The Republican presidential nomination process is more than half complete, meaning Ron Paul's supporters must face a hard fact. Their candidate won't be the nominee. His delegate count is one-tenth that of Mitt Romney and only Maine has awarded Paul double-digit delegates. Even when Paul wins, he loses.
That's not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he's not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul's supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.
Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would've lasted a decade. Give the President's advisors an "A" in spin, but the idea of Paul's supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.
Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He'd like to repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he'd prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama's reelection? Fat chance, Barry!
It's true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush's "unpatriotic" deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes "W" appear cautious. Three years into Obama's presidency we've increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has risen, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.
Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama's foreign policies will appeal to Paul's base is even more far-fetched.
Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul's ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn't commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.
Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we've withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek permission from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.
In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama's campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President's ideological polar opposite.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Santorum Conundrum
Mitt Romney has withstood every challenge to date, remaining the only constant in the Republican nomination race. There are legitimate reasons for his consistency. Romney is photogenic, has proven business skills, can manage a budget, and heads a campaign flush with cash. The sum total of these assets is the demise of everyone, thus far, who has challenged him.
However, conservatives haven't warmed to Romney, as last week's caucuses confirm. So Rick Santorum becomes the latest, and perhaps strongest, "conservative alternative" the "anyone but Romney" camp has long sought.
Santorum is solidly conservative on many issues. He's pro-life and dedicated to the time-tested family unit. Santorum opposed TARP, Obama's "stimulus" slush fund, and both the auto and Freddie/Fannie bailouts. He's a proven proponent of entitlement reform, recognizing the entitlement system as a budgetary and economic albatross around the nation's neck. He also voted to end direct farm subsidies, and still he won the Iowa Caucuses.
Yet Santorum's silver lining contains a dark cloud. In fact, his résumé includes glaring inconsistencies. His 2005 vote to subsidize milk production contradicts his efforts to end farm subsidies. While Santorum was fiscally disciplined during the 90s, he fell in line with the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush era, supporting Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a highway bill rich in earmarks, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Santorum opposed ethanol subsidies prior to 9/11, changed his mind due to security concerns afterwards, and then voted to end them altogether just a few years later.
Santorum didn't contest Maine, so those results are irrelevant to his momentum. However, before elevating him to savior status we might also consider that he lost his Senate reelection bid by a wide margin. He seems equally comfortable on either side of an issue, depending on whether he's supporting his party or preaching against the opposition. Let's also consider that he received no delegates for his Missouri victory and awarded delegates in Colorado aren't necessarily bound to him. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich -- the other "anti-Romney" -- bypassed those caucuses. Where might Santorum have finished had the anti-Romney voters been split between he and Newt, especially in Colorado?
Also, Romney's money and political organization remain formidable. The Mitt Machine was quite thorough in highlighting Gingrich's flaws and we witnessed an associated tumble in Newt's standing. Romney's guns weren't then trained on Santorum. But, with last week's results, Rick becomes an intrusion that warrants a full salvo from Romney's battlewagon. Santorum should expect to take fire from here forward, and not only from Romney. Gingrich isn't the type to fade gracefully into the background, either.
Maybe Rick Santorum is the conservative's best option. He does present solid credentials. However, no candidate is perfect, including Santorum. He bears the dead weight of personal and policy contradictions and inconsistencies. The question is: Can Santorum survive the Romney camp's predictable assault long enough to become the legitimate "anti-Mitt?"
However, conservatives haven't warmed to Romney, as last week's caucuses confirm. So Rick Santorum becomes the latest, and perhaps strongest, "conservative alternative" the "anyone but Romney" camp has long sought.
Santorum is solidly conservative on many issues. He's pro-life and dedicated to the time-tested family unit. Santorum opposed TARP, Obama's "stimulus" slush fund, and both the auto and Freddie/Fannie bailouts. He's a proven proponent of entitlement reform, recognizing the entitlement system as a budgetary and economic albatross around the nation's neck. He also voted to end direct farm subsidies, and still he won the Iowa Caucuses.
