Will, There's A Way
George Will has been making waves with his column on how the Republicans should concentrate on winning Congress this election year and essentially give up on the White House.
Neither [Romney nor Santorum] seems likely to be elected. Neither has demonstrated, or seems likely to develop, an aptitude for energizing a national coalition that translates into 270 electoral votes.
[....] it is perhaps premature to despair of Romney’s and Santorum’s political aptitudes. Still, the presidency is not everything, and there will be another election in the next year divisible by four.
This is just bizarre. I agree President Obama should be considered the favorite, but he's still got weaknesses. In any case, once it gets down to two candidates, anything can happen. Why would Republicans give up now, or ever, before the election?
Will seems to think it could be a strategic loss, allowing for four years of a holding pattern while the Republican class of 2016 gets ready. Maybe, but this rarely works out. In general, losing leads to more losing. It's like giving up a touchdown early in the game in hopes it'll make your opponents overconfident.
And the White House is, if not all the marbles, at least most of them. For Republicans, it's impossible to overturn Obamacare--a top priority--without the Presidency. It'd also be much harder to pass major legislation. Furthermore, by regulation and executive oversight the President can by himself, in effect, pass more laws than Congress (and also, in effect, stop or slow down Obamacare). There's foreign policy, of course. Then there's the Supreme Court. It's always an issue, but it's possible the next four years will determine its orientation for a generation, so if Obama gets reelected, that could mean half of what conservatives want will be blocked for quite a while. It's true Congress is up for grabs (in both directions), but any party would be smart to prefer the White House if you had to choose one.
But you don't have to. It's not a zero sum game--lose the White House so you can do better in Congress. The two go hand in hand. Presidents don't always have coattails, but running a loser generally hurts your chances in other elections. I really don't know what Will was thinking.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:13 AM
9 Comments:
Will was conceding the loss based on his evaluation of the candidate strength and urging resources be placed elsewhere. Perhaps not a winning strategy but victory for pundits is getting credit for things that will happen. He's angling for an "I told you so" moment.
I've seen other commentators hope for a Santorum nomination leading to a McGovern (or maybe Goldwater) moment so the party needs to serious rethink itself. They were liened to alcoholics who can't recover until they hit rock bottom though that analysis was made by an Obama supporter (and not exactly true either as several alcoholis can recognize the slide and arrest it through action before imploding as well)
One thing we have learned in this race so far is that the conventional wisdom gets blown up after each contest (or the press commentators seem much more willing to do 180s)- ie Romney has been fatally weakened by having to fight so hard to defeat a fringe candidate in [one of] hie home state to now Romney has momentum based on his hard-fought Michigan victory.
You are mistaken that repealing ObamaRomneyCare is a top priority. It's rather a near impossibility. Romney will lose an easy five points because of that, and that's probably what his margin of loss will be.
Of course you are right that they should fight, and they will. McCain was nearly the same story and was not in bad position six weeks out, although his weaknesses and the advantage of the Democrats were all fairly clear.
But in choosing Romney, they've quite methodically chosen the weakest player. Gingrich or Santorum might be a catastrophe or they might not. All the pro-party, anti-base can say is Romney's got money, and there is a lot less to that than meets the local television station.
Anon 1: It's true the left is claiming the Republicans have been captured by the far right, because they're always saying that. The funniest thing is when they try to prove this (as the NYT is doing now) by retrospectively admitting the Dems were captured in the past by the out-of-touch left but everything's okey-dokey now. I remember after Obama got elected they thought it was a new era and the Republicans were finished, so how do they explain how the "nutty, extremist" Tea Party rose at the same time the Republicans got one of their biggest victories at the polls ever.
Anon 2: I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying Romney will be hurt by his own health care plan, or that the US public actually supports Obamacare? Either way, repealing it is a top priority for Republicans. If the Supreme Court doesn't do it, it has to be done this next term before the benefits start kicking in big, making it almost impossible to get rid of (or worse, having politicians pretend it can be repealed piecemeal). It may not be doable because even if the Repubs capture the Senate they still may need 60 votes. In any case, top among the reasons Romney is having trouble with his party is many don't believe he wants to repeal it.
