Posted on 05/06/2011 10:14:56 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
It’s the oldest truism in politics: You can’t beat something with nothing. For 2012, the Democrats have something: Barack Obama. The Republicans, so far, have nothing.
This could change. But who is going to change it? And when? It may seem like the Republicans have lots of time until the 2012 campaign, but they do not.
Obama is already running for re-election and already raising money. Lots of money. For the GOP, the sands are rushing through the hourglass.
Item: The Quinnipiac poll finds “Still No Clear Leader in GOP Field.” Pollster Peter Brown says: “It is difficult to get a handle on the 2012 Republican race. Many contenders are not well-known, and many who are known are not liked, making their candidacies problematic.”
The killing of Osama bin Laden by the Obama administration shows what a difference a death can make. Not to world security — that is still dicey. But the Republican field has been fried like an egg.
Item: “The day after a one-day Washington Post poll found Obama getting a nine-point bounce in his approval rating, a new two-day New York Times/CBS survey shows the president’s numbers increasing 11 points, from 46 percent last month to 57 percent now,” says First Read. “The increase in Mr. Obama’s ratings came largely from Republicans and independents.”
Item: Bruce Keough, the 2008 director of Mitt Romney’s New Hampshire campaign, says he won’t rejoin in 2012 because, according to a Mother Jones interview, “he’s no longer sure what Romney stands for.” Keough says: “I don’t think the voters are looking for somebody who’s going to be recasting himself.”
No matter how well Republicans did as a party in the last congressional elections, their presidential field was shallow in 2008 — and it is shallow today.
In 2008, the Republican order of finish based on delegates to the nominating convention was: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Rudy Giuliani ran in the primaries but ended up with no delegates. The rest of the field of Alan Keyes, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, etc., withdrew before the primaries.
Take a gander at those names and tell me how many you can see in the Oval Office running the country today? Two? One? None?
Here is the Republican field for 2012 based on the highly useful Real Clear Politics average of leading polls. The potential candidates are, in order: Huckabee, Romney, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Paul, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Rick Santorum. Others may enter. Huckabee is polling at 16.6 percent; Romney, 16.5; Trump, 16.3, and Palin, 10.1. The rest are in single digits.
How many would make you comfortable if they were sitting in the Oval Office, making decisions about the economy, health care, education, the environment and war and peace?
If you came up with any names at all, how confident are you that any one of them could defeat Obama?
And now you see the problem for the Republicans. It’s not the billion dollars Obama is expected to raise, it’s not that he has gone through a presidential general election campaign while none of the Republicans have (except Palin), it’s not his oratorical skills and mastery of the issues, it’s the image he has created based upon his record of a competent, cool, skilled, experienced, capable leader.
Has he done things that have disappointed Democrats and enraged Republicans? Of course; especially his perilous policy of continuing the war in Afghanistan and his launching of a confused and confusing war in Libya.
But Obama also rescued the economy, saved the auto industry, expanded health care to millions of children, passed health-care reform for everybody, repealed the ban on gays serving openly in the military and eased restrictions on stem-cell research.
And oh, yeah, he found and killed Osama bin Laden.
Does this mean we don’t need an election campaign in 2012 and that Obama has already won?
Nope. He has vulnerabilities. He is going to have to defend a four-year record. And the economy could tank. Even further. The Republicans could beat this guy. All they have to do is find someone to do it.
They have to find a candidate who is smart, gutsy, nimble, creative, credible, determined and capable of raising vast sums of money.
Give me a minute, and I’ll try to come up with a name.
“Anyone feeling depressed?”
From the article: “....it’s not his oratorical skills and mastery of the issues, it’s the image he has created based upon his record of a competent, cool, skilled, experienced, capable leader.”
Not at all. When they have to resort to the quoted sort of BS to try to pull a “Tokyo Rose”, or more recently a “Baghdad Bob” on Conservatives, on Republicans then you know they are scared.
I say that knowing they are scared of one person primarily. That is the same person they have been attacking over, and over again since 2008. They wouldn’t be attacking her so viciously, so verociously if they weren’t worried, scared she might be nominated to run against Obama.
“Think back to 1980, as bad as things were for Carter - and I would argue that the economic pain in the fall of 1980 was probably much worse than the pain is today, not to mention the hostage saga - Carter still led Reagan by 3 to 5-points less than a week before election day.”
Even then, polls were clearly push-polls. The MSM and pollsters find and publish the results they want the public to see. Couldn’t believe them then - can’t believe them now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.