Yet Santorum's silver lining contains a dark cloud. In fact, his résumé includes glaring inconsistencies. His 2005 vote to subsidize milk production contradicts his efforts to end farm subsidies. While Santorum was fiscally disciplined during the 90s, he fell in line with the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush era, supporting Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a highway bill rich in earmarks, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Santorum opposed ethanol subsidies prior to 9/11, changed his mind due to security concerns afterwards, and then voted to end them altogether just a few years later.
Santorum didn't contest Maine, so those results are irrelevant to his momentum. However, before elevating him to savior status we might also consider that he lost his Senate reelection bid by a wide margin. He seems equally comfortable on either side of an issue, depending on whether he's supporting his party or preaching against the opposition. Let's also consider that he received no delegates for his Missouri victory and awarded delegates in Colorado aren't necessarily bound to him. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich -- the other "anti-Romney" -- bypassed those caucuses. Where might Santorum have finished had the anti-Romney voters been split between he and Newt, especially in Colorado?
Also, Romney's money and political organization remain formidable. The Mitt Machine was quite thorough in highlighting Gingrich's flaws and we witnessed an associated tumble in Newt's standing. Romney's guns weren't then trained on Santorum. But, with last week's results, Rick becomes an intrusion that warrants a full salvo from Romney's battlewagon. Santorum should expect to take fire from here forward, and not only from Romney. Gingrich isn't the type to fade gracefully into the background, either.
Maybe Rick Santorum is the conservative's best option. He does present solid credentials. However, no candidate is perfect, including Santorum. He bears the dead weight of personal and policy contradictions and inconsistencies. The question is: Can Santorum survive the Romney camp's predictable assault long enough to become the legitimate "anti-Mitt?"
Sunday, January 22, 2012
How does Romney remain the frontrunner?
How does Mitt Romney remain atop the Republican field? He's unpopular with fiscal conservatives. Despite his business-friendly reputation, conservatives perceive Romney as a statist wolf in free-market clothing; a classic northeastern moderate if not an outright liberal. He fares even worse with social conservatives. Even with his reformed positions on abortion and marriage, his checkered history on both issues breeds distrust among Republicans.
Since key elements of the GOP base are aligned against Romney there is opportunity for a reliable conservative with stamina for the long haul. Thus far no one has fit the bill.
Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry launched their campaigns with a flourish only to disappear like ice on an August sidewalk. Herman Cain briefly overtook Romney until the "9-9-9 Train" derailed amid a concocted sex scandal or Cain’s own wandering eye, whichever you prefer to believe. The sometimes Reaganesque Newt Gingrich has more lives than a cat. But political and personal baggage has rendered him thoroughly inconsistent. Newt’s campaign charged Iowa with swelling poll numbers, fell flat, and limped toward New Hampshire. He’s ascending again, and yet another personal storm looms on the horizon. Rick Santorum, it turns out, won Iowa. However, the social conservative champion lags woefully behind Romney in ultraconservative South Carolina. Only Ron Paul has managed consistent numbers relative to Romney’s. But Paul’s polling numbers don’t suggest he can overtake Mitt.
Each Republican challenger has charged the Romney beast and each has limped away licking their wounds. Why? You might point to pro-Romney attack ads or recite the media talking point about Romney being the only electable Republican. Another factor is Romney’s universal support among the GOP establishment. But there's another reason Mitt Romney gained and maintains his apparent advantage, a reason having as much to do with his opponents as with him.
Romney’s competition treats him like the favorite therefore he is the favorite. Each candidate is so determined to be the anti-Romney that their own message is being lost in the shuffle. Republicans are wasting their time, and ours, in labeling Mitt as an unreliable conservative; conservatives already see Mitt in that light.
In contrast, Romney behaves like a frontrunner. He portrays himself as the anti-Obama, as a candidate who has moved beyond his Republican challengers. Romney’s camp realizes that a majority of the Republican base defines a successful 2012 as sending Obama home in time for the White Sox’s 2013 home opener. While Romney capitalizes on the desire to defeat Obama the rest of the candidates are focused on beating him.
Republican candidates must develop a message other than “I’m not Romney” if they’re to affect the race. With each solid primary finish, whether or not it’s a victory, Romney solidifies his status as the nominee-in-waiting. Thus the odds increase that the Republican Party will counter Obama with a candidate in the vein of McCain, Bush, and Dole. Regardless of November’s result, the ensuing four years could prove wholly unsatisfying.
Since key elements of the GOP base are aligned against Romney there is opportunity for a reliable conservative with stamina for the long haul. Thus far no one has fit the bill.
Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry launched their campaigns with a flourish only to disappear like ice on an August sidewalk. Herman Cain briefly overtook Romney until the "9-9-9 Train" derailed amid a concocted sex scandal or Cain’s own wandering eye, whichever you prefer to believe. The sometimes Reaganesque Newt Gingrich has more lives than a cat. But political and personal baggage has rendered him thoroughly inconsistent. Newt’s campaign charged Iowa with swelling poll numbers, fell flat, and limped toward New Hampshire. He’s ascending again, and yet another personal storm looms on the horizon. Rick Santorum, it turns out, won Iowa. However, the social conservative champion lags woefully behind Romney in ultraconservative South Carolina. Only Ron Paul has managed consistent numbers relative to Romney’s. But Paul’s polling numbers don’t suggest he can overtake Mitt.
Each Republican challenger has charged the Romney beast and each has limped away licking their wounds. Why? You might point to pro-Romney attack ads or recite the media talking point about Romney being the only electable Republican. Another factor is Romney’s universal support among the GOP establishment. But there's another reason Mitt Romney gained and maintains his apparent advantage, a reason having as much to do with his opponents as with him.
Romney’s competition treats him like the favorite therefore he is the favorite. Each candidate is so determined to be the anti-Romney that their own message is being lost in the shuffle. Republicans are wasting their time, and ours, in labeling Mitt as an unreliable conservative; conservatives already see Mitt in that light.
In contrast, Romney behaves like a frontrunner. He portrays himself as the anti-Obama, as a candidate who has moved beyond his Republican challengers. Romney’s camp realizes that a majority of the Republican base defines a successful 2012 as sending Obama home in time for the White Sox’s 2013 home opener. While Romney capitalizes on the desire to defeat Obama the rest of the candidates are focused on beating him.
Republican candidates must develop a message other than “I’m not Romney” if they’re to affect the race. With each solid primary finish, whether or not it’s a victory, Romney solidifies his status as the nominee-in-waiting. Thus the odds increase that the Republican Party will counter Obama with a candidate in the vein of McCain, Bush, and Dole. Regardless of November’s result, the ensuing four years could prove wholly unsatisfying.
Friday, December 23, 2011
The GOP field: A wolf without teeth?
Can we say 2012 is a golden opportunity for the Republican Party? What case can the Democrat incumbent present for reelection? The economy is anemic and job growth remains sluggish despite announced declines in unemployment rates. Republicans have the momentum from 2010 and enjoy popular support for repealing Obama's signature achievement: ObamaCare.
Voters seem to like Obama personally. Yet their political ideals are more commensurate with conservatism. Sixty-four percent of Americans view big government as the country's greatest danger. Republicans are expected to hold such views. However, when 64-percent of independents and a sizeable number of Democrats also fear big government, Obama -- the commissar of czars -- has a problem.
Reasons abound for Republican optimism. So, you'd think the Republican Party would be drooling like a hungry wolf circling a wounded sheep. But further examination indicates the GOP may be a wolf that lacks teeth for the kill.
While voters prefer the generic Republican to Obama, only one GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, leads Obama in head-to-head polling. And his "lead" is within the margin of error. According to Rasmussen's December surveys the President enjoys leads of five points over Newt Gingrich, seven over John Huntsman, eight over Ron Paul, and double-digits over everyone else. The logical question is why voters would prefer an unidentified Republican over Obama but favor Obama above an identified Republican? There are several explanations.
