In the wake of the Joe Arpaio birth certificate disclosure, any fair-minded Republican has to decide where to stand. It is not appropriate to simultaneously say, "the birth certificate is fraudulent...BUT I STILL BELIEVE OBAMA WAS BORN HERE." That's the basic outline of what we got from the Sheriff yesterday, and it points to the fundamental problem all Republicans have this election cycle. Whether in dealing with issues, or candidates, they want to have it both ways.
The birth certificate situation is emblematic of the more basic issues that will confront the electorate for the next 9 months - Can any of the assembled Republican field manage to straddle the line between conservative, and moderate? And if any can, is that even desirable?
I don't want to spend too much time discussing the candidacy of Mr. Santorum. In the context of social issues, he certainly stacks up with sufficient bona fides to let him claim the mantle of Culture Warrior. He's also shown an ability to connect with erstwhile Reagan Democrats, and proven a knack for convincing midwesterners that he understands the concerns of the heartland. Perhaps most importantly - this is politics after all - I am told he is considered good looking by 40+ year-old women. My mother in law certainly implied that was a part of the reason Mr. Santorum might get her vote.
It seems unlikely to me that these positives will enable Santorum to match up well with Mr. Obama in the Fall. For all of his positive attributes, there seem to me to be commensurate downsides to his electability. During his period of time in Washington, Santorum consistently voted for what he perceived to be the will of his constituency. The most notable examples were in votes to 1. oppose the Right to Work Act - an anti-union bill, and 2. support Medicare Part D - a dramatic expansion of Federal involvement in health care through prescription drugs. Neither of these decisions can be fairly described as "conservative." They were, rather, attempts to "go along to get along." Perhaps Mr. Santorum's definition of "constituency" is more like my definition of special interest. Santorum's reward for his willingness to play ball was to be drummed out of office in his purple State (18-point loss in '06) Santorum '06 Loss. The American people want to vote for a candidate who is a Statesman, not someone who is interested in his own narrow political motives. In combination with the fact that Santorum consistently underperforms in head-to-head match-ups with the President, his candidacy seems untenable.
Santorum 3rd head-to-head
Newt Gingrich has clearly shown himself, during the course of this Winter's debates, to either be, the smartest guy in the room, or at least the guy who THINKS he's the smartest guy. Often, this intelligence, and penchant for big ideas takes the form of an appearance of leadership.
Too frequently, though, this intelligence leads Mr. Gingrich to pander, and make mistakes. In Iowa we got ethanol(Gingrich ethanol), and in Florida it was a moon colony. I shudder to think what happens if he decides to campaign in Guam. Yes, the Guamese(sic?) do in fact get delegates for purposes of the Republican nomination. Guam Delegates The campaign trail for Gingrich seems to be a big pile of prospective earmarks. It would be easier to stomach if we heard about moon bases in Iowa, and the ethanol down South. I don't know who the couch thing with Pelosi appeals to - maybe Californians.
Without even getting to his problems with ex-wives, and the married female part of the electorate, Gingrich has simply stumbled too much. He assures us he's going to win Georgia (his home state), and the rest of the Gulf Coast (except for that little State of Florida). If he can manage to convince the people of Ohio to vote more like the citizens of South Carolina, and Alabama, maybe he'd stand a chance against Obama. As it stands, that seems unlikely. Gingrich 4th
The case against Ron Paul is an easy one. I have to acknowledge, up front, that I am a fan. The evidence is simply stacking up too high to consider him viable...in a Republican primary process. There are simply too many old people, and not enough voters in college to put him over the top. At 76 he would be the oldest person ever elected president. I have to suppose that it is the aging experience Seniors have already undergone that leads them away from Mr. Paul.
Paul has a tendency to ramble, and to focus on those issues he must know will perturb the Republican base (fighting Iran not justified). By any domestic measure, he is the most conservative participant in the race. From a social perspective, he believes in the supremacy of the States, and the 10th Amendment. From a fiscal perspective, he's never voted to raise the debt ceiling, or for any tax increase, or for any Federal entitlement. Which leads me back to what it must be - people, and old people in particular, are concerned he's too old. Consider this statement at a recent debate.
