Thursday, February 2, 2012

Political poker

This isn't a political blog so I don't want to ride too much about it, but the American Republican party is about to select a candidate that will face Barrack Obama in the presidential election. It is amazing to me how much energy the contenders are wasting trying to fight each other for the coveted spot. This year it's the right, but last time the war on the left side of the political isle  looked exactly the same. Everybody does what they can to destroy their rivals and appeal to their core base, then they try to broaden the support within their own party, finally they try to do what they can to appear as moderate as centric as they can in hopes to attract voters from the other side. As a foreigner- a person that cannot vote and therefore has no vested interest in the outcome of the process, I find fascinating how there always is so much talk about their respective parties and platforms, their future, their good, but a presidency is a very ego-driven individual ambition. It's not about the country, it's not about unity, it's not about issues and agenda, it's about me, me, me. It costs tens of millions of dollars to repair not only the damage done to a candidate in the primaries season, but also to make him appear even so slightly likable to the other side. And everybody has to have the perfect nuclear family. While your private life: divorces, mistresses, illegitimate kids shouldn't really be of any concern to they public, they become relevant when you make it part of your politics. Republicans talk about family value openly, but Democrats also subscribe do it. You see it it newsclips, in the ictures, perfect smiling wife and dressed up kids. Politicians have moved away from the political core a long time ago.

If it really was about the party, if it really was about stands on issues and values, shouldn't the Republicans now, as well as Democrats last time, pick the least polarizing and alienating candidate? It's probably not going to be Rick Santorum. How much time and money would he have to spend to convince not only some of Obama's former voters but also many of the conservatives that he is not a huge gamble with his ultra religious homophobic views? What are his chances of attracting anyone beyond his core support and not getting steam rolled by Obama come election day? All of the top candidates are somewhat flawed, millions of dollars donated to their campaign, shouldn't their party just spend the years leading up to an election looking for a more electable person that you can build up, than can bring their message down to basics? The Republican platform can be very attractive to conservatives and democrats alike if we strip away the religious build up, the marriage and abortion issues we have lower taxes, government staying away from our lives and limiting presence overseas. It makes sense in its simplicity. Which one of them  talks like that? Simply put- the Republicans should put their individual goals on hold, go back and figure out who has the fighting chance to beat Obama come election day then concentrate on and support that person. You will not get elected on appealing to Conservatives and the religious right. I feel that a person closest to that is Ron Paul if you phrase a question like that, but has virtually no chance of surviving the primary season. Yes, some of his stands are a bit extreme, but at least he says the same things he has been saying 20 years ago, he doesn't have a damaging past, seems very personable and doesn't speak from a religious point of view.

No comments:

Post a Comment