HOW (AND WHY) REPUBLICAN KINGMAKERS THREW THE 2008 ELECTION
Robert Reich makes a compelling case for why the "the loony right is a clear and present danger," in his recent piece: "As Santorum and Romney Battle for the Loony Right, the Rest of Us Should Not Gloat."
With respect, Dr. Reich errs in supposing "[The Republicans] were not pleased to have a Democrat back in the White House in 2008, let alone a black one." It makes much more sense to suppose Republican kingmakers decided to throw the 2008 election to the Democrats so they would have to take the heat for the mess Bush bequeathed us, leaving the Republicans free to gloat and carp about the "failures" of Keynesian economics and Democrat efforts to contain the damage.
It was within the kingmakers' power to throw the 2008 election by nominating a couple of inept goofballs to head the Republican ticket. Palin quickly revealed herself as unqualified for national office. McCain was a self-acknowledged "Maverick" within the Republican party whose signal accomplishment was to sponsor a law limiting private campaign funding -- sure to alienate the kingmakers, who duly underfunded the McCain campaign. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if the kingmakers contributed to Obama's campaign, inasmuch as, being black, inexperienced, liberal, with foreign roots, suspect religious ties and a Muslim name, Obama was seen as the candidate most likely to unite conservatives in opposition in 2010 and 2012. Consequently, Obama raised four times as much money as McCain. McCain's defeat, therefore, should come as no surprise. Far from being displeased, Republicans were surely delighted Obama and not Hillary Clinton won the Democrat nomination in 2008.
The kingmakers' strategy worked in 2010. However, whether it will work in 2012 is questionable, given the whack jobs who have stepped forward to claim the Republican nomination for president.
www.the-predicament.com