
It’s a magic trick: in order to pull off the illusion, you need to first distract the audience. Mitt Romney is the distraction, so PACs will most likely continue so that we focus nationally while the states and pockets of the House and Senate quietly change the social fabric by putting in as many “anti-laws” as possible.
And of course, according to Grover Norquist, all Republicans want is a president who will obey and sign what congress sends him. Bit blunt, you think, Grover?
Sounds like Mitt Romney to me. The bottom line is the Republican strategy has very little to do with winning the Presidency. Yes, it would be nice to have a rubber stamp in the oval office, but as is often said by liberal commentators, the Republican party is very good at throwing people under the bus in order to serve the long term goals. They know that in order to affect social change via conservative policy-making, you do it in the House and on the state level. And just as I imagine they suspected, the general public doesn’t pay as much attention to state laws or social conservatism amendments to defense spending bills…. and nor should we have to, but now we do.
So is it bad for Mitt Romney’s (ongoing for almost a decade) candidacy for President for the Super PACs to be caught planning, and eventually actually launching hate and fear-driven ads? Yes. It is bad for Romney. But that doesn’t matter.
Keep an eye on the last minute amendments to bills in Congress. Keep an eye on the states. Keep an eye on what gets filibustered and what doesn’t. That’s where the Republicans are hedging their bets, and that’s what all the Super PAC money spent on the campaign is really trying to accomplish by shifting attention so the illusion can continue.
I don’t agree with Republican “ideas” 95% of the time… but no one can deny that they sure are experts and politics in America. And the Dems can’t stop it, only the voters can if we start paying more attention and demanding accountability.
