You have permission to edit this article.
Edit

Hammer: Thanks for conceding, GOP

  • Updated
  • 3 min to read
Thanks to fans and foes

 

On

behalf of all the progressive and liberal voters in the country, I would like

to personally thank the Republican Party for self-destructing and assuring the

re-election of President

Obama

in November.

We'll

admit it; six months ago we were afraid that a combination of a tough

economy

, high unemployment and global turmoil would jeopardize the

president's re-election campaign. What we hadn't counted upon was the

dissolution of the Republican Party and the weakest candidates in the field

forcing out everyone else.

As

things stand at the moment, the president is poised to win more than 300

electoral votes, possibly many more, and cruise to re-election without really

ever having to leave the White House to campaign.

For

this, the progressive and liberal voters would like to thank the Republican

Party

. Even in our wildest dreams we could not have imagined a more

reactionary and out-of-touch list of candidates than Mitt

Romney

, Rick

Santorum

and Newt

Gingrich

.

It

all seems so good for the president that some of us are wondering if there's a

conspiracy in place, or if there is some sort of twisted bet among Republicans

to nominate the person who will garner the least amount of votes in November.

Santorum

and Gingrich would be hard-pressed to win more than a dozen states and very

few, if any, outside the Deep South. Romney might carry a few more states than

that but will still be crushed by the president's base.

There

is ample historical precedent for this sort of electoral suicide. In 1964,

following the murder of President Kennedy, Republicans had a chance of

unseating a mostly unknown President Lyndon B. Johnson. So they nominated Barry

Goldwater, whose primary campaign promise was to use nuclear bombs in the Vietnam War

if he so chose. Goldwater ended up winning six states in the heart of Dixie.

In

1972, the Vietnam War was deeply unpopular and President Richard Nixon was

widely seen as dishonest. The Democrats looked far and wide for the most

unelectable candidate and found one in Sen. George McGovern. Despite the

widespread distrust of Nixon, he nevertheless carried one state and the

District of Columbia.

Again

in 1984, after having been trounced four years earlier, the Democratic Party

nominated the vice president, Walter Mondale, from the ticket that had failed

so catastrophically in 1980. Ronald Reagan didn't even break a sweat in

clobbering Mondale everywhere in the nation.

This

election should be much closer than it looks like it will be. There is still

economic devastation and a recovery that is much slower than anyone would have

expected. The president's health-care reform, despite being a great historical

accomplishment, hasn't yet kicked in and helped the millions that it eventually

will.

The

one thing that might endanger the president's re-election prospects is a truly

principled Republican candidate, one who offers a different path forward, one

based on individual freedom, economic reform and true adherence to the ideas

expressed in the Constitution.

The

Republicans could win this year if only they had a candidate who said things

such as, "We've had enough of sending our kids and our money around the

world to be the policemen of the world." Or"In the last 10 years, the wars that have gone on have

added $4 trillion of debt. And I don't think we have been one bit safer for it.

I think we have been less safe because of all the money that we have spent

overseas."

That

is the kind of message that would resonate with voters of all parties who have

seen war profiteering cause endless amounts of misery at home while doing

little to help our interests abroad.

If

such a candidate were to combine that message with a strong pro-freedom

platform, by which I mean freedoms of all sorts such as personal, economic and

institutional, he or she might be able to beat Obama.

The

Republicans could well win if they had a candidate who promised to end the

wasteful war on drugs, curb the harassing policies of the TSA, pledge to keep

the Internet an open marketplace of ideas and enact sweeping budget cuts across

the board.

Actually,

the Republicans do have a candidate saying exactly those things: Congressman

Ron Paul

. He also has an energized and motivated base of young supporters

to get out the vote, just as Obama did in 2008. If he were the nominee, there

would be a genuine and sincere debate about the nation's future, one that the

Republicans might well win.

Luckily

for the Democrats, but unluckily for our nation, Paul is shunned by traditional

Republican elements who prefer to drive their party

off a cliff rather than actually win the election.

As

someone who's supported progressive causes all my life, I'm grateful to the

Republicans for focusing on issues such as abortion rather than take up the

challenges addressed by Congressman Paul.

It

just means the election night party for Obama's re-election will be all the

sweeter. Thanks again.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Arts

BeerBuzz

Education

Entertainment

Environment

Food

Music

Opinion

Society & Individual