Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Contenders and the Clowns
Nate Silver published a piece on Friday in The New York Times that deserves attention. “In their book The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform,” he observes, “the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller find that endorsements — not polls, fund-raising numbers or media hits — are the best early indicators of success in the presidential primaries.” Then, he points out that, by this standard, Mitt Romney is the front-runner, with Rick Perry a close second, with the other candidates “having little chance.”
This is, of course, the truth, but we really did not need to know who endorsed whom in order to know it, and my guess is that, in this stage of the contest, this would be the situation every time. There are contenders every cycle, and there are clowns – and there is rarely any doubt as to which is which.
The data Silver has collected is nonetheless interesting – for it shows that Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann have thus far garnered no endorsements at all from any Senators, Congressmen, or Governors.
In the case of Herman Cain, this may not mean much. He is an unknown who has never himself served as a Senator, Congressman, or Governor. The rest, however, have done so – and in their years of service they have not earned the unabashed admiration of any of their colleagues. Put simply, there is no one in the Senate who thinks well enough of Santorum to endorse him; no one in the House who thinks well enough of either Bachmann, Paul, or Gingrich to endorse any of them; and no one in a gubernatorial chair who thinks well enough of Huntsman to endorse him. This is, I think, sobering. What it suggests is that not one of these individuals deserved to be up on the stage in the debate on Thursday night.
It is not hard to see why lack support. Gingrich is smart, but he blotted his copybook long ago, he remains erratic, and no one really wants him back. He might be useful in the cabinet; he is not presidential timber. Santorum is a joke. He has never held any executive office, and he lost his Senate seat by a margin of 18%. He is a might-have-been who became a has-been some time ago. He is utterly unqualified for consideration, and on Thursday night he made a fool of himself when he rose up in righteous anger to object to their being bi-national private health insurance for people who live along the Texas-Mexico border and do business on both sides. Ron Paul is a crank with a history of supporting third-party candidates. Jon Huntsman is distinguished only by his money and looks. And Michele Bachmann, who has also never held any executive position, is a loose cannon and a nasty piece of work with no friends in the Republican house delegation, who is best known for the speed with which she runs through and alienates staff. About the only thing that this crowd stars in is self-regard.
Of course, none of this would matter much were they not wasting our time at a crucial moment. The country is undergoing a crisis, and the 2012 election offers the possibility of a resolution. The Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee is bent on destroying this country as we know it and on refounding it on principles opposed to our own. The Republicans have not found a plausible candidate capable of restating the principles on which this country was founded and flourished, and the Republican National Committee makes us sit through debates dominated by figures for whom no elected official of any stature feels any enthusiasm at all.
I have no desire for the nominating process to be closed to those who are marginal. There may come a day when we really do need to turn to an outsider. But, at some point, it might make sense to exclude from the debates those who have not by that stage attracted an endorsement or two from Republicans in high office. Otherwise, the process of deliberation by which we choose our nominee will be short-circuited.
Published in General
If I may quote the man:
“Let’s alter another conception,” he said. “Just because somebody has never held high public office, some people are spreading the nasty rumor that Herman Cain can’t win. Well, let me tell you what, that might be what they think, but the American people have a different idea.”
We the people…
A little perspective, please.
If we do our jobs in the congressional and Senate races, we’ll be fine with Mitt, especially with Rubio at his side and in his ear.
There’s obviously no savior running. But we’re conservatives; we deal with such hard truths by making the best of it. We don’t grasp for a savior that isn’t there.
That’s what liberals do.
This post may not be the proper place to reference this, but the Ricochet Community might be interested in the matchup between Mr. Cain and then-President Clinton. Following their exchange about HillaryCare, Mr. Cain wrote a piece for the WSJ that many said was the beginning of the end for that fiasco – something for which Mr. Cain is very proud.
It is the sincere respect he showed for the Office of the Presidency and his clear thinking that stands out in this exchange. Very presidential on his part, in fact. Am very glad to hear he won the FL straw poll.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU
“Put simply, there is no one in the Senate who thinks well enough of Santorum to endorse him; no one in the House who thinks well enough of either Bachmann, Paul, or Gingrich to endorse any of them; and no one in a gubernatorial chair who thinks well enough of Huntsman to endorse him. … What it suggests is that not one of these individuals deserved to be up on the stage in the debate on Thursday night.”
This comes dangerously close to requiring a permission slip from the party establishment before one is allowed in the debates, doesn’t it? Or maybe I’m reading it wrong. As for me, I’m starting to have a higher regard for people who willingly subject themselves to the slings and arrows from all sides and are nonetheless entering the fray than I have for people like Paul Ryan who have such enormous talent and see the dire situation the country faces, yet remain on the sidelines. As you’ve noted, Professor Rahe, our troops endure much more hardship for a lot less pay.
Paul A. Rahe
Nonsense. I am merely suggesting that, at some point along the way, the debates should be held between individuals with demonstrated support. There are 300 million of us; we cannot all get up on that stage. We really do need to vet the ones who are serious, and that cannot be done in current circumstances.
