Party politics

The republican national committee chairman, Michael Steele, recently stated that Mitt Romney lost the GOP primary stating that "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism." (article) It's sad that an intelligent and capable leader (with an ample dose of conservative policies) did not win the primary because of his religion, especially when he likely would have fared better against Obama than McCain did. His grasp of economic issues alone would have been a boost for the GOP party. Being a moderate (AKA a democrat in republican clothing or republocrate?) I'm not as annoyed with how the primary turned out as I am with two things:

1. that Steele felt he had to issue an apology, and
2. that primary elections often don't promote winnable candidates.

First, everyone knows Mitt lost the primary because of his religion. It doesn't take a genius to realize this. Yet, Steele issued the following fluffy statement through the GOP spokeswoman: "Chairman Steele regrets the way his comments have been interpreted. Chairman Steele believes Mitt Romney is a respected and influential voice in the Republican Party and looks to his leadership and ideas to help move our party and our nation in the right direction." In other words, Steele is sorry that the truth hurts a respected voice in the party. Can we get out of 1st grade here? Oh yeah, this is politics, so we can't.
Second, primary voting often elevates the candidate that has paid their party dues rather than the candidate that can beat the other side. This is not just a GOP issue. Look at John Kerry, for example, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and then when Bush was being assailed for his actions, Kerry comes along and gets spanked by a less popular Bushy. McCain, whom I greatly respect for his gumption, moderation, and values, could not and did not match up with the youthful, intelligent and charismatic Obama. I don't see why parties can't figure out the candidate that has the best chance of winning the election over a party favorite? Wouldn't it be better for conservatives to have a less beloved conservative in the White House than a democrate? And vice versa, wouldn't it be better for liberals to do the same. I think democrates got it right with Obama, Hillary had too much bagagge (she was a woman and more importantly she is/was Bill Clinton's woman) to woo voters from the right or the middle like Obama did.

Here are some follow up comments.