Search This Blog

Sunday, May 1, 2011

The GOP field for the presidential nomination

The Sunday New York Times has a big article about the "weak" Republican field of presidential candidates and about how party officials are getting desperate to push additional candidates into the fray. This is now becoming the conventional wisdom among those in the media. It also is just so much nonsense.

Four years ago, when the 2008 campaign began at the end of 2006, we heard lamentations about the ridiculously long path to the presidency in the USA. the campaign began too early, we were told by the same people now shaking their heads over the GOP field. Only a crazy person would go through the endless camapign, they told us over and over. It has to be shortened, they bleated. So now, the GOP candidates are not running to get into the campaign even though there is only (gasp!) just under nine months until the Iowa caucus. Oh, the horror! It is a calamity!

The truth is that the only reason why a candidate has to jump into the campaign at this point is that the media gurus have done there best to make it a requirement to show that one is "serious". There is also the much lamented need to raise enormous amounts of campaign cash; not only do they want to tell us how debilitating it is to raise the cash, they also want to tell us that anyone who tries to do it in a shorter time period cannot be "serious".

At this point in the year, the only thing that is out there for the GOP candidates to do is to take part in the debate that is coming up next week. What is the point? Isn't it a better thing for the Republicans to spend their time trying to get the federal budget under control so that job growth can return to the USA than carping at each other in a way that will just split the party into warring camps? The real battle is not between Mitt Romney's view of trade agreements and Newt Gingrich's position on free trade. The real battle is between those who want to prevent the demise of the American economy and those (like Obama) who want to follow policies that will cause further damage to the economy.

Over the next few months, more candidates will get into the race no matter what the New York Times says. Indeed, any GOP candidate who listens to the "wisdom" published by the Times will not have much chance of success with the GOP electorate. The party faithful know that the Times does not wish them well. Essentially every political article in the Times has an agenda that it is pushing. At the moment, the agenda is to show that president Obama cannot be beat for re-election. After all, Obama is going to raise a billion dollars! The GOP field is "unserious", weak and divided. It is getting too late for a strong GOP candidate. Sorry! Even if the Times pushes the myth of Obama invincibility, it will not make it so. Indeed, the next election will be basically a yes/no vote on Obama by the American people. So long as the GOP nominates a candidate who the people can see as being president(which basically rules out a jerk like Trump or someone like Palin who has just too many negatives attached to her, the focus will be on Obama and his failures. Does anyone think that if Obama gets a billion dollars from his cronies at GE and elsewhere that it will lower unemployment? Will it strengthen the dollar? Lower inflation? End the fighting in three wars? Lower oil prices? Improve the prospects for the future of the USA? A big chunk of the American people have stopped listening to Obama and the Obamacrats. Obama can run 1000 commercials, but it will not change their views. They know what Obama has done, and they do not like it. They know that Obama is not a man of his word, so they will not listen to commercials. Indeed, this will probably mean that Obama will run a very negative campaign against the GOP nominee in an effort to create someone to run against. For most of the possible "unserious" and weak GOP field, however, it just will not work. Unless Obama can turn the country around fast, he is in big trouble. Sorry NY Times, you just do not get it!

No comments: