GOP looks past 2012.

As Santo emerges a religious fundamentalist, and Romney keeps talking about “couple of cadillacs” and serves no other plan than more to the 0.1% – many look past 2012 already.

From John Heilemann:

If either Romney or Santorum gains the nomination and then falls before Obama, flubbing an election that just months ago seemed eminently winnable, it will unleash a GOP apocalypse on November 7 — followed by an epic struggle between the regulars and red-hots to refashion the party. And make no mistake: A loss is what the GOP’s political class now expects.

And the menace in conservative politics is very plain – too deep corruption and captivity to a couple of donors. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Full story.


6 thoughts on “GOP looks past 2012.

  1. The juicy gossip today (our talkig heads must keep themselves occupied with endless speculation, mustn’t they!) is that Dems in Mich will turn out to vote for Santorum,in effort to weaken Romney. Could be . . .

    • Hm…I’m not sure what to make of that.. if it ends up giving the backward fool more legitimacy. His vision of America is sort of like Saudi Arabia – theocracy and women as second rate citizens. Just messed up.

      • I call these guys the “American Taliban”. And by the way mac – I have never doubted as I’ve watched this play out over the last 40 years, that it was always about ‘uppity’ women and putting them back in their places. Abortion, birth control – just message vehicles (of course there are many sincere pro liferrs out there who don’t know they’re frackin’ tools). It’s always been about women. And for the first time, I think it’s showing.

      • It probably is a very large part of it – and for some it might be unconscious even. But it’s just so mean and unnecessary, and bad input for the young.
        And plain wrong, of course.

        One could hope the deterrent is stronger than the appeal – but I’m really not sure. Sometimes I think the spread of these kinds of attitudes and thoughts is just collateral damage of free speech and democracy.

        And it should be fought back. It’s not ok.

      • [Sometimes I think the spread of these kinds of attitudes and thoughts is just collateral damage of free speech and democracy.]

        Interesting to hear you say that – we haven’t been playing our ‘separated at birth’ roles lately, but I’ve given some thought to that very thing. I take it a bit further than your comment above. I wonder – if we can’t reign in how we define ‘speech’ itself – can we constitutionally narrow the definition of ‘free’ speech. I know that’s just not said, but honestly, our public air is just awash with lies, and not just political. And our political practices that are defined as speech are almost warfare. Probably crazy to even think about it.

  2. That’s true – we’ve had a lot of thoughts/reactions in tandem before!!

    And it’s natural to contemplate all this noise I think, including the price and the damage done. One could imagine the extremism and lies as mostly consequences of corrupt or rigged politics, but it could also in part be a cultural thing. And people’s freedoms are often at odds with each others – including free speech. An insoluble dilemma sort of..

    I’m much more optimistic now than six months ago. I think Barry has become effective and confident, and I think he’s been sowing a lot the first three years – and I think the political climate and dialogue will improve a lot (it’s already a very different world from a year ago).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s