I sat and watched the eighth Republican presidential debate on Tuesday evening. While I thought it was highly entertaining television, I was disappointed that the debate did little to settle the question of who is the best person to oppose Obama in 2012. Let's take a look at the debate candidate by candidate:
1. Mitt Romney: Romney continues to be the class of the Republican field. He is the only candidate who has previous experience running, and in every debate I've seen, he has been by far the most prepared and looke the most presidential. Last night, I thought he did a very good job of fending off the charges leveled at him by his opponents. His explanations made sense. He still strikes me as the most moderate of the candidates. My major concern with him remains his Mormon faith. I'm still not convinced that he can win over the Religious Right that controls his party. Nor am I convinced that he can win over voters, many of whom have limited understanding of his Mormon faith. Still, another strong performance.
2. Rick Perry: The more of Perry I see, the more I don't like. Last night, he came across as a petulant child. Every time he was challenged, he attempted to talk over his challenger and refused to let them speak. Add to that his extreme positions (such as defunding the United Nations) and his refusal to formally apologize to Romney for one of his supporters calling Mormonism "a cult," and it seems clear that he is the GOP's worst nightmare and Obama's dream opponent in 2012. Perry has an extremely unlikable personality. If, by some miracle, he becomes the nominee, he would easily be marginalized as an extremist, and would almost guarantee another four years of Obama.
3. Herman Cain: Cain has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in recent weeks, so last night, I was paying particular attention to what he said. What I saw didn't impress me.
Cain is, without a doubt, a true American success story. He is a hugely successful businessman with a great backstory, having beaten stage 4 liver and colon cancer. Americans have always loved an underdog. And Cain is impressive, but from what I saw, he's not quite ready for prime time ... yet.
Right off the bat, Cain was attacked for his "9-9-9" tax plan that calls for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax. This was a chance to set himself apart, to sell his plan directly to the American people. Yet, he failed to have a clear explanation for why his plan is better than the current system. Every time he was challenged on the plan, he responded that people were comparing "apples and oranges." He said his opponents, and Americans, simply didn't understand it. And he urged Americans to do their own math and to study his campaign's analysis. That's hardly the compelling sales pitch needed to convince Americans to scrap the current system.
Then there's his stance on negotiating with terrorists. In a classic Al Gore "flip-flop," he told Wolf Blitzer just hours before the debate that he would be open to the tactic. Then, at the debate, he backpedaled fiercely and said that he never said that, and that he was against the idea. Even when faced with video evidence of what he said after the debate, the best he could say was that he "misspoke" and "didn't understand the question." That's a rookie mistake by a rookie politician.
Personally, I think Cain would make a great Cabinet secretary. He might even make a formidable vice presidential pick. But what became clear last night is that he's not quite ready for the top job.
4. Michele Bachmann: Last night proved once and for all that Bachmann is not a serious candidate, and that her candidacy is little more than an exercise in ego. Bachmann spent a large part of the night fighting for camera time. Every time she was given a chance to speak, she either didn't answer the question directly or had little of substance to say. I guess this is hardly surprising, considering she has hardly distinguished herself after five years in the House. I doubt she makes the next debate.
5. Ron Paul: It's only too bad that Paul, a longtime Congressman from Texas, makes so much sense. It almost guarantees that he has no shot at winning the nomination. Paul wasn't given a lot of time to speak last night. When he did, I thought he made more sense than just about anyone up there except for Romney. Paul's problem is that he's a Libertarian. And while he enjoys a solid base of support, I don't think America is ready for her first Libertarian president. My prediction is that he'll be gone by next month's debate.
6. Rick Santorum: Santorum is a fringe candidate at best. He did have one brilliant moment last night in talking about whether people should judge candidates based on their religious beliefs. I totally agreed that it is fair to judge candidates on their morals, but not on their views about salvation. Other than that, it was a fairly quiet debate for Santorum, and I saw of little of substance.