Edited on Sep 25 at 07:33 am
Perry is approaching the point of no return, and the deadline for further entrants is approaching fast. That leaves us with Romney.
Edited on Sep 25 at 09:03 am
Dave, you miss my point. I am not saying conventional endorsements should carry great weight or ever have. In fact, I explicitly denied that they do or should carry much weight.
What I am saying is that a complete absence of such endorsements is telling. It means that there is not a single man or woman among the colleagues of these folks who genuinely thinks any of them worthy. That is worthy of note. It means that they do not command much respect from those among our fellow citizens who are the most familiar with what they do day to day.
Do you not find that worrisome?
Does the health care law, as it is structured, make provision for waivers? I know the Obama administration is granting them, but since when did the letter of the law stop them from doing anything? I’m wondering if the actual law allows for granting waivers? If not, then any attempt by a President Romney to grant waivers would be challenged and likely lose in court, right? We already have a President who believes he can do almost anything by executive fiat. I’m just wondering if Romney is being a little to glib by half on this.
Well stated, and you make a compelling case as always. Is it your hope that, were the other candidates to leave the field, that we would learn enough about the remaining candidate(s) that a Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels might reconsider? Otherwise, it seems we’re stuck either way, only without the intellect of a Cain or Gingrich to challenge the presumptive nominee.
By the way, I’m headed to Michigan tonight, Professor. If I get close to your neighborhood, I’ll holler.
I am already on record predicting Palin will file for the South Carolina primary on November 1. She will file as a Republican, owing that party or anyone else no favors, and will run her own campaign to win the GOP primaries and the nomination.
As the completely outsider president, and having all the necessary cojones, she will be able to undo the statist Republican machine, much like she tackled the same behemoth in Alaska.
She’s got my vote!
Romney has been running for president for the last 5 years. He has, without a doubt, been covered more by both the mainstream and the right-wing media more than any other current candidate (except possibly Gingrich). I have seen at least twice as many embarrassing clips from Romney (who let the dogs out?) than Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman and Paul combined. His track record on the major issues was discussed at least as much as Obama’s in 2008, despite his not being nominated.
The problem is not that Romney has not been vetted; it is rather that we already know him all too well.
Paul A. Rahe
As for taking him at his word: fine, we take him at his word that he’ll repeal Obamacare and has no intention of imposing a one-size-fits-all national healthcare scheme, mandate or not. ·Sep 25 at 12:56pm
The criticism of Romney is that he is a Progressive who makes tactical adjustments for the purpose of getting the nomination of a party that is not progressive. It is not that he has no strong ideas of his own; it is that, as a Progressive, he is not committed to the principles of limited government. Romney care with its individual mandate is proof positive of that fact.
He is. If it is legal to grant waivers, they can only be granted on a temporary basis. Absent repeal, we are sunk.
As much admiration and respect as I have for you and your judgement, I would respectfully submit that we ought to at least wait until the people themselves have had a chance to cast a few actual votes before we start bidding candidates to exit stage right (or left).
As to endorsements, I consider the source. As conservatives we bemoan the tendency of politicians to stand on compromise rather than principle. But compromise is the bread and butter of politicians. So I wonder if the reluctance of these politicians to endorse some candidates is a reflection of their own displeasure with candidates who, for example, rejected the latest budget compromises on the principle that a reduction in the rate of a growth isn’t really a “budget cut?”
I would respectfully caution that “endorsements” bequeathed us John McCain. The most important endorsement ought to be that of the people themselves. ·Sep 25 at 8:40am
Edited on Sep 25 at 09:03 am
The political elite on the Left and the Right are/is paralyzed.
They are holding their collective breath waiting to see which life boat is viable.
Let’s make our candidate fight for it.
Well stated, and you make a compelling case as always. Is it your hope that, were the other candidates to leave the field, that we would learn enough about the remaining candidate(s) that a Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels might reconsider? Otherwise, it seems we’re stuck either way, only without the intellect of a Cain or Gingrich to challenge the presumptive nominee.
By the way, I’m headed to Michigan tonight, Professor. If I get close to your neighborhood, I’ll holler. ·Sep 25 at 1:23pm
If you turn up anywhere nearby, get in touch. I am in the phone book.
On the political question, I feel nothing but dismay. To date, at least, Perry seems not up to it. None of the other announced candidates has a prayer. Perhaps, Christie will enter. He is formidable. Daniels and Ryan have let us down.
I would like to believe that the last man standing — McCain last time, Romney this time — is worthy. But there is nothing in Romney’s record to provide encouragement. In 2016, we could find ourselves back in 2008 — just a whole lot worse off.
It may well be, but things are changing fast – it will be interesting to see if Mr Cain builds momentum in the next week. Then there is Mrs Palin waiting in the wings. Both are being studiously ignored by Jennifer Rubin and the Republican elite – but that is their appeal to we the people. I’m with Dave.
