House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says that Rep. Paul Ryan should run for president. He also says that he expects all the Republican candidates to support Ryan’s ludicrous budget plan. I think this shows how out of touch members of the House leadership are, not to mention the rank-and-file.
No matter how favorably pollsters with the Tarrance Group or other firms spun the bill in their pitch — casting it as the only path to saving the beloved health entitlement for seniors — the Ryan budget’s approval rating barely budged above the high 30s or its disapproval below 50 percent, according to a Republican operative familiar with the presentation.
The poll numbers on the plan were so toxic — nearly as bad as those of President Barack Obama’s health reform bill at the nadir of its unpopularity — that staffers with the National Republican Congressional Committee warned leadership, “You might not want to go there” in a series of tense pre-vote meetings.
Medicare is incredibly popular. Rep. Ryan proposed the destruction of Medicare. Therefore, Rep. Ryan is not an innovative leader or a bold thinker. He’s the political equivalent of gonorrhea, and he’s every bit as contagious. If Paul Ryan were the nominee of the GOP he’d probably come close to losing 45 states. But, you know, since Gingrich just found out that you can’t criticize Mr. Ryan’s radical budget plan, you can pretty much bet that the eventual nominee will have endorsed voucherizing Medicare and slashing Pell Grants so that we can give another tax cut to the Über-wealthy.
I don’t think it matters whether Ryan runs for president or not. His stupid, crazy ideas will be on the ballot either way.
They will be on the ballot if the Dems do their job and pound it into the minds of the vast sea of under-informed voters that the the Republicans are proposing the dismantling of Medicare. We certainly can’t depend on the media to present the case of what Ryan has proposed.
As much I would like to believe that the Democrats will jump on this like stink on shit, I worry that they will, once again, present a disconnected message which comes across as only so much whining and policy wonkishness. There needs to be a very concerted effort to stay on message with this. This always seems to be something which Congressional Democrats have difficulties in achieving.
I finally got a chance to catch up on some blog reading and news recording from today, and just watching the “Morning Joke” lineup today, I see the active fellatio of Jon Huntsman has begun. I’m seriously surprised that Joe Scar, Mark Helperin, Mika and nem could even talk with there mouths full.
Amazingly, the ONLY media hound who did not participate in the new MSM mouth orgy was Tweety, and that’s seems mainly because of Huntsman betrayal of Obama.
Ughh. Is there no doubt that Huntsman is running or does anyone else think he may STILL say no?
I like T-Paw’s strategy. Let’s open our campaign in Iowa by pledging to screw Iowa’s farmers out of their corn subsidies. Then let’s go to the retirement capital of Florida and tell seniors that they’re bankrupting the county. Maybe he can go to Dallas next and explain that the Eagles are actually a superior football organization with a cooler fanbase.
Huntsman is delusional if he thinks he can get the nomination. What worries you about him? Or are you just annoyed about hearing the MSM shill him for the next year?
Hold on there, buddy.
Go back and look at the last competitive Iowa Caucus on the Republican side (2000).
Now, please note the following things.
This is a great state, but it’s also a state that proudly elected Rep. Steve King to Congress every two years. The GOP base, particularly in the West, is basically a clone of Keyes/Bauer/King.
Tim Pawlenty thinks he can lock these folks down and win the Iowa Caucuses and then get the momentum and name rec he’ll need to compete in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and beyond.
But what if Bachmann gets in and steals a bunch of his votes? What if Santorum does as well as Gary Bauer did? What if Ron Paul hauls in a bunch of fundies? What if Pawlenty’s numbers get whittled down and divided up?
Remember, Steve Forbes had 30%, and most of those people were probably of the more moderate business-oriented variety.
Now, Huntsman may not even compete in Iowa. I know Romney isn’t going all-in there. But if Romney tries to remain the front-runner while blowing off Iowa, Huntsman could be the guy to swipe that 30% Forbes vote. And if T-Paw is knocked out in Iowa, why would NH voters take a loser Mormon over a winning one? Huntsman could come away the winner of the first two caucuses.
Your logic tree is impeccable as always. And the whittled-down pool of current GOP nominees plus the volatility of the current (particularly GOP) electorate means that some major surprises may yet happen.
But… I guess the Huntsman bubble still just doesn’t pass the smell test with me. One reason is “what rikryah said” (a very worthwhile refrain IMO). Mitt’s not on the A-Team. The most open-minded of Protestant Evangelicals think of LDS as non-believers do, i.e. that weird cult in Utah with the underwear rituals. The hardcore Evangelicals, on the other hand, see it as just one more sign o’ the Devil. If you believe in the Absolute Truth, than any slightly different beliefs are Absolutely Not the Truth. And Mormonism is a lot more than “slightly” different: the gap between it and all the different Protestant sects is way, way bigger than the intra-Protestant gaps (i.e. the minor doctrinal differences between Baptists and Lutherans). They may all believe in the same god, but the divergence of the LDS’s messiah myths from all the other groups’ is, alone, is a huge difference. Again, this is the Absolute Truth we’re talking about here. And so when it comes to the single-issue voting Evangelical Protestant base, I’m highly skeptical that they’ll punch the ballot for Huntsman or Romney. In fact, the opposite: that particular GOP interest group is going to throw its (hugely important) collective weight behind the other possible nominees as hard as it possibly can. The Republican party may have (d)evolved over the last 150+ years beyond its original mission to destroy “the twin relics of barbarism – slavery and polygamy”… but not on this count.
So as for the Iowa evangelicals, Huntsman and Romney are no-gos. As for NH, Romney looks pretty unbeatable there. Obviously it’s a political lifetime between now and then, but it’s home territory for him, and he has been working all those party stakeholders for the last 8 years or so. Romney has what remains of the Northeastern GOP elite more or less locked up – they know him, they owe him – and they’re not going to jump ship from the new unknown guy from way at West. It just ain’t gonna happen.
So no NH for Huntsman either. As for the McCain comparison (which you noted in your response to rikryah), it’s tempting but ultimately, I think, a red herring. Yes in theory all the other dominoes could fall and leave Huntsman the last man standing. But remember that Huntsman and McCain aren’t exactly equivalents. McCain was a national politician going back to the 80’s, the second-runner up for the 2000 GOP nomination, and probably the most popular politician in the country for much of 2000-2007. That latter fact had a lot to do with his constant MSM love, of course, but even so that just means that no one had MSM, as an inter-party interest group, locked up better than he and Mark Salter did. Re: Huntsman, yes the media might go nuts for him if he throws his hat in the ring, but the positive attention will be more ephemeral, much less likely to sustain than with McCain, whom the MoDo/Russert et al’s truly loved from the bottom of their wee little hearts. Huntsman, on the other hand is just this year’s fling. He’s a relatively unknown statewide governor, from an unimportant state, no history as a war hero, or party/movement leadership. He doesn’t carry nearly the same authority as McCain. If all the dominoes were to fall, the GOP elites would just find some other dark horse (perhaps Rick Perry, although he shares a decent number of Huntsman’s problems too), resurrect one of the other fallen candidates as they did with McCain, or go the full crazy with a Bachmann-type.
Huntsman’s progressive issue heterodoxies are just icing on the cake, frankly. He doesn’t have a chance. Personally, I wish he’d stayed out of the limelight this cycle. I thought he could have been an important leader in bringing the GOP back to sanity. But he seems to be pissing all that away (along with his own integrity) in some wild hope to catch the brass ring. Robert Caro said politicians often go crazy, against all their political instincts, when just the whiff of the Presidency is in the air. So it seems with Huntsman. But it’s a shame – he’s obviously a smart, capable man, with a history of reasonableness, the type of Republican we ought to wish were still in charge of the GOP. A grown-up.
That’s all fine and reasonable, but…
Start with the premise that Romney, the front-runner, is:
If you just accept those two premises, you are left with the conclusion that either Tim Pawlenty is going to walk away with the nomination or that someone else is.
And I just don’t think anyone but Huntsman has any plausible chance if Pawlenty and Romney don’t win.
I don’t think Romney will win.
So, I have to consider two ideas.
Pawlenty is a lock, or Huntsman has a real chance.
Frankly, if I had to bet, I’d bet on Huntsman.
Pawlenty is pathetic and I can’t see him winning.
I accept your first premise (Romney bails on Iowa) but not your second (I think he’ll do well and/or win in NH). I still think he has a good shot at the nom – the Mormon/lib stuff hurts him, but his national profile is much better shored up than anyone else’s. But all else being equal I think it’s Pawlenty. He’s a suitable empty vessel for the GOP platform, awful as it is. His lack of charisma doesn’t seem that relevant in this instance.
That said, you have a good track record with these sorts of predictions, so you may end up right and I’m eating crow until November. We’ll see.
Romney’s a New Hampshire native for all practical purposes. He was governor of Massachusetts, where half of NH gets its media. It’s not an area with any historical anti-Mormon prejudice.
If he doesn’t do well, very well, in New Hampshire, he should be toast.
Pawlenty and Bachmann have the same problem in Iowa. They should do well in Baja Minnesota.
I will continue to ask this on as many blogs until someone answers the question.
Yes, Mittens is a piece of plastic, but authenticity has never been a GOP selling point.
Mittens was creamed because the Holy Rollers believe Mittens belongs to CULT.
Now, explain this to me….
does Huntsman belong to an ACCEPTABLE branch of the CULT?
if NOT, please explain to me how he gets past the Holy Rollers?
the MSM want to walk around the FACT that the evangelicals are religious BIGOTS – they believe Mormonism is a CULT.
so…I await, once again, on another blog, for someone to explain to me how Huntsman gets around BEING A MORMON?
just asking.
