The important thing to remember here is that the GOP argument for a Romney victory rests explicitly on the hope that those who turned out to vote for Obama last time won’t be quite as engaged this time around. Republicans are hoping the electorate is not as diverse as it was in 2008, and they are arguing that the GOP base’s enthusiasm is much higher than that of core Dem constituencies. The Romney camp seems to think it will help whip GOP base voters into a frenzy — and perhaps boost turnout — if Romney casts the way Obama is urging Democratic base voters to get more involved in the process as something sinister and threatening. This is beyond idiotic; it is insulting to people’s intelligence.The Post editorial board, in a widely cited piece, has claimed that the one constant about the Romney campaign has been that it is driven by “contempt for the electorate.” To make this case, the editorial cites Romney’s nonstop flip flops, his evasions about his own proposals, his refusal to share basic information about his finances and bundlers, and his monumental Jeep falsehood and all his other big lies. It’s fitting that Romney’s closing argument rests heavily on one last sustained expression of that contempt for the electorate — one focused squarely on a call for more engagement in the political process, i.e., on something that is fundamental to democracy itself.
Call me a conspiracy nut, but I think many smart Republicans realize Romney's plans are pie-in-the-sky. It's just that they hate Obama so deeply, so viscerally, that they will vote for anyone running against him. And those Republicans are mostly white people, mostly white men, mostly white older men. It's really as simple as that. This isn't a campaign about ideas for them.
By Greg Sargent
November 4, 2012 | Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment