Romney's winning debate choice, which he'll ignore

Today E.J. Dionne thoughtfully feeds my habitual and rather unseemly need for the colossal understatement: "[T]he debate is a strategic conundrum for Romney."

Yes. As in, "Hmmmm, methinks I'm fucked here, fucked there, fucked everywhere." Or at least that's pretty much how Field Marshal Paulus accurately put his "strategic conundrum" of Stalingrad--as something less of a conundrum than a wholesome, well-advised surrender.

Which is, ironically enough, Mitt Romney's only hope. To win the debate, he must thrust his arms upward before Reason's mobilized forces, he must concede the fatal weaknesses of his accumulated position, he must confess that all is lost--that the Republican Party has been reduced to the scattered tatterdemalions of lily-white bigots, delusional Austrian Economics apparitions, medievalist science-deniers, and ungodly God-thumpers. 

There are, of course--and here I'm trying my own hand at colossal understatement--more subtle, less strident ways of putting it. The shortest: "Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to resurrect the party of Eisenhower--the party that feared not the socioeconomic advances of the New Deal, or the inherent justice of worker unionization, or the nation's need for a moderate Supreme Court, or the virtues of military restraint."  

That's what Romney could say, but won't. Because Romney's a loser. But I can almost guarantee you that that's what a conservative winner will be saying by 2016 or 2020--because that's the only, colossally liberating way a conservative can ever again win the White House.

Comments

[Peter G]

Hold hard friend, for you will soon have to taste the bitter toxic brew, as will so many of us, of admitting that Ann Coulter got something completely right.

[AnneJ]

Unfortunately, I don't get to watch the debates because I have to work Wednesday night, but I'm sure I'll get the highlights when I come home. However, I still harbor every confidence that Obama will mop the floor with Romney. If the moderator asks for any policy details, Mitt will either have to actually give them and scare even more people away from him or fumble around and just say "trust me" until after the election. I think this debate will be a lose/ lose for Romney.

[Nameless Cynic]

"because that's the only, colossally liberating way a conservative can ever again win the White House."

You are making the fatal error of underestimating the power of ignorant, frightened people in large groups.

[A.J.]

"...I can almost guarantee you that that's what a conservative winner will be saying by 2016 or 2020..."

Don't quit your day job. Don't go to Vegas.

I'm betting the "smart money" sez' that the Party will double-down into even more Reich-wing nuttery. Heresy is not allowed within the Borg collective.

[Rael]

"tatterdemalions"? dooooood...

[mel897]

"tatterdemalions"
I'm pretty well read, but I had to look that one up too ;-)

[Phil]

But the Republicans have learned what the Democrats and their supporters have not:

They win by losing.

As long as they continue to attack themselves from the right, they drag the Dems farther and farther away from anything like progressive policies. They don't have to have power, they don't want power. They are getting every single thing that they want without it.

[dayglozoo]

Sadly, your commenters have it right, and you don't. Conservatives will double-down in 2016, and they will continue to drag the rest of us to the right. Eisenhower Republicanism is now just a fond memory... for today's liberals. (sigh)

[J Johnston]

I believe that my political sonar is detecting a moral and intellectual rebellion a-brewing among Americans who have finally seen these Republicans for what they are....liars, criminals, immoral and socio-pathic. The stench of old urine and bat-shit has finally hit the appalling level, and the backlash will be phenomenal. These deluded, arrogant right-wingers don't even see it coming...which makes it all the sweeter.