For a brief moment I thought that the worst columnist for the New York Times and professional panderer for the status quo almost said something smart. He explained why Mitt Romney would lose the general election if selected as the Republican nominee.
“The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.”
What I first thought smart was the statement that “some would rather remain in control of a party that losses than lose control of a party that wins.” The words flowed like melting ice cream, ready to lick up and savor. But then I started thinking. What both major parties really fear is a nominee for president that would actually work to overturn the political establishment by eliminating the two-party stranglehold on our political system. As partners in the criminal conspiracy both parties accept election losses.
Romney is NOT a threat to the two-party system. He is a perfect status quo protectionist. In that sense, he is just one of several ideal Republicans running for president. Wait, now that I think about it, ALL the Republican candidates fit that category, including Ron Paul. ALL the Republicans would not cause the loss of control by those now controlling the party nor pose a threat to the two-party mafia.
Just look at Ron Paul’s record in the House. He was never a threat to the party or their leaders in the House. By accepting Paul’s idealistic policy positions the Republican leadership placated the Libertarian crowd. Meanwhile, Paul traded votes (and non-votes) to get piles of earmarks and billions of dollars for his district. Paul never even got close to passing any legislation or cutting anything Republicans wanted. Even in his current run for the nomination he has not used clear, hard, explicit language in condemning either his party or the Bush administration for their foreign policies that Paul supposedly finds abominations.
Turn to the Democrats. Those in control of that party would surely prefer Hillary Clinton and any of the others would be acceptable, except Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, neither of which ever stood a chance of getting the nomination. All the others would pose no threat to the political establishment. Even John Edwards would sell his principles to party leaders and would focus on evil forces in the private sector but not their influence on the political system. And anyone who sees Obama as a true rebel, ready to overthrow the two-party stranglehold is delusional. At best, he would only work within the current system to achieve some modest compromises, but not have the guts to disassemble it. I still maintain that the power elites want and will get a Clinton-Obama ticket.
This corrupt two-party world that I see is hopeless unless New York City Mayor Bloomberg decides to use some of his wealth to run as a third party candidate for president. Every American that sees the current two-party political establishment as the key root problem should embrace his candidacy. But only if he has the courage to vociferously speak out against the two-party establishment.