In 2009, New Jersey voters went to the polls to elect a governor. Their choices were not promising. On the Republican side was a former U.S. Attorney who had done enough of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales’s bidding to avoid getting fired. On the other side was the former co-CEO of Goldman Sachs. In a just world, they would have both been in jail instead of on the ballot. Maybe Jon Corzine will be there soon. Despite the New Jersey electorate’s heavy preference for Democrats, they couldn’t stomach another four years of governance from a symbol of the economic collapse. Corzine was kicked to the curb.
It’s now two years later and the economy hasn’t improved all that much. Goldman Sachs remains unpopular and people are “occupying” Wall Street to protest economic injustice. It seem to be a very bad time to put forward a political candidate with close ties to the banking industry or the financial services sector. But it must be a really bad time to nominate a candidate for president with ties to the second biggest Ponzi scheme in recorded history. And that appears to be what the Republicans are on the cusp of doing. As Think Progress reports, Mitt Romney has close business, political, and familial ties to the Stanford Financial Group, which carried out a $8.5 billion fraud on its investors.
It is bad enough that Romney built his fortune at Bain Capital specializing in Vulture Capitalism. In a time of economic insecurity, who wants to be led by a man whose greatest expertise is downsizing companies and outsourcing jobs? But to discover that his response to the second biggest Ponzi scheme in history was to have his son recruit the crooks and then to invest $10 million to have them set up another investment company?
Let’s deal with some facts. Never in recorded political history have we seen a candidate for office who has taken three sides of so many issues. No one has ever flip-flop-flipped as many times as Mitt Romney. On top of that, the conservative base of the party absolutely hates the man. They don’t trust him for good reason, since he never sticks to a position. And many of the conservative Christians (particularly Southern Baptists) consider Mormonism a competitor as well as a cult. These are two massive liabilities for a nationwide candidate. If you can’t fire up your base and you can’t stand on any principle, you already have two strikes against you.
But being a Vulture Capitalist who goes into business with Ponzi Schemers? Huge Ponzi Schemers? That has to be a third strike.
Looking at the Republican field of candidates, almost all fair observers have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is far and away the strongest and most viable general election candidate. That has certainly been my opinion. And what’s truly scary is that despite these Think Progress revelations, I think it’s still true that Romney is the GOP’s best chance.
While ordinarily I would predict that Romney’s ties to economic fraudsters would doom his prospects for the nomination, his competition is imploding right along with him. Rick Perry is so bad as a candidate that The Economist is openly mocking him. After putting out a trial balloon about skipping some debates (because he does so poorly in them), Perry went up on the air in Iowa with an ad that tried to turn his weakness into a strength.
“If you’re looking for a slick politician or a guy with great teleprompter skills, we already have that, and he’s destroying our economy”, Mr Perry says, nodding toward both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. “I’m a doer, not a talker”.
To which The Economist responded:
Not to be overly pedantic, but talking is a kind of doing. Indeed, talking is primarily how one gets things done in politics. How does Mr Perry convey that he is a doer, and not a talker? By talking. What else is there? Interpretative dance? A presidential candidate unable to best a foe in a public exchange, or to communicate his position on a complex issue when the heat is on, is about as useful as a one-legged fullback. There’s a good reason Mr Perry’s embarrassing debate performances have left him trailing Herman Cain by 15 points in the polls not long after he entered the race with a comfortable lead: a candidate this feckless on his feet would be eaten alive by Barack Obama in the general-election debates.
And then there was Perry’s strange speech in New Hampshire on Friday night that left NPR asking:
Has any modern major-party presidential candidate in recent memory ever given a speech that left so many people afterwards asking if he was under-the-influence during his talk as was the case after Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s now infamous appearance in New Hampshire last Friday?
Then there is the tortured spectacle of Herman Cain trying to explain away a couple of sexual harassment settlements the National Restaurant Association made on his behalf in the late 1990’s. Yes, he is benefiting financially off the revelations in the short-term, but his bumbling response does not bode well for his long-term prospects, especially in a general election against President Obama.
With the Big Three Republican candidates all simultaneously imploding, there ought to be room for some lower-tier candidate to move up. But it is impossible to see more than about a quarter of the Republican base embracing Ron Paul, whose positions on foreign policy and the drug wars are anathema to most conservatives. And no one other than Mr. Paul is even showing a pulse in the nominating contest. Rick Santorum’s campaign is smart enough to smell blood, but that can’t change the fact that their candidate is ridiculous and the object of ridicule. Michele Bachmann is out of money and ideas. Almost by default, that leaves no one but Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman to pick up the slack. Paul Gigot thinks Newt might surge to the front of the pack, and I can’t say he’s wrong. It seems more likely than Jon Huntsman suddenly getting traction.
One thing is certain. This is the worst political party this country has seen since the Whigs disintegrated.
