I agree with Matt Yglesias, but I’d put it in slightly different terms. The Bush administration was a colossal failure on every front, but especially from the point of view of a Tea Party Republican. When you look at a Governor Scott Walker or a Governor Rick Scott and you see the House Republicans trying to destroy Medicare, you realize just how far from satisfying the Bush administration was for movement conservatives. Bush expanded the welfare state, while everything these people believe says that the welfare state is unconstitutional and evil. Lower taxes and lax regulation are nice, and Bush packed the courts with lunatics, which is nicer. But torturing terror suspects and ripping up habeas corpus is no substitute for attacking public unions and screwing the elderly and destitute.
So, when teabaggers look around and see Governor Tim Pawlenty, he reminds them of George W. Bush without the swagger and the endearing ability to make liberals go apoplectic. If Pawlenty is lacking something it’s a record of being a strident and unmerciful prick to the poor, to minorities, to Muslims, to gays and lesbians, and to unions. Never mind that the lack of such a record is precisely what makes Pawlenty a plausible national candidate; he doesn’t excite the base.
Now, Governor Chris Christie, on the other hand, has the whole ‘dick’ thing down to a science, and that’s why you keep seeing Republicans begging him to run. But the suits are looking at Governor Mitch Daniels instead, and they actually hope that Bush’s failed accountant is going to give the party an adrenaline boost. As Steve Benen drily notes, “As a rule, political parties — especially ones that rely on a radical, hysterical base to win elections — do not get adrenaline boosts from bland wonks.” To that I’d add that movement conservatives don’t get excited by candidates who call for a truce on social issues.
It’s hard to see what Daniels has that Pawlenty lacks. As far as their records, Pawlenty has the advantage of not having presided over the decimation of the U.S. economy. The lack of any Washington-taint should be marked in T-Paw’s favor. And it’s not like Daniels has some compelling personal story or some superior ability to connect with the average undecided voter. There guys are both bland politicians. Their lack of scariness is their best asset in a general election, but the same feature makes them both lame primary candidates.
The GOP should probably stick with T-Paw and then maybe pick Daniels as his running-mate. It’d be a kind of Clinton-Gore thing, where the GOP picks a midwestern ticket of competent wonkish executives, a little on the youngish side, and with a strain of reasonableness not often observed in the modern GOP. They’d probably lose, but they wouldn’t lose really badly, and that’s all the GOP needs to win over the Senate and hold onto the House.
I wouldn’t waste my time with Marco Rubio. He’s too much of a crook and he’s way too green. And it wouldn’t fool the Latinos anyway. Do you think if we had to reelect Supreme Court Justices that black people would vote for Clarence Thomas? Plus, personally, I am beginning to get offended by the Agnews, Quayles, Cheneys, and Palins the GOP keeps throwing at us. How about someone who isn’t a crook and/or an idiot for a change?