[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Looking beyond the labels (click to view)
Date: June 14, 2011

It's probably safe to say that expectations could not have been lower for last night's CNN debate of the leading Republican presidential candidates. After all, since the entrenched conventional wisdom has long held that the GOP field is cluttered with raving, ignorant, radical demagogues, all the candidates really needed to do to look impressive was to speak in complete sentences and not demand to see Obama's sonograms. In that respect, everyone went well above and beyond.

You can read my specific analysis of each of the seven candidates here, but suffice it to say, I walked away from last night's debate with a renewed appreciation for the seriousness and passion of the guys on stage. They're ideological and unyielding to be sure, but also far better informed and far more insightful about the specifics of policy and governance than their current sound byte-focused media caricatures portray. I don't see how anyone could watch the gang's discussion of TARP, for instance, or the auto company bailouts, and not conclude that these people are, by the very nature of their jobs and backgrounds, knowledgeable and mature enough to at least fulfil the base duties of the presidency without accidentally nuking the world, or whatever.

But that's also a problem. In some respects there was almost too much harmony among the candidates. Everyone seemed "good enough," but no one seemed stellar. Even the supposed "craziest" candidates, like Bachmann and Santorum, didn't seem that much less reasonable than the supposed "moderates" like Pawlenty and Romney. In this current era of conservative insecurity, where the Tea Party has helped transform the GOP into a parliamentary-style institution of intense ideological conformity, there's very little political advantage to be gained by any Republican politician who dares deviate from the now set-in-stone conservative norm. I wouldn't say anyone was really "hugging the center," but they were certainly all hugging the established, acceptable, non-challenging "center-right" — and, by extension, hugging each other.

A lack of willingness to deviate from the grand American conservative consensus of 2011 kept all the candidates excessively cordial. After all, when you all agree, what are you supposed to bash each other over? Everyone seemed prepared to take everyone else at their word, and not question anyone's commitment to the conservative cause, or contest their ideological purity. Even ol' Ron Paul emerged less scathed than usual, in a testament to how increasingly mainstream his own once fringey worldview has become.

Paul's a good case study of the downside of this phenomenon, however. Since he wasn't particularly distinguished or differentiated by anything he said last night, it was hard to focus on anything but his appearance and personality; his screechy voice, his ill-fitting suit, his propensity to ramble. Herman Cain was distinguished mostly by his strong African-American cadence, which seemed noticeably jarring in the context of a Republican primary. Romney was distinguished by his uptight dad-like corniness, which is increasingly passing for "presidential." Bachmann was distinguished by being a woman. When all the candidates are championing the same ideas and pledging nominal fidelity to the same causes — right-to-work legislation, opposition to gay marriage, no debt ceiling raise without spending cuts, repealing Obamacare, etc — there's really nothing to left to pass judgement on except the superficial.

The 2011 Republican race may thus wind up very much like the 2008 Democratic one. There wasn't a great deal of ideological space between Hillary and Obama either, lest we forget. Obama's eventual triumph largely flowed from the fact that he was simply more charismatic, charming, articulate, and interesting than the former first lady, and whoever winds up with the GOP nod will probably be able to credit his (or her) own victory to similarly non-political factors. And knowing this current group, what will eventually pass for "best in show" probably won't come down to much more than "least obviously flawed." Which in my view, means Romney.

What do you think? Based on superficial attributes alone, who in the current GOP field seems like the most attractive candidate?

[Pseudonym]

I haven't had a chance to watch the CNN debate yet, but I did enjoy the Fox News one. There still seems to be a lot of room left in the primary race - no one is sticking out in particular yet. It will be interesting to see how the Tea Party surge from 2010 plays out in this election cycle.

[Thanos]

You're impressed by this slate of candidates? Well, I suppose that makes one of ya's.

The only one who emerged as a clear winner from that debate was President Obama. Seriously, if he loses to any one of those current GOP tools the Democrats should be forced by law to disband out of sheer incompetence.

Lengthy Daily Beast article on Michelle Bachmann here. Lord have mercy and save us all from THAT one.

[Proculation]

I like this caricature from the national post:

[Kjorteo]

I'm still bummed that they snubbed Gary Johnson for whatever reason. Everyone else can go lose to Obama for all I care.