I am convinced if we could get Ron Paul circa 1998 back the Seniors would be more comfortable.
Without the arrival of time travel - soon - I don't think the establishment has much to worry about from Ron.
This leaves the Republican electorate with one final option to consider currently - Mitt. Mr. Romney has much to recommend his candidacy. He managed to secure election in Massachusetts as a Republican Governor (Mass. is a very blue state). He also ran a successful business involved in turnarounds, and capitalist creative destruction. He seems to have a solid family life. It may concern some that the faith to which he belongs sometimes engages in odd behavior, such as 1. posthumously baptizing Anne Frank by proxy, (Anne Frank proxy baptism) and 2. wearing special garments to temple (Mormon underwear).
If middle Americans can get beyond the religion, further problems persist. Mr. Romney has been described by some as lacking a core. Romney No Core In addition to Democrats, such an attack has come from fellow candidates, and even those on the right of the political spectrum. The argument does have some merit. Whether on issues like abortion during earlier times in his political career, or with regard to contraception now, Romney has often changed his position to suit his short-sighted electoral needs. Romney flip-flop Leaving aside the issue of Romneycare (for some this is an example of State's rights, and for others a precursor to Obama's big government solution), there are myriad other reasons to question Romney's commitment to conservative causes. He supported the bailout of Wall Street (TARP). He has supported the idea of man-caused climate change. He has supported general Federal fiscal stimulus. He has even supported bans on firearms at various points in his career.
So, what's to be done. The genesis of this article was a discussion with a friend this morning who assured me that he didn't think "Romney 'was' unelectable." I am not convinced. Romney is neither conservative nor moderate. He is a chameleon. There is 0 chance that the religious right will turn out in the numbers necessary to form a base of support for him. The conservative poor are rightly concerned that his patrician background makes him out-of-touch with their concerns. And most importantly, the libertarian portion of the Republican party is sure that Romney, at best, will yield 4 more years of George W. Bush-style conservatism. In other words, libertarians don't expect he'd be conservative at all.
It is in this context that the same friend suggested that it might be a good idea to support Sheriff Joe, and the birth certificate investigation. Specifically, this friend believes that, "a little convincing smoke will hurt Obama in November, even without any fire." Republicans, to the extent they actually want to beat Obama, should be focusing their energy on things that can be accomplished before the November elections. Even Arpaio suggests that, at best, there is evidence of fraud. There is not, and is never likely to be strong evidence of Obama's involvement in any illegality. As there is no reason to believe, at this point, that Romney will carry a state in addition to those secured by McCain, the establishment has much work to do. Specifically, the Republicans must secure a running mate for Romney who will either, 1. yield a pivotal swing state that McCain did not carry, or 2. invigorate the libertarian portion or the Republican electorate to a degree that they would be willing to look past Mr. Romney's political indiscretions.
Governor Palin was important during the last presidential election cycle in that she propped up Mr. McCain in the eyes of the Republican base. Other aspects of her candidacy were problematic enough that she could not make a sufficient difference. It would be a grave error for the Republican Party to believe that Palin, or Palin-lite could make a sound choice as a running mate this time around. Only a true libertarian, or legitimate Tea Party Republican (Gingrich, and Santorum are not) will give Romney the angle he needs to pick up young, idealistic voters. These are the disaffected Obama supporters who can be theoretically picked off. It is said that insanity is doing the same thing over, and over again, but expecting different results. A decision to nominate a social conservative will not carry the day.
The Republicans must do all of the right things from now until election day if they hope to win. All of the right things includes avoiding distractions like birth control, and birth certificate controversies. If that occurs, Romney, or some white knight at the convention will still face many factors beyond his, or her control. If the economy is trending in the right direction in the Fall, Obama may be unbeatable. As much as the nominal unemployment rate will tell the tale, the speed and direction of change will be persuasive.
All of the original comments here are copyrighted. Please feel free to fairly use them.
No comments:
Post a Comment