GOP and the Strength of (Malleable) Convictions

The GOP primary marches on as Mitt Romney wins both Arizona, by a large margin on the back of the Mormon voting bloc, and Michigan, albeit by an all to tight 3.2% margin as reported in the NY Times. The close margin in Michigan, ostensibly Romney's home turf, means that this primary will continue on with no absolutely definitive front runner for, at least, the medium term.

Part of the problem for Romney seems to be systemic problem when it comes to the Republican party in general; they have no actual convictions. As has been well documented, Mr. Romney has been on both sides of just about every issue. Honestly, as many times as he has changed direction in tune where the voting public's wind has blown (not a fart joke), his new nickname should be Weather vane (no, seriously. That's a good nickname. I'm trademarking it. (TM) No Mas Paine 2012.). Especially since his current nickname is Mitt (what's up with that? Oh, right, his actual name is Willard). This is true of almost every candidate who has run this primary though. Either they have changed their tune (Romney, Gingrich) or they never really knew exactly what their tune was to begin with slash were a joke (Bachmann, Cain, Trump). The only true core conviction that has seem to come from the GOP has come from Congressional leaders such as McConnell and Cantor (whose weaselly properties have been previously documented) in moments of candor (see what I did there) when they state that the real goal is to make the President of the United States a one term president. Not to lower the deficit or return to a smaller, better run federal government, but to defeat the current POTUS. Kind of a time limited goal that does not exactly qualify for a core conviction, dontcha think?

The GOP likes to fashion itself as the party of strength against the effete liberal elites on the other side. Strong on national security. Strong on family values. Strong on protecting religious freedom (if you are a Christian or Israel loving Jew). On all point, however, the party tends to go overboard. Statements declaring that Iran needs to be blown off the map, before any provocation or proof of possession of nuclear weapons, in order to protect the sanctity of Israel, where there is not such thing as Palestinians by the way, seems to belie an insecurity present in the Grand Old Party. It has shades of one walking around with a chip on their shoulder and going out of their way to prove their mettle. This also, along with the shift of focus to social issues, helps explain Santorum's surge (seriously, editor's choice in re: Santorum headlines have to be on purpose). Santorum may be extreme and an enemy of personal liberty who is not nearly as electable as Romney in the general, but at least he says what he believes (unlike Romney who only convinces himself to believe what he says). People can viscerally feel who is forthright and Romney does not fit the bill.

I do not think the Democratic Party, as a whole, is much different. One of the many reasons that I think the duopoly of political parties, which the founding fathers argued against from the beginning, is no bueno. In contrast to all this noise, however, President Obama (the head cheese) stands alone. He pisses off nearly everyone on the Right and a whole lot on the left, but he is who he said he is. Repeatedly. And clearly. He's a center left democrat who has come through on a ton of the promises he made during his initial campaign. He's cerebral and thinks things through before acting, but he's plenty fiery when he needs to be. Long story short, aside from the hot mess that is the Republican party, I think we are going to see four more years because the POTUS is nothing if not mostly consistent.

Cheers to that.


Image: From Boston Globe (via Google Images)