Looking at the current GOP field, I share what seems to be the ubiquitous feeling of “blah.” Apart from Michele Bachmann, no one in the field appears to be serious about beating Obama, and the two guys getting the most love from the mainstream media, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, are destined to lose if they secure the Republican nomination.
To be honest, just the fact that the mainstream media keeps them front and center should be warning enough for every lucid Republican. After all, this is the same way the media carried John McCain through the primaries in 2008: because they knew if he were the Republican nominee the Democrats could win with any candidate. (I dare say Jimmy Carter could have beat McCain.)
So here we are, it’s 2011, and two different versions of McCain-lite, McRomney and McHuntsman, are trying to convince us they’re ready to lead. But I’ve got news for you: if either of these two gets the nomination, Obama will literally skate back into the White House for four more years.
Apart from the obvious problem of having instituted Romney-care while governor of Massachusetts, McRomney has the added disadvantages of supporting continued ethanol subsidies and refusing to sign a pledge to nominate only pro-life justices to the bench (were he to be president). The pro-ethanol subsidies make him look like a big government RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only), and the refusal to sign the pro-life pledge on justices makes us wonder what the future would hold were he to become president.
Think about it: Who wants a president that’s going to continue to take our tax dollars and give them to corn farmers whose corn is used for ethanol, only because those farmers are accustomed to getting government handouts? And who wants a president that would simply write off Roe v. Wade as something that can never be overturned?
Anyway, McRomney is a non-starter.
So what about McHuntsman?
I hate to say it, but McHuntsman is even worse. He puts civility above victory: by which I mean, he would rather run a nice, positive campaign and lose than run an aggressive, in your face campaign and win. (In other words: he would rather run a campaign like McCain ran than one like Ronald Reagan ran.)
Let me jog your memory here, because I have friends and family members who, although old enough to remember, have somehow forgotten how aggressive Reagan was in going after Jimmy Carter.
While campaigning for the 1980 election, Reagan said: “I have talked with unemployed workers all across this country. I’ve heard their views on what Jimmy Carter has done to them and their families…[and you can] call this human tragedy whatever you want. Whatever it is, it’s Jimmy Carter’s.” In other words, Reagan said Carter owns it.
And he continued: “I’m looking forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his administration — the record he prefers not to mention. [At that time,] he’ll answer to them and to me.”
I love that last line: after highlighting Carter’s utter failure and the damage he had done to this country, Reagan said “he’ll answer to [the American people] and to me.”
But what does McHuntsman say? He says, “I respect the president” (i.e., I respect Obama), “[and I want] the voters to [decide] who will be the better president; not who’s the better American.”
Isn’t that nice? Instead of going after Obama, who has arguably done more damage to this country in two years than Carter did in four, McHuntsman wants to run a gentlemen’s campaign.
(Does he know the office he seeks will be in Washington DC rather than the Hamptons?)
Nevertheless, the good news for the Republican Party is that if either Sarah Palin or Rick Perry throw their hat into the ring, McRomney and McHuntsman will both become bywords. For the Tea Party will carry a true conservative to victory in 2012.
The bad news for the Republican Party is that if either McRomney or McHuntsman get the nomination, the socialistic policies Obama will enact in his next four years may be more than we can recover from as a nation.
McRomney and McHuntsman are losers. The question is, are we dumb enough to lose with them?