Some time in the not too distant past I wrote a piece about why I could foresee the possibility of a brokered GOP convention where the delegates would have to bicker among themselves to come up with presidential and vice-presidential candidates. I said that it was quite likely that the Republican primary voters would settle on someone in Iowa only to reject them in New Hampshire. And then both of those candidates would be rejected in South Carolina. And the pattern would keep repeating itself.
We’re kind of seeing the same thing happen right now before any votes are cast at all. For a while, it looked like it was going to be a race between Romney and Pawlenty, but Pawlenty could never get any traction. In the middle of that fiasco, we had the Donald Trump boomlet. Then the president produced his birth certificate. Every time it begins to look like Romney is the only choice they have, they cast around for a new candidate.
We’ve heard the names: Jeb Bush, John Thune, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan…Chris Christie again…and again.
Finally, some people in the GOP got restless enough to recruit Rick Perry, and the thirst for an anti-Romney candidate was so great that he leapt right to the head of the class. Of course, Perry’s entry into the race was timed to step on Michele Bachmann’s victory in the Ames Straw poll in Iowa. It worked, too. Tonight, Michele Bachmann came in dead last in the Florida Straw Poll behind Jon Huntsman.
Of course, the big news is who won the Florida Straw Poll.
Every winner of Florida’s Presidency 5 straw poll has gone on to win the GOP nomination.
And if that tradition continues this year, Herman Cain will be the Republican nominee in 2012.
He overwhelmingly won the straw poll, nabbing 37 percent of the votes. That put Cain more than twenty percentage points ahead of Rick Perry (15 percent) and Mitt Romney (14 percent). Rick Santorum won 11 percent of the votes, while Ron Paul came in fifth at 10 percent. Newt Gingrich was backed by 8 percent. And Michele Bachmann, who won the Ames Straw Poll, finished dead last at 1.5 percent. Jon Huntsman beat her to come in seventh place with 2.3 percent of the vote.
It’s fair to say at this point that the GOP is operating on a flavor of the month strategy. But they keep spitting out the ice cream and asking for a refund. The root problem is that no one can envision any of these characters as the president of the United States. The only exception might be Mitt Romney, but every time the base thinks about President Romney, they go in search of the Tums.
It’s not necessarily that they don’t think Romney can win. He has his weaknesses, but he’s clearly the strongest general election candidate they have. The problem is they don’t want him to be president because he doesn’t represent their values on any level.
This is why I can still see a brokered convention. As soon as one candidate gets the upper hand, everyone has to actually picture that candidate as president. And it gives them the heebie-jeebies, so they reject that candidate in favor of someone else. If this cycle repeats itself long enough, no one will emerge with the majority of the delegates. It’s like a M.C. Escher drawing of infinite relativity. They will never arrive at a nominee.
If I am right, Romney will make many runs on locking down the nomination, but every time he has a chance he will be rebuffed in favor of a new flavor of the month. He’ll almost certainly accrue the most delegates, but will he ever accrue more than half of them?
And the biggest question of all is, who will be pulled off the sidelines after everyone else has been rejected?
I have a really hard time seeing the R’s come down to a brokered convention under any circumstances. They are SO authoritarian that they eventually all must agree on something, whether they’re happy with it or not. The Dems will argue about any minute detail right down to the wire, but not the R’s.
I suspect that they will wind up with Romney unless their magical dream candidate enters the race in the next month. Or they may settle with Perry, but I’m really starting to doubt that.
They really only have a month if they want their candidate on early-state ballots. So if Sarah Palin or Chris Christie or whoever their centerfold-model candidate turns out to be comes forward in that time frame, they should be fine. But then they might have buyers remorse once again. So I don’t envy them.
In ANY case, I think they’re gonna be screwed big-time. Because then Obama’s gonna go scorched earth on whoever they churn out. And it won’t be pretty.
Quoting myself:
Just imagine Chris Christie as the “centerfold model” that the Republican authoritarian loyalists wank to all of the time.
Eeeew. But that’s the way they work. They loved them some George Bush and Dick Cheney. Wank wank wank. McCain was a bit too far, so he chose Sarah Palin for some wank material.
