Current mood: Debate Derangement and Campaign Consternation
I’ve done my best to keep the old chin up, but I have to admit that after these last two debates it’s getting a little wearing. I’ve been annoyed for months at some big-time conservative commentators—Mark Steyn and George Will, to name two—who have had only had negative things to say about those in the Republican field this year, as if there was no need to lift up the better qualities of even one or two of these candidates. One of them, after all, will be facing Barack Obama in November, in the hopes of putting an end to what has arguably been the most disastrous presidency in living memory (certainly of the past 40 years). However, the longer these dog and donkey shows go on, orchestrated by the likes of Stephanopoulos and Sawyer, the worse things look. It has been a mistake to enable the manipulation of the GOP nominating process by what are, frankly, liberal hacks and not-so-stealthy Democratic operatives. But for some in the Republican party establishment, it seems this kind of perverse masochistic circus is just what they want. After all, it’s looking more and more likely that it will result in the coronation of Mitt Romney, the reliable business-as-usual candidate this year for the Beltway boobs.
|
|
That said, the candidates themselves are succeeding in self-destructing in ways that can boggle the mind and tempt despair. A pre-eminent moment of this nature was early in last night’s ABC debate, when—invited to do so by the hack moderators—Newt Gingrich lit into Mitt Romney over his career at Bain Capital. Again and again and again in a statement that wasn’t more than 90 seconds long, he invoked the New York Times by name and an article which appeared in that paper questioning the wholesomeness of Mitt Romney’s work at Bain. How in the world could Newt Gingrich, of all people, be so tone-deaf as not to appreciate that the New York Times is like a bloody red shirt to conservative voters? Far from a Reagan conservative, it made him sound like Mike Dukakis or Walter Mondale! It was probably Newt’s single worst moment in the debates so far, and Mitt Romney’s response was probably his single best moment (even though Newt had handed it to him on a silver platter topped with whipped cream and pecans). Romney said, “I’m not surprised to have the New York Times try and put free enterprise on trial. I’m not surprised to have the Obama administration do that, either. It’s a little surprising from my colleagues on this stage.”
It struck me at that moment that we might have just witnessed game, set and match.
Gingrich did well later with some terrific answers on other topics, notably on the growing anti-Christian bigotry and real damage to Christian-based social service which is the flip-side of both gay rights and health-care issues, but his early mistake was a resounding one (and he again mentioned the New York Times approvingly in the second debate!). And it was so unnecessary. He could have made the same points without once mentioning the New York Times by name. Or, better yet, he could have skipped the whole Bain Capital issue (it has very little chance of resonance with Republican voters) and hit Romney on matters of far greater fundamental significance in the primary contest. How about abortion and other life issues for one? And how about abortion and other life issues for two? And how about the very-closely-linked question of judicial appointments? It’s a topic Gingrich knows exceptionally well, and on which Romney has a vulnerable record. Instead, Gingrich waxed poetic on the wonderful investigative reporting at the Old Gray Lady. If my mind boggled any more it would’ve hemorrhaged.
Discussing a philosophy of judicial nominations is also key to communicating to conservatives the dangers of a Romney presidency. What is there to really fear, after all, for conservatives, from Mitt Romney in the White House? Wouldn’t he be much better than Barack Obama? Well, presumably, yes. Obama’s most destructive attempts to drag America economically and socially to the left would come to an end. Romney would be much better on the economy (if quite far from the radically pro-growth policies as outlined by Gingrich or Perry). On foreign policy, it seems likely that Romney would stop all of the apologizing for America and for its interests, and would at least be motivated to make a success of things so that he could be reelected. In these respects, then, there’s a better than fifty-fifty chance that a Romney presidency would at least be OK, and much better than another four years of Obama.
However, who really believes that Mitt Romney would spend any significant political capital trying to get judges who believe in the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution appointed to the Supreme Court? History shows that it was Republican President Richard Nixon who gave us Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger and consequently Roe v Wade. It was Republican Gerald Ford who gave us John Paul Stevens. It was George H.W. Bush who gave us David Souter. The track record is lousy—even Reagan didn’t do particularly well—although this area constitutes a definite success of Dubya’s presidency, with both John Roberts and Samuel Alito appearing to be, if anything, better than conservatives expected at the time that Bush nominated them. (And so we have had the historic ruling that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.) The ramifications of these Supreme Court selections—not to mention appointments to the federal bench generally—last decades. It is easy for a president to fail to focus on these battles, given legislative priorities which seem of more immediate importance. What right do we have to expect that this shape-shifting man of convenience, Mitt Romney, will care to draw a line in the sand on this subject? And where would that line even be?
Mitt Romney is in some ways the Barack Obama of the 2012 primary season. Those who support him are in significant respects projecting on to him what they hope to see in the next president. His even-tempered way of putting himself across sends this message: “I am reasonable; I am pragmatic; you have nothing to fear from me; I will do nice things as president, and you can count on me to always smile and be wonderfully soothing and well-spoken.” It’s truly amazing how far you can go by merely projecting such an aura, and how many otherwise intelligent people will ignore all of your problems of record and substance when you do so. (David Brooks is only now realizing that Barack Obama is actually some kind of liberal, underneath it all. Who knew?)
Someone who will never lull anyone to sleep with his soothing-well-spokenness is Texas Governor Rick Perry. I have said before (and I’m sticking to it) that I think he is the best GOP candidate on the substance, considering his actual record of accomplishment and the positions he has publicly staked out for years and in this election. He has arguably improved his debate performances steadily since the beginning of this process, but, having just seen him twice in such quick succession, even a supporter like me has to admit that he is just so incredibly bloody awful at expressing himself. And since Republican voters have such recent nightmarish memories of Dubya’s inabilty to eloquently explain anything for eight years, it seems that this may well be a fatal flaw in 2012, and it just keeps being set off in high relief every time there is another debate. One can keep hoping he will do better, but so far, despite his substantive strength, he just isn’t making the sale with the critical mass of voters. He could beat Barack Obama in the general election this year, I am sure; but that obviously counts for nought if he can’t win the nomination.
Rick Santorum appears to have made the sale with some lately, but, for reasons previously expressed, he has a long way to go with me, and little time remaining to get there. Simply put: he lost his last race in Pennsylvania by 18 points. I don’t believe that he is as likeable as he seems to think he is.
So, this is where we are. Just as in 2008, we seem to be headed towards nominating a candidate for the presidency in the Republican party that conservatives— supposedly the heart and soul of the party—neither love nor trust. That there are flaws in the process is beyond question. Still, in the end each candidate is responsible for making the case for him or herself. Conservatives have been coming up short lately, one way or another.
It’s not over. Just possibly it is far from over. New Hampshire voters could offer a surprise and retool the race. South Carolina likewise. Nothing alters the course of events better than, well, events. But Mitt Romney seems right now to be awfully close to pulverizing the guilty and the innocent alike with nothing much more than his persistent projection of a crushing sense of inevitability.
It’s a pretty neat trick, I must say.
