One of the things that cracks me up about the GOP is how its
leaders love to wax eloquent about conservative principles, but when the time
comes to nominate a candidate, the Party almost invariably nominates a
centrist. Nixon? He was clearly a centrist. He created the EPA, passed the Clean Act,
founded the Legal Services Corporation, opened up relations with China, and
instituted wage and price controls. Ford
was anything but a right-wing ideologue, which is precisely why Nixon nominated
him as his Vice President. Reagan? Fine, he was a true conservative, but he was
also a politician of remarkable talents who was so far and above the field in
terms of charisma and vision that his Party couldn’t help but nominate him. Then, after his eight years in office, Reagan’s
party has given us Bush Sr., followed by Robert Dole, Bush Jr., McCain and
Romney – none of whom is likely to wow the crowd at an American Spectator gala. Let’s face it; when push comes to shove, this
Party wants to win elections. And with
respect to Presidential elections, it recognizes the need to appeal to moderate
voters. Even Reagan, the one exception
to my point, showed a tremendous ability to appeal to Democrats.
With that in mind, identifying the GOP front runner for the
2016 Presidential nomination hasn’t exactly been a challenge. Chris Christie has no chance to win the Iowa
straw poll. He won’t be the darling of
right-wing talk radio. And he won’t run
away with the nomination from start to finish.
Then again, neither did McCain nor Romney. At the end of the day, despite the total lack
of enthusiasm for them from the GOP base, they were the ones giving the big
speech at the Convention. And until this
week, it sure looked like Christie would be their successor.
Conventional wisdom has held that the Tea Party would kill
his nomination by threatening not to support him in the General Election. But I never bought into that. By the time the campaign begins in earnest,
the GOP scandal mongers will be in force, crusading against anything and
everything that they can come up with against the Democratic nominee. We’ve all heard ad infinitum about Willie
Horton, Whitewater, phony claims of inventing the Internet, Swift Boats, Reverend
Wright and Birthergate. I would lay heavy odds that by the time 2016
rolls around, the GOP faithful will be steeped in every bit of minutia
involving Benghazi. They’ll want to beat
that damned Hillary in the worst way.
And if that means nominating the Judas who had the unmitigated gall to put
his arms around Obama’s torso when the GOP needed everyone’s hands around his
neck, so be it. As Al Davis would say,
GOP politics is all about “Just win, baby.”
So yes, once I saw a few weeks ago that Christie was
actually running slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls and every other
potential GOP candidate was running well behind her, I assumed that it was
Christie’s nomination to lose. Believe it
or not, this past week confirmed my suspicions. Am I making an assumption that the
investigation of the GW Bridge scandal will exonerate Christie? No, I am making no assumptions either way on
that front. (This page is a law-free
zone, after all.) But what I am saying
is that quite clearly, Fox News, which covers to the nth degree even the
tiniest scandal involving a Democratic politician, wanted little part of this one. And while Fox News was generally avoiding
the matter, GOP moderates like Rudy Giuliani and Joe Scarborough took to the
airwaves in Christie’s defense. He not
only gets the benefit of their doubts about the “what did he know and when did
he know it” issues, but he also gets praise for the way he handled his
press-conference. In short, the moderate
wing of the Party wants to lift up the guy, the mainstream TV wing of the Party
clearly doesn’t want to bury the guy, and the far right wing of the Party just
doesn’t much matter when it comes to nominating a guy.
A lot can happen between now and 2016. Even on the Democratic side, one cannot know
for sure who will get the nomination.
But this much is clear: if the nominees are indeed Clinton and Christie,
neither will be scandal proof. And perhaps
because of that, the electorate might say the hell with all the scandal talk
and consider instead their ideologies, their experience levels, and their
talents. In other words, each side’s ability
to run the other through the muck might paradoxically inoculate the electorate
to negative campaigning and actually enrich the high-mindedness of the discourse
during the weeks approaching the election.
As a Democrat, I see that as a welcome development. For when I compare candidates in terms of
which one’s ideology is more in touch with that of the American public, which one
is most experienced in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, and running a
large organization, which one has demonstrated the most political and intellectual
talents, and which one is the most respected by Washington insiders, I don’t
see anyone on the Republican side who can hold a candle to Hillary
Clinton. Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment