Tuesday, April 06, 2010


Matt Lewis, a right-winger who blogs at AOL's Politics Daily, has a suggestion for the Republicans regarding 2012:

...although this will undoubtedly sound premature to some, I believe that if Marco Rubio goes on to win the U.S. Senate seat in Florida in November, he should immediately think about running for president -- possibly in 2012.

... the experience factor has been utterly altered by the very man I'd like to see Rubio challenge in less than three years. Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton and John McCain after serving only a few years in the U.S. Senate....

... the same arguments for why Obama was right to take the plunge in 2008 could be made for why Rubio should run in 2012. Obama won for a variety of reasons, including that he had not been in the U.S. Senate long enough to have acquired the out-of-touch mentality that comes with serving in the most exclusive private club in America....

Similarly, Rubio would start off as a fresh face whom almost every conservative in America would already be invested in, to one degree or another....

It's an interesting idea -- but why the caveat that he should do this if he wins the Senate race this year? Wouldn't he be at an equally appealing candidate -- to his own party, at least -- if he ran after losing?

I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out. What does the GOP base regard as the biggest badge of honor? You know as well as I do: having been sabotaged and betrayed by evil LIEberals and quisling RINOs. In fact, several of the best-known contenders for 2012 seem to be wholly undeterred by their records of failure at the polls, presumably because they see their losses as marks of virtue. Rick Santorum lost his last Senate race by double digits, and yet he wants to be president; I assume he's going to argue that he was a victim of the evil Emanuel/Dean/netroots/Michael Moore anti-war juggernaut in his 2006 race. Sarah Palin lost badly as a running mate in 2008; I think she's going to argue that she was victimized by both sides -- by evil lying Democrats and by the despised RINO who clearly dragged her down when everyone knows she really, really would have won the election if she'd been running against B. Hussein Osama, you betcha.

Newt Gingrich will probably run even though he quit the House in disgrace; he'll probably argue that the betrayal of America by Bill Clinton's penis compelled him against his will to hold then then-president to such a high moral standard that even he himself couldn't meet it ... therefore his fall is all Clinton's fault.

Romney? Loser in 2008. Huckabee? Loser in 2008. They both lost to that crotchety fake-Republican from Arizona. Victims!

If Rubio loses to Charlie Crist this year, or loses in the general election, it'll have to be because he was screwed, betrayed, and shafted by sinister forces. It'll cleary be the fault of ... um ... ACORN. Or the liberal media. Or some America-hating force or other. Because everyone knows that all real Americans are teabaggers. Everyone knows that Rubio would get 100% of the vote if only real Americans were eligible to cast ballots.

So why should Rubio need to win first this year? In his party, he might be more appealing as a 2012 candidate if he loses.

No comments: