Don't these guys seem familiar somehow. They almost run to type. If you imagine a race for a local city council of a medium sized city anywhere in the United States a few of these would be bound to show up. But no town could possibly produce all of them at once in one race. Each of these would be the exception, the town eccentric running first time on a lark or in response to some sort of mid life crisis or something. Here's a thumbnail sketch:
Bachmann -The wacky mom with twenty-three kids who lives in a shoe and doesn't really know what else to do
Cain -The creepy guy who runs a pizza shop and tries to lure women into his parlor with promises of extra toppings
Gingrich - The crazy, tendentious inventor with three wives and dictatorial tendencies whose ideas never work
Huntsman - The dull, serious guy whose parents pay his way because he doesn't have anything else to do
Paul - The crotchety old guy who hates everything (especially minorities) and seeks to abolish the job he seeks
Perry - The dumb, needy, back-slappin' bumpkin who'll say anything if you'll just pretend to really like him
Santorum - The sanctimonious guy who uses churchgoing as metaphor for everything, including free thinking
Trump - The phony millionaire who apparently was only running to get a zoning variance for himself and his hair
Romney -The slick, fast talking p.r. guy, backed by Mr. Potter style bankers, who sells used cars on the side
The remarkable thing here is that not one of these candidates seems even remotely suitable for the job they are seeking. Any one of these might find a niche in local politics somewhere, in some home town or other, after all, democracy loves "characters" but that all of them should be accumulated together vying against one another in one zany, madcap primary for the presidency of the United States is a cause for wonderment and trepidation. Most seem barely fit for a local city council.
A King Lear type of dementia seems to have gripped the republican party. Any candidate who actually tells them the truth about policy is immediately disinherited and thrown out of the kingdom while those who are willing to say and do almost anything, no matter how outrageous and wrong and impractical it may be immediately jettison to the top of the polls. The irony is that all these demands for rigid ideological purity eventually favor the most flexible and least ideologically pure candidate politician of all - Mitt Romney.
We can't be surprised at this devolution, the tendency has been underway for awhile. I (personally) thought Sarah Palin was less than adequately prepared for the vice presidency in 2008, for instance. I even disliked her inaugural speech to the republican national convention, though it was extravagantly praised by many. I did think it was very, very well delivered - if it had been a speech at a rotary luncheon. As a speech to introduce herself as a candidate for the vice presidency of the US I thought it was a cheap and nasty piece of work and defined her as a minor player with high negatives from the start.
Still some liked it. Some even thought she was odds on favorite to be the republican favorite this time around. I didn't believe that likely but was perhaps correct about this for the wrong reasons. I thought she was too shallow for the presidency but for this republican primary it may well be, remarkably enough, that she has too much depth.
For now there's the tea party theorem of non-governance governing which has it that the less you know the more qualified you become. At these primary debates no good and reasonable idea goes unpunished while no crank, egregious and unworkable idea has been left wildly unapplauded.
Romney is the odds on bet to win this primary though because, to be both crude and crudely accurate, he has all the money behind him. The Robert's Robbery is well under way. Supreme Court efforts to gut any rational attempt at campaign finance reform have been wildly successful. Big money drowns out the free speech of all but a few.
Even with a corner on the most money, so far Romney has only managed to get the support of 25% of the republican vote, which means 75% are for these others, the so-called anti-Romneys. Overall, it's hard to escape the sense that this is the B team here, and occasionally the C, D, F team as well. How's that going to work when last election even the republican A team wasn't good enough to win? After all, Romney was the runner-up last election to John McCain (even before Sarah Palin). So you have to ask yourself first, if he wins the nomination, who has he beaten and second, what has changed in four years that makes him a better candidate in the general election now than he was last time?
He's held no public office in the interim; his policies don't seem to have changed or much evolved. If anything, to appease the primary crowd he has moved farther right than the general electorate would seem to allow latitude for. Certainly his organization is better, he has more experience at the rigors of the campaign ahead and he is slightly less tangle tongued when he tries to explain how all his political principles have magically changed from moderate to the far right in such a short period of time.
On the other hand, the republican primary has forced him into hardcore positions which he will have a difficult time disavowing in the general election and which will certainly hamstring a potential Romney presidency. This includes an extraordinarily ill-advised signature on the Grover Norquist "no taxes ever" promissory note. This is a one way ticket to gridlock, increasing deficits, continued national decline and an astonishing admission (in writing, no less) of just how beholden and submissive he intends to be to the good old boys on K street. How can you say you will do anything and everything it takes to get this country back on track when you start out with one hand already tied behind your back?
Perhaps President Obama will be weaker on defense, trying to defend his first four years than he was on offense, criticizing the republican policy of the Bush years. But still Romney seems more than just a little bit too facile in his approach to issues that many in his own party consider quite profound. And very, very simplistic when it comes to addressing the very real problems facing the country today. And that's not a biased opinion but what the republicans themselves are saying about him. When even your own supporters find you unconvincing one can only believe that the audience in the general election will be far less credulous or forgiving of any foppish flip floppery by Mitt.
Obviously the first results of the first primary in Iowa don't mean a great deal but that Romney is still struggling to separate himself from the pack when the pack he is trying to distinguish himself among is perhaps the weakest ever assembled seems worrisome. As I say, he is still the odds on favorite to be the nominee but it's hard to say that this primary season has so far strengthened his chances.
