My friends … It is extremely difficult to believe that one of the two major parties in our great land, the oldest democracy in the world, is plying us with performances like the following …
You’ve probably seen this: Ladies and gentlemen, your current GOP frontrunner and his unstoppable campaign juggernaut. Smoke ’em if you got ’em.
And then there’s former front-runner Rick Perry’s magically delicious performance in New Hampshire …
As for the other, smoother alternative … here’s George Will on Mitt Romney:
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
… Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
It is to chuckle. Yes, George … conservatism has come to precisely this.
Put it this way: If Mitt Romney had ever been consistent in anything, he’d be running as a pro-choice, pro-health care, pro-stimulus, anti-global-warming moderate Republican from a blue state. He’d be electable in a general election! But he’d never get that far because GOP primary voters don’t want that — nor would Mr. Will, for that matter.
Mr. Perry has a history of governance as well, which doesn’t always square with his conservative macho-man swagger: He has a soft spot for children of illegal immigrants, and would do anything for a buck, or someone with bucks. And it turns out he’s completely hopeless — or worse– on TV, as the above video indicates.
Tim Pawlenty tried to do the full Mitt, but that market niche was full. Chris Christie wisely decided it wasn’t time, as did Mitch Daniels. Each of them would have been found lacking by the GOP base, since they’ve actually had to govern. The folks who would most fit the current GOP mold are hard-right governors Scott Walker, Rick Scott and John Kasich, each of whom are fairly-to-wildly unpopular.
And that leaves us with a misanthropic former pizza CEO with no governing experience, no message discipline, no intellectual curiosity to speak of, and a sketchy past.
The current GOP drove the viable candidates (including RealMitt®, the northeastern moderate) out of the race. Those voters don’t want a winner; they want affirmation.
Howard Dean’s scream looks soberly presidential compared to Perry and Cain. Go, Adapta-Mitt!
that the media will do to any of them what they did to Dean after that incident?
Here’s a hypothesis:
Perhaps the ’08 election was realigning after all. The Republicans are engaging in the classic minority-party move of doubling down on the wing (wanting affirmation rather than victory, as Charlie put it). This forces GOP nominees to be either (a) card-carrying wingers (Cain, Perry, Bachmann) or (b) moderates that need to pass in winger drag and as a result come across as prevaricating and inconsistent (Romney, Pawlenty). Neither type of candidate is particularly appealing. And if the GOP can’t beat Obama given the current economic numbers, then they may be in far deeper trouble in the macro view than anyone seems to be realizing at the moment. In other words, the view that the pendulum had finally gone as right-ward as it could go (over 40 years from 1968 to 2008) and was now swinging back may have been the correct one all along.
By the by, the two types of minority-party candidates? It explains most Dem candidates and visible leaders during the ’68-’08 era: (a) card-carrying wingers (McGovern, Kennedy, Mondale, Dukakis, Dean) and (b) moderates who have to lurch to the wing to silence the doubters there but as a result appear inconsistent (Gore, Kerry). This is not at all to equate the two sets of politicians, or the two parties — but there is a rough symmetry to how this often works.
Thoughts?