THE SECOND TIME AS FARCE
Yeah, this Dave Weigel post is clever:
Haven't We Lived Through This Primary Before?
I'm thinking of a Republican primary. It starts with a candidate (John McCain/Mitt Romney) who ran once before, came in second place, and won over the party's elite class without winning over its base. Other candidates, understandably unwilling to accept this, line up: An under-funded social conservative (Mike Huckabee/Rick Santorum), an elder statesman who's walked to the altar three times (Rudy Giuliani/Newt Gingrich), a libertarian who wants to bring back the gold standard (Ron Paul/Ron Paul).
The conservative base is displeased. In the year before the primary, it pines for a perfect candidate. At the end of summer, on (September 5/August 13), it gets him: (Fred Thompson/Rick Perry). The dream candidate immediately rises to the top of national polls, but collapses after lazy, distaff debate performances. When the primaries arrive, he's in single digits and reduced to attacking the front-runners. But in Iowa, he does just well enough to justify staying in the race....
This goes on, all the way to "The Republican base looks at the wreckage and shudders. It can never allow this to happen ever again."
BooMan tries to continue the story past the primaries:
... Which means that Mitt Romney will be looking for a running mate that can create the same kind of excitement as Sarah Palin without all the downsides....
Well, I agree with that -- I've long felt that Romney is going to pick the most right-wing, Fox-viewer-exciting, probably Jesus-y candidate he can find who doesn't alarm the millionaire mainstream pundits. Which means not Allen West or Michele Bachmann, though quite possibly Marco Rubio or Chris Christie. (My long-shot pick? Santorum. Really, don't rule him out: he has some neoconnish foreign-policy chops, he's a favorite of the God-botherers, and he doesn't have to be all that exciting because he'd be matched up against Joe Biden. And a Santorum pick would say to the wingnut purists, "Do you think I'm ideologically suspect? Hey, suspect this, schmucks.")
And then the question ultimately becomes: But didn't that strategy fail for McCain? So will Romney go in another direction? Or is the continuation of the parallelism inevitable, all the way to November?
Here's what worries me: The '08 election took place with voters thinking everything sucks in America. The '12 election takes place with voters thinking everything sucks in America. The '08 election took place with Democrats controlling Congress, and Republicans bottling up everything Democrats want to do from the White House. The '12 election takes place with Democrats controlling the White House, and Republicans bottling up everything Democrats want to do from Congress.
But voters always blame the party in the White House when they think everything sucks -- don't they? Is that where the parallel breaks down? Or can Obama really run against Congress and make the real parallel 1948 -- especially if there are multiple third-party candidates?
We'll see.
10 comments:
Did Weigel mention the token black (Cain/Keyes) who is convinced most blacks are brainwashed?
Seriously though, the Republicans are still to blame for the economy, both through their 2001-08 policies and their just-say-no strategy. And they still have no strategy for fixing the economy except, "Trust me. Just a few more tax breaks and everything will be fine."
Yep, that's about right. My guess is Romney picks either Rubio or Christie, either of whom could prove disastrous in wildly different ways. Or maybe he digs up a female GOPer who, unlike Palin, isn't a booger-eating moron, to lock up the all-important PUMA vote. Kelly Ayotte maybe?
There's no way Romney picks Christie for VP. Romney is an immaculately coiffed, tall, well-built dude. He's gonna stand up there alongside a fat, sweaty, shouty guy from fucking New Jersey (N.B.: I've lived almost my entire life in New Jersey and I know how the state is perceived, nationally) who's gonna grab his crotch and probably wind up giving at least one crowd the finger before the campaign's over? No way in hell. Rubio, maybe, because the Republicans are just dumb enough to convince themselves that support from Cubans (about as right-wing as they come) is the same thing as support from Latinos as a bloc (hint: IT AIN'T). Either way, my prediction stands: It's gonna be Romney, and he's gonna lose.
Re Santorum, I don't think he'd accept Romney's offer of a VP slot if it came. I think his theological convictions run deep enough that he probably bears real animus toward Romney just for being a Mormon. Ambition would take a back seat to faith in that case, is my bet.
Or can Obama really run against Congress and make the real parallel 1948 -- especially if there are multiple third-party candidates?
If ever there were a time when running against Congress might work, now--with approval ratings for Congress running somewhere between those for syphillis and Carrot Top--would be that time.
He's gonna stand up there alongside a fat, sweaty, shouty guy from fucking New Jersey (N.B.: I've lived almost my entire life in New Jersey and I know how the state is perceived, nationally) who's gonna grab his crotch and probably wind up giving at least one crowd the finger before the campaign's over?
Well, he just did a couple of days ago.
You really may be right about Rubio, though. As for Santorum, sanctimonious Catholics like hanging out with sinners and praying for them. It ups the feeling of moral superiority/identification of themselves with Jesus.
I agree with Bro. Freeman - it'll be Mitty, who will lose. If Dana Carvey pulls out his Poppy Bush routine & tweaks it just a tad for a Mitty fitting, the loss is doubly guaranteed.
Another reason why I don't think Christie will be the #2 who'll go down with Mitty: picking CC would give the D's a gratis and likely bona fide issue, in the form of physical fitness to handle the #1 job in case of. I'd guess it would take a very tame doc to certify that Christie's just tip-top ready for the demands of the Presidency.
I wonder about Nikki Haley as a longshotter for Mitty's #2. A woman; a Southerner; non-Anglo-Saxon, & so far as I know now, able to make a complete sentence. And she endorsed him, when in SC it might well have been a safer move not to.
VA Governor Bob McDonnell as VP.
Book him, Danno!
He's a Teabagging wingnut with great Dominionist Christian bona fide's, a Chamber of Commerce favorite, and will enrapture every aspect of the Republicans base.
Bet the house on it!
I think McDonnell has an excellent chance.
I think Haley has a shot, but I read once that early in her career she claimed to attend both a Protestant church and a Sikh church. Can't have two people on the ticket that the Bible-thumpers on't think are "real" Christians, can you?
And I don't know about what BH said -- I say Dana Carvey as Ron Paul, Will Ferrell (or maybe Chevy Chase) as Mitt.
I also have a real, out of the box, dark horse pick (no pun intended):
Former OK Congressman J.C. Watts
He's a former College QB, is young at 55, and as a black Congressman, he held up his end of the devil's bargain pretty well. He's been out of politics for awhile, which is a plus. He's got a bit of baggage in that in HS he got a white girl pregnant, they decided not to get married, but his Uncle did adopt the child. He's got a family now, and does TV. He's telegenic and pretty bright. And, as a black College football hero, he very well might take some votes away from Obama.
Like I said, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the box.
But if it's Mitt, Watts might humanize him and the party. The drawback - he may be insufficiently insane.
Post a Comment