GOP is doing politics right

The News & Observer ^ | December 11, 2011 | Rob Christensen

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Republican presidential primary has been both entertaining and easy to lampoon: with the Herman Cain sex scandal; The Donald, the Sarah Palin tease, and the Rick Perry brain lock just for starters.

But with little more than three weeks to go before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, there is another argument to be made - that the GOP presidential primary represents democracy at its best.

Here's why.

For those worried about the influence of big money in politics, the GOP presidential primary has been a breath of fresh air. This primary has not been for sale - not to Wall Street, not to Big Oil, not to anybody. There has been less money spent in this cycle than in previous cycles. According to an analysis by Bloomberg News, the top nine Republicans have spent $53 million through September. That compares to the $132 million spent during the same period by both parties in 2004, $58 million spent by the Democrats in 2004 during the same period, and the $68 million spent by the Republicans in 2000 during the same time frame.

The reason the GOP primary has been relatively cheap is that this campaign has been conducted to a large degree through televised debates - 11 of them - rather than through expensive paid advertising. This has not only been cheaper, but it has also allowed voters to get a close look at the candidates when they are standing alone before the cameras. While it is true that debating skills are not the same as governing skills, debates give voters a clearer look at candidate than they get in a TV ad created by some Madison Avenue-image maker.

This has not been a top-down primary. In the past, GOP insiders tended to coalesce around a candidate: a George W. Bush or a Bob Dole. But this year, the primary is being determined by the grassroots, which is one of the reasons why there have been shifting alliances as voters analyze each candidate's strengths and weaknesses.

It has not been a perfect process. There are many who might wish that solid governors such as Indiana's Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or former governors such as Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty or Mike Huckabee of Arkansas had either gotten into the race or received a closer look. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was a far better governor than she is often given credit for. (See Joshua Green's article in The Atlantic Magazine in June, The Tragedy of Sarah Palin.)

But the process worked.

The polls suggest that emerging from the GOP pack are the two candidates with arguably the broadest experience in government, the most road-tested, the toughest and among the smartest: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

With any luck, Romney and Gingrich will still be battling for the nomination when North Carolina holds its primary in May, giving us a repeat of the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton showdown of four years ago.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Comments?

[cripplecreek]

I think Americans had better get right with God because political salvation isn’t coming.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Get right with the Lord and BLOAT.

[BooBoo1000]

You got it right.The Lord is long suffering, but when he looks at the mess we have made of the world, he must be tempted to hit the delete button and start over.

[bigbob]

Not sure I agree with the argument in general, but I do believe the primary system works, and that the debates have allowed those who wish to learn more about the candidates a better opportunity than paid commercials or scripted apperances ever would.

The one similarity to the Obama-Clinton runoff I see is that having a strong field of “not-Romneys” saves us from the coronation of a media-selected presumptive nominee. That’s what Hillary thought she was, and Obama upset her applecart.

The downside is, we got Obama instead. But in 2012, there is no “Obama-like” candidate. No matter which one wins the nomination, she/he will be infinitely better than Obama. And if one of the not-Romneys wins, it will be better than if Romney does.

So I feel pretty optimistic, provided we can beat Obama next Nov.

[DManA]

Absolute lying garbage. There are thousands of better Republicans in this country than this bunch and a rational system would have brought them forward.

The primary process is a national disgrace but the elites refuse to brook any criticism of it since it suits them and their personal power and perks very nicely.

[cripplecreek]

We have only ourselves to blame Even most conservatives appear to have given up thinking and simply take the route of least resistance and follow the crowd.

[hinckley buzzard]

I agree that the debates, as canned as they mostly have been, give people a better view of the candidates than a series of 30 second soundbite ads. Some may argue that they are overweighted--that Rick Perry, for example, has looked bad when he really is not bad at all. Or that Romney's slickster persona gets the advantage from being media savvy. Or that Gingrich's obvious overpowering debating skills gve a false positive signal about who he really is. They may be right.

I was skeptical of this "idiots line-up" approach, with leftwing a-holes sitting as judges in a beauty contest. But the general drift of the debates has improved so much the last few rounds, that even the wise-asses like Steponallofus and Diane Suckya have had to pull in their horns and show at least a modicum of respect.

I give the credit for this directly to Newt Gingrich, who gave all the other candidates a lesson in standing up to the whores and scoundrels, and not hitting rivals below the belt, thus giving the media douchebags ammunition for the next news cycle.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Debates, YouTube - websites and all the other social media outlets have indeed made campaigning a less expensive proposition indeed and can propel folks with little or no name ID to prominence in a period of just a few days. And those are all good things. That’s why a Herman Cain can become a major force, and for a number of weeks, he clearly was a major force.

