The Washington Post’s Jonathan Bernstein makes a couple of good points today. First:
Here’s what you need to know about the Republican candidate field: this is it. No one starts running for president in August, less than six months before the voters start getting involved in Iowa and New Hampshire, and has any chance at all. At least, it’s never happened since the modern process has been fully in place (say, by 1980).
He does suggest that Sarah Palin could be a quasi-exception, because she has been running for President—in her quirky, Wasillaly way. (I think she started her Presidential bid in September of 2008, after realizing that there would never be a President McCain.)
So if you are a Republican, don’t hold out for a savior in Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, The Donald or even John Bolton’s mustache. 
The second point:
What you’re upset with isn’t the candidate — it’s the party. It’s inconceivable that anyone could get the Republican nomination while using anything but solid Tea Party rhetoric on pretty much every issue. They’re all going to claim that taxes should never, ever, ever be raised no matter what, that half of what the government does is evil or unconstitutional or whatever, that the scientific consensus on climate is some sort of crazed conspiracy, and so on down the line.
In other words, the Republican Party has vacated the center for the fringes. The party hasn’t really moved to the traditional right-wing, fiscal and social conservative fringes. Rather they seem to have moved to some fringe in another dimension: a fringe in which validation and proof comes from the emotional reaction an idea evokes; a fringe where facts that don’t pass the “feels good” test are dismissed; a fringe that is largely divorced from the everyday wants and needs of Americans.
Frankly, the only candidate that stands out from the fringe is Mitt Romney—a candidate who is seriously flawed by his numerous position reversals, and a candidate that comes of as totally disingenuous every time he spews a talking point. Even with these flaws, chances seem high that Mitt will succumb, first and foremost, to right-wing religious bigotry….
Right now it looks like we’ve got two Dominionists and a Mormon. I’d say the Mormon hasn’t a chance and will lose to one of the two, probably Perry. If you don’t know what the Dominionists are all about, try searching that word along with “Theocracy”. Or check out Dave’s writings on the subject over at Orcinus.
Seeing how Huntsman worked for Obama I doubt he’s got a shot at the Republican nomination, but he’s always struck me as “non-fringe.” I mean, hey, he worked for Obama, that’s pretty non-fringe in my book.
Michael,
I agree…Huntsman hasn’t displayed fringiness. But he isn’t really a contender, either.
Perry was all hot to sell Texas roads to foreign corporations so they could profit off of Texans. I wonder what he’ll want to sell to foreign corporations if he becomes president? National parks? The highway system?
http://www.examiner.com/transp.....ities-dies
Well, if this is the field, it looks like it’s down to Romney, Bachman, or Perry. And Perry hasn’t been tested yet.
Like I said yesterday, although Romney has the best chance against Obama, I don’t see how he can get through the nomination process without getting black-balled by the evangelical Republicans, who just aren’t going to vote for a Morman. I think the straw poll reflected that, in that Romney should have polled higher, but squeeked out a slim win against Bachman. I just don’t see him winning in the southern states – they dont’ tend to vote for “yankees” from Massachusetts, or non-evangelicals, much less Mormans.
If Romney does get the nomination, I’m wondering if Bachman is crazy enough to start a third-party challenge. If she does, then you can write off any Republican hopes as of that date.
I could see Bachman and Perry having a joint ticket, but that would be a very weak one nationally – they are both pulling from the same base, and neither one adds to the other’s strengths. Republicans probably figure that having Bachman will get them the women’s vote, but they forget that women aren’t automatons who will vote for any empty dress who wants to be President. Bachman’s statements that she had to get permission from her husband to go to law school (she actually referred to it as being “submissive”, and thought that was a good thing), will allianate most women except those who would vote for her anyway on her extremists views.
The Times reprinted Krugman’s piece on Perry, pointing out that Texas job performance isn’t really the “miracle” he claims, and isn’t transferrable to the U.S. as a whole.
The Texas jobs myth: Gov. Rick Perry is no miracle worker
But besides Texas’ unique position as having lots of empty space for cheap housing, being an oil producer, and being an entry point for cheap labor, there is an essential element which isn’t being ephasized enough. That’s the fact that Texas is competing for jobs from other states by offering lower wages, less regulations, and poorer employment conditions. In other words, Texas is one of the leaders among states which are “racing to the bottom” in trying to lure firms to re-locate from other states there. Jobs aren’t being created, they are simply being stolen from elsewhere.