First, Republican candidates are under a media microscope. Any faux pas generates instant negativity. Another reason is the incessant sniping. While negative ads are productive, pettiness is a drain on approval ratings. Once there's a nominee and the GOP targets Obama's record the named candidate will fare better. The easiest explanation is that no votes have been cast, meaning the polls are subjective. But a fourth scenario seems most plausible.
The Republican Party's preferred candidates haven't, as yet, generated excitement. Voters are ready to ditch Obama for a Republican. But they don't hear a consistent GOP message that reflects their current mood. Something is missing in the top tier, be it message, articulation, attitude, or believability.
A steady majority of voters believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, charging headlong toward an all-powerful central government. Yet they possess little faith in the GOP's dedication to fundamentally altering the national course.
The antithetical poll result isn't doomsday for the GOP. But it does indicate the electorate's mindset. There's no interest in another Bob Dole, George Bush, or John McCain-style candidate. Voters distrust the burgeoning central government and its disastrous economic machinations. Opportunity knocks for a candidate who articulates a coherent message of fiscal discipline, national sovereignty, states rights, free markets, and international strength sans adventurism. In short, there's support for a Republican with conservative teeth.
Obama is the weakest of sheep. But if the Republican wolf expects to gum him out of office, get set for four more years.
Voters seem to like Obama personally. Yet their political ideals are more commensurate with conservatism. Sixty-four percent of Americans view big government as the country's greatest danger. Republicans are expected to hold such views. However, when 64-percent of independents and a sizeable number of Democrats also fear big government, Obama -- the commissar of czars -- has a problem.
Reasons abound for Republican optimism. So, you'd think the Republican Party would be drooling like a hungry wolf circling a wounded sheep. But further examination indicates the GOP may be a wolf that lacks teeth for the kill.
While voters prefer the generic Republican to Obama, only one GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, leads Obama in head-to-head polling. And his "lead" is within the margin of error. According to Rasmussen's December surveys the President enjoys leads of five points over Newt Gingrich, seven over John Huntsman, eight over Ron Paul, and double-digits over everyone else. The logical question is why voters would prefer an unidentified Republican over Obama but favor Obama above an identified Republican? There are several explanations.
First, Republican candidates are under a media microscope. Any faux pas generates instant negativity. Another reason is the incessant sniping. While negative ads are productive, pettiness is a drain on approval ratings. Once there's a nominee and the GOP targets Obama's record the named candidate will fare better. The easiest explanation is that no votes have been cast, meaning the polls are subjective. But a fourth scenario seems most plausible.
The Republican Party's preferred candidates haven't, as yet, generated excitement. Voters are ready to ditch Obama for a Republican. But they don't hear a consistent GOP message that reflects their current mood. Something is missing in the top tier, be it message, articulation, attitude, or believability.
A steady majority of voters believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, charging headlong toward an all-powerful central government. Yet they possess little faith in the GOP's dedication to fundamentally altering the national course.
The antithetical poll result isn't doomsday for the GOP. But it does indicate the electorate's mindset. There's no interest in another Bob Dole, George Bush, or John McCain-style candidate. Voters distrust the burgeoning central government and its disastrous economic machinations. Opportunity knocks for a candidate who articulates a coherent message of fiscal discipline, national sovereignty, states rights, free markets, and international strength sans adventurism. In short, there's support for a Republican with conservative teeth.
Obama is the weakest of sheep. But if the Republican wolf expects to gum him out of office, get set for four more years.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The question of character
If a political candidate's personal conduct doesn't reflect their public character, said character is only as good as the nearest camera lens. That seems the reality, as determining political character becomes more and more a matter of party affiliation than genuine ethics.
For instance, Republicans roasted Bill Clinton for his womanizing ways. Yet many are excusing Herman Cain for what seems equivalent behavior. Democrats reverse the roles. Although Cain's guilt remains unconfirmed, Democrats treat him like the Devil incarnate. Clinton, conversely, could philander to his heart's content while Democrats marveled at his ability to lie. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?
