Here’s a question:
Ezra Klein: “In 2008, Republicans nominated a candidate who’d fought the 2003 Bush tax cuts, opposed torture, sponsored the first cap-and-trade bill introduced in the Senate, flirted with joining the Democrats, passed a campaign-finance reform law, led the fight for comprehensive immigration reform and attacked the Christian Right. So why are so many commentators so certain that the heterodoxies of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman will disqualify them?”
First of all, John McCain’s campaign collapsed and went broke before it was resurrected solely on the weakness of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as plausible opposition to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. It’s not like McCain waltzed to the nomination. Secondly, Klein is forgetting that McCain weaponized The Stupid when he selected Sarah Palin as his running-mate, thereby forcing Republicans to defend the choice and every idiotic thing that came out of her head. The Republican Party has morphed from that moment into an organization with few traces of its former self. With T-Paw calling for a return to the Gold Standard and an imposition of a flat tax, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are their only real lifelines back to traditional Republicanism. That’s actually their best argument for being the nominee (“We’re not crazy”).
But crazy is what sells in Republican circles these days. While some think Obama will face a narrower path to election this time around, that is premised on him facing a traditional Republican, not some loon who advocates voucherizing Medicare.
And don’t forget the epic flameout of Mr. 9/11!! Seriously, if Palin jumps in, there should be no way Mittens wins. And not just because under old rules, she’d be next in waiting. She’ll raise a ton of dough but I question whether it will be spent smartly. And you could substitute Bachmann for Palin. If I were a GOPer running against Mittens I’d tar him as a John Kerry-esque flip-flopper and hammer it home again and again in commercials(as long as one could afford it). I’d show clips of him trying to be more liberal than Teddy Kennedy. It’s all out there waiting for someone to make the case.
Right now, the Teabaggers are flipping over the black guy from the pizza company.
If a “moderate” like Huntsman or Romney manages somehow to get nominated, looks like the election result will hinge on how the teabagger/fundie crowd weigh their mindless rage against Obama: do they swallow supporting an apostate in their own party who might have some chance against Obama, or do they go third party or sit it out because they can’t bring themselves to compromise?
I suppose it depends on how well the nominees play the born-again wingnut. Maybe if they name Bachmann or a Paul for VLP….
PS, Boo: “McCain weaponized The Stupid when he selected Sarah Palin as his running-mate”. Immortal line.
This whole dumping on Newt has now made Paul Ryan’s screwing my Gma over as some GOP litmus test. With that set in stone, it appears there will not even be any real debate amongst the candidates. I know the GOP’s pack mentality but what issues will the candidates even disagree on? I can not think of any at all.
For example, what will the arguments towards the voters to pick them over the other guys? “I will beat Obama because……”
“Pick me over him because…..”
I can not even think of possible answers that would not cause a stampede of anger in the GOP or calls of “RINO.”
I do find interesting is whoever the axis of Roger Ailes/Rush/Kochs/Donohue decide is the candidate can convince the GOP base to chose that person.
Speaking from the heartland of the Tea Party (IL-6), even the Tea Baggers are unhappy about Medicare vouchers. Many are in the affected demographic. It really matters whose ox you gore.