As a commenter on Hotair noted, Cain/Palin has a nice ring to it, and we can use the same signs as 2008, with the Mc deleted.
And neither of em is stupid.
If you turn up anywhere nearby, get in touch. I am in the phone book.
On the political question, I feel nothing but dismay. To date, at least, Perry seems not up to it. None of the other announced candidates has a prayer. Perhaps, Christie will enter. He is formidable. Daniels and Ryan have let us down.
I would like to believe that the last man standing — McCain last time, Romney this time — is worthy. But there is nothing in Romney’s record to provide encouragement. In 2016, we could find ourselves back in 2008 — just a whole lot worse off. ·Sep 25 at 2:19pm
If Christie enters the race I’m willing to bet he turns out to be not nearly as conservative as people think he is. He pleases as much because of style as substance.
If Christie enters the race I’m willing to bet he turns out to be not nearly as conservative as people think he is. He pleases as much because of style as substance. ·Sep 25 at 3:15pm
No doubt, Richard. There’s nothing better than watching Christie clips on YouTube, but with more familiarity would come contempt to some degree.
But those of us who have ditched our utopian standards would be at peace — with him, or Romney, or anybody else we can be reasonably sure won’t fumble the ball.
Well, yes, to be honest, I do find it worrisome. But I don’t find it sufficient reason to insist that they leave the stage before the people have had a chance to give their endorsement during the primaries. It seems to me that to insist otherwise is to have someone other than the people select our candidate, and I find that very worrisome as well.
This comes dangerously close to requiring a permission slip from the party establishment before one is allowed in the debates, doesn’t it? Or maybe I’m reading it wrong. ·Sep 25 at 10:09am
Edited on Sep 25 at 10:15 am
Yes, you have it wrong. I did not suggest that the candidates be vetted by the party establishment. I am merely struck by the fact that, out of the hundreds of Governors, Senators, and Congressmen, not one is willing to endorse any of these candidates. We are not talking about a Congressional seat or a Senate seat. We are talking about the Presidency of the United States. The damage done if we elect a fool to the House or Senate is minimal. If we elect another fool to the Presidency . . . well, think about the consequences.
Here is the problem. As of 31 October, the way the thing is structured, it may well be over. At the moment, Romney is the only one on the stage who is certain to be alive politically on that date. If, on that date, he is the only serious candidate in the race, it is over — and it will be over without Romney even being vetted. We will know more about Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman,Paul, Gingrich, and the like than we need to know (in truth, we already know more about them than we need to know), and we will know next to nothing about the presumptive nominee.
One man whose endorsement might very well alter the race is Jim DeMint of SC, a Tea Party and social conservative hero in a critical early primary state. There’ve been rumblings he’s open to endorsing Romney, which could be critical to convincing skeptical conservatives that Mitt is, well, good enough.
If we do our jobs in the congressional and Senate races, we’ll be fine with Mitt, especially with Rubio at his side and in his ear.
There’s obviously no savior running. But we’re conservatives; we deal with such hard truths by making the best of it. We don’t grasp for a savior that isn’t there.
That’s what liberals do. ·Sep 25 at 8:48am
Edited on Sep 25 at 08:49 am
You greatly underestimate the capacity of a conservative party that consistently nominates managerial progressives for the Presidency to come apart at the seams. (Remember what happened in 2008).
Mitt Romney is not going to take direction from Marco Rubio or from Congress or from anyone else. He is an experienced executive with strong ideas of his own. He professes to be proud of Romneycare, and we ought to take him at his word. He is not bothered one bit by the individual mandate.
It would be nice if we were to find a genuine statesman capable of stepping up to the plate. I would myself, however, settle for a real conservative with some executive experience.
He is an experienced executive with strong ideas of his own. He professes to be proud of Romneycare, and we ought to take him at his word. He is not bothered one bit by the individual mandate.
I thought the common criticism of Romney is that he didn’t have strong ideas of his own — that he relents to changing political tides, which, if true, indicates he’d be subject to the Milton Friedman rule, as discussed a couple weeks ago on Ricochet.
As for taking him at his word: fine, we take him at his word that he’ll repeal Obamacare and has no intention of imposing a one-size-fits-all national healthcare scheme, mandate or not.
By the way, I’m headed to Michigan tonight, Professor. If I get close to your neighborhood, I’ll holler. ·Sep 25 at 1:23pm
What part of Michigan you headed to Dave?
As the completely outsider president, and having all the necessary cojones, she will be able to undo the statist Republican machine, much like she tackled the same behemoth in Alaska.
She’s got my vote! ·Sep 25 at 1:28pm
‘Cept she didn’t stay to finish the job. I know the press and others made that nearly impossible, but not totally impossible. She’s been on constant self promotion since then with that bus tour. I’m no hater on her, and Lord knows I dislike Romney. Just not convinced she’s someone we should be waiting on.