Herman Cain's credibility faces a stern test from Ginger White, a supposed 13-year mistress. Cain supporters are left wondering if their candidate is a scoundrel or the victim of an elaborate media smear. Either way no one should be surprised. Scoundrels abound in political circles and newsrooms have a history of intolerance toward Republicans. But media bias doesn’t mean a candidate is immune from personal investigation. That fact appears lost on Cain's attorney, who said of the purported affair:
This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.
The explanation seems founded in privacy rights and liberty. What happens between candidates and their spouses is their business. But when marriage vows are compromised it raises questions about a candidate's honesty and integrity. Thus the lawyerly explanation is just spin and illusion, as one of our distinguished Founding Fathers would attest. Thomas Jefferson said, "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." For my money, Jefferson's logic applies to anyone aspiring to assume a public trust as well. There is no private life for anyone who desires to become President.
Extramarital affairs aren't automatic disqualifiers from public office, as Jefferson himself would confirm. Furthermore, waiting for a perfect candidate is itself an exercise in imperfection. However, seeking public office means exposing one's life to public scrutiny. Any situation that speaks to a candidate's trustworthiness becomes the public's business. If a candidate genuinely expects privacy on the campaign trail the public should question not only their credibility but also their judgment.
Since lawyers speak for their clients we must assume Cain's counsel spoke for him. Therein lies a problem for Herman Cain's teetering candidacy (Cain has since left the campaign). Whether the various allegations against him are true or false have taken a back seat to a greater principle. When a man would assume a public trust he must consider himself public property. Transparency hardly seems an unreasonable requirement for a prospective leader.
For instance, Republicans roasted Bill Clinton for his womanizing ways. Yet many are excusing Herman Cain for what seems equivalent behavior. Democrats reverse the roles. Although Cain's guilt remains unconfirmed, Democrats treat him like the Devil incarnate. Clinton, conversely, could philander to his heart's content while Democrats marveled at his ability to lie. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?
Herman Cain's credibility faces a stern test from Ginger White, a supposed 13-year mistress. Cain supporters are left wondering if their candidate is a scoundrel or the victim of an elaborate media smear. Either way no one should be surprised. Scoundrels abound in political circles and newsrooms have a history of intolerance toward Republicans. But media bias doesn’t mean a candidate is immune from personal investigation. That fact appears lost on Cain's attorney, who said of the purported affair:
This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.
The explanation seems founded in privacy rights and liberty. What happens between candidates and their spouses is their business. But when marriage vows are compromised it raises questions about a candidate's honesty and integrity. Thus the lawyerly explanation is just spin and illusion, as one of our distinguished Founding Fathers would attest. Thomas Jefferson said, "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." For my money, Jefferson's logic applies to anyone aspiring to assume a public trust as well. There is no private life for anyone who desires to become President.
Extramarital affairs aren't automatic disqualifiers from public office, as Jefferson himself would confirm. Furthermore, waiting for a perfect candidate is itself an exercise in imperfection. However, seeking public office means exposing one's life to public scrutiny. Any situation that speaks to a candidate's trustworthiness becomes the public's business. If a candidate genuinely expects privacy on the campaign trail the public should question not only their credibility but also their judgment.
Since lawyers speak for their clients we must assume Cain's counsel spoke for him. Therein lies a problem for Herman Cain's teetering candidacy (Cain has since left the campaign). Whether the various allegations against him are true or false have taken a back seat to a greater principle. When a man would assume a public trust he must consider himself public property. Transparency hardly seems an unreasonable requirement for a prospective leader.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Will Perry's fumble put him on the bench?
Did Rick Perry's fumble -- forgetting the name of an agency he wants to eliminate -- seal his fate? The pundits think so; there's just no way Perry can recover. Even though he has campaigned for months, stating his opposition to education, commerce, and energy bureaucracies on innumerable occasions, he's finished. But does a momentary brain freeze disqualify someone from high office?
There are better reasons for voters to avoid checking Perry's box. His position on illegal immigration rubbed many conservatives raw. Perry widened that rift when he said opponents of granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens "have no heart." Rick Perry's campaign has unquestionably stalled. But he isn't losing conservatives because he fumbled at one debate.
