Campaign indigestion
I was going to title this post “Campaign Digest” but campaign indigestion is more of what I’m feeling at this point. The Republican presidential contest is not going so well from the point of view of those of us who would like a strong candidate to emerge, relatively intact, at the end of it. No campaign is without negativity, but a primary campaign does not have to be this negative this early, and too many of the candidates are jumping compliantly at media baiting like seals gobbling fish thrown by their handler.
There’s a lot to like about Herman Cain, for instance, and his rise in the polls reflects that. One of the reasons people have liked him in the first place has been his focus on laying out his own positive plan for the country, and saving his criticism for the Obama administration. However, since his rise to the top tier of the contest this past week he’s been all too willing to take opportunities given to him by media-types to criticize fellow Republicans. This is not going to help his standing with the voters in the long run. Meanwhile Perry and Romney have continued bashing each other as if it’s down to a two man race; it’s not, and they hurt themselves by taking the focus off of Obama and off of their own agendas.
I’m repeating myself from previous posts, but so be it, and here’s another repetition: Obama, who may be the weakest incumbent in living memory, only wins next year by going negative in an enormous—possibly unprecedented—way. Whoever the GOP nominee turns to be, no effort will be spared in attempting to paint that person as being “extreme,” “dangerous,” and “outside the mainstream.” Therefore the Obama ad-writers will consider any criticisms made of that nominee by fellow Republicans to be golden. Far too much material is being given to those ad-writers right now, and it speaks ill of all of the candidates engaging in it. (And Newt Gingrich is the only one who isn’t.)
Cain made a mistake last week saying that he couldn’t vote for Perry, if he were the nominee, because of the in-state tuition rates granted to some illegal aliens in Texas. More recently he has made a mistake by getting caught up in the “scandal” utterly concocted by the Washington Post about the racially insensitive name that once belonged to a patch of land later leased by the Perry family in Texas. The Perrys self-evidently had nothing to do with the former name of the place, beyond painting over the rock which carried the offensive word. If certain people allegedly were able to make out the former name at times beneath the paint on the rock, so bloody what? It means Rick Perry is a Klansman? If it fit with some kind of pattern of racism or at least racial insensitivity on Perry’s part, then I could see it being some kind of story. But there is no pattern of racism in Rick Perry’s past; quite the opposite, in fact. Herman Cain’s answer when asked about the word on the rock should have been, quite simply, “You should ask Rick Perry about that issue.” If Cain thinks he advances by joining in a media scrum on top of Perry, I think he’s mistaken. It tarnishes him. And any time he spends not making the case cogently for his “9-9-9″ tax plan and other proposals is time badly spent.
And if Perry thinks the way out of the doldrums for his campaign is to continue going after Mitt Romney, he’s terribly mistaken. People want more concrete proposals from him, and the contrasts they want to see are with Obama. The same applies to Romney, who isn’t going to convince anyone he’s a true conservative by bashing other Republicans.
Meanwhile, Chris Christie obviously reread my previous post on the inadvisability of his candidacy, and now is definitely-once-and-for-all-out. Good.
|
|
More indigestion, however, has been caused by the moving up of the early primary dates (thanks to Florida setting theirs at the end of January). It’s not helpful to shorten the campaign season. It makes it just a little more difficult to be confident of getting the best candidate.
Now excuse me while I go get another swig of that pink bismuth stuff.
