Primary Problem
The latest polls of Republican presidential candidates show Mitt Romney easily leading the field. In New Hampshire, he gets 42% while no one else gets over 10%. Trouble is, the caucuses and primaries don't start until next February. So now everyone else gets more than half a year to tear him down.
I can't imagine anyone who wants to be President would shy away from attacking Romney simply because it'll hurt the party. They may talk about the eleventh commandment, but that's always been more honored in the breach. Assuming Romney gets the nomination, Obama gets to sit back and watch the spectacle (or join in if he likes) of his opponent being torn to shreds by his own side. I suppose most of these attacks will be from the right, but who knows, maybe they'll dig up something that the Democrats can use when it's their turn. (I'm reminded of Al Gore introducing Willie Horton into political parlance during his debate with Dukakis.)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:04 AM
6 Comments:
Romney is being dull and letting the others flail away with ever more strident ideological statement so as to appear to be the most rational centrist candidate (as opposed to his 2008 strategy to shamelessly court social conservatives). He has many other issues - a reputation that he'll say anything in any given year, not the least of them, but its hard to argue with his strategy. If he survives the primary, he is better positioned to the mass of non-ideologues in the center who actually decide elections
People claim that you have to tack ideologically right in the Republican primaries but the nominee in 2008 was the most centrist candidate-McCain who then tacked further right after he got the nomination (& how did that work out for him?)
You're a little too pleased with yourself, anon. McCain had that problem exactly because he did not have the support of his base. Obama had it and Hillary did not. Romney will make McCain look like a grand champion Republican if he takes the nomination.
I think the news of the past week is that Steven Spielberg hired Megan Fox for her brains.
Anon2- it easy to be pleased when you are right (correct that is, not whacko). Obama may have had the support of his base- I'd be hard pressed to think that Hillary wouldn't have had it too. Obama's victory came from the fact that the great middle thought he was going to be different from the squabbling ideologues. He's since been damaged on that reputation which is why Romney probably looks a more formidable candidate who might capture the middle. Unless unhappy republicans and run an at least Perot-level 3d party candidate, in which case the Big O wins in a cake walk.
It was clear in 2008 that the next President would have to be seen as different and distanced from George Bush. This was not tough on the Democratic side, and Hillary or Obama or Edwards would have done fine.
It was tricky on the republican side. Even if he hadn't been too old and unhealthy, the VP Dick Cheney could never have been elected. So the primary was about who could distance himself the most from George Bush and still hold the Republican base. Frankly, Ron Paul might have been the best choice, but McCain the "Maverick" was certainly about as good as the Republicans could expect in a an anti-Republican year. Because the base wasn't excited about McCain, the selection of Palin as VP was necessary to generate some excitement and enthusiasm in the base. In the end, McCain got 46% of the vote, I believe, which given the economy and the wars, I think was about as good as any Republican could have done in 2008.
In 2012,the Republican will have an easier time of it, despite the innate advantages of incumbency. Any of the main Republican candidates has a shot. If the economy continues to struggle, and the wars are still being fought, Pres. Obama will have a disenchanted base, while the Republican can promise "Hope and Change."
A competent, capable Republican might have been able to beat Obama in 2008.
Romney might have had a chance then, because health care was not on the table and he could actually have promoted his expertise on the matter. Apart from Romney, there were no obviously strong candidates.
In the meantime, we'll let anonymous revel in his right views (whacko, not correct).
Post a Comment
<< Home