Grand Old Party: From Party of Lincoln to Party of Crackpots – how truly sad

I used to think that the one-time Party of Lincoln was more interested in wishing it could be the Party of Reagan.

TRUMP: Did anybody watch his pageant?

Although I’m now wondering if the Republican Party has its desires to become the Party of Extremists who can only “fit into” society by marginalizing all the normal people.

HOW ELSE TO explain the fact that real estate mogul Donald Trump has polls showing his presidential fantasies being taken seriously by those people inclined to cast ballots in Republican primaries.

Or the fact that presidential dreamer Rick Santorum (a former senator from Pennsylvania) is taking up his own issue – gay marriage. He wants it written into the Constitution that gay couples have no business thinking of marriage as something that applies to them.

He’s sure there are enough people still peeved about the Supreme Court of the United States striking down efforts by the states to ban gay marriage that they will unite behind his would-be presidential campaign.

Of course, it would mean that everybody in society not interested in voting in the Republican primary would be united against him. But what does he care; the basic principle of ideologues is that everybody who doesn’t think like themselves is irrelevant and to be disregarded.

THAT’S DEFINITELY THE strategy of Trump, who got the people worked up with his nonsense talk of Mexico (he wants the nativist and xenophobe vote) and now is claiming he’s owed an apology by his detractors – on account of the fact that the drug boss who was imprisoned in Mexico managed to escape.

Does he think those two morons who escaped from an upstate New York prison last month somehow allow him to score political points against some other group? Or is it just as irrelevant a point as anything related to Joaquin Guzman.

SANTORUM: Looking for his political niche

Or is all of this just more cheap political rhetoric of the sort that IS the inherent problem with our political system these days?

Although I don’t take Trump’s poll lead at all seriously.

FOR ONE THING, it is early in the process. There also are so many candidates in that Republican primary.

Which is why a 15 percent support total (which is all Trump can claim) is enough for him to be “the leader” at this point in time. It’s also possible that those people in the 15 percent are the only ones who will ever support the idea of a president who probably thinks he can remodel the White House and rename it “Trump Mansion.”

 

GUZMAN: Nobody owes Trump an apology

They’re also probably the people who actually bothered to watch the Miss USA pageant Sunday night; living in their own world and pretending that Trump didn’t say anything out of the ordinary.

As though the fact that the pageant wasn’t on a national network and had to settle for being viewed on an obscure cable TV channel wasn’t evidence enough – some people are just way too eager to live in their own world and think the rest of us have to live there subordinate to them.

NOT THAT THE GOP is alone in playing its political games with these issues. My e-mail inbox has been getting flooded with its share of messages such as, “Trump’s ridiculous, offensive ideas (and the Republicans who agree with them”).

The real point of those messages is to encourage us to donate money to the Democratic National Committee, or other allied groups, to bolster their own election efforts. After all, what good is a “President Clinton” or whomever if they run into a Congress determined to vote “no” on anything they desire?



CLINTON: The beneficiary?

Such as the kind of people who fall into the “15 percent” and would be inclined to sympathize with Trump’s business interests over the concerns of the people.

Which may be what Trump really hopes to achieve by running for office – being able to tell the president what he should do is better than having to hold the office and deal with all its inherent stresses and frustrations.

  -30-

What a batch of bunk!

I realize the kind of people who actually show up for Election Night campaign parties to hear (live and in-person) the victory or concession speeches of political candidates are the types who like to be fed the political equivalent of Pablum.

Yet as I listened on the radio to the speeches made respectively by Mitt Romney (upon his presidential primary victory Tuesday in Illinois) and Rick Santorum (who lost yet again), I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of people these were who were getting so worked up over the trite trash being spewed by both candidates for president.

ROMNEY WAS LIVING it up while speaking before a gathering in northwest suburban Chicago, being able to claim a “victory” in President Barack Obama’s home state.

Of course, the fact that all this means is that he gained significant suburban support without really impacting the rest of Illinois means his “victory” isn’t likely translate into Electoral College delegates from the Land of Lincoln in the Nov. 6 general election.

Yet he was in his glory in going on a rant about how Obama is damaging our nation by pursuing policies that inhibit business interests from being able to advance themselves.

After all, they’d be able to create more jobs if only they didn’t have to comply with all those pesky regulatory guidelines that are meant to protect the environment on behalf of the public.

PERSONALLY, I FOUND his attempt at giving a history “lesson” to be the most lame aspect of his speech. He tried citing several moments in history that “wouldn’t have happened” if a “President Obama” were in office at that moment.

The lightbulb would have been banned, and the Wright Brothers would have been cited for stirring up excess dust when they first invented what evolved into the airplane.



An environmental crime? Only in the mind of Mitt Romney



Meanwhile, the crowd cheered and applauded – lapping up the nonsense political talk about as eagerly as a dog with no sense that drinks from the toilet bowl because he (or she) doesn’t know any better.

Personally, I found the rhetoric to be absurd – although since I was driving an automobile at the time I had to focus my attention on the road ahead rather than start screaming rants at Romney’s persona.

WHICH NOW SHIFTS its focus away from Illinois – Louisiana is next. Just as quickly as the Republicans swarmed over our state (except for Chicago proper), they will now neglect us.

We were a cheap fling for them, and once we “put out” with our presidential delegates (Romney gained a significant number because his campaign was better structured) we get cast aside.

That literally was the feeling I sensed from the speech given by Rick Santorum (which I also heard on the car radio).

For it seems that Santorum couldn’t wait to leave our state. He gave his Illinois primary concession speech from Gettysburg, Pa., and going on-and-on about how glad he was to be at home.

BUT WHILE ROMNEY’S rhetoric offended my sensibilities of truth, Santorum just gave me a chuckle.

I particularly enjoyed his comment about how he “won” the bulk of votes in Southern Illinois, central Illinois and western Illinois. Or, as he put it, the parts of Illinois where, “conservatives and Republicans populate.”

By that line of logic, the 1994 general election in Illinois wasn’t bad because Democrats continued to dominate Cook County – even if they lost the rest of the state and we got stuck for two years with a Republican-dominated state government that pushed an ideological agenda that targeted Chicago interests.

It would have been nonsense 18 years ago, and is nonsense now.

TALK ABOUT TURNING “defeat” into “Victory!!!” I only wish I could have been in the company of a Romney-ite (or should we call them Mitt-men?) to hear what they thought of that rhetorical flourish.

And I’m pretty sure that sane people (a.k.a., the real majority) will be thankful that yet another Election Day has come and gone.

Only 231 more “shopping” days until the next one.

  -30-

EXTRA: No real ‘lecshun surprises

The political status quo was maintained in Chicago. That’s about the best way I can think to describe the results of all those races beyond the Republican presidential primary (which most Chicago voters could have cared less about).

ROEMER: 215 Chicagoans voted for this man

Although for the record, 25,630 Chicago residents voted for Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. Some 11,510 city residents voted for Rick Santorum. All of which are insignificant compared to the 236,544 votes (with 27 precincts still to be counted) that Obama received for his unchallenged Democratic Party nomination.

HECK, THERE WERE 215 Chicagoans who voted for former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer’s bid – even though he long-ago said he would seek the presidency through a third-party effort instead of using the Republican Party.

But back to the other offices, which for many city residents were the “real” reason for bothering to cast a ballot on Tuesday.

Patrick D. Thompson finished third in his bid for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. But since there are three vacant seats, that means he won. Which means many people can say they helped the next generation Daley family member (he has uncles Rich, Bill and John, along with grandpa Dick) get his first electoral position.

There also are those who are upset that state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, could possibly win on Tuesday, considering that he got busted by federal prosecutors for allegedly taking a bribe.

IT’S NOT THAT anybody really wants Smith to remain in office. It just means that when he does eventually have to go, it will be the Democratic Party establishment (the same ones that picked Smith as a fill-in last year when Annazette Collins got a “promotion” to the Illinois state Senate) that picks his replacement.

That is what those West Side voters were saying with their support for Smith.

Speaking of the state Legislature, the Illinois Senate gets an athlete who might be able to give their softball team (which plays an annual game against the Illinois House of Representatives) a jolt.