7. Newt Gingrich: The former Speaker of the House had a fairly strong showing here. As one analyst said, he came across as "the elder statesman" of the group. I still think Gingrich is stuck in the past, circa 1994. He has never moved on from his glory days of 1994, when he engineered the Republican Revolution. He's still quoting Reagan and talking about a "21st Century Contract with America." I have heard very little new from Gingrich. Add to that his past ethics problems, and his affair that was exposed at the height of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment scandal, and I believe he is damaged goods. Gingrich makes for an interesting candidate, but Republicans would make a terrible mistake by making him their nominee.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Republicans, get ready for four more years of Obama
We're still well outside the primary season and more than a year from the next presidential election. But I daresay, it's already a done deal. Desperate Republicans, and the rest of America, should prepare themselves for a resounding victory by Barack Obama in 2012. You heard it here first.
How can I say that with such confidence? Well, if you look at the current crop of GOP contenders, it's easy to see that there's no one with a realistic chance of being the next president. Let's take a look at some of the top contenders.
1. Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "Gov. Goodhair" became an instant favorite when he jumped into the race. Still, his support has started to wane, even among his most diehard supporters. In the latest polls, he has fallen all the way to third. Why? Well, among his most auspicious moments, Perry has called for Texas to secede from the Union. He is a hard right-winger and a Tea Party favorite. Texas has a "weak governor" system. The real power in the state lies in the office of the lieutenant governor. That has kept him from doing too much harm in Texas, where he has been governor for more than a decade following the departure of George W. Bush for the White House. But does it really prepare him to be the CEO of the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I don't think so.
If Perry does somehow miraculously move to the middle following the primaries (a strategy that has worked for Republicans in past elections, but is highly doubtful in this case), I believe he would be easy pickings for Democrats, who simply would marginalize him as an extremist. In a way, he is the best hope Obama has for an easy re-election.
2. MittRomney: The second of the "Big Three" sitting atop the current national polls. Romney is a former governor of Massachussetts. He is a former presidential candidate (he ran in 2008). He is the first Mormon to openly seek the Republican nomination.
Looking at Romney, objectively, he has a lot going for him. He is a former governor, so he has that much-desired executive experience. He has done this before, so he knows what to expect from the grueling primary schedule. And compared to the others running, he seems more moderate than extreme.
That's the good news. The bad news is that he is seen by many in the power structure of his party as a Republican version of Obama himself, thanks to his healthcare reforms in Massachussetts, derisively dubbed RomneyCare. In short, he's not conservative enough to please the powers-that-be in the GOP.
Then, there's Romney's Mormon faith. Too many people don't understand Mormonism. Already, it has become an issue after flying mostly beneath the radar to this point. On Friday, the Rev. Robert Jeffress called Mormonism a "cult" and said Romney wasn't a Christian during a gathering of Christian evangelicals. While many mainline Christians may not affirm Jeffress' position, it remains to be seen whether Romney can win over the Religious Right that makes up a significant part of the Republican base. It also remains to be seen whether Romney can educate enough voters to counteract the misconceptions about his faith and have a chance against Obama should he ultimately become the nominee. It's the same problem that plagued another Massachussetts politician a half century ago -- John F. Kennedy -- the nation's first Catholic president.
3. Herman Cain: This is a surprising addition to the Big Three. What's even more surprising is that, according to the latest polls guaging support for the current GOP field, he has taken the lead over Perry, who has fallen to third, and Romney, who remains in second.
Cain is a relative newcomer to the political arena, though he has been around the edges for a long time. He served as senior economic adviser for the Dole-Kemp campaign in 1996. He has a U. S. Senate run to his credit in Georgia, and briefly ran for president in 2000. Still, even with all that, most voters have never heard of Herman Cain. To be taken as a serious contender, he will face a steep uphill battle for name recognition in a very crowded field.
To be fair, Cain's personal and professional life has been an unending string of successes. He ran both Burger King and Godfather's Pizza successfully. He has an inspiring backstory, having beaten stage 4 colon and liver cancer. Americans have always loved inspirational stories. They love to root for the underdog. But is that enough to beat Obama, when there are already a number of more experienced, high-profile candidates in the field? I don't think so.
