Arthur Christopher Schaper: Gabriel Gomez–An Anti-Tribute

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Arthur Christopher Schaper, GoLocalWorcester Guest MINDSETTER™

Gomez's loss isn't a matter of where he went wrong. According to Arthur Christopher Schaper, it's that he started wrong.

“With friends like these, who needs enemies?”

So goes the phrase for those who see their comrades as sometimes trustworthy, compared to enemies who are all-out clear about their convictions. Such is my feeling regarding Gabriel Gomez, the “New” or “Green” Republican. If Gomez is "new", I want the "old". If He represents green, then I see nothing but mold, not a movement to revamp the GOP in the Northeast. If the best that the Massachusetts GOP can do is push a lukewarm mish-mash of a candidate like Gomez, then they are as good as “dead”.

Gomez incorrectly argued that the Republican Party needs to change, to adopt positions more in line with the Democratic Party, like amnesty to reach out to Hispanics, and to play “gay-friendly”. His comments seem to have merit. In spite of an anemic economy, Romney’s endorsements from liberal papers, the unprecedented campaign donations, the unmitigated hatred for Obamacare, and the unprecedented number of Americans–forty-three million–on food stamps: Obama won. However, why is anyone surprised? The problem was not the party or the platform, but the person at the top of the ticket. Governor Romney pushed the Obamacare blueprint “Romneycare” on Massachusetts. A stone-cold Blue moderate from the Bay State soured many people. Romney registered a mere 22% from voters throughout the pre-primary season.

Consider that double-digit loser-Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum endured the Republican Presidential primary until April, 2012. 75% of primary voters (including me) did not like Willard Mitt “Self-deport” “47%” “Romneycare” Romney. As a reminder, the Republican Presidential field was weak, and even I was begging for a brokered convention and a dark horse candidate to emerge. Romney sucked, and he not only sucked the life out of the Presidential race, but he helped kill winnable Senate races in North Dakota, Montana, and even Missouri, where “legitimate rape" Akin could have revived his campaign, but for Romney’s feckless demands that he drop out. About Hispanics, Conservative Columnist Byron York ran the numbers following the unsettling defeat of “Moderate Mitt”. Even if Romney had taken in 44% of the Hispanic vote (as Bush did in 2004) or if he had taken in Obama-levels (71%!), he still would have lost. Romney did not lose just the Brown vote. He lost the White vote, which did not bother to vote.

While Gomez’ assessment of the Republican Party is all wrong, former Congressman Allen West shared with Rhode Island GOP members in Kingston a proper assessment. The Republican Party needs to stop adopting losers just because they are “next in line.” Republicans have to know their voice, establish their values, then get the votes. Gomez is photogenic, young, “anti-Markey”, I had shared. Gomez was a compelling speaker and debater, but even a fifth-grader could have demolished Markey. Unenviably, Gomez had a “Romney-like” inconsistent set of positions as one can think of (Romney with a tan).

How can a politician support free markets, yet at the same time believe in raising the minimum wage? Just two minutes of truthful insight into the lasting damage of minimum wage laws on minorities and youth, and the Republicans could score points on resisting such a foolish policy. He supports the construction of the Keystone pipeline. Great! Yet he also claims that climate change is a real threat, and that human beings cause it (where’s the evidence?), and humans need to stop spewing so much carbon. Should we stop breathing, then? Gomez could not have it both ways. Gomez chose to be liberal and contradictory on that issue, as well. He wants to lower taxes (he certainly slammed Markey on tax increased. But what to do when there are more takes than makers in a community? The Republicans have to prove that “welfare” is not in the best welfare of anyone, then provide examples of those who have escaped government dependency.

The biggest problem for the GOP is not the issues, but consistency. When state senator Scott Brown campaigned in 2010, he stood in clear opposition to the Obama administration (and Obamacare). He shook people’s hands outside even when it was raining. He connected with people: authentic and authoritative. He took the “People’s Seat” by five points. 2010 was a great year for Republicans because they stood for something. Even I got a tingle up my leg to see a Republican win in deep-blue Ol’ Mass. When Brown played the liberal card in 2012, trying to play centrist, he wasted time attacking the national party, and he lost by five points.

To the Republicans in the Northeast, the issue is not math, it’s not arithmetic, it’s simple “2 + 2= 4” consistency. Gomez backed Barack Obama in 2008. Gomez was a climate change comrade. He has not acknowledged the problems associated with gay marriage. Gomez was inconsistent. This issue of trust is crucial, since many Republicans have become Independents following their disgust with the Bush Administration’s “Big Government” conservatism (quite an Orwellian contradiction).

Romney was unbelievable, and Gomez was unbelievable too: Democratic, contradictory instead of a welcome contrast to Markey.

In effect, with Republicans like Gomez, who needs Democrats?

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Connect with him at [email protected] or @ArthurCSchaper. He can be found blogging at aschaper1.blogspot.com.