Maybe we’ll see Christie and Palin or Christie and Santorum. They could really get into either of those. Wank wank wank. (That’s just plain disgusting, but we’re talking about authoritarians here. None of us understand them very well, so follow that link.)
Obama? Scorched earth? Whaddayou, kiddin’ me or what!!!???
Scorched earth?
If it had been Barack Obama instead of General Sherman during the Civil War, Sherman’s no holds barred, total war March To The Sea in Georgia would have been a Tip Toe Through The Tulips Waltz. (And Please Be Careful Not To Break Anything.).
Obama’s motto should be “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.”
Ad infinitum, apparently.
Obama?
Scorched earth?
Please.
Someone might get…offended.
AG
I don’t want to get into an argument with you, AG, because you are always right.
But from what I’ve seen so far, that’s his only path to victory. No more “hope” or “change.” Now it’s scorched earth. I just can’t see any other way for them. The next election should not be about the “ideal” but about the better of the two lousy options and he intends to win that.
He…Obama…intends to “win?”
He has been in office for three years and I am still awaiting proof of that.
i guess it depends on the definition one might use for the concept of “winning.”
Obama’s definition?
I am really no longer sure.
Getting out of office in one piece and living well for the rest of his life with his family appears to me to be his main goal on the evidence of his actions as president so far. Being a total centrist in order to achieve that goal appears to be his tactical approach to doing that. Going in whole hog plus postage? A “scorched earth” policy politically?
Naaaaaaahhhhhh…that’s just not the way that he operates. He would rather “win” by losing than lose by winning.
I think that he is a very self-aware and intelligent man, Randy. Self-aware and intelligent enough not to take on battles that he stands a good chance of losing. I would not be in the least bit surprised if he said “Fuck all this. I’m outta here!”, took his millions and his family and walked away from the presidency before the campaign truly begins. In fact, I would respect him more if he did so. The empty posturing in which he has been indulging for three years is beneath him.
He’s no hero; he’s just a man who has been cast as a hero by the controllers.
Bet on it.
On the evidence of what he has and has not done over the past three years.
Bet on it.
AG
Well, let me take a shot at this.
1 – As for proof that Obama intends to win, according to PolitiFact.com ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ ), he has kept or attempted to keep around 90% of his campaign promises. You can disagree with their interpretation (as I do on some issues) of what constitutes keeping or breaking a campaign promise, but the part of his agenda he has stuck to over the last 3 years (and especially the part he’s accomplished) would constitute “winning” by many people’s standards.
2 – I’m open to persuasion, but Obama still strikes me as a politician who aims to position himself at the ideological/political middle of a center-left coalition that includes about 60% of the body politic. Having done so, he then aims to use the power of that coalition to win 80% (or 70% or 60%) of what progressives want on any particular issue, and then move on to the next issue…and the next issue…and the next issue.
As a result, I’m not surprised that, for example, the ACA doesn’t include a public option, or that it does include an individual mandate. The fact that the ACA passed with the bare minimum of votes needed in our dysfunctional Senate tends to confirm my view of Obama—i.e., he pushed for and signed a bill that was about as progressive as possible given a Senate where Ben Nelson was the 60th vote.
3 – We agree in our perception that Obama is “a very self-aware and intelligent man”. I keep going back to this exchange ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8C_JH2eQc ) between Obama and Keene (NH) Sentinel editor Guy MacMillin on Nov. 25, 2007.
Obama’s a self-described “counterpuncher” who will “crush” his opponents if they try to take advantage of his willingness to engage their views and ideas…and then he flashes a big smile to break the tension. There’s nothing in that description that’s inconsistent with his actions since the 2010 congressional elections.
4 – “He’s no hero”. Agreed. But that’s not the issue; it’s a distraction. Any progressive looking for a president to be a hero is looking in the wrong place (or at least, it’s the wrong place 99% of the time).
Anyone on the left looking for a hero should read that link on authoritarians in another comment on this very page.
“Winning.”
Hmmmmm….
Obama’s tactical approaches have lost him the groundswell of public approval and trust that put him into the
previously all-White House in the first place. He has compromised himself right out of that catbird seat. Would he be in a better political and power position now if during his first two years he had not tried to make compromise after compromise with the right? If he had used the bully pulpit and his own speaking abilities to rally the American people around another attempt at a New Deal?Yes, I believe that he would be in a better position. As would we all.