4. Michele Bachmann: Bachmann's candidacy, to be frank, is little more than an exercise in ego. She can hardly be considered a serious candidate, even though she is one of the more vocal people in the Tea Party movement today.
Bachmann first came to prominence by helping found the Tea Party Caucus in the House and becoming its spokesman. Other than that, though, she has accomplished remarkably little during her time in Congress, never having successfully passed, or even cosponsored a bill. She represents the radical, hard-right wing of the GOP. As such, she has no chance against Obama. Like Perry, she would be impossible to take seriously as a centrist candidate and would be too easy to marginalize as an extremist.
5. Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is an intriguing prospect for the White House in 2012. He is undoubtedly a brilliant man and a formidable politician. He, more than anyone else, was credited as the architect of the Republican Revolution of 1994 that swept Republicans into control of Congress for the next 12 years.
Gingrich has years of experience in Congress. He ascended to the third most powerful position in this nation when he became Speaker of the House. He is intimately familiar with the Washington culture, and he knows how to get things done.
So why can't he beat Obama? Because, in addition to all his accomplishments in Congress, he is largely responsible for the poisonous partisan culture that exists there now. He also is largely responsible for many of the problems facing this nation. Listen to him talk, and you realize that he has progressed very little from his glory days of the early to mid-1990s. He's still talking about the "Contract With America." He's even talking about forging a new one if he's elected. In short, his ideas are stale and have failed to keep up with the times.
Add to that all his ethical problems. Gingrich is the only Speaker ever to have ethics violations lodged against him while holding that position. In all, he had a total of 84 charges brought against him, although only one stuck. He has a history of extramarital affairs, including one which occurred during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when he was calling for President Bill Clinton's resignation over the same behavior. Clearly, he is damaged goods. He's hardly the best representative for a party that claims to defend the public's morality.
The overall problem with the Republican field right now is that there isn't a single, transcendant figure that the party faithful can rally around. In 2008, the GOP fielded John McCain -- a bonafide war hero and longtime political maverick. He was so popular, he even managed to win a good number votes from political independents, even some Democrats. Who is this year's McCain? Who is this campaign's bright, shining star for the GOP? I don't see him or her yet in the current field. And unless Republicans can identify that person, they might as well write off the 2012 election and prepare for four more years of Obama.
How can I say that with such confidence? Well, if you look at the current crop of GOP contenders, it's easy to see that there's no one with a realistic chance of being the next president. Let's take a look at some of the top contenders.
1. Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "Gov. Goodhair" became an instant favorite when he jumped into the race. Still, his support has started to wane, even among his most diehard supporters. In the latest polls, he has fallen all the way to third. Why? Well, among his most auspicious moments, Perry has called for Texas to secede from the Union. He is a hard right-winger and a Tea Party favorite. Texas has a "weak governor" system. The real power in the state lies in the office of the lieutenant governor. That has kept him from doing too much harm in Texas, where he has been governor for more than a decade following the departure of George W. Bush for the White House. But does it really prepare him to be the CEO of the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I don't think so.
If Perry does somehow miraculously move to the middle following the primaries (a strategy that has worked for Republicans in past elections, but is highly doubtful in this case), I believe he would be easy pickings for Democrats, who simply would marginalize him as an extremist. In a way, he is the best hope Obama has for an easy re-election.
2. MittRomney: The second of the "Big Three" sitting atop the current national polls. Romney is a former governor of Massachussetts. He is a former presidential candidate (he ran in 2008). He is the first Mormon to openly seek the Republican nomination.
Looking at Romney, objectively, he has a lot going for him. He is a former governor, so he has that much-desired executive experience. He has done this before, so he knows what to expect from the grueling primary schedule. And compared to the others running, he seems more moderate than extreme.
That's the good news. The bad news is that he is seen by many in the power structure of his party as a Republican version of Obama himself, thanks to his healthcare reforms in Massachussetts, derisively dubbed RomneyCare. In short, he's not conservative enough to please the powers-that-be in the GOP.
