The other day, Mitt Romney (R-UT) released a comment that it was stupid of Democrats to help promote the craziest far-right Republican loons in GOP primaries as being potentially the easier candidates to win in general elections because, as Romney said, it was a danger to democracy.
First of all, if Mitt Romney wants to talk about dangers to democracy, he must start in his own house and point to the Big Lie his party has been pushing about election fraud, the insurrection that far too much of his party enabled, voter suppression laws throughout red states, and the GOP actually putting up this crazy far-right loons in their primaries who their GOP voters actually vote for. Democrats might try to create a situation where they run against the crazies…but to make that possible, Republicans have to be the ones who vote for them. And secondly, no, it is not a stupid strategy at all to try to run against your opposing party’s worst candidates. That’s actually pretty smart. It was how Claire McCaskill won her re-election to the Senate when it was assumed she’d lose. But her campaign helped promote the woeful Todd Akins, who ended up winning the Republican primary, and she beat him in the General Election. (She lost six years later to the insurrection runner Josh Hawley.) What the strategy is, however, is risky. If it backfires, then, yes, some true crazies will be elected to Congress. But that’s still more on the Republican Party for voting for the crazies just because they’re Republicans. The thing is, the more I’ve thought about this strategy by Democrats, I’m not sure I think it’s as risky as it appears on the surface. And that’s even if the crazy loons win. I say that because so many of the other Republican candidates running against these crazies aren’t the mainstream, solid candidates of yesterday. When crazy J.D. Vance won the GOP Senate primary in Ohio, he beat Josh Mandel who was battling Vance to see who could be more gallingly offensive and hate-filled. Today, a Republican isn’t going to win most party nominations if they start saying rational things like the presidential election wasn’t stolen, it was wrong to storm the U.S. Capitol, I think evidence shows Trump tried to stage a coup, I agree with the vast majority of Americans who think all abortion should not be banned and same-sex marriage is okay and we shouldn’t ban contraceptives and we shouldn’t have white supremacists in the military – and anyone who follows QAnon and thinks JFK is coming back to life to run with Trump and Anderson Cooper eats babies. Not to mention that any Republican candidate pretty much has to say that they support what Trump stands for. So, to say otherwise, to be against all of that seems pretty crazy on its own terms, yet a “Team Normal” Republican today pretty much has to be against all of that…at least in a race where a crazy loon actually has a very real chance of winning the race. So, the downside of Democrats pushing to run against the weakest Republican candidate who might scare off Independents and a few moderate Republicans isn’t as “risky” as one might think. Because the alternative to a GOP crazy loon candidate is still pretty crazy and awful and fascist. They might be fairly rational in their core – but they can’t vote that way. Just look at how the Republicans vote in Congress. Almost lock-step united on most measures, no matter how rational and reasonable. On a House vote to protect contraceptives, 195 Republicans voted “No.” Only eight said yes. For the House vote that would keep white supremacists and neo-Nazis out of the military to protect the country, all 208 Republicans voted “No.” When the House voted to protect same-sex marriage (something 71% of the country supports), it was a big deal in the news that 47 Republicans actually voted “Yes” – but what that means is that 157 Republicans voted no. And further, there is uncertainty whether the Senate will be able to get just 10 Republicans there to vote for it and break a filibuster. It should pass there -- and may. But it should be an "Of course!!" vote where the only question is there would be 10 Republicans willing to vote against something 71% Americans are for. So, no, the downside of pushing the weaker crazies, while having a risk, doesn’t have all that much of a risk or downside. Especially when the upside of winning is huge. It should be incredibly risky. It should be dangerous. But that’s today’s fascist Republican Party. That is where the danger and risk is.
2 Comments
John Kurko (aka Nikon1)
7/28/2022 10:20:18 am
While, as a resident of South Jersey, I don’t welcome this fraud “back” to New Jersey (let him move back to Hollywood & Oprah’s back yard) I though Stevie VanZant got a good solid dig in to the quack. For your viewing pleasure, Mr. VanZant:
Reply
Robert Elisberg
7/28/2022 12:30:15 pm
John, thanks for your note. Yes, Steve VanZant's video was great. Unfortunately, should Dr. Oz lose his race in Pennsylvania, you may be getting him back in New Jersey, welcomed or not...
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|