Republicans go through presidential contenders like Newt Gingrich goes through wives.
Faster, in fact.
The GOP had two years to find, mold, and polish a top-notch Republican challenger who could mount a strong and maybe even successful offensive against President Obama in 2012. They found ten candidates, but, alas, not one of them fits the bill.
Like most subjects Thomas takes on, Republicans' dissatisfaction with the current pool of candidates is more complex than their unrealistic expectations, or their "messiah complex," as he puts it.
Thomas has a point, but he misses the underlying problem and the recent historical context that's necessary for making such a comparison between Democrats in 2008 with the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls. While Democrats were united in 2008 against the eight-year reign of George W. Bush, the partisanship in Washington, and the do-nothing attitude of Republicans in Congress, today's GOP candidates, in contrast, are competing for support from a "Republican base" that is split between the ideological conservatives of the Tea Party, who play a large part in determining the outcomes of primary elections, and the moderate or right-leaning independents, who determine the outcome of general elections.
The problem is electability, and electability cannot be defined when part of the base is so staunchly anti-government that the only candidate worth supporting is the one who believes, as they do, that negotiating with Democrats is treasonous – even when "negotiation" means keeping the government from shutting down or preventing the U.S. from defaulting on its loans.
That is the reality of the political divide within the Republican Party today, and that is why no one candidate has what it takes to beat Obama.
It's a Catch-22 between sane Republicans and Tea Party astroturfers. If the candidate isn't conservative enough, he won't win the Tea Party endorsement needed to perform well in enough primary contests to secure the nomination. If he's too conservative, he will lose support among the more moderate Republicans and perform poorly in the general election. But if he performs well among moderate Republicans in the primary but loses the support of the Tea Party in the process, he will lose the most vocal, most active, and most media-hyped demographic within the GOP.
Given President Obama's edge as an incumbent and a powerful campaigner, Republicans may need a messiah to have any chance of defeating him. But that isn't the cause of Republicans' dissatisfaction. They aren't so ardently searching for someone – anyone! – to step in and be the savior of the party. They don't even know what that savior should stand for, because, thus far, it seems impossible to earn the endorsement of the Tea Party and have a chance at defeating Obama.
We've seen it happen already with every "frontrunner" who's entered the race and every "potential" candidate who hasn't.
Michele Bachmann was the first "chosen one" to announce her candidacy. For the most boisterous band of conservatives, she was "it" – the founder of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, a patriotic Constitutionalist, an icon of the Christian pro-life/anti-gay value system, a sexy, Sarah Palin-esque rogue of "Don't Tread on Me" right-wing populism, and a true-blood anti-government conservative who capitalized "Founding Fathers" not only in writing but even while orating.
And then suddenly she wasn't.
When the media's "profile season" launched – when Newsweek put her life-sized, wrinkled, very unsexy face on its cover; when the rumor mill started churning out (purely speculative?) hit pieces on her (gay?) husband; when mainstream pundits began analyzing this alleged Constitutionalist's alleged "knowledge" of American history (about how our Founders "worked tirelessly" to end slavery, about John Quincy Adams being one of those "Founding Fathers," about "the shot heard 'round the world" in... Manchester?) – her presidential prospects crashed. The question that came to haunt Bachmann, and her White House ambitions, was best summed up by the question asked in the syndicated TV show, Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?
The resounding answer, among both Tea Partiers and establishment Republicans, was an emphatic No.
Then there was Rick Perry, the three-term governor of Texas, the anti-Ivy-League, state-university-educated athlete (cheerleader); the "Texecutioner" who's overseen 235 executions as governor (impressive, but less per year than his predecessor, George W. Bush); the self-admitted "kind of guy" who packs a "Ruger .380 with laser sights loaded with hollow point bullets" and creates "mulch" out of "wily creatures" by blowing coyote brain fragments all over the Austin outskirts when he's out jogging (also athletic).
As soon as Perry announced his candidacy, the "Bush-on-steroids" three-term Texas governor rose to the top of the polls, making Bachmann look like a bleeding heart lib-rull in contrast.
But then suddenly his macho man persona met reality – in the form of live television. The media critics judged his first three debate performances as "dismal," "toxic," "inarticulate," and "amateurish," and the hype surrounding Perry faded quickly. After going from zero to 32 percent, leading the pack by as much as 12 points soon after his campaign announcement, Perry's approval rating was halved, his temporary frontrunner status lost, in less than three weeks.
Of course, Mitt Romney's been there all along. For whatever (probably purely personal) reason, he's still in the race. And he's still a Mormon. The "objective" mass media won't make an issue of his religious faith because that wouldn't be fair, but they can't help talking about how the other Republican candidates, the incumbent, and the press itself won't touch "the Mormon issue" with a 10-foot pole for fear of being castigated (by the media – ironic?) for pulling the religion card. Romney's faith is a sensitive subject, and Mormon-bashing isn't much different than attacking a candidate's family, but everyone knows it's a valid subject if only because Republicans don't have a history of religious diversity in their presidential nominee selections.
The elections of the first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, and the first black president, Barack Obama, were historic. But both these men were Democrats, nominated by the Democratic Party and elected by Democratic voters. Republicans have no precedent to speak of when it comes to party diversity.
Instead of going straight at Romney, the media have highlighted "the Mormon issue" by talking about how it's not an issue. This sort of "reporting" is considered safe, a politically-correct Green Zone for reporters covering the campaigns, because they aren't advocating that anyone actually make an issue of "the Mormon issue." But by talking about "the Mormon issue" they're nonetheless making an issue of "the Mormon issue."
Though it's possible for Romney to win the nomination in spite of his religion, it won't be for lack of want or lack of hesitancy over his still very controversial personal faith. And until conservative Christians make a public spectacle of Romney's Mormonism – which they will, soon, as already 20 percent of conservatives say a Mormon candidate won't get their vote – it's not as if the mainstream media's assault weapons cache is empty.
[Texas Gov. Rick] Perry's campaign is targeting Romney's already well-known and highly publicized record of flip-flopping – on abortion, gay marriage, health care reform, the assault weapons ban, auto industry bailouts, stem cell research, campaign finance reform and spending limits, immigration reform, "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the provisions of the American Jobs Act... – from "Is Romney's Campaign Seeking a Texas-style Death Penalty?"
Romney has never been the favorite, and he won't be even if he wins the nomination.
What's interesting, though, is that every candidate who was seriously considered as a potential victor in the 2012 showdown has decided not to enter the race. (For clarification purposes, I'm definitely not referring to Sarah Palin, who's repetitious delays in announcing a potential presidential bid, I believe, were meant purely for publicity purposes. See "The Tragicomedy of Sarah Palin.")
There was Mitch Daniels, who proclaimed he could beat Obama both before and after he announced he wouldn't enter the race. There was Mike Pence, who was considered one who could flatter Tea Partiers and secure the support of establishment Republicans.
For a spell, Donald Trump basked in the limelight of a potential presidential bid, but his insistence on Obama's falsified birth certificate blew whatever support he may have had from sane Republicans right out the window.
 |
| William Perlman / The Star-Ledger |
Most recently, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was the source of inspiration for those left so desperately wanting in this GOP presidential race.
Unfortunately, what Christie doesn't have is the motivation to lose. Similar to Daniels and Pence, Christie saw the writing on the wall – which was also scribbled in a third-grader's handwriting on a protest sign at a Tea Party rally.
It read: "We hate you unless we love you, and if we love you, our endorsement will make you look like a radical in the general election and you'll lose."
(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)