The GOP hierarchy would love to make Rick Perry disappear, too. Bluebloods have little time for candidates whose platform centers on eliminating entire federal agencies. They have no time whatsoever for candidates who overtly flirt with seceding from the union. Such posturing doesn't sit well with the Republican powers that be, the same powers who've stuck us "staunch conservative" presidential candidates like Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, and John McCain.
There is precedent for believing Perry's campaign is finished. One blunder cost Dan Quayle his political career. He misspelled "potato" and no one has seen or heard from him since. However, the Quayle story unfolded in a different era. Recent history suggests a change of attitude since his day.
One fumble is no longer an automatic ticket to the electoral bench. "Qualified" politicians and great orators routinely drop the ball. Yet they've lived to gaffe another day. Barack Obama, oft-hailed as the most articulate and intelligent President in American history, has put the ball on the ground more times than Brett Favre.
Obama once claimed his healthcare overhaul would bring greater "inefficiencies to our healthcare system." He told a suburban audience that his health insurance reforms would reduce premiums by 3000-percent. Obama expressed his desire to campaign in all 60 states and equated his bowling skills to a Special Olympian. What's more, the Orator-in-Chief is quite ordinary without his teleprompter. None of these fumbles placed Obama on waivers.
For Rick Perry it's a different story. One fumble means he's unqualified to be president. Why? Because he isn't glib? Because he isn't a great debater? Because he isn't polished, focus-grouped, and completely canned? I'm not endorsing Perry. But if that's the reason he's out of the race it's time to re-examine the qualities we seek in a President.
Substance, ideas, and honor trump style, platitudes, and empty promises -- the common fare dished out by "articulate" candidates -- every time. Have we become so superficial as to admire candidates who speak in sound bites and parrot rehearsed answers to scripted questions, both with rapid-fire predictability? If one memory fumble sends Perry to the bench, I say it speaks worse of the voters' intellect than of his.
There are better reasons for voters to avoid checking Perry's box. His position on illegal immigration rubbed many conservatives raw. Perry widened that rift when he said opponents of granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens "have no heart." Rick Perry's campaign has unquestionably stalled. But he isn't losing conservatives because he fumbled at one debate.
The GOP hierarchy would love to make Rick Perry disappear, too. Bluebloods have little time for candidates whose platform centers on eliminating entire federal agencies. They have no time whatsoever for candidates who overtly flirt with seceding from the union. Such posturing doesn't sit well with the Republican powers that be, the same powers who've stuck us "staunch conservative" presidential candidates like Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, and John McCain.
There is precedent for believing Perry's campaign is finished. One blunder cost Dan Quayle his political career. He misspelled "potato" and no one has seen or heard from him since. However, the Quayle story unfolded in a different era. Recent history suggests a change of attitude since his day.
One fumble is no longer an automatic ticket to the electoral bench. "Qualified" politicians and great orators routinely drop the ball. Yet they've lived to gaffe another day. Barack Obama, oft-hailed as the most articulate and intelligent President in American history, has put the ball on the ground more times than Brett Favre.
Obama once claimed his healthcare overhaul would bring greater "inefficiencies to our healthcare system." He told a suburban audience that his health insurance reforms would reduce premiums by 3000-percent. Obama expressed his desire to campaign in all 60 states and equated his bowling skills to a Special Olympian. What's more, the Orator-in-Chief is quite ordinary without his teleprompter. None of these fumbles placed Obama on waivers.
For Rick Perry it's a different story. One fumble means he's unqualified to be president. Why? Because he isn't glib? Because he isn't a great debater? Because he isn't polished, focus-grouped, and completely canned? I'm not endorsing Perry. But if that's the reason he's out of the race it's time to re-examine the qualities we seek in a President.
Substance, ideas, and honor trump style, platitudes, and empty promises -- the common fare dished out by "articulate" candidates -- every time. Have we become so superficial as to admire candidates who speak in sound bites and parrot rehearsed answers to scripted questions, both with rapid-fire predictability? If one memory fumble sends Perry to the bench, I say it speaks worse of the voters' intellect than of his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