Napoleon Harris of Flossmoor got the Democratic nomination for the seat being abandoned by retiring state Sen. (and Rev.) James Meeks, D-Chicago. As of now, there is no Republican opponent. We’re talking the same Harris who played professional football with (among others) the Oakland Raiders and Minnesota Vikings. He might not be an athletic “immortal,” but he’s only 33. He’s definitely in better shape physically than 99 percent of the population.

THEN, THERE IS Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., whom it seems will get to return to Washington – despite the people who were desperate to believe that he was scandal-ridden and too tainted by "Rod Blagojevich" and "sex" to be taken seriously.

Debbie Halvorson (who herself served a two-year term in Congress and wanted to return to Washington) was hoping that the extension of that far South Side and surrounding suburb district into Will County would create so many disgruntled voters that she would win the Democratic primary.

For the record, Will County voters in that district went 61 percent for Halvorson, compared to 39 percent for Jackson. Yet that translated only into 2,686 voters. Nearly as many Will County voters (2,181) picked Republican Brian Woodworth to be their nominee – and Jackson’s token opponent come Nov. 6.

There are stray wards in Chicago that could overcome that vote margin. This really was a district whose composition was rigged in Jackson’s favor.

  -30-

It’s election time in Land of Lincoln; Puerto Rico steals candidate attention

The timing of the primary election cycle is playing like a sick joke, for those with an interest in the Republican side of the equation.

ROMNEY: He should be Ill. favorite



I write that because I can’t help notice the proximity of the timing of Illinois’ primary on Tuesday with the caucuses being held in Puerto Rico on Sunday.

THE REALITY OF this year’s election cycle is that no Republican candidate is going to get significant Latino support. I’m sure there is a part of the GOP candidate mentality that wishes they could skip the Caribbean island commonwealth altogether.

That would allow them to focus on Illinois – the Midwestern state with the most electoral votes and with so many delegates at stake that a victory here would be the game-changer.

A Romney victory (and he does have the superior campaign structure in this state, which means something in terms of turning out the vote in years when no candidate is truly inspiring to the people) could just about put this thing away and make it obvious that Romney is the political equivalent of The Borg.

“Resistance is futile.” He will be the nominee, no matter how much the hard-core ideologues of the Republican Party try to fight it. And if you don’t get the reference, find a Star Trek-geek to explain it to you.

ON THE OTHER hand, a Santorum victory here (he has won other Midwestern states such as Minnesota and Iowa) could be the blow that makes it clear the personal contempt that many Republican voters feel for Romney will overcome his campaign structure. Which sounds too much like a dream, to me.

Yet Romney could only make his morning breakfast appearance at a restaurant in suburban Rosemont, before having to catch an airplane at nearby O’Hare International Airport to get his buttocks to Puerto Rico so he can try to appeal to at least a few voters there.

SANTORUM: Will cornfields,Egypt propel to Ill.win?



I’m sure he will come back to Illinois before Tuesday, although I’m also convinced he would have rather stayed here and focused on a place where he could win some significant support.

Instead, Romney and the other Republican dreamers are having to present the image of being everywhere – even a place that will be hostile turf for their political desires.

WE ALL SAW how Rick Santorum handled himself earlier this week in Puerto Rico when he practically told the island natives they’d better learn English if they want him to take their dreams of statehood seriously.

Which is why Santorum spent his Friday in the Chicago suburbs around Arlington Heights, and plans to come back to Southern Illinois during the weekend to appeal to the portion of voters who are taking his campaign desires seriously.

He’s already done Puerto Rico damage to his campaign, and I’d be shocked if he returned to the island. Which means Romney may well take those Sunday caucuses – which just aren’t going to add much in the way of real support to his campaign. But it would hurt him with Latinos elsewhere if he didn't make the effort to campaign there.

Now I realize that a truly professional campaign is capable of making superficial appearances in a lot of places while giving out the impression that it is connecting with ALL of the people.

BUT THIS IS one that is just spread a little too thin, and I wonder how superficial it makes of the connection that is being established with the would-be voters?