Which, obviously, isn’t going to work on a national scale.
One of the questions is whether ANY candidate other than Perry, Bachman, or Romney will survive long enough to make it into the first caucus, much less the New Hampshire primary. At this point fund-raising for candidates other than those three is pretty much of an uphill battle.
@7 In this post-Citizens’ United world, it’s not how much anyone gets passing the hat at a state fair that matters. It’s who’s first in line when the Mellons, the Kochs and their pals from A.L.E.C. pull out their checkbooks, and who ends up the beneficiary of a solid barrage of 24X7 publicity from Rupert Murdoch.
@4 And Perry claims to be an anti-tax candidate?
” .. Comprehensive Development Agreements … would charge Texans extremely high tolls to access public roads. The published figures for toll rates on two such deals in Dallas-Ft.Worth are 75 cents PER MILE, totaling $13 daily or over $3,000 a year in new taxes to get to work.”
Would you vote for a guy who lets private companies charge you $3,000 a year to get to your job — on roads built with taxes you’ve already paid?
Continue reading on Examiner.com Sale of Texas roads to foreign entities dies – San Antonio Transportation Policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/transp.....z1VEDSxbIZ
Wisconsin polls close in less than 4 hours and we should start getting results in the last two recall elections about 6:30 PM our time.
@5 Personally, I think Bachmann would look better in a burqua, and if her husband made her wear one, she wouldn’t have to worry about any more magazines running thousand-yard-stare photos on their covers.
test
http://tinyurl.com/4xzjqh9
I’m experiencing technical difficulties.
I suspect Perry would first unload the Statue of Liberty, seeing as how wingnuts have an issue with her. There’s some fears about “huddled brown hordes, yearning to be free” that doesn’t sit with them too well.
Let’s see how much of America’s hard-earned assetts Perry could unload so he could set the tax rates of the mega-rich to zero:
1. All national monuments, including the Washington Monument, Statue of Liberty, Lincoln memorial, Washington D.C. Mall & Reflecting Pool, etc. Bidders would own the assets and reserve the right to charge access and “viewing fees” to tourists ($30.00 per person in the summer season?).
2. The White House and Capital could be sold and leased back to the federal government “for a small fee”. The lease would leave all maintenance, repair, and operations costs in the hands of the government, yet allow the new landlord to set up revenue-generating opportunities anywhere on site (just like the last proposal to house the Sonics in Renton). C-Span would include commercials, and rotating billboards would be visable behind the speakers in the House and Senate, just like at ball parks.
3. Most of the national forests and parks would be sold to the highest bidder, mostly lumber and mining companies. Selected areas (much more limited than what exists now) will be subject to special auctions which will highlight their revenue potential, as tourists can travel to Yellowstone and pay a $200 entrance fee per person in the summer, stay at one of several “resort hotels” with a view of the hot springs or waterfalls, and an amusement park (extra fee, of course) will be operated by six flags for youngsters who tire of seeing trees and bison.
4. All U.S. interstate and highways would be sold to the highest bidder and become toll roads.
5. The current U.S. military would be sold to a contractor who would manage our entire defense services at the lowest cost and with an eye toward maximizing profits. It would also provide that contractor with a convenient means of making sure the rest of us do what we are told to do. Can anyone say “Haliburton”? (Of course, if they thought it would be a good deal, they could sell it to China, instead).
Any other ideas?
This seems to me to be a pretty good vision of what America would be like in the hands of extremists. Ironically, it’s exactly against everything Teddy Roosevelt believed in.
Frankly the near universal stupidity and ethical bankruptcy of the entire field of the Confederate Party wannabe candidates scares the shit out of me. On paper the “winner” of the nomimation has a 50/50 chance of being president.
The last shit for brains Republican president allowed the most deadly attack on continental US soil since the war of 1812, took us to war against Iraq on lies and incompetence, blew a giant hole in the fiscal position of government budgets, and presided over the greatest global economic collapse in 70 years.
Do you have any idea of the damage any of these brainless idiots could and would inflict on our nation? On the entire planet?
It should keep you up at night.