It’s kind of simplistic and it might seem a little sexist, but I firmly believe that people will not vote for a man if they sense that he won’t stick up for and defend the honor of his wife. Almost anything else is forgivable, and voters don’t expect all male candidates to be oozing testosterone. But there’s a baseline of masculinity that a male candidate cannot fall below and survive. The wife issue is usually what I use because it’s very clear cut. But it’s really just a marker. People can sense a lack of balls on almost any issue and consign a candidate to oblivion. Regular readers of Booman Tribune may be confused about my position on Tim Pawlenty’s chances. At first, I pegged him as the typical won’t-stick-up-for-his-wife type of candidate. You can frame this any way you want. For example, is anyone gonna believe that Pawlenty will be more of a bad-ass about terrorism than the Bin Laden-slayer in the White House?
Yet, more recently, I have been talking up Pawlenty’s chances in the primaries because I cannot see Romney surviving the debates and the advertising campaigns. And when I look at the alternatives to Romney, Pawlenty seems like the only plausible alternative. Yet, in tonight’s debate the moderator basically begged Pawlenty to attack Romney’s health care plan and he wouldn’t do it. Nothing could be more devastating to Pawlenty than to show a lack of courage to say in person what he says behind someone’s back.
Romney won the debate tonight because the candidates evidentially wanted to make a good first impression and therefore wanted to avoid being too negative or attack-doggish. In the big picture, this debate doesn’t matter and Romney still has a huge problem. The other candidates will get around to ripping him to shreds. But Pawlenty confirmed my initial impression of him. He’s the kind of guy who would let me insult his wife in public and not do a thing about it.
Americans don’t elect men like that.
Was tonight a loud enough wake-up call for Democrats?! Accept what the White House has known and has been preparing for the last 2 1/2 years: A VERY competent and prepared Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee. This is not grandpa McCain and snow Barbie. And it certainly isn’t Alan Keyes. Enough of Weiner, snow Barbie, and all this other silly shit! Romney is going to be the nominee, and he’s going to be damned formidable!
Obama’s problem isn’t going to be Romney– his real problem is a Democratic base that is discouraged and will not turn out in sufficient numbers to re-elect the President. And all downticket Democrats will suffer in the bargain. I wonder if any political party has ever squandered an opportunity as badly as our hapless Democrats have in recent years?
Stop it. Just stop it.
Where do people like you come from? And why do you keep insisting, against all understanding of reality, that you’re the “base”?
Where do people like you come from? And why do you keep insisting, against all understanding of reality, that you’re the “base”?
Maryland. The Democratic “base” is an amorphous entity, so I can’t say whether I’m part of it or not. But I’m a liberal Democrat and I’m sick of Obama and the Congressional Democrats buying into the Bush/GOP policies and wasting the opportunities they had to actually help the people of this country.
Damned Right! If they don’t want our votes, they won’t get them. Promise Change and give more of the Same Old Thing? Vote for me because you have no alternative? I won’t cut Social Security as much as they will?
Howard Dean said we had the power. We’re not on anyone’s plantation. I could live with Romneycare, I could grind my teeth but accept TARP, but I can’t live with cutting benefits for my kid or my grandkids just to continue the Bush tax cuts. When he accepted their extension, he jumped the shark.
you’re welcome to your opinion, but Obama extended the cuts for a single year and he has promised not to extend them again. If he breaks his promise, then I think you’d start have some justification for your disillusionment.
Also, he got a lot in return for that one year extension, including the repeal of DADT and more stimulus spending.
The repeal of DADT has not taken effect yet. (As the cut-and-paste below shows, DADT will have remained in effect nearly a full year after the bill was signed.) And the debate last night showed that the Republicans will put it back into place if they can. So, Obama didn’t get that much of a deal. He could’ve let the tax cuts expire like they were supposed to do. Instead, he extended them with a promise, which will be hard to keep next year, and also let the deficit deepen further (a fact on which the Republicans will pound him).
