Last week, Sarah Palin announced a bus tour of America and managed to get her name splashed all across the nation’s headlines…again. But, if the Republicans are despondent about their presidential candidates, Palin’s entrance into the race would do nothing to alleviate that feeling of gloom. Maybe someone ought to ask why the Republicans have no decent candidates. The problem is deeper than the lists of who has and has not decided to run for president. Consider the three names most often mentioned as white-horse rescuers.
First, there’s Jeb Bush, the son who ought to have been heir to his father’s failed presidency. Instead, we got the boy-king and his Rasputin/Palpatine sidekick Dick Cheney. Jeb might have been less of a catastrophe for the country than his older brother turned out to be, but the Bush brand lays in tatters.
Then there is Rep. Paul Ryan. Gifted with Eddie Muntser’s good-looks (along with accompanying widow’s peak), Ryan is the symbol of all that is rotten and unpopular with the modern Republican Party. His budget proposal is so disliked by the public that the GOP just lost a special election in New York’s most conservative district because their candidate had endorsed Ryan’s plan. It’s highly doubtful that Ryan can win reelection to his own district, let alone win statewide in Wisconsin. Nationwide? Not a chance.
And, finally, there is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who, while doing an admirable job of representing the Garden State’s trademark attitude, is not doing a good job of representing his constituents. After pissing away federal money for education and transportation, New Jersey’s voters give Christie a thirty-eight percent approval rating, are split on whether he’d be a better president than Dubya, and by a 2:1 margin say Christie would be a worse president than Obama.
In other words, the three so-called ‘knights on white horses’ are some of the most unpopular people in politics.
This isn’t new. Republican leaders tend to wear out their welcome quite thoroughly. Remember Gingrich at the end? Remember how Tom DeLay went out? Did people feel sad to see Dennis Hastert or Bill Frist or Trent Lott go? And who can forget the spectacle of half of Washington DC serenading Bush the Younger’s presidential exit with their version of “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye”?
Even the most popular of all recent Republican politicians, Rudy Guiliani, destroyed the good will he earned by humping 9/11 until it hurt.
The problem isn’t personalities. It’s results. When given a chance, the Republicans cannot govern effectively. To listen to their rhetoric, they don’t believe effective governance is possible, and it’s certainly not preferred. The Republican candidates are not unpopular and uninspiring because of their policy differences. They basically have no policy differences of any consequence. They represent the hive-mind. And their busy bees don’t serve the country or the truth, but their little band of religious fundamentalists and tax-averse businessmen.
They’re not popular because their beliefs are not popular. And their message of doom is uninspiring.
but, but but…they’ll find their savior, BooMan.
he’ll just fall out of the sky for them
But Jesus didn’t show up as scheduled.
I will say this. While they might not be able to find a savior, and though it’s very far from now, Marco Rubio does worry me in 2016. Many things can happen between now and then, but I suspect he has a future regardless of the Republicans making a turn towards sanity by then.
He’s got a future. It’ll probably be a lot like John Ensign’s future. Rubio is a crook.
So is Rick Scott. The people don’t seem to care until later. Also, Rubio’s been fairly quiet lately. He’s hedging his bets for later. I can’t see how you act so nonchalant about him.
because I’ve looked at his record. He can’t stand real sunlight.
Booman, I agree with everything you say here.
But (…there’s always a but), whoever wins the Republican nomination will likely have several weeks of great publicity (with corresponding rising poll numbers) simply by virtue of having defeated all the other candidates.
Then, after the free televised mini-series known as the nominating convention, the nominee’s poll numbers will jump again. I would not be at all surprised (particularly if unemployment stays around 8-9%) if the Republican nominee is ahead in the polls (perhaps significantly ahead)at the end of August 2012.
(Sorry for the doom and gloom. I still think it’s likely Obama wins reelection, FWIW.)
Remember, Dukakis had an eighteen point lead after the convention. McCain had a narrow lead after his convention.