But he did not seize his original opportunity, and the right wing has taken him down inch by inch as a result.
So it goes.
Would he have lost even more than he has lost so far had he done that?
Maybe, but again we come to a problem of definitions.
What is “winning” and what is “losing?”
Is this country’s economic and social situation spiraling ever more rapidly downward? I believe that it is. Are we broke, in debt, losing more and more jobs and simultaneously turning into a technosurveillance society that is beginning to look suspiciously like a shinier version of Orwell’s vision of 1984? Yup, Is the fringe/wacko right that is always present in every society now on the verge of controlling the Republican Party? Check, check and countercheck. Over and out, Captain Quirk.
if this is what constitues “winning”, I’d rather lose.
The I Ching hexagram 43…Kuai / Break-through (Resoluteness)…states:
Obama has not done this. Instead he has okeydoked his way into failure.
You want to see the very moment when he descended to his lowest point in my opinion?
Sure.
Here it is:
This photo op/mutual hustle was the moment when he lost it, when he lost the remnant of the mojo that had descended upon him when he won the presidency. It is most certainly where he lost me. I believe that he will never get that mojo back. There is a point of compromise beyond which one can never return. Bet on it. Obama has reached that point.
Shakespeare knew:
Obama not only missed the tide, he lost all of the boats that floated upon it as well.
So it goes.
He may very well win the presidency once again, but here is no way in hell that Congress will not have a Republican majority…or at the very least a “conservative” majority (See “Blue Dog Dems” for more on that idea)… in both houses. Then what? Four more years of this bullshit?
Like I said…I’d rather lose than “win” in this way. At least the truth would be plain to see.
But NOOOOOooooo….
Okeydoke politics will lead to another I Ching concept.
And yet another as well:
Yup.
Pictures of where we are today, written over 3000 years ago.
What goes around comes around, and the chickens always come home to roost.
The first black president of the slavery-based United States of Omertica cavorting around on a golf course with a leader of the vast right wing conspiracy?
And you wonder why I liked Hillary Clinton for preznit better than I did Obama?
At the very least that is one set of images to which we would not have been subjected.
Believe it.
AG
Booman,
Can you at least ban these silly ass picture shows?! WTF is this Drudge now?!
“And you wonder why I liked Hillary Clinton for preznit better than I did Obama?”
Really? The Hillary Clinton who picked Mark Penn to run her campaign and craft her public image wouldn’t have taken some pictures with Speaker Boehner demonstrating her ability to be “one of the guys” and to get along with her political opponents?
Really, AG, your rhetoric is tiresome AND depressing. I guess we should all lie down and die right now – cuz ther’s no hope.
You need to be banned from this site for your intellectual laziness and utter stupidity. There is not one day person on the face of the Earth WHO HAS ACTUALLY RUN A CAMPAIGN OR INVOLVED IN POLITICS who would dare underestimate the formidableness of Barack Obama as a candidate. He is a political athlete not unlike the best black sports athletes of our time. I’m speaking of the rare few that have the best natural talents but also have that easy going temperament and charm to put white people at ease, even make white men want to be them. What you don’t know is that while they are beaming their million dollar smiles and wishing their opponents luck in front of the cameras like a gentleman, which white folks love, he’s whispering in his opponents ear, “I’m going to rip your mutha fuckin throat out.” You may be stupid enough to believe that Barack Obama isn’t going to try to rip Romney’s throat out, But not a damn GOP political operative is stupid enough to believe that.
NMP…right on.
As a radical right-winger, I do not underestimate that Mfer for a minute…
Don’t think that any of us do…
That’s why you see the continual discontent amongst the right-wing base…
We do not yet have the “Perfect Candidate”…
With this President’s dismal failure to manage our economy, we shouldn’t need “perfect”…
But we know this guy is a clever Mfer…and we need to, in the words of your Union Bosses…
Defeat Him.
This man is the biggest threat to the fundamental values that created this country, the greatest country on earth…
s
And his skin color is utterly irrelevant…this is about the fundamental question of who makes this, or any, society work…
Who is virtuous…those who create wealth…or those who consume it…
The polarity in this country will continue to worsen until that question is decided…
I only hope that Greece provides an early harbinger of that decision.