In fact, there’s probably one place that won’t see much in the way of campaign activity these days, and that’s the city proper.

Chicago remains “Obama Country” because its overwhelming number of votes for the Democratic Party candidates will be the reason that Illinois falls into the Obama column in the Nov. 6 general election.

Which is why we got Obama himself back in Chicago on Friday.

HE WAS IN The Loop for a political fundraiser, and managed to collect about $2 million to bolster his own campaign fund.

HANKS: A long way from ""Big"

I understand that the people who actually showed up at the event (and those who were at a separate event that cost $10,000 per person to enter) got to see a new campaign video narrated by actor Tom Hanks, and one that Romney went out of his way to dismiss as superficial. It probably was.

Just as much as any future statements will be that may be made by such entertainment personas as Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ted Nugent.

I’m sure all Obama really cares about is that his “celebrity” connection got him those big bucks. Listening to Romney’s complaint comes across as petty jealousy that his entertainers can’t help him come up with the same kind of campaign cash.

  -30-

What lesson did we learn from ’10?

It seems there will be a significance to the upcoming primary elections to be held in Illinois some eight days from now – we’re going to get a bit more evidence as to which election from 2010 tells the true story about Illinois.

SANTORUM: The downstate preference

For if it is the general election from that year, then Mitt Romney likely is safe and will get a significant number of delegates to add to his national count toward his presidential dreams.

BUT IF IT turns out to be that year’s primary, then perhaps we’re going to be just like fellow Midwestern states like Missouri, Minnesota and Kansas and back Rick Santorum.

Heck, he may well claim to be a “favorite son” candidate on March 20 on account of the fact that he did his last year of high school at Carmel High in suburban Mundelein.

Not that I really think the one-time senator from Pennsylvania has all that much in common with Illinoisans as a whole. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that Chicago Tribune-commissioned poll published during the weekend that shows Illinois’ Republicans split, once again, along regional lines.

Those people who live in the Chicago suburbs who align with the Republican Party as a mechanism to keep Chicago proper from running roughshod over them seem to be more in line with one-time Massachusetts Governor (and Michigan native) Romney.

BUT WHEN YOU venture out beyond Joliet or Kankakee into that land known as “downstate,” it seems that Santorum has significant appeal (and sex advice columnist Dan Savage had best never set foot there, because the natives likely would do unspeakable harm to him for what he has done to the Santorum name).

According to the Tribune, their poll shows Romney 39 percent to 27 percent for Santorum in the outer suburbs that comprise the collar counties. In Cook County, Romney has a 39 to 30 percent lead.

ROMNEY: Suburbs strong enough?



Although one should keep in mind that Cook County has become so overwhelmingly Democratic that a 39 percent support total here does not necessarily translate into many votes for Mitt – and is the reason why Illinois as a whole will swing for Barack Obama come the Nov. 6 general elections.

But when one ventures into the parts of the state that don’t associate themselves with Chicago (the ones that Mayor Rahm Emanuel was trying to appeal to last week when he visited Peoria), there isn’t as much use for Mitt.

SANTORUM HAS, ACCORDING to the Tribune, a 35 percent to 29 percent lead over Romney in those 96 counties. In fact, Santorum has already started campaigning in the far southern end of Illinois – which is odd to those of us of a certain age because we can remember when the statewide political scene consisted of Democrats taking Cook County and a bulk of Southern Illinois counties, and the Republicans taking the rest of the state.

That’s not the way it works any longer – although the fact that the greater Chicago area as a whole has grown significantly is what has kept relevant the Democratic organization in Cook County and Chicago.

The bottom line is that the primary Election Day maps we’re going to see on March 21 (the ones colored county-by-county with various shades to indicate who won where) are going to resemble the 2010 maps.

A large swath of one shade (whichever color gets used to designate Santorum) will make Illinois look ever-so-unified – except for a tiny blotch of a contrasting color up at the far northeastern corner of the state.

THERE MAY BE also be an identical blotch on the southwestern edge (representing the two Illinois counties that are the spill-over of the St. Louis metropolitan area) for Romney. Then again, maybe there won’t.

