Filibuster CartoonsTitle: Spoiled for choice (click to view)
Date: August 16, 2011
So, there's been a lot of developments in the GOP presidential primary as of late. I'll just run through the big headline-grabbing candidates of the moment and give you my spin.
Michelle Bachmann won Saturday's Ames county fair straw poll in Iowa, a highly ritualistic, largely meaningless bellwether that has repeatedly proven itself less trustworthy in identifying future presidents (and nominees!) than spastic zoo animals. Nevertheless, her win has helped solidify a narrative of the Congresswoman as the party's "rising star" that "exceeds expectations" and gives all the men in the race a scary run for their money. And to the extent the Iowan population itself represents anything coherent, it does (I guess) sort of indicate where the hearts and minds of a certain symbolic slice of conservative, rural America lies, and Bachmann is clearly hoping conservative, rural America will blaze her path to the nomination. So goodie for her.
Bachmann is often lazily compared to Sarah Palin, and in the initial days of her entry into the presidential race, many observers marveled at how articulate and intelligent she seemed, only because Mrs. Palin had set the bar for GOP women so exceedingly low. But her patronizing honeymoon of faint praise is over. Having proven herself capable of answering serious questions in a serious manner, the press has now called upon Bachmann to use her big articulate brain to clarify some of her past statements; comments that had previously been easy to dismiss as the mere rantings of an unknown, important crazyperson. And on this front, she has been less than impressive.
I very much enjoyed watching
Bernie Goldberg on the O'Reilly show yesterday in which he, a conservative commentator, blasted Bachmann quite harshly for just being another "hack politician" who refused to give honest answers to honest questions. Asked to clarify her stated belief that wives should "submit" to their husbands, for instance, she weasley redefined "submit" to mean "respect," which is obviously a complete non-sequetor. Similarly, when asked to explain how, exactly, homosexuality equates "enslavement" (another prior comment) she tritely hand-waved the question away, saying she was not into passing judgement on anyone. As Goldberg very curtly observed, this kinda double-speak should cause anyone previously inclined to take Bachmann seriously — particularly her Tea Party base — to second-guess just how actually "authentic" and "principled" this supposed conservative wonderwoman really is.
Ron Paul came in second in the straw poll, and very nearly beat Bachmann herself. Had less than 200 votes gone the other way, the headlines would doubtlessly be very different right now. But the fact is they aren't, and in my view, this is a loss from which Ron Paul may never recover.
Paul's performance in the Republican debate last Thursday was nothing short of terrible. Already borderline Asperger's in his manner and speech, Paul seemed more rambly, less coherent, and screechier than usual on the big stage, babbling endlessly about all his usual pet causes rather than engage in any form of stay-on-topic self-discipline. I know that Paul's people like to believe that their candidate is only disliked by the Republican establishment because he "speaks truth to power" or whatever, but the fact remains that the man is, by any objective measurement, tremendously annoying and socially maladjusted.
Paul's challenge was to prove that his fringey, cliquey appeal was, in fact, broad enough to eke out substantial victories in important contests. Now, second place is never anything to sneeze at, and it isn't fair to dismiss the man entirely, as much of the mainstream media has done in the aftermath of Ames. But it's also hard to spend a great deal of time seriously analyzing someone whose political appeal has such an obvious celling.
Tim Pawlenty, who finished a distant third in the straw poll, dropped out the next day. To which I can only say, good riddance. It's not that I bear the man any particular ill-will, it's just it was hard to ever understand his campaign as anything other than a sort of weird, media-backed paper candidacy. Pawlenty was taken seriously largely because we were endlessly told by the TV and newspapers to taken him seriously, not because he had any readily-apparent merits to his own name or career.
As a Minnesota friend of mine once quipped, "what makes him more special than any other random cow-state governor?" Crass, perhaps, but still a question his pointless campaign utterly failed to answer.
Governor
Rick Perry of Texas, however, is entirely another story. As governor of America's second-largest state, and one of the few that seems to have not only weathered the recession, but economically thrived during it, Perry is the sort of anti-Pawlenty. His late entry into the presidential race last week almost overshadowed Michelle Bachmann's victory (a fact she was understandably
sore about) and has dramatically turned a lot of the conventional wisdom upside-down overnight.
Over the last couple of months, there has been a lot of spoiled whining within the GOP base as voters endlessly claim that there are "no good candidates." Unless we define "good" in an exceedingly narrow, ultra-picky way, it's hard to believe that of the currently declared, dozen-or-so candidates, there's not
one man or woman in the mix worth supporting. But conservatives are in a perfectionist mood, it seems, and the media's been equally eager to abet this, routinely portraying the candidates as little more than walking bags of flaws with insincere faces stapled on.
With that in mind, Perry is a bit of a godsend. It's not that he is flawless — no politician ever is, and as the weeks progress all sorts of dirt will doubtlessly be dug up — but rather that he projects cookie-cutter conformity with the Platonic "Republican" ideal to such an extent that he sure
seems to be, at first glance.
A conservative Democrat who turned Republican in the 1980s, Perry has won every election he's ever contested —
10 in all — with considerable ease. Consistently right-wing on all issues, both social and fiscal, he's championed small government, states' rights, low-spending, gun rights, opposition to abortion and gay marriage, low taxes, and a blurring of the line between church and state without any particular notable moments of waffling or hypocrisy. He's also a born-and-raised southerner with working-class roots and a non-Ivy League education, giving him a degree of proley authenticity that the Republican Party has been lacking in the aftermath of the blueblood Bush dynasty.
And talking of Bush, despite the fact that they both held the same job, George W. and Perry apparently don't get along very well, and never have. Perry first became governor in 2001 when Bush resigned to assume the presidency, but because the Texas lieutenant governor is separately-elected and has pseudo prime ministerial powers quite divorced from the executive branch, the two men were never close even on a professional level.
This is relevant only because the idea that Perry is too superficially Bush-like has been one of the few coherent criticisms of the man. The other swipes against him (most of which originate from the left) are even less cutting. Obviously, if you are ideologically opposed to right-wing, southern, Christian Republicans, you won't find much about the guy to like. But he's not running for your vote in the first place. What matters is the ability of his GOP opponents to form a convincing conservative anti-Perry critique, on par with the Romney-is-a-flip-flopper and Bachmann-is-too-nuts tropes we've come to know and love. And that's a task that's proving quite difficult.
In short, everything I've read about the Governor thusfar leads me to believe he is the man to watch for 2012. There may be better people already in the race, and there may be candidates far more deserving that have yet to enter, but in the present context, I feel the stars have really aligned in his favor.
Forum Junkie 
Active Member 