The disastrous presidency of George W. Bush made Obama’s presidency possible. I’d go so far as to say it make Obama’s presidency necessary. What is the conservative response? Double down on Bushism. Seems to me that makes conservatives (actually radical reactionaries) the biggest threat to the fundamental values that created this country.
Bush wasn’t conservative…
Look at spending as a percentage of GDP…
That statistic measures conservativism…
Don’t get me wrong…I like the guy…he had nutjobs fly planes into the twin towers…he did the best he could…he meant well…but he was his father’s son…
He was no Conservative…
When I read comments like this one, I’m reminded that for the true believer “conservatism can never fail; it can only be failed”.
First, it’s hard for me to imagine a brokered convention scenario—despite the almost Keystone Kops air surrounding the Republicans right now. But I recognize that’s largely because there hasn’t been a brokered convention in the “modern” (i.e., post-1968 reforms) era.
Even getting past that obstacle, it’s still hard for me to imagine without at least three “viable” candidates beyond the first four states. And there are tremendous structural obstacles to having three viable candidates after IA, NH, SC and NV. (And if the 2008 Democratic race—with two talented and well-financed candidates and with its proportional delegate allocation rules—didn’t yield a brokered convention, then how does the 2012 Republican race?)
If we assume Romney is one candidate, and that Perry recovers from his recent debate performances to remain the second “viable” candidate, then who’s the third?
And remember, that third candidate has to get on the ballot in all (or almost all) 50 states, and raise enough money to run a national campaign. (Recall that Obama owes his 2008 victory in large part to the fact that he was able to raise enough early money to have a national campaign up and running so that he could take advantage of his early victories and compete effectively on “Super Tuesday” and beyond.)
Booman (or anyone else), what’s the scenario that leads to a brokered convention?
Let me add that I think that at some point the state and party rules for caucuses and primaries kick in and short-circuit the ability of the Escher-like “flavor of the month” candidates to get in the race and on the ballot. (E.g., if on March 15 there’s a great cry for Jeb Bush to get in the race and save the party from disaster, he won’t be able to—just as a practical/logistical matter.)
the 1972 Democratic Convention was unsettled and basically brokered, although the delegate leader won, it was in no way guaranteed.
The problem is they don’t want him to be president because he doesn’t represent their values on any level.
this is true. the only true value Willard holds true to is…is his belief that HE should be President. everything else is negotiable.
Well, they could shake the mothballs out of Dan Quayle’s pockets…
I think this is basically right. However, if there is a brokered convention — something I didn’t think of until you mentioned it months ago — I’ve been having trouble thinking of the more likely end game to it. Do you have any end scenarios to a possible convention like this? What we have to remember is that the delegates are even more crazy than the voting general pubic of the Republicans (which is sort of hard to believe), but that they still want to beat Obama more than anything. And in that situation, I don’t know what wins out: the rejection of Romney by those delegates because of the people on the floor (and themselves), or an embrace of Romney in order to beat the president.
Booman dreams of brokered conventions. I don’t blame him. It makes things more interesting.
But the money people who fund the Republican Party would never tolerate such a thing. The only way I could see it happening on the Republican side is if Ron Paul got close to winning the nomination. Then his people would bend every rule and challenge every precedent to make it happen, and they might succeed if that were to happen.
We saw it here at the state convention in Nevada in 2008. Once the Ron Paul supporters were on the verge of taking over the convention, the mainstream Republican leaders (who were there to support McCain, even though everyone hated him) just picked up and got in their limos and went to the airport, effectively ending the State Convention illegally. Later, they set up a new convention and only invited people willing to support McCain. It was outrageous but that’s the way Authoritarians operate.
That was the big question on my mind when the original post went up. Who gets sent as delegates to the conventions? Is it similar to the process for selecting precinct captains? If so, it seemed to me at the time and still does that, in the event of a brokered convention, the Teabaggers could have an even more disproportionate influence on the outcome than they already enjoy. Excellent news for Ron Paul, in other words.