Then, there's Romney's Mormon faith. Too many people don't understand Mormonism. Already, it has become an issue after flying mostly beneath the radar to this point. On Friday, the Rev. Robert Jeffress called Mormonism a "cult" and said Romney wasn't a Christian during a gathering of Christian evangelicals. While many mainline Christians may not affirm Jeffress' position, it remains to be seen whether Romney can win over the Religious Right that makes up a significant part of the Republican base. It also remains to be seen whether Romney can educate enough voters to counteract the misconceptions about his faith and have a chance against Obama should he ultimately become the nominee. It's the same problem that plagued another Massachussetts politician a half century ago -- John F. Kennedy -- the nation's first Catholic president.
3. Herman Cain: This is a surprising addition to the Big Three. What's even more surprising is that, according to the latest polls guaging support for the current GOP field, he has taken the lead over Perry, who has fallen to third, and Romney, who remains in second.
Cain is a relative newcomer to the political arena, though he has been around the edges for a long time. He served as senior economic adviser for the Dole-Kemp campaign in 1996. He has a U. S. Senate run to his credit in Georgia, and briefly ran for president in 2000. Still, even with all that, most voters have never heard of Herman Cain. To be taken as a serious contender, he will face a steep uphill battle for name recognition in a very crowded field.
To be fair, Cain's personal and professional life has been an unending string of successes. He ran both Burger King and Godfather's Pizza successfully. He has an inspiring backstory, having beaten stage 4 colon and liver cancer. Americans have always loved inspirational stories. They love to root for the underdog. But is that enough to beat Obama, when there are already a number of more experienced, high-profile candidates in the field? I don't think so.
4. Michele Bachmann: Bachmann's candidacy, to be frank, is little more than an exercise in ego. She can hardly be considered a serious candidate, even though she is one of the more vocal people in the Tea Party movement today.
Bachmann first came to prominence by helping found the Tea Party Caucus in the House and becoming its spokesman. Other than that, though, she has accomplished remarkably little during her time in Congress, never having successfully passed, or even cosponsored a bill. She represents the radical, hard-right wing of the GOP. As such, she has no chance against Obama. Like Perry, she would be impossible to take seriously as a centrist candidate and would be too easy to marginalize as an extremist.
5. Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is an intriguing prospect for the White House in 2012. He is undoubtedly a brilliant man and a formidable politician. He, more than anyone else, was credited as the architect of the Republican Revolution of 1994 that swept Republicans into control of Congress for the next 12 years.
Gingrich has years of experience in Congress. He ascended to the third most powerful position in this nation when he became Speaker of the House. He is intimately familiar with the Washington culture, and he knows how to get things done.
So why can't he beat Obama? Because, in addition to all his accomplishments in Congress, he is largely responsible for the poisonous partisan culture that exists there now. He also is largely responsible for many of the problems facing this nation. Listen to him talk, and you realize that he has progressed very little from his glory days of the early to mid-1990s. He's still talking about the "Contract With America." He's even talking about forging a new one if he's elected. In short, his ideas are stale and have failed to keep up with the times.
Add to that all his ethical problems. Gingrich is the only Speaker ever to have ethics violations lodged against him while holding that position. In all, he had a total of 84 charges brought against him, although only one stuck. He has a history of extramarital affairs, including one which occurred during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when he was calling for President Bill Clinton's resignation over the same behavior. Clearly, he is damaged goods. He's hardly the best representative for a party that claims to defend the public's morality.
The overall problem with the Republican field right now is that there isn't a single, transcendant figure that the party faithful can rally around. In 2008, the GOP fielded John McCain -- a bonafide war hero and longtime political maverick. He was so popular, he even managed to win a good number votes from political independents, even some Democrats. Who is this year's McCain? Who is this campaign's bright, shining star for the GOP? I don't see him or her yet in the current field. And unless Republicans can identify that person, they might as well write off the 2012 election and prepare for four more years of Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)