But let’s not forget the 2010 primary, where that swath across the state was enough for Bill Brady of Bloomington to win the Republican nomination for Illinois governor over Kirk Dillard of suburban Hinsdale.

I’m sure that’s what the Santorum campaign is dreaming of – believing that “the people” will assert their will and give their preferred candidate a victory over the better-organized and funded campaign of Mitt Romney.

Unless it turns out that the general election from that year is more significant – where those blotches at the northeastern corner represented the overwhelming number of votes for Pat Quinn that came out of Chicago and suburban Cook that the whole rest of the state just could not overcome.

LINCOLN: Would this GOP push him back to Whigs?



FOR WHAT IT’S worth, the Tribune poll says Romney wins, 35 percent to 31 percent for Santorum (which is close enough that it falls within the poll’s margin of error).

So who’s to say just what’s going to happen come next week – other than to say that it is highly unlikely that Newt Gingrich will get any significant amount of support (only 12 percent, according to that poll) in the Land of Lincoln.

Which is kind of a shame. Because I can’t help but think that Lincoln himself had enough of a sense of humor that he’d get a chuckle at the idea of a “President Newt” and the comic relief he’d provide (albeit unknowingly) on the campaign trail.

  -30-

Midwest U.S. “immune” to Romney charm? Or will we “clinch” it for him?

It will be intriguing to see the next pair of states where voters will express their opinions about which Republican should get the chance to face off against President Barack Obama.

Not only do they provide significant amounts of drinking water, the Great Lakes states voters also tend to influence who wins presidential elections.

For we’re talking about a pair of our sister states at work. No more of these Anglos out west who like to think they’re descended from the original settlers or these Southerners who are a breed in-and-of themselves.

FOR ON TUESDAY, voters in Missouri will participate in elections, and there will be caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado.

I couldn’t help but notice a New York Times commentary whose point was that the Midwestern U.S. was the one region of the country where Mitt Romney hadn’t managed to win anything (his Iowa “victory” by 8 votes is now believed to be a “loss” by 23).

The newpaper seems to think that news fit to print includes speculation that those two states could provide victories for another campaign (perhaps even Rick Santorum) that could make the GOP a suddenly-competitive fight all over again.

I’m not sure I buy into that theory. But I am curious to see how competitive the campaigns are in those states – particularly since they are ones where people can draw some comparisons to the types of people who vote in Illinois.

SINCE IT IS uncertain whether there will still be competitive primaries by the time Illinois comes about on March 20 (despite Newt Gingrich’s promise to pull a Hillary Clinton of ’08 and stay in the campaign to the bitter end), Tuesday might be the closest we get to seeing how we’d vote – for those of us who would be inclined to pick an “R” ballot, rather than a “D,” for Election Day.

For the record, Minnesota has been one of those states in recent presidential election cycles where Republican candidates have been competitive, but ultimately lost out to Democratic alternatives.

Missouri is just the opposite – a place where the GOP picks have won, but by narrow margins. Close enough, in fact, that I’m sure Democrats there are optimistic that they can ultimately put the state in line with Obama come the Nov. 6 general elections.

Will either state give any of the GOP dreamers a large-enough margin of support to be able to claim a definitive victory? Will Romney finally be able to come to a state where there is a mix of urban and rural (rather than domination by one faction or the other) and be able to claim a solid margin of support that would justify the belief that he really is the inevitable Republican pick to run for president?

I WONDER IF Missouri could be the place that could finally give him that 50 percent-plus vote that he so desperately needs to get in a state. For as long as all of his opponents gather more votes combined than he does, it doesn’t matter how Mitt spins it.

The truth will be a political party whose hard-core wants Anybody But Mitt to run for president – no matter how laughable any of those “anybodys” would appear to be in a head-to-head campaign against Obama.

I’m also going to be curious to see what voter turnout is like in the states of the Great Lakes region of the nation. Tuesday could be our first glimpse on what real Midwesterners think about this whole situation, particularly in Missouri. I can’t help but think that caucuses – while cutesy – only tell us what the most hard-core of political geeks think about an election; rather than real people.