From Branch Specific Progress on DADT:
Thanks, I know it’s not a popular opinion here, but I had to reply to the implication that Liberals are so far out of the main stream that our opinions don’t matter. One of the many many ways that the Obama administration resembles the Bush administration is their hatred and disdain for Liberals with an accompanying courtship of Conservatives.
There’s been one debate and we’re supposed to be scared of Romney now? In June of 2011? A guy that I rooted for over McCain in 2008? This is really chicken-littlesm at its worst. Multiple-choice Mitt? Federalists, Whigs here we come. We’re dooooooomed!
I don’t think Booman is saying Democrats need to be afraid of Romney right now. He’s just saying Pawlenty does, because he’s a wimp, which he is. Dems aren’t in the picture with regard to this.
I’m not saying that he is. I’m referring to other commentators. My mistake. In my opinion Romney is the weakest Republican frontrunner since Dewey. If they can’t beat him, with his flip-flops, then this must be a very weak field. Long way to go though. President Rudy never materialized in ’08.
100% agree. Romney is only a front runner because of name recognition and his previous runs at this point, I think most of the GOP base is really dissatisfied with what is being put on the table right now. Dark horse, or lesser known, candidates have a big leg up against Romney if they can just put on a strong showing or two in a primary or a debate.
Tonight’s debate confirmed everything I’ve been saying as well. As I live-blogged this on my Facebook, here’s what I said when Pawlenty didn’t attack:
Maybe he’s waiting to go negative, but then why would he say what he said about Romney literally days ago? It’s just stupid.
But yes, Romney finished well ahead of the other candidates, especially on the issue of Sharia Law/Muslims (because we know those issues are the same thing, amirite?). His answer actually surprised me, pleasantly in fact.
Gingrich surprised me on his answer with immigration. He didn’t endorse full-scale deportation an SWAT-teams busting into homes looking for undocumented workers. His line about NASA was amusing. Newt, I hate to tell you, but as an aerospace engineer, we would not be colonizing the moon by now if NASA didn’t exist; it’s rather the opposite. Still, the rest of the debate he was his usual hateful self; Muslims, Communists, Nazis, oh my!
Bachmann came in second, and got the first applause line of the night. Again, I’ve read others’ reactions to the debate and they’re all surprised at how well she did. Her performance wasn’t unexpected by me at all. She also was a forced-birth activist before her career in Congress, and two issues that got the biggest responses from the crowd were pro-life and right to work. Ironically, both issues are 1984-copy-cat “war is peace” lines and what not. And despite that activism, she dodged when asked about the rape-incest issue. Shows me she is willing to be more poised and less-extreme in order to win; quite a formidable pol.
Ron Paul was typical, and once again, while I detest almost everything he and his supporters stand for, I like having him on the stage. He opposes Medicare, Social Security and the safety net, this is true. But when talking about our government “going bankrupt” he always brings it back to the military and our empire. His schtick on the Federal Reserve is annoying as usual, though. Especially because his supporters don’t know wtf they’re talking about, and explaining to them how it actually works is annoying. It’s going to be 2007 all over again.
Santorum did better than I suspected, but he won’t matter in the end.
Hermain Cain was a dismal failure, and under-performed severely when compared with his first performance. Bachmann might overtake him in Iowa if he continues to be that bad.
I’m pissed that Donald Trump got an invitation, but Gary Johnson didn’t. It’s not fair at all. I want more anti-war candidates on the stage.
Great summation. Yes, Ron Paul is a flake, but at least he is a principled flake. The others are flakes, too, but they’re not willing to apply their principles across the board if they might run afoul of the defense industry and corporate America.
It’s gonna be Romney, not T-Paw. Booman, you owe me a dime. Might as well pay up now.
In reading the reviews (I couldn’t bear to watch it), my sense is that for the long term, Bachmann won. She pulled the old Reagan “I’m really reasonable” routine instead of her usual frothing. If this is true, watch to see if she’s starts running for the general election as if she doesn’t have to prove her crazy right-wing bona fides. I have argued that folks like Bachmann and Foxx and Myrick are not really stupid but are playing to the rubes. Bachmann’s success at showing she can move toward the center takes out Santorum; watch his campaign collapse soon. It also takes out pandering Pawlenty. Bachmann has been so consistent for so long that even if she is pandering to nutcakes like crazy, they won’t see it that way. Pawlenty is damn obvious. And she takes away the hard-right Christian Identity evangelicals who would never vote for a Mormon. Newtie is trying to phone it in. And Ron Paul is going to perform like Ron Paul, a modern-day Harold Stassen.