Well, you deserve an answer. I provide a partial answer here, but you require more.
Mitt Romney has a problem because he’s a Mormon, but he has a far bigger problem related to the individual mandate he signed into law when he was the governor of Massachusetts. If not for that one bill, he’d walk to the nomination despite his bizarre religious beliefs.
Jon Hunstman has some problems with the base, too. He is not psychotic about gays and Latinos, for example. And he’s a Mormon. But the health care bill is the doozy, and while he flirted with a mandate he never signed one into law.
Now, Huntsman can win because of a few factors that may or may not materialize.
First, he’s totally acceptable to the media and the Establishment, including the liberal media and liberal Establishment. Proof of this is that he was appointed Ambassador to China and that the media loves him.
Second, he’s not Romney, but he’s the closest thing to him, and Romney is the front-runner.
Third, there are a lot of candidates on the fringe to divide up and weaken any Base choice.
Forth, he’s better looking and more skilled as a politician than any of his opponents.
Fifth, he’s saner than any of his opponents and has more charisma than Romney.
To win, he’ll need a lot of luck, but it really comes down to replacing Romney as the Establishment choice and keeping enough rivals in the race to prevent any single one of them from uniting the base against him. See: McCain 2008.
I’m not going to do a point-counter point. Just say I disagree completely with your analysis. The media is making a pathetic attempt to turn Huntsman into McCain 2000 2.0. It’s not going to work. One thing I do have to laugh at is this meme that Huntsman is charismatic and a natural politician. I roll my eyes as I did whenever I would hear Gingrich described as a brilliant ideas man or Sarah Palin as having good political instincts like no other. Based on what?! It’s another instance of repeating bull shit enough people accept it as fact. Have you seen Huntsman campaign? I know damn well you haven’t covered Utah politics. Where have you witnessed Huntsman’s charisma and political skill? You’ve seen and heard as much about Huntsman as the rest of us, which is nothing more than what his people are feeding the media and they in turn are feeding us. Herman Cane’s crazy ass got thousands at his rally. Huntsman had 65 reporters and 5 voters at a hall that held 70, and by actual accounts only 1 of the 5 left somewhat impressed. Shouldn’t a candidate at this stage have more of a following than just the media? Maybe it’s a black thing, but there isn’t shit charismatic about Huntsman. He looks and sounds like a corny ass undertaker trying to be cool. I didn’t remember him until James Fellows posted the video of him introducing Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican Convention. “SaaaRAH…SaaRAH”. Charismatic? What the fuck ever.
I basically agree with you.
But when I say that Huntsman is more charismatic, I am comparing him to Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum.
I mean, it’s not that hard to be more charismatic in that field of candidates.
Going a point further. Bush might be okay to have a beer with. But he was never exactly charismatic. And Cheney? He’s the polar opposite of charismatic. But when your competition is Steve Forbes, Grumpy McUnderpants, Gary Bauer, Orrin Hatch, and Alan Keyes?
Anyone can look good under those circumstances.
Huntsman has a chance.
All good points, but I have one more to throw at you: how does Huntsman get past being a former employee of President Obama?
that’s a problem but he has two things in his favor.
Gingrich- said Ryan plan is radical. Bad family values.
Romney- RomneyCare
Bachmann- crazy
Paul- crazy and too old and soft on terror
Cain- black, no experience
Santorum- santorum
T-Paw- Cap and Trade, milquetoast
G. Johnson- loves the ganja
Since when has crazy mattered to these folks?
BTW, Booman,
did you see Newt on Face the Nation this Sunday? When Bob Schaiffer asked him “who buys 1/2 million worth of jewelry…on credit?” just made me LMAO.
Based solely on Gingrich’s reaction to Schaffer’s innocent enough question got me to thinking ..what the hell did they spend 1/2 million dollars on??
Missed that, but it sounds funny.
I would have asked, “Who visits their wife in the cancer ward and asks for a divorce? Who does that? You did that.”
BooMan you are hilarious and on point.
let Goober Ryan run…sure, why not.
Even though I can’t stand the old objectivist asshole, I think this story is trying to make Greenspan look like more of a chump than is warranted. His purported obsession with the idea of existence sounds like it is simply an ontological exercise, and nothing more. Trying to make it sound as if he doubted his own corporeal existence is a bit silly.
Whoops. Wrong thread. Sorry.
Eh, I don’t know. It’s only May 2011. They might just be looking to kneecap Newt early for his radical right-wing social engineering talk. That was a little too blunt to let go without swift public vengeance. There’s still a lot of time (and multiple budget shutdown fights to come) for them to try and bury this thing over the summer before the primaries start heating up.
I imagine the corporate wing of the GOP is holding out hope that Senate Dems will inexplicably start talking about cutting Medicaid or something in exchange for tax loophole reform. It really is wonderful that Democrats can win just by not doing anything. I trust they’ll stick with it too. It’s right in their wheelhouse. Just like social security in 2005.