It doesn’t mean anything.
The GOP has nothing to sell the public except fiscal doom. Combine that with a record of constantly humping corporations and throwing money the least neediest, and you have no chance.
I’m less worried about the Repubs getting a significant enough bump post-convention in 2012. That’s in part because the Dems hold their confab almost immediately following the Rs, unlike the 2008 situation, and so have it partly in their power at least to manage the politics and PR in a more confident and robust way, knowing what the R ticket will be and seeing what they’ve already done and said.
The Ds, or the Obama admin, also would do well to try to stymie any Repub convention momentum by scheduling some important admin undertaking or appointment or proposal and time the announcement just as the Rs cleverly timed the leak of Palin’s nomination for the last day of the Dem confab (iirc).
As for my major worries, they are two: the state of the economy a year from now, and second, the way the MSM covers the Repub nominating race. I’m rather gloomy about the former, unless Obama starts getting much bolder about tackling the job situation and declining housing market.
On the MSM political coverage front, I strongly suspect this election cycle the corp media will revert to form and largely act as unofficial GOP surrogates as they’ve done in most elections in the modern era. Obama was actually treated well by the MSM in 2008 — that was the exception however. Don’t expect a repeat of that. And, yes, the way the media is tripping over itself to massively cover Palin’s phony bus tour might be an early indicator of how they will act in the coming year.
I expect the press to lightly gloss over whatever political shapeshifter-clown-radical extremist factors there will be on the GOP ticket — just as they covered nicely for Bush-Cheney and Bush-Quayle in prior elections — as they carry water for the Repubs on the weak economy, the too many costly foreign wars, and perhaps “Obamacare.” In that scenario, I wouldn’t underestimate someone like Romney/Whoever or Pawlenty/? actually being a little stronger, and smarter, opponent than old man McCain and Sorry Sarah were.
I hope I fixed all the damn typos. It’s hard to work with chaos all around you.
Gulianni, Pataki & Perry being talked up this morning as ready to toss their hats in only underscores your question of why isn’t there a viable candidate in the room to represent the Rep party.
No matter how deeply you look back into their ranks there just isn’t anyone there.
Boehner taught them to to be a party of no, the TParty & Palin taught them to peacock…all feather & strut… all while allowing the demise of well structured plans and policies they could bring forward they have now become a party of posturing semantics with nothing behind the curtain.
Jeb Bush, post-Governor, sold Lehman Brothers junk to various pension plans in FLA, thus following in the family business of bankrupting America for personal profit.
And Chrisite is costing a lot for money for NJ by fighting the tunnel payback. He needs to resign. We can’t afford him.
Christie
like a parasite.
who would get against the Republican candidate – whoever s/he may be – getting at least 42% of the vote come November?
Benchmarks:
The Clinton races had significant third party candidates, so absolute percentages are meaningless.
The question is, is the present-day GOP less out of touch than Goldwater or McGovern’s campaigns? Do they have a more positive message? Is anyone in the field a stronger candidate or a better politician?
And the question is also whether Obama is as strong/popular a re-election candidate as Johnson, Nixon, Reagan or Clinton? The economy will be a factor, but will the make white vote continue to be as big a factor?
Obama won’t be nearly as strong a re-elect candidate as Johnson, Nixon or Reagan, unless he gets bolder in tackling economic problems at the very least. Reagan, the only one of those 3 w/economic issues to defend, had unemployment under 8% at least, and inflation going in the right direction.
Those 3 also had strong MSM backing to go with a hapless or narrow-constituency opponent. Obama could luck out with a Sarah Palin to run against, 2012’s version of Mondale who was perceived as too doctrinaire liberal and beholden to Dem special interests like the unions.
But I don’t see Obama getting so lucky with an opponent, nor will he have pom-pom waving MSM backing this time, and perhaps much worse in fact.
So Dukakis actually beat Cranky McSame? OMFG!!! And yet that asshat is on MTP every other week. Ugh!!