McCain was looking good six weeks out and had a decent chance of winning because it looked like the election might be about national security and Obama was weak there. Then the economy cratered and McCain looked like a chicken with his head cut off while Obama looked cool (in planning to continue what Bush was doing).
Romney has been running his campaign based on the general election, not wanting to go whole hog on appearing a right winger. He took a chance figuring he had the nomination sewn up. It looks like it'll work but there are still big questions, particularly has he turned off the conservatives enough that the base won't come out. That's unlikely once the election really starts and the choices are clear. His other biggest problem which he can't do much about is, alas, some may still oppose him due to his religion.
"Dems were captured in the past by the out-of-touch left but everything's okey-dokey now."
I think the Democrats and NYT have been saying this since around November 10, 1972. Interestingly enough, they had one of their biggest wins in the next election.
"claiming the Republicans have been captured by the far right"
This is like "claiming" that the sun comes up. Although, I think Santorum's statements on contraception, JFK, college and religion have propelled certain not so far right elements in the electorate and pushed Romney to his recent narrow wins.
"McCain was looking good six weeks out"
??? To his stylist? He was cooked the minute he unleashed the Alaska anchor and went for base rallying as opposed to appealing to the the independents (center or middle being the wrong phrase because it assumes that the left-right continuum is valid or means much to anyone other than the hardcore)
Please have contemporaneous quotes from the NYT as to when the Dems were too far left when they lost big in 1972 or 1980 or for that matter when they lost the Congress. On the other hand, back in Reagan's day, the NYT had piece after piece about how scary and hopelessly far right the Republicans were. In both cases, they're happy to claim after the fact, when it can't cause any damager, that the Dems are too far left of that Reagan was a folksy man of the people.
Sarah Palin helped then hurt McCain, but people don't vote for the Veep in the long run.
Palin *hurt* McCain? Please. He'd have lost another two or three points at least if he didn't have her.
The repeal of Obamacare is, imho, the one issue that, barring some other scandal or disaster, could propel Romney to a win. It is linked to the economy, which is the source of its strength. An improving economy weakens the "repeal and replace" campaign strategy. Also, the S.Ct may very well remove this campaign plank in a few months.
Obama is certainly a favorite to win re-election, though I believe by a smaller margin than he won in 2008. Romney has to thread a tiny needle, defending the right of any state to impose an insurance mandate on themselves (which is certainly constitutional), while steadfastly guaranteeing that he will sign the repeal of HCR when (if) Congress sends it to him. In the end though, it will come down to unemployment rates, growth rates, the price of gas and the price of homes in November (again, barring some super-sized event, like Iran testing a nuclear bomb).
Liberals who support Obama when he continues Guantanamo, torture, wars aimed at turning far-away countries into democracies, and detention of American citizens (which now has been ramped up to assassination) have always astounded me. Even if they trust Obama personally, don't they fear that future presidents might be Republicans?
And now after the HHS mandate, I feel the same way about Obamacare. With a stroke of his pen, Obama declared that all companies must pay for all contraceptives with no deductible or co-pay. (To the delight of the drug companies, this applies to name brands as well as generics.) Then three weeks later, with another stroke of his pen, he cancelled this and ruled that all insurance companies must pay for this out of their own pockets.
In other words, Obamacare gives a single man -- the President of the United States -- as much control over the health industry as Mussolini had over Italian industries. This is radically different than Social Security, where the rules of the game were actually specified in the bill.
And yet liberals love it, unaware that someday a Republican will be elected president.
If Obamacare is neither repealed nor overturned, every president for the rest of our lives will drastically revise the rules for all employers and insurance companies on his first day of office. Who honestly could say this will be a good thing?
Obamacare is also different from Social Security and Medicare in that we all pay for those two in taxes and then get to enjoy them later in life, while Obamacare is just another huge government redistribution program.
Post a Comment
<< Home