[Pseudonym]

I would have bumped Bachmann for Johnson, for the simple fact that he had declared and she hadn't. It seems like the middle of a debate is the wrong time to declare for the position for which you are debating.

[Proculation]

You really need a Chris Christie. *political porn*

[DanSC]

I still hold out hope every four years that Marc Raciot will run. A man can dream...

[BartSimpson]

CNN this morning was giving the 'edge' in the debate to Bachmann. Hate to say, but I missed the debate. But for CNN to say something nice about Bachmann is fairly impressive.

Right now I'm not thinking too much of any of the contenders. Herman Cain went all 'Confederate' the other day about states' rights and he's lost me permanently.

Romney is just another pathetic queeb in a blue suit and he'll lose to Obama for the mere fact that I have yet to meet a hardcore activist who'll support him. In the GOP if you don't have that core of fire breathers supporting you and out walking precincts for you there's no way you can win. Period.

Bachmann is a 'maybe' to me but she's too new for this election cycle. At best, she's laying groundwork for her 2016 run.

One of my hardcore friends sent me an email on this topic literally as I was writing this:

Quote:

Peter
I had the oportunity to see Pawlenty on a show the other night and found him to be a person who has a plan. Bauchman has spirit and can talk, but she really doesn't have a background or a plan. Which is where we got to with this President that we have now. Obama could talk the talk,but when he got into office we learned that he couldn't do the Walk.

Let me know what you think of him. All the media keeps talking about is how he didn't take Romney down the other day. I don't care who can debate, i want someone who can fix America.

Regards and I hope the family is well

Thomas

Tom is pretty representative of the people who will vote, donate, and walk precincts for people they believe in. Right now he's not seeing much from the current field of Reeps and neither am I.

[Pseudonym]

Any feel for the other candidates? Huntsman strikes me as another establishment guy, Johnson is libertarian, and Newt has been all over the place.

[Kjorteo]

I see Johnson in particular as poised to benefit from the sort of "now that his views are mainstream, he has nothing else going for him but the crazy" problem JJ described Ron Paul as having. I've always said Johnson is basically what would happen if Paul were sane and respectable. I'm honestly not sure why the current narrative is treating, if not outright shoehorning him into the role of a fringey also-ran (to the point of self-fulfilling cyclical prophesies where he's excluded from debates because he isn't a "real" candidate because no one knows who he is because he's excluded from debates) when he's just as qualified as anyone else, if not more. He actually announced (putting him ahead of, say, Bachmann,) he has Governorship experience and a pretty decent track record at that (he left office with broad appeal and a favorable legacy--hell, I'm singing his praises, and that should tell you something.)

If he can somehow miraculously make it through the primary, I see him as the most credible threat of the current batch of candidates to actually defeat Obama in the general election. His social libertarianism (marijuana, etc.) would make a dent in even the hippiest of Obama's base, and he even comes with the bonus of making New Mexico a lock, as opposed to its usual role as a left-leaning swing state.

Maybe the GOP is just sticking to the "who can fire up the base/Tea Party the most" angle for their selection process because they secretly hate winning, I don't know.

[Pseudonym]

You have the admit that the Tea Party energy from the 2010 election was an impressive motive force for conservative voters. If I were a politican, I would probably shoot for the energized conservative base over the laid-back social libertarians that would most likely vote for Obama anyway. The primary driving force will be the economy anyway - I doubt that drug advocacy would make a drop in the bucket.

[Proculation]

It's the economy, stupid !

[Teikiatsu]

Thanos wrote:

Seriously, if [Obama] loses to any one of those current GOP tools the Democrats should be forced by law to disband out of sheer incompetence.

Obama will not lose to the GOP candidate. Obama's loss will be due to Obama and his plethora of clusterfucks.

[BartSimpson]

Teikiatsu wrote:

Obama will not lose to the GOP candidate. Obama's loss will be due to Obama and his plethora of clusterfucks.

A Gallup poll that was released today seems to agree with you.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/ ... bama-weak/

Seems Obama only has 39% support with 44% of propensity (likely) voters saying they'll vote Republican regardless of who the Republican is.

On the NBC Today Show (morning news) today Obama was interviewed by Ann Curry who asked him if he might end up being a one-term President and Obama was honest and said that if the economy doesn't improve then it's possible he won't have a second term.