Vanity Fair
As I have said many times before, I believe that we live in an unusual time – in which the bankruptcy of the administrative entitlements state has been made manifest in any number of ways by Barack Obama. Nothing has happened in the last few weeks to alter my judgment in this matter.
In 2010, this President led his party off a cliff. He seems intent on repeating that feat in 2012. If Bill Clinton were President, he would be busy making a deal with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and in the negotiations the old fox might very well snooker them both. In the midst of a economic downturn, however – when Keynesian pump priming has been tried and has manifestly failed, when the unemployment rate is 9.2%, and the underemployment rate is close to double that – Barack Obama is prepared to go to the wall for tax increases, and he tells us that eighty percent of Americans have a desperate hankering for them. What more could the Republicans want?
There is, however, one force in American life that really could save Barack Obama from the fate that he is preparing for himself – and that is, as I have also frequently remarked, the Republican Party. Much to my delight, however, John Boehner and the Congressional party have proved to be both savvy and firm. They reject tax increases, and they want spending cuts – and they are not about to be pushed around. The Republicans in Congress may not right now be popular with the public, but Barack Obama is sinking fast in the polls, and he is likely to fall much further.
The Presidential party is another matter, and I am frankly worried. Consider those who register in these polls. Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney. Who on this list is both a stalwart conservative and a plausible candidate?
Not Mitt Romney. He is not a conservative. He is a managerial progressive – the proud father of Romneycare: the Massachusetts program that was the model for Obamacare. Like Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils, he is a manager. He is the man to make the administrative entitlements state hum. He is not the man to dismantle it.
Not Rick Santorum. He lost his Senate seat by a margin of 18%. He has no business being in the race.
Not Newt Gingrich. He is another managerial progressive, and he has blotted his copybook more times than anyone can count.
Not Jon Huntsman. He is a handsome fellow, but he does not stand for anything.
Not Herman Cain. He does not know beans about foreign affairs; and when it comes to Muslims, he is prepared to chuck the First Amendment. Not to put a fine point on it, the man is a crank.
Not Ron Paul. Like Cain, he has interesting and intelligent things to say about federal expenditures and monetary policy, but let's face it: he, too, is a crank. When it comes to foreign affairs, he would make the damage done by Barack Obama look like a glorious victory.
Probably not Tim Pawlenty, alas. He is a good man, and he is hardworking, but he seems not to have fire in his belly, and he appears to lack a sense for the jugular. In the New Hampshire debates, he was well-position to have at the father of Romneycare, but he backed off and came off as weak.. Even if he wins the Iowa caucus, I do not now believe that he has the moxie to knock out Romney (who is nothing if not well organized), much less defeat Barack Obama.
Probably not Michele Bachmann. She is a force of nature and a fierce, principled, well-informed conservative. Moreover, she is fearless, and she is an excellent debater. But she has no executive experience, and she is said to be extremely disorganized, to have made no friends among her fellow Congressmen, and to suffer a great deal of staff turnover. If the criticism I hear is correct, she should not be in the race. She is an outspoken Congressman – and that is all that one can say.
Probably not Sarah Palin. I like the Barracuda. I admire her. She is a political natural with fabulous instincts, and she has some first-rate advisors. Moreover, she has executive experience; and before she received the vice-presidential nomination, she was doing a fabulous job as Alaska governor. She has, however, made some choices that suggest she is not really serious about the race.
Perhaps Rick Perry – if he gets in the race. In my book, he has a couple of strikes against him. He was a Democrat (which, to be fair, meant very little at the time in Texas), and he chaired Al Gore’s campaign in Texas for the presidential nomination in 1988. This last matter does give one pause. But Perry has been an excellent Governor in Texas, and he is a proven campaigner. More to the point, since joining the Republican Party, he has established himself as a staunch conservative. The one doubt I currently entertain has to do with his status as a Texan. Some Texans are, if I may descend to understatement, parochial. There have been hints of that with him. He did not advocate secession, but he spoke as if it was a possibility. That may come back to haunt him, and it arguably should. If he gets in the race, we will have to see what he is made of.
There is still room for other candidates. It is not too late for Paul Ryan to enter the race. And if he did so, it would transform it. But the list of candidates in or about to enter the race is not impressive, and most of them are merely indulging their vanity and wasting our time. Is the Republican Party this short of talent? This is the political opportunity of a lifetime -- and no one of obvious stature and ability is willing to step up to the plate. We desperately need a standard-bearer.
- Comment (45)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Vanity Fair
Your analysis of the candidates is pretty darn good. I still would be amused by Ron Paul in foreign affairs and I think you underestimate the true laughing stock perception of Mr Obama amongst his foreign counterparts. Most are too nice to say so on record.
Rick Perry has some smears on him. Gore was a well known bribe me if you want to do business here man and that association makes Perry come off as someone more interested in political expedience than personal integrity. On a side note, Mr Gore is intoxicated more often than not and his handlers have a notoriously difficult time with him. Back to Mr Perry, he also has his mandatory Gardisil vaccination program to answer for. With that said, if he's the candidate, I vote for him.
Do not get me wrong with this criticism, Mr Obama is the worst president in modern history and I look forward to the day where this becomes common knowledge even amongst the sheep that divine their news from comedy shows.
Jun '11
Re: Vanity Fair
Have you an idea of what keeps Paul Ryan on the sidelines, Professor? Does he think the current debt ceiling negotiations, among the other fiscal flotsam and jetsam churning about Congress, a more appropriate use of his abilities? If the argument for his Presidential run has been made to him without effect, what more can be done to convince him?
With regard to Perry: He has been an excellent Governor for Texas, as his 10-year term in office over a thriving Texan economy has proven. Were this election taking place in less transformative times, I would think him a perfectly adequate candidate. If we expect our executive officer to soundly defeat the administrative state, however, adequacy condemns with faint praise.
May '10
Re: Vanity Fair
Don't count Obama out yet, regardless of Republican candidates. Democrats in local governments have convinced voters in the past that they were forced to cut firefighter budgets, police budgets and other vital services because Republicans did not give them a free reign on spending. Democrats might be able to repeat that feat at the national level by withholding Social Security checks and other payments which many voters rely on.
Much depends on Republicans becoming better salesmen in the next several months.
It doesn't matter what voters willing to do their homework and willing to carefully reason believe. Elections are decided by the least thoughtful and least informed voters. Republicans need more than facts and logic.
Feb '11
Re: Vanity Fair
I completely agree with all those points except about Pawlenty. I think that he's just not a flamethrower by nature and the whole "Minnesota nice" thing can seem like weakness. The reason I don't like him is because he tries to overcompensate sometimes, and when he throws red meat he sounds like he's pandering and sounds inauthentic.
Of course all of these people would be an improvement over the incumbent, even the cranks (and they are cranks).
Jul '11
Re: Vanity Fair
If Obama is able to continue spending unchecked then the presidency is his in spite of the economy. The level of ignorance and overt mis-education by the media regarding him is as profound as my dislike of nearly everything he really stands for. Perhaps Paul Ryan does not feel like being confined to the also ran pile of candidates in a rigged election. The American public is still fascinated with circuses and does not realize the bread lines are coming soon.
May '10
Re: Vanity Fair
I should add that much depends on folks like us as well — people who are aware of the game Democrats are playing and what lies ahead. For a Republican to be elected next year, we need to start talking politics with all of our friends and family who don't like to talk politics. The people who hate talking politics and following news are among the most vulnerable to the lies of would-be despots and their media allies.
May '10
Re: Vanity Fair
I, too, endorse your analysis, Professor. I am sorry about Pawlenty. I'd been hoping he'd prove the right man, but for some reason he can't seem to get any traction.
"Is the Republican Party this short of talent?"
What is odd is that it full of great talent, but all of it still too green for a presidential run this time. I made a partial list the other day on another thread: Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Ron Johnson, Scott Walker, Bob McDonnell... I think Ryan is the only one among them who could do it and win.
Edited on July 19, 2011 at 5:09amMay '11
Re: Vanity Fair
God bless you Paul for not resigning yourself to accepting the options given to us by Dennis Prager's Stupid Party (I know this distorts Prager's use of the term). You are correct in feeling pessimistic about the current situation. My good friend, Kermit used to say it wasn't easy being green. Being a pessimist gets easier every day.
Feb '11
Re: Vanity Fair
Bolton?
Dec '10
Re: Vanity Fair
I keep thinking of what William Wallace said to Robert the Bruce in the movie Braveheart, "Now tell me, what does that mean to be noble? Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to FREEDOM, they'd follow you. And so would I." Who is our Wallace? Who is our Bruce? In my mind, Perry is the only one near the race with the courage to whip us into a battle frenzy to right the ship of state. Maybe it's the boots, but there's something about the way he carries himself that might just encourage and embolden the electorate. Or not. We won't know until he throws his Stetson into the ring. However, after a few years of Obama the people might just be in the mood for another cowboy.
May '10
Re: Vanity Fair
Yes, what can you tell us about Bolton, Professor?
May '10
Re: Vanity Fair
Bolton has disappeared entirely these past few months. Why should we think he's still considering entering the race?
If he does enter, he needs to do more than hint at his stances on domestic policies. Simply saying he's a fan of Goldwater, as he has done before now, won't cut it.
Jun '11
Re: Vanity Fair
There is no Wallace, no Bruce. None at all.
There is only what the Framers intended.......US.
It was intended that when we got to this point, we'd figure it out. We. The People.
Or not.
This may be the most truthful and accurate election we've ever had.
Don't hang around waiting for Ronald Reagan. We're him.
