Does The GOP Deserve To Lose?

Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal says they do:

As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

It’s not just …

  1. K T Cat

    Too bad Bret isn’t running for president.  Then we’d finally have the Perfect Candidate.

  2. Christopher Esget

    It’s not a nicely written article, but the substance is precisely what I’ve been thinking for awhile.

  3. Hang On

    I don’t understand where he gets off saying if x, y, and z had run, the GOP would have been better off. What makes him think that x, y, and z would not have fallen into the morass that Romney, Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich have fallen? That’s particularly true if any two of x, y, and z had run. The problem is with the GOP and the contradictions within it.

  4. Lucy Pevensie

    He’s right that the GOP deserves to lose.  I think it is possible, however, that he’s wrong that they will necessarily lose.  The opponent is just that bad. 

    My biggest fear is that by winning with the wrong guy (and that could be any of the field although I fear it most specifically in Romney) they will doom us in one way or another for decades to come.

  5. Michael Tee

    Mollie, you wrote earlier (We are a Nation of Wusses):

    We are raising children to be unable to handle anything.

    Some of those children have grown up.

  6. Lucy Pevensie

     Furthermore, I think some of what we are seeing is the extreme fulfillment of my father’s observation for the last few decades: we have made the process of running for president so distasteful and destructive that no decent person would consider doing it.

  7. Blue State Curmudgeon

     We deserve to lose if we nominate Gingrich.  I would dearly love a candidate that will take it to Obama but it has to be in a way that doesn’t scare the bejeezus out of moderates and independents.  Yes, Barak Obama is a Saul Alinsky radical but do you really believe that 50 million people are going to google his name when Newt mentions it in the debate, come to the conclusion that he’s really a closet socialist and attend the nearest Tea Party rally ?  Most voters don’t care enough about politics to subscribe to political websites like us.  They’re looking for a president who will protect the nation, keep the entitlement checks coming and allow them to live their lives so that they don’t have to think about politics.  I’m not a great fan of Romney because I’m not sure what he’s for but Newt’s got more negatives that the Eastman Kodak warehouse.  We will all get fired up when Newt trashes Obama in the debate and then wonder why Obama wins an election with 40 states. 

  8. Terry Mott
    Blue State Curmudgeon:  We deserve to lose if we nominate Gingrich.  I would dearly love a candidate that will take it to Obama but it has to be in a way that doesn’t scare the bejeezus out of moderates and independents.  Yes, Barak Obama is a Saul Alinsky radical but do you really believe that 50 million people are going to google his name when Newt mentions it in the debate, come to the conclusion that he’s really a closet socialist and attend the nearest Tea Party rally ?  …  · 2 minutes ago

    Good points, but you assume that Newt would campaign in the general with the same rhetoric as he uses in the primaries.  Maybe he’s savvy enough to not do that.

  9. Mel Foil

    Pretend we’re living 100 years ago. Ron Paul wouldn’t run, because he’d have few complaints. Newt Gingrich wouldn’t run, because he’d be too tarnished to ever win. Mitt Romney wouldn’t run, because he’d be born in Mexico. But Santorum, apart from not being Protestant, would be just as electable back in 1912. Maybe more electable. Because then, religious piety was no disadvantage.

  10. Sisyphus

    Of his A-Team, Christie is a preposterous Islamo-phile, Bush is yet another dynastic patrician, and Haley Barbour, justly or not, is saddled with enough baggage on the race front alone to kill a candidacy. (Although, note that Paul’s race baggage is far, far worse.)

    As far as the anybody but Newt crowd goes, he just picked up Fred Thompson’s endorsement and Chuck Norris’ in the same week. Done deal. The Gingrich juggernaut is in motion. A candidacy so flawed and weak that after only four million debates he is winning.

    Lucy: I would not wish the job on a decent person.  That would be cruel. 

  11. Adam Freedman
    C

     I don’t agree with Stephens’ conclusion, but I note that part of his column closely mirrors a comment I posted in response to James Delingpole yesterday: that voters are turning to Newt as the candidate with the highest entertainment value.

  12. Franco

    Leave it to the elites to tell us all, once again, who the good candidates are and who the bad ones are. The good candidates, Bret, are the ones who

    A) have the guts to get in

    B) don’t have wives who tell them what to do 

    Otherwise it’s just so much navel-gazing from Wall Street.

    Christie is a highly flawed candidate. I don’t care what Ann Coulter and Bret Stephens say. He has no experience, and he was on record early, forcefully declaring that he is NOT ready, admitting convincingly that he lacks the experience needed. 

    Christie would not have excited conservatives either, although I suppose Bret Stephens doesn’t consider that a problem in getting the nomination in the fantasy politics game he is playing. This is the real world Bret.

    Jeb Bush? I can’t believe how utterly clueless this bit of speculation is. For the Republicans to nominate another man from the same family in a twenty-five year period, considering that men named Bush already held the office for twelve of them, is absolutely suicidal.

    This article doesn’t deserve attention – except for highlighting how out of touch some  Republicans are.

  13. thelonious

     It’s funny how nobody ever mentions the economy.  Most voters base their vote mainly on the economy.  If we’re not in recession and unemployment continues to go down Obama wins handily.  We’d all like to think independent voters would take a more in depth look at Obama but that just aint reality. 

  14. Mr. Dart

    All of this whining from up north because Mr. Inevitable is slipping.  Meanwhile, Fred Thompson endorsed Newt.  And Sarah Palin is laughing at Chris Christie’s rookie mistake and, um, his panties. They aren’t whining about the field.

    I don’t know Bret Stephens from Bret Saberhagen but the DC whiners really need to step up their game.  If Gov. Perry hadn’t jumped in (and out) he would be on that list of “saviors” with Barbour, Ryan and Daniels.  Get it, Bret?  These are the four.  If you don’t like ‘em you can always vote for Gary Johnson in November.

  15. Michael Tee
    Adam Freedman:  I don’t agree with Stephens’ conclusion, but I note that part of his column closely mirrors a comment I posted in response to James Delingpole yesterday: that voters are turning to Newt as the candidate with the highest entertainment value. · 2 minutes ago

    Why would you denigrate the voting public like that?

  16. Mister D
    Terry Mott

    Blue State Curmudgeon:  We deserve to lose if we nominate Gingrich.  I would dearly love a candidate that will take it to Obama but it has to be in a way that doesn’t scare the bejeezus out of moderates and independents…?  …  · 2 minutes ago

    Good points, but you assume that Newt would campaign in the general with the same rhetoric as he uses in the primaries.  Maybe he’s savvy enough to not do that. · 16 minutes ago

    He’s never won a general election, never even run in one until now. He’s spent the better part of the last decade speaking before conservative groups, and is winning now because he can artfully toss red meat bombs in debates. He remains the most “unlikable” person in politics. The onus is on him to show he can appeal to voters outside the base, not on us to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  17. Fake John Galt

    YES, the GOP deserves to lose.  So does the Democratic Party.  I think the American people feel that both parties have poorly used them over the last few decades. 

  18. Terry Mott

    I was thinking along these lines this morning, and remembered something I read somewhere a while back.

    A big problem is that, within a community that reveres government, politics becomes a profession of honor and respsect.  Within a community that is suspicious of government, politics is a necessary chore, at best.

    Thus, the political class naturally becomes largely populated by statists, left-wing idealists, moral scolds, ethically challenged power brokers, and petty (or not-so-petty) tyrants.  The best and brightest from the right-wing coalition seldom choose politics out of passion, choosing other professions that seem more honorable and rewarding to them.

    This tendency is especially prevelant in times of relative stability and prosperity.  Only when the wheels start coming off do some folks on the right stir themselves and get involved.  By such time, there’s so much ground to be made up that their chances of achieving high office is limited.  Lesser lights already have contacts, experience, name recognition and infrastructure that take years to acquire.

    It thus shouldn’t surprise us that the GOP often seems made up largely of mediocrities.

  19. Pseudodionysius

    I woke up in a bad mood this morning and messed up the Member Feed litterbox.

  20. R. Craigen

    If the GOP thinks Gingrich is a wrecking ball in the room, wait until they put Christie in.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In