68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 01:58 pm
Quote:
The Wall Street Journal
APRIL 1, 2011
Who'll Be the GOP's Next Big Thing? All Republicans are excited about 2012. Few are excited about any of the candidates.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Ready! Set! Wait.

Ask any grass-roots Republican, and they will tell you that what gets them out of bed in the morning is the prospect of defeating President Barack Obama in 2012. Ask them who is going to do it, and be met with sigh.

The GOP presidential primary race is now—honestly—in early full swing. Candidates are filling out paperwork, snapping up operatives, and prepping for the first debate (just a few weeks away). There is a heady feeling that this Republican contest will prove the most unique in half a century: It boasts an unusually wide-open field and comes at a tipping point for both the party and the country.

All that's missing? Any clear voter enthusiasm for the obvious candidates. Until, or if, a candidate figures out how to become that object of inspiration, this could be a slow ride.

Yes, it's early. Then again, contenders ought to be concerned that even at this stage they've already earned some sticky labels. Mitt Romney: Unreliable. Newt Gingrich: Yesterday. Sarah Palin: Flighty. Tim Pawlenty: Boring. Mitch Daniels: Bush's guy. Jon Huntsman: Obama's guy. Haley Barbour: Southern guy.

These are crudely drawn caricatures. But they are also an acknowledgment that many in the field are starting with very real liabilities, ones the contenders must yet confront. Mr. Romney is going to have to address RomneyCare; Mr. Gingrich is going to have to address marital infidelities; Mr. Barbour is going to have to address the confederate flag. It's as if GOP voters know these discussions must happen and are already weary. They want a candidate who is 24/7 talking about ObamaCare, spending reform, and world leadership—not Bristol Palin's performance on "Dancing with the Stars."

It ought to be of concern to the presumptive field, too, that grass-roots and influential Republicans continue to spend most of their energy and daydreams on people who are either: a) not running—New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; b) were all but unknown a year ago—Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and pizza magnate Herman Cain; or c) might not even be Republican—Donald Trump.

The polls ought to be even more concerning for "known" candidates. It is one thing for Mr. Pawlenty or Mr. Daniels to be polling in the single digits; they are relatively new names. But what primary voter is unfamiliar with Mr. Romney, who ran second to John McCain? Or Mrs. Palin, the veep nominee? Or Mike Huckabee, of Iowa fame? If history were a guide, one of them ought to be pulling a third of primary voters today. Instead, "there is not a single Republican who can claim support from as many as one in five primary supporters," says GOP pollster and co-founder of Resurgent Republic Whit Ayres. He suggests that some candidates stuck in the low double digits might already have "fatal flaws."

History, in this case, is no guide. The Republican Party has a tradition of nominating the next guy in line. In 1976 it nominated Ford over Reagan: It was Ford's due. Reagan's due came after that, and George H.W. Bush's due after that, and . . . straight through to Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, for one, is betting that tradition still holds, and that he can burst onto the scene as the anointed one.

Good luck with that. For the first time since the 1940s, the Republican field truly is open. And that is because of a cataclysmic shift in the GOP and independent electorate, one that many in the field seem not yet to have understood. The contenders are out there, dutifully bashing President Obama, chiding Congress for not being tougher, complaining about spending and Libya and gas prices. GOP voters want to hear that. And they want so much more.

This is a group of voters that may not like Mr. Obama, but they respect his skills. They want somebody who can match him in charisma and communication. This is a group of voters disillusioned by Republican behavior. They elected the GOP last year, but mostly as a protest vote against Mr. Obama. They now want somebody—preferably a new face, without the baggage—who can articulate a vision for the party and reassure it that it really is in new, strong, capable hands.

These are voters who every day are seeing national headlines about reformist governors—Wisconsin's Scott Walker, Mr. Christie, Ohio's John Kasich—and making comparisons. That may not be fair, since many of the presidential contenders are no longer in office. Then again, many in the electorate are wondering why they never read these headlines when those contenders were in fact in office.

Put it all together—the desire for a hard-charging, big-thinking, articulate, new face—and the interest in the Christies and Rubios makes sense. That isn't to say that those already getting in can't win over the electorate. But if they want to—if they want to generate the gigantic voter enthusiasm that will be needed to knock off a sitting president—they are going to have to start being the Next (and New) Big Thing. Nothing less, in this environment, is going to thrill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576233061757749734.html


And that exciting new, or inspiring, face has yet to be seen, and it may be the GOP's greatest liability in the next presidential election.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 02:27 pm
@firefly,
It's a huge salad bowl with a lot of fruits in it; the choice is unclear on "what" to pick. Many are turning brown with age, and the freshness is now gone.