For I recall the Obama campaign of 2008 being one that unified the Midwestern U.S. We all came together to back the senator from Illinois for president over the guy from Arizona whom even his own political party wasn’t really that enthused about (just like this year, it seems).

HECK, EVEN INDIANA fell into the Obama column for the general election that year – which was a first since 1964, the year that Barry Goldwater (another Arizonan) did his ideological number on the nation.

I expect the Hoosier State will revert back to its GOP leaning ways come Nov. 6. But can a Republican presidential hopeful manage to split up the rest of the Midwest? Or will a sense of “unity” for a regional counterpart remain in place?

If one of them can stir up the interest of Midwesterners and get people to the polls, then perhaps the Republican challenger (whichever one of the GOP goofs it turns out to be) can manage to make Obama an observer on Inauguration Day in 2013.

Otherwise, we’ll get “four more years” of Obama, and we’ll see how long it will take (personally, I’ll place my bet on “one week or less”) after that date for Republicans to shift into a mode where they try to “Impeach Obama!” (just like Earl Warren) during a second term in office.

  -30-

Political chaos! That’s GOP these days

What a mess the Republican primaries for president seem to have become.

ROMNEY: Blowing 'front runner' status

I woke up Thursday to news reports that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney didn’t really win the Iowa caucuses (although the confusion and technicalities that are involved may really be evidence that the caucus concept itself is flawed).

BUT I CAN’T say that former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania should think that highly of his new win. Because Romney got the benefits of being the “winner” for a couple of weeks and the momentum that goes with it.

I couldn’t help but note the tone of condescension in the statement Romney issued that congratulated Santorum on his “victory.”

This confusion from Iowa came at the same point that Texas Gov. Rick Perry accepted reality and dropped out. He didn’t even wait to get his clock cleaned in the South Carolina primary coming up Saturday before deciding it was time to return home.

That has many of the political observers convinced that former Sen. Newt Gingrich of Georgia (who now lives in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) is going to become the recipient of the ABM vote.

ALL THOSE PEOPLE who want Anybody But Mitt as the Republican presidential nominee (because they think he’s not enough of an ideologue for their taste) could whomp on Romney if they do solidify themselves behind one lone candidate.

PERRY: Accepting reality?



Yet before Gingrich gets all excited about his chances, he’s having to defend himself from what he anticipated would be an attack by one of his ex-wives – who gave an interview to ABC News.

Supposedly, the man who would like to think he stands for Christian morals told wife number two that he wanted either a divorce – or permission to cheat (a.k.a., an “open marriage”).

Honestly, I can’t figure who is suffering the most. It’s like these candidates are determined to see who can batter themselves up more than anyone else. It’s like the Republican electorate is determined to put forth the most bloodied-and-battered nominee to take on Barack Obama – who gets to spend the next few months raising the millions of dollars that could enable him to bury the GOP nominee come the Nov. 6 elections.

IF I DIDN’T know better, I’d think it was some sort of conspiracy by the Obama camp to ensure that he gets “four more years!” of residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Or maybe this is Ron Paul at work. Because as much as I personally don’t think he has the temperament to be president, I have to confess that he is starting to look like the most rational excuse of a human being in the running for the Republican nomination for U.S. president.

In fact, it has me wondering if he will be the “big” winner of all this chaos taking place. Just the fact that his name isn’t being associated with something bizarre could make him the person that people who pick a Republican ballot cast their vote for.

“Vote for Paul. The boring guy!”

THAT IS WHAT this election cycle has devolved down to, and we’re not even past voters in two of the 50 states (along with the District of Columbia and various territories) having their say.

PAUL: The 'sane' candidate



This certainly won’t be an election cycle remembered for “hope” and “change” (which are noble goals, even though nitwits like Chris Christie and Sarah Palin try mocking them) and people inspired to vote for “A Better America.”

The Nov. 6 general election was always destined to become the election cycle in which people cast their vote for the candidate they despise the least.

Now, it seems that the primaries (including our own on March 20) will take on the same tone. Which doesn’t do a thing for making me want to vote.

  -30-

Romney treats shots off the foul pole as tape-measure home run blasts!!!!!

Time magazine caught my attention – what with a cover showing a close-up of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s face and the headline, “So you like me now?”

Which struck me as downright absurd. There may be those political pundits who are trying to claim that the former Massachusetts governor is running away with the political battles that will get him the Republican presidential nomination for the Nov. 6 elections.

BUT REAL PEOPLE are more inclined to see what is happening and realize that no one is “pull(ing) ahead of the pack” – which is how Time chose to characterize Romney’s campaign performances in a subhead to the same magazine cover.

Maybe it’s because I see a candidate who took 25 percent support of the caucuses in Iowa and 39 percent of the voter support in the New Hampshire primary – and see a few states coming up where the conservative ideologues of the world typically do well in elections.

What I see is a candidate who had overwhelming majorities of voters wanting somebody else, ANYBODY ELSE, except for Mitt. That sentiment is running strong. If anything, IT is the dominant theme of Campaign ’12.

We have the ideologues who have had their hang-ups ever since Election Day 2008 who have been biding their time for the day when someone can come in and erase the memory of Barack Obama as president.

THOSE ARE NOT a compromising batch of people. The last thing they’re ever going to do is get excited about the thought of Mitt Romney.

That is why it did not shock me to learn that on Saturday in Texas, a group of ideologically-motivated political people came out in support of Rick Santorum. The one-time Pennsylvania senator who has a record of being more than willing to spew against people who aren’t just like himself may well be the kind of candidate they want.

In short, they’re trying to pressure all the other candidates who remain in the various elections to drop out. Because then, the ABM vote will combine into an overwhelming majority – instead of all those “Anybody But Mitt” votes being split among so many candidates that Romney’s quarter-of-the Republican electorate is large enough to “win” on the primary election days.

Of course, I don’t expect to see those other candidates drop out. They’re a stubborn batch who probably are convinced of their own moral superiority – even though when I look at them, I see a batch of blowhards (and no, I have never succumbed to the appeal of Ron Paul).

SO ROMNEY MAY well “win” these primaries and wind up getting the nomination to run against Obama. Although I’m not convinced of the line of rhetoric that claims he’s a political “moderate” who is the only GOPer who can possibly win the general election.

I just can’t help but see a candidate who creates a sense of apathy among the Republican faithful that will be more intense than what occurred in ’08 with John McCain.

And if, somehow, the GOP voters were to somehow nominate one of their ideologues as some sort of hard-line approach by which they take over and the rest of us have to shut up and like it, all I can say to that theory is that those ideologues must be using some pretty hard-core drugs in order to believe such nonsense.

I couldn’t help but notice a pair of reports from the Gallup Organization – which on Sunday had Barack Obama with a 46 percent “favorable” rating, compared to 48 percent “unfavorable.”

BUT A STUDY released late last week said that 46 percent of people surveyed want a federal government with Barack Obama to have more influence over its direction, compared to only 42 percent that would want a Republican Congress to set the tone of public policy.

The man holding the presidency is not as unpopular as the ideologues want to believe, and most people who are distrustful of Obama these days are distrustful of all political people in general – even the Republicans.

So I can’t help but laugh at the people who are trying to portray Mitt Romney as some sort of GOP steamroller and political force. It just isn’t so!

I can’t help but think we’re going to be getting a laugh out of that Time magazine cover come autumn, and Romney may wind up making the McCain campaign, in retrospect, look competitive by comparison.

IF ANYTHING, IT has me wondering if somewhere up in the cosmos, there is some force looking out for Obama.

For this is the guy who got elected to the Illinois state Senate by successfully knocking an incumbent opponent off the ballot, then went up to the U.S. Senate by seeing both his primary and general election opponents implode.

Seeing the possibility that history will record that Obama ran for president against two GOP nominees despised by their own party faithful just seems too ironic. For it has me wondering about those ideologues – some of whom go about thinking they’re spreading “God’s will” with their activism.

Maybe they are – if you believe that whatever Supreme being exists doesn’t object to “Four more years!!!” of Barack Obama and is using the ideologues to “take down” his challengers.

  -30-