So going forward from New Hampshire are Romney, Bachmann, and Cain — in that order. Romney and Bachmann are going to be campaigning as if it’s the general election–attacking Obama. Cain is still trying to get name recognition in the GOP base–so he’s going to go nutty while trying to avoid Steele’s mistakes.
Bachmann, not Pawlenty is strengthened in Iowa. There it is between her and Cain to captured the followers of Steve King. Romney gets the Chamber of Commerce–if they deign to turn out at the caucuses.
I agree with this assessment. If Bachmann can appear to be reasonable long enough, she could be a breakout candidate. She’s got the evangelicals and the Tea Partiers behind her, Romney has the Chamber. And Romney continues to have health care hanging around his neck.
The Tea Partiers and the evangelicals know that Bachmann is “one of them” – she has nothing to prove to them. So it all hinges on whether or not she’s really stupid or if she just plays stupid on TV.
I strongly suspect that she’s a true believer, but not stupid. I think she plays dumb really well though. If that’s the case she might be able to pull off the Reagan Gambit and convince some “reasonable Republicans” that she isn’t nearly as loopy as everyone said she was and so they can vote for her.
Even if she isn’t as stupid as she likes to portray herself as being, I don’t think she knows where China is, let alone Libya, and she will run into some of the same problems that Palin faced where she cannot provide a satisfactory answer to legitimate questions on international affairs.
Personally, I think her loose screw is authentic. But, even if it isn’t, she’s no genius.
Again – the point is the Reagan Gambit. She doesn’t have to be a genius – St. Ronnie certainly wasn’t – she just has to be better than the low expectations people will have set for her. Mostly because people expect her to be Sarah Palin and if she’s even moderately smarter than Palin it will surprise people.
Exaggeration, or exactly the kind of lowered expectations I’m talking about? If she had an interview and gave a cogent-if-a-bit-simplistic-and-heavily-tilted-towards-Bircherism answer to questions about our trade deficit with China or our military intervention in Lybia would you be impressed because your expectations of her are so low? And even if you wouldn’t be, would you expect the punditocracy to be impressed?
That’s the Reagan gambit. If she’s not actually stupid but is actually a fanatic who has weird beliefs but is otherwise of average intelligence she might pull it off.
Hiding loose screws is what campaign staff are for. See Bush, George W.
I remember when you first wrote that, BooMan. you were on point. he was nothing but a punk ass bitch. couldn’t say shyt to Mittens’ face. what kind of ‘man’ can’t talk trash to Willard Romney – to his face?
If you basically laugh at the person when they get mad, rather than being intimidated, there’s no way you’re going to vote for him/her. I guess there’s sort of a wimp factor at play.
Pawlenty reminds me of Paul Tsongas.
I think your analysis is correct, Booman. Also note the name of his latest book Courage to Stand. That’s no accident.
After Pawlenty chickened out on on addressing his “ObomenyCare” remark and being let off the leash to attack Romney, Ezra Klein immediately tweeted:
and he received alot of agreement and many retweets.
It’s interesting that Republicans always attribute their own greatest weaknesses or character flaws to their opponents, as if to suggest that they are the opposite. Democratic men must always be feminized while Republican men prance around in flight suits. Didn’t work this time. Tim Pawlenty is a wuss and all the tough-talk his advisers write for him isn’t going to change that.
Another example: Celebrity Senator and camera-whore John McCain attacks Obama with the nonsensical “Celebrity” ad campaign. Also, too: Woman who can not string a comprehensible sentence together on her own and requires prepared text on a teleprompter, running for vice president, accuses Obama of being unable to function without his teleprompter.
I could go on and on with these…
you should. It would make a good diary.