The more people see, the more they realize they're ready to toss out the fruit with the salad bowl, and start all over.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 02:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's a huge salad bowl with a lot of fruits in it; the choice is unclear on "what" to pick. Many are turning brown with age, and the freshness is now gone.

The more people see, the more they realize they're ready to toss out the fruit with the salad bowl, and start all over.


Oh my, Tak, aren't we getting flourishing in our writing.
It was a dark and stormy night and Michelle Bachmann's breasts heaved in anticipation...
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 02:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I love your salad bowl imagery, and I think it's quite apt.
Quote:
The more people see, the more they realize they're ready to toss out the fruit with the salad bowl, and start all over

And that will take time, and no really viable candidate may emerge in time for the 2012 election.

And, some potentially interesting candidates might consider 2012 a lost cause, or a suicide mission, and just decide to sit it out and wait for 2016.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 02:38 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, I enjoy your flourishes better,
Quote:
It was a dark and stormy night and Michelle Bachmann's breasts heaved in anticipation...
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 03:03 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

And, some potentially interesting candidates might consider 2012 a lost cause, or a suicide mission, and just decide to sit it out and wait for 2016.


I think that you are right. Any possible candidate under the age of 60 will likely decide to stay out, unless he/she is on some kind of a quixotic mission.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:53 pm
It seems to me, from what I have read today, that Michelle Bachmann is on a bit of a roll. The Congresswoman from Minnesota (who grew up in Iowa) has become the most prominent member of the Tea Party movement and appears to be eclipsing Sarah Palin, who is disappearing from the radar. She is adept at fund raising and today snagged a political operative in Iowa who worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa in 2008. That is one more nail in the coffin of Huckabee's probably deciding not to run.
It seems to me that Bachmann, who is 55, will decide to get in the race for as long as she can. She, who is at odds with the Repub leadership, could end up dropping out after a half dozen primaries/caucuses but will still be young enough to try again in 2016.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 05:00 pm
@realjohnboy,
....and 2016 and 2020 and ....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 11:52 am
As this thread has also been used to keep track of the Senate situation, I should note that Tim Kaine formally announced that he'll run in VA against George Allen for Webb's former seat. Polling shows the two locked in a dead heat.

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 12:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You beat me to it, Cyclo. Kaine is the only Dem with a chance of defeating the Repub candidate.
He is going to take a bit of a hit from the Repubs for taking so long to decide. That will be portrayed as weakness on his part.
His announcement made no mention of Obama or Kaine's work as head of the DNC.
It should be a close race.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 01:56 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
He is going to take a bit of a hit from the Repubs for taking so long to decide. That will be portrayed as weakness on his part.

It's understandable, though, since he probably has to give up his position as DNC chairman immediately. That alone is a valid explanation for the delay, IMO, and certainly shouldn't be viewed as a weakness.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 02:06 pm
@Irishk,
He quit today. This was likely attributable to a desire to find a successor without a public fight.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 02:22 pm
@realjohnboy,
I'm so behind on election news. I had to google to find out who is in the running to replace him.

Embarrassed
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 04:15 pm
@Irishk,
Yeah. Me, too. Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) and former gov of OH Ted Strickland. Neither is considered particularly dynamic and each comes with some baggage. I think the Dems can find someone better. I have a name in mind, but it probably would never happen.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 06:22 pm
@realjohnboy,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked as chairwoman of DNC

That was quick.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 06:28 pm
@Irishk,
she seems to have good media presence.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 06:29 pm
@Irishk,
Apparently is a big money-earner too, which is, let's face it, the big job of the head of the parties.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 06:30 pm
@realjohnboy,
Ted Strickland is plenty dynamic actually. He might've been good.

I like Wasserman Schultz's personality, not sure how she'll do in this capacity.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 07:25 pm
@dyslexia,
She does. She's on the news shows a lot -- or is when there's something going on...midterms or a controversial bill being passed. Plus, she'll help with the female demographic. Good choice.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 09:51 pm
@Irishk,
What?

Wasserman is a partisan hack who exploited her breast cancer for political gain.

So she's a media whore a la Chuck Schumann...is that really what elevates a politician into the ranks of contenders for national office?

It's amazing how easily people buy into the tailored images presented by politicians.

That's how we ended up with Obama.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 03:24:00