I don’t see Herman Cain making the cut under any circumstances. I never saw Bachmann grabbing the spotlight the way she did, either. I think it really is just another Donald Trump burnout situation, wherein as Booman described the GOP electorate picks a new flavor every month or two. God help us if they settle at last on Huntsman, bc he probably has the most swing-voter appeal out of any of that bunch.
Roughly 670 words in this post, and no two of them are “Ron Paul” except for a small part of a quote.
Hmmmmm…
Are you part of the anti-Paul plot too?
Just kidding. I know you’re not.
You are one of its victims instead.
“Everybody”…that is, everybody in the media…says that he doesn’t count, that he can’t win, that he is just random noise in the system. So all of the other “everybodies” ignore him. He becomes a non-person.
He’s not though, and he won’t settle for that role no matter how persistently the media tries to cast him in it. He is one tough old dude, Booman, and like him or lump him, I suggest that you begin watching him. The only two Rat candidates who are not “flavors of the month”…or week, in some cases…are Romney and Paul, and I believe that they will both be standing at the end of the process.
Romney’s flavor?
Vanilla. Vanillin, really.
Paul’s?
Revolution.
Bet on it.
Remember…not all revolutions turn in a leftward direction.
AG
P.S. Just a reminder…i am no more “pro-Ron Paul” than I was “pro-Hillary Clinton” during the last election cycle. I am simply an interested observer. I have arrived at that position because I have no longer have any hope whatsoever that any candidate will ever successfully run for higher office in this great United States of Omertica whose policies would agree with my own take on what should be done here.
Ain’t gonna happen, so instead of rooting for one team or against another I simply observe the various candidates on the basis of their own self-referential honesty.
Are they “real?” Do they really belive what they are saying or are they just blowing Mass Media/Corporate PermaGov-pleasing wind?
Paul is real.
He has lots of support.
He has lots of money coming from that support.
And he has an effective organization on the ground.
He is a factor.
Do not ignore him.
I don’t doubt the abilities of Ron Paul supporters. I’d like to see them really mess with the Republican establishment. NO ONE wants to report on him because they are afraid of him. He represents something that the “owners” can’t keep control of and that is very scary for all of them. So I hope he and his supporters mess with everything.
But I do worry a bit about him actually winning because he’s got some radical ideas. Not that I have a problem with radicalism, but what I worry about is him succeeding, thinking he can actually make some of these things happen. I worry that he will be stopped at every move and we’ll be left without any reform of anything. Stuck on pause for at least four more years.
Unless some kind of revolution happens we will be “stuck on pause for at least four more years” no matter who wins. We cannot maintain our posture as world cop for the NATO nations and still recover financially, but neither can we disband (or redirect towards rebuilding the country’s infrastructure) large parts of our military/industrial system without at least temporarily facing the danger of collapsing the economy.
What to do, what to do?
Revolution is in the air, Randy. Have you noticed? And there is only one candidate in either party whose platform is in the least “revolutionary.”
Ron Paul.
In 2012?
We could have our own Arab Spring.
Watch.
Paul could light some fires.
Bet on it.
AG
Ron Paul may be a “revolutionary”, but let’s be clear. He’s a revolutionary like Robert Welch, Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Welch_Jr. was a revolutionary, like William J. Simmons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Simmons was a revolutionary, like Fr. Charles Coughlin was a revolutionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin .
As for Ron Paul being a leader of our own “Arab Spring”, I’ll start taking that idea seriously when I see evidence that he and his followers are studying and putting into action the teachings contained in Gene Sharp’s essay, “From Dictatorship to Democracy”, http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations98ce.html the way the April 6 Youth Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_6_Youth_Movement did in Egypt over the last three years.
So you are saying that Ron Paul is a racist/fascist on the level of Charles Coughlin?
A conspiracy nut on the level of Robert Welch?
A Ku Klux Klan supporter on the level of William Simmons?
Is that what you are saying?
Prove it.
Show me the racist, fascist, nut-level conspiracist, pro-KKK quotes, please.
Thank you and good night.
AG
Sure, just google “Ron Paul” “racist” (or the adjective of your choice) and go from there. Speaking more generally, it’s well nigh impossible to separate libertarianism from racist and nativist movements in American history.