Mar '11
Re: Vanity Fair
Reagan was a Democrat, too. Anyone over about 50 was a Democrat here in Texas in their younger days if they had any sort of aspirations to pubic office. It doesn't mean anything. The Al Gore endorsement bugs me much more, though given the fact that Gore was then, as now, a consummate panderer, he was much more conservative back then, and was considered the conservative Dem in that race, as opposed to Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, etc.
I like my governor, don't love him, but I think he could match up well against Obama, and would be much better than Mittens.
Dec '10
Re: Vanity Fair
michael kelley
There is no Wallace, no Bruce. None at all.
There is only what the Framers intended.......US.
It was intended that when we got to this point, we'd figure it out. We. The People.
Or not.
This may be the most truthful and accurate election we've ever had.
Don't hang around waiting for Ronald Reagan. We're him. · Jul 18 at 8:35pm
I'm certainly not holding out for a hero. The founders coalesced around certain figures who led them to victory and to prosperity. We need a leader. I agree this will be a truthful election. In this we determine once and for all if we have crossed the line of corruption Franklin spoke of at the constitutional convention.
Jun '11
Re: Vanity Fair
The King Prawn
michael kelley
There is no Wallace, no Bruce. None at all.
There is only what the Framers intended.......US.
It was intended that when we got to this point, we'd figure it out. We. The People.
Or not.
This may be the most truthful and accurate election we've ever had.
Don't hang around waiting for Ronald Reagan. We're him. · Jul 18 at 8:35pm
I'm certainly not holding out for a hero. The founders coalesced around certain figures who led them to victory and to prosperity. We need a leader. I agree this will be a truthful election. In this we determine once and for all if we have crossed the line of corruption Franklin spoke of at the constitutional convention. · Jul 18 at 8:42pm
I hear you but, if I may, I would back off from ultimatum type thinking.
If we lose (which we won't because Obama and his crew are incredibly arrogant and arrogance blinds), the fight goes on. The Experiment continues.
We continue. Apocalyptic thinking will usually do no good until, well, it's the Apocalypse.
Oct '10
Re: Vanity Fair
It seems there’s always a Candidate Perfect on the next list of would-be GOP Presidents. But you fight wars with what you have, not what you wish you had. We have to beat this President in this election.
Or not. If one is a conservative first and a partisan second, perhaps it’s time to abandon the GOP. Since we’ve ceded our destiny to a political class that can’t be bothered with hard choices (AKA leadership), maybe the long game matters more than 2012. Maybe it’s Obama’s role in history to fulfill Alinskyite fantasy—bring the beast to its knees and rebuild upon a different foundation. Maybe only when it’s on its knees will patriots arise and reclaim their birthright—the old fashioned way, with blood and treasure à la 1775-1783. Or maybe—unlike Reagan and his—this generation simply loses its date with destiny. RR taught that liberty is always but one generation away from being lost.
The only thing that’s certain is Candidate Perfect isn’t going to emerge from a cloud. Get behind someone or get ready to watch the parade pass Obama’s reviewing stand in January 2013.
Nov '10
Re: Vanity Fair
Paul A. Rahe: Who on this list is both a stalwart conservative and a plausible candidate?
Not Mitt Romney. He is not a conservative. He is a managerial progressive – the proud father of Romneycare: the Massachusetts program that was the model for Obamacare. Like Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils, he is a manager. no business being in the race.
Professor Rahe: I certainly can't quibble with the argument that Mitt Romney is not a conservative.
But I will argue that he cannot be compared to any of the above-mentioned presidents ( including GHWB). Romney is far more than a managerial; he is a creator of vast wealth. This is an important distinction.
Listening to him speak yesterday on the New Hampshire beat, I was impressed at the simplicity of his comments regarding the economy.
I heard a lot of 2 + 2 =4.
Refreshing to hear as we suffer the Paul Krugmans et al. who have never succeeded in the private sector, yet insist upon wasting our time with over-complicated economic theories.
Nov '10
Re: Vanity Fair
It is not too late for Paul Ryan to enter the race.
I don't think it is either. I would only question whether it would be in our best interests for Ryan to focus upon running a national campaign in lieu of overseeing the budget. (After all, somebody needs to be minding the store!)
Edited on July 19, 2011 at 6:54amOct '10
Re: Vanity Fair
Elizabeth Dunn: It is not too late for Paul Ryan to enter the race.
I don't think it is either. I would only question whether it would be in our best interests for Ryan to focus upon running a national campaign in lieu of overseeing the budget. (After all, somebody needs to be minding the store!) · Jul 18 at 9:50pm
Edited on Jul 18 at 09:54 pm
I love Rep. Ryan as Chairman of the House Budget Committee. He’s brilliant and truly exercising leadership. But when it comes to Presidential candidates, what makes Ryan’s lack of executive leadership experience different from, say, Rep. Bachmann’s? That he excels with Excel spreadsheets? That’s not going to overawe Joe & Jane average voter, I’m afraid. Against MSM’s deification of Lord Obama we’ll need something a bit more compelling than “better versed on budget arcana.”