Election 2012 - Surveying The Field

Barack Obama has to be enjoying the benefits of the current confusion within the Republican Party.  Congress spent 2011 accomplishing virtually nothing but convincing the American People of their incompetency.  Frozen in place, nothing of substance passed.  The fiasco of debt ceiling brinkmanship last August; the complete breakdown of the “Super Committee” that was supposed to save the economic day; the political theater of the end-of-year budget battle over Republicans’ refusal to extend unemployment compensation and Medicare vendor payments and tax cuts for the middle class that handed Democrats a big Christmas gift for use this Fall.  No wonder only @15% of Americans think Congress is doing a good job, and 75% want the whole bunch of them replaced – most of them including their own congressperson!

But Congress’ ineptness pales when compared to the pre-primary race for the Republican nomination for President.  June through December 2011 was one long circus – great for entertainment value; weekly content for Saturday Night Live; not so good on substance and leadership potential.  It is amazing to many people that these are the best we could come up with as hopefuls to be President of the United States and preeminent world leader.  To wit:

Chris Christy, Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee: all surveyed the scene and said, “no thanks, at least not this year,” in spite of entreaties for them to run.

Donald Trump: Really?  A “candidate?”  Trump continues to show that he is the master manipulator of the news media, with the least amount of real substance, laughing at all of us in the privacy of his office.  The never-serious candidate found many ways to keep himself in the headlines he so dearly loves.

Tim Pawlenty: Never even made it to the first vote before he bailed out.  Given the way it has played out, he probably should have thought twice about that decision.

Michele Bachman: Won the meaningless Iowa straw poll in August, and within weeks sunk out of sight as other candidates took her thunder.  Has not been a real factor for months.  Her lack of depth was fully exposed by her inaccurate and outlandish statements which finally thankfully pushed her from the stage.

Herman Cain: Three accusations of sexual harassment were two too many; a decade-long affair finally cleared away the smoke and exposed the fire.  His momentary 15 minutes of fame was fourteen too many, and showed how little capability is required to become a celebrity these days.  90-year-old Henry Kissinger as his proposed Secretary of State?  Really, Herman?

Rick Perry: He was 2012’s version of 2008’s Fred Thompson.  The supposedly “true conservative” with deep pockets rode in on his white horse to save the Party from a [gasp] “moderate” frontrunner.  And just like Thompson, Perry got up on center stage and ran a totally inept campaign featuring lackluster personal skills.  Perry became the late-night talk show joke and never recovered.  Too many GWBush “everyman” comparisons.

Newt Gingrich: Too much baggage; too disorganized; his time has passed.  John Bolton, the archetypical neo-con Middle East war hawk, as his proposed Secretary of State?  Worse than Cain’s Kissinger proposal; Newt lost me right there.  Tons of ideas, maybe the most creative thinker in the field.  But once he decided a  few years ago to come back into political racing, his creativity gave way to “afternoons at the Tea Party” / Fox News verbiage; just another political panderer.  Always entertaining, and done a better job of controlling his tongue.  But he’s shown that he is still incapable of leadership.

Rick Santorum: Surprised everyone in Iowa.  But it was probably just his turn in the rotation, the last one left to take center stage for non-Romneyites to turn to.  Darling of the social-agenda Right, the man is unfortunately a spokesperson for the “dividers” in this country.  No doubt a decent, well-intentioned person, but he lives in a naïve, narrow slice of the world, unaware of how the rest of America lives.

Ron Paul: The most principled candidate in terms of being consistently true to his deeply considered ideas.  Refuses to change his message to fit the audience of the moment.  There are some parts of his message that I am comfortable with, especially in rethinking war and foreign policy.  But his radical change for government’s role and services has no transition plan.  It would shock this country to far/too fast to absorb.  Nevertheless, the dismissal and ignoring of his candidacy by the news media throughout 2011 was despicable.

Mitt Romney: The darling of the “establishment” Republicans.  But I do not like his opportunist candidacy in 2012 any more than I did on 2008.  He is the artificial man of no core political principles, the complete opposite of Ron Paul.  As David Letterman remarked, “Mitt has changed positions so many times he’s going to start running attack ads against himself!”  Mitt claims all his “business experience and job creation history” as the answer to America’s economic woes.  Truth is, Mitt has not really run any businesses.  His experience has been all in buying, restructuring and selling struggling or under-valued companies, with likely as many jobs lost as gained.  Regardless, any job creation would have been an afterthought, not an intention.  Romney’s business experience has been about “flipping” companies the way people buy up depressed homes, make cosmetic changes, and flip them over to a new buyer at inflated pieces; just another form of a pyramid scheme.  No long-term ownership; no personal investment in the outcome; just companies as “tradable commodities,” a view of business from the 1990s that has caused serious damage to our economy.  And that is how he is approaching his candidacy – the presidency as another commodity to buy, rework, sell and then move on, just as he did as Massachusetts Governor.  It is not about public service; it is just another corporate takeover.  If I am looking for business experience in a candidate, this is not the experience I am looking for.  75% of Republicans do not want him; how someone that has never had greater than 25% support can be anointed “the front runner” is beyond me.  He is the richest candidate to ever run for office, and like Santorum the most disconnected from the reality of the breadth of the American citizenry.  It is completely incomprehensible to me how evangelical and Tea Party Republicans could ever pull that lever.

Jon Huntsman: Which leaves us with a near invisible candidate who will likely be gone from the race by the end of January, yet is the best man in the field but with no chance at the nomination.  If it is all about picking “who can best beat Obama,” Huntsman would provide the most challenging battle.  He is a very straight talking candidate who does not tolerate the usual media and political silliness, and has some very thoughtful and supportable ideas.  But he is a “moderate Republican,” a disappearing anachronism in 2012 Republican Party politics.  Look for him potentially in 2016.

Depending on how South Carolina and Florida results turn out, the Republican primary season could be realistically all over by the end of this month.  That would be another sad, but perhaps fitting, commentary to this year’s election process.  That would make “establishment Republicans” very happy, but where is the near-invisible Tea Party movement that was so dominant in 2010?