Arthor Gilroy…
Seeming Leftist…
That advocates the we all “wake up”…
Supports Ron Paul?
wow.
I voted for Ron Paul as an idealistic college student in 1988…he was the Libertarian Party’s candidate…
Everyone convinced me that I outgrew that idealistic third-party thing…
Arthur…perhaps Shakespeare in a past life…here’s Pauls’s weakness…
His quality as a Human Being…
That counts, too…
If you are seriously supporting that racist moron Ron Paul, you are truly stupid.
One simple fact: Ron Paul supports raw milk.
Ron Paul is a total idiot, who only attracts people because his ideas are simple.
The stupider you are, the more you like Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is 76 years old. By comparison, Ronald Reagan was 69 when he won the presidency. Paul would be 77 and a half.
Cranky McSame was 72 in 2008, and polling showed that his age was most definitely held against him by huge percentages of the electorate.
He’s a boutique candidate who can be relied upon to poll in the 15-20% range all across the country, basically guaranteeing him a third of the early delegates and none of the late ones.
Maybe, just enough power to be a king-maker at a brokered convention, but not to make himself king.
Reagan was Alzheimers-ish all of his life. He couldn’t act for more than a few seconds in a row when he was a second-rate Hollywood male starlet and his whole thought/speech system was totally screwed up all of his life. Sorry, but there it was. He just looked good. Paul is sharp as a tack at 76. McCain? Never the sharpest tack in the box, and quite visibly ill. Paul is one of those dry old crackers who just keep on ‘a goin’. Voters see that.
15-20% range?
We shall soon see.
I think that…barring the effects of the media blackout on him, which could backfire big time if he wins a primary or two…he has a damned good shot, myself.
We shall see soon enough.
AG
are terrible. Obama will win as we hold our noses and vote for him.
And then we’ve got…
What? Four more years of directionless, leaderless bullshit.
Yup.
That’s precisely what we will have.
AG
If it comes to that I can imagine a serious effort to draft Jeb. I can see him resisting, perhaps strenuously at first, at least for the cameras. But I can also see him finally, reluctantly, at least for the cameras, making the ultimate sacrifice and accepting the nomination. Yes, I know, W poisoned forever the Bush brand. That’s all anyone thinks about whenever Jeb’s name comes up. But W was not part of the plan. W was a monstrous accident of history.
We forget that Jeb was heir apparent to the Bush dynasty. We forget that Poppy wept on camera when asked to reflect on W’s presidency. We forget that, for all his faults, Poppy Bush was one of the last sane Republicans to hold any significant power before the krazies took over. He nailed Reaganomics when the rest of them were embracing it, calling it voodoo economics. He handled Gulf War I masterfully, pushing Saddam out of Kuwait and decimating his armed forces in 100 hours, yet having the good sense to stand down before our troops entered Baghdad and broke the pottery barn. I did not like GHWB’s presidency. I disagreed with him on almost everything. But as Republican presidents go, he was one of the best of a bad lot. And If Jeb had been The Next Bush he would have been a continuation of that legacy and the world would be a very, very different place now. None of us would like it very much, but it would not be the utterly FUBAR disaster that W made of it.
So, if it comes to a deadlocked, brokered convention, I could see Jeb being drafted. I could see him accepting, perhaps reluctantly. And if that happens, all the Big Money in the world would instantly go to his candidacy. The fabled Billion Dollar Campaign might begin to seem like chump change. Then the same fight over choosing the nominee would ensue over choosing a running mate. They might pick some token krazy to placate the Teahadis, but all of the money, and most of the momentum, would be behind Jeb.
I don’t know if that will really happen, but I can imagine such a scenario. And if it does, Jeb will give Obama a run for his money. Quite literally.
Bullshit.
AG
Oh, right. Maybe they’ll draft Ron Paul instead.
Sorry, I have to say this:
You really are capable of being succinct!
Florida straw poll points yet again to a Party driven by spite which chooses vindictive over determination at each crossroad. Their anger is burning so hot and is so non sensically driven it’s hard to imagine keeping these birds in the air for even another year. And since they tend to swarm any new candidate, just because he’s new, then toss him to the wind when he performs like Perry shows the don’t themselves know what they’re looking for.