For the article to recognize the debates part of that recipe is correct. Within that narrow context, the article is correct.

[DoughtyOne]

"...that the GOP presidential primary represents democracy at its best most laughable."

Can any Conservative say with a straight face that these debates have served us well? Hell, we're even laughing at the participants.

Gag me with a pitch-fork. This is the absolute worst field of candidates I've seen in over 40 years.

[SamAdams76]

The debates have been an absolute joke.

Can you imagine the Democrats having a long series of debates monitored by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, P.J. O'Rourke, Glenn Beck and Mark Steyn?

No, I cannot imagine it either. However, the Republicans have somehow allowed themselves to have debate after debate moderated by the most leftist and liberal people in the media, mostly to their detriment.

It is an absolute disgrace.

[DoughtyOne]

You nailed it.

I saw this article as an apologist move for the RNC.

Folks, the RNC is on it’s last legs. Thank heaven. It’s about damned time.

The DNC is organized. I will link itself to anyone who hates the right and this nation.

The RNC is disorganized. It’s gets it’s lunch handed to it daily. It will not link to anyone who hates the Left and wants to defend this nation.

It dumps on Rush and other Conservative talking heads. It dumps on us. It dumps on the Tea Party. It’s a contracted agency to the DNC, pure and simple.

The sooner the RNC totally collapses and it’s former staff is black-balled from Conservative politics forever, the sooner we rebuild a legitimate rival party to the Democrats, one that will network and act aggressively to put traitors and seditionists in prison, or deport them upon request.

[Agamemnon]

Gag me with a pitch-fork. This is the absolute worst field of candidates I've seen in over 40 years.

Your time point takes us back to the 1972 election.

So Reagan himself was not even good enough for you either?

Mal-contented to the point of of being irretrievably implacable.

Yeah that will win elections and stand you in credible stead to render judgment of the the current field. /sarc

I watched the debate on ABC Saturday and was reasonably pleased with what I saw.

I was quite pleased with what I saw and heard. Romney got no traction, Newt zinged the answers deftly, Perry sounded real good as did Bachmann and Santorum. Huntsman didn't show up and Ron Paul still looked and sounded like Jeff Dunham's puppet, "Walter."

A great debate night all around.

There's a reason the CBS poll dropping on Friday has 54% of the population saying Obama doesn't deserve a 2nd term. If I was Obama tonight, I'd be depressed.

Cheer up. You are starting to sound like "Walter" yourself.

FReegards!

[DoughtyOne]

Forty years from right now, was 1971. I stated “in over 40 years”, which would have addressed campaigns prior to 1971.

Nice try.

[Agamemnon]

No US Presidential elections that I recall were ever held in 1971.

...candidates I've seen in over 40 years.

Your statement, as uttered, includes candidates and elections held within the last 40 years, and possibly even some extention of time beyond 40 years.

Enjoy your pathologically joyless present existence, since it is clear that you insist upon having one.

FReegards!

[DoughtyOne]

I said this years field had the worst candidates in over 40 years.

That would mean that the candidates in 1971, ‘72, were better.

Thanks for the response but seriously fella...

[af_vet_rr]

I was skeptical of this "idiots line-up" approach, with leftwing a-holes sitting as judges in a beauty contest. But the general drift of the debates has improved so much the last few rounds, that even the wise-asses like Steponallofus and Diane Suckya have had to pull in their horns and show at least a modicum of respect.

There was no respect in the debate last night, - it saw several attempts by Snuffleupagus and Sawyer to attack Gingrich and to invite the other candidates to attack Gingrich, which some gladly did. They were hoping to get Gingrich to crack under pressure, and they failed.

I may not be a Newt fan, but I was mightily impressed, because that's the kind of pressure the demoncrats would bring in the general election, and Newt is the only one who could survive that kind of pressure. I take that back, Ron Paul could because he's in his own little world. But the other candidates don't do well under stress. Santorum turns into a deer caught in the headlights, Bachmann starts rambling, Perry forgets his platform or spends a minute or two trying to say something that could be said in 10 seconds, Romney's slick facade disappears and he turns into a man who is drowning and knows that help is not on the way.

But DManA is right, there are thousands of people who are much better than this bunch of candidates, and the process ensures that they want nothing to do with the job.

[af_vet_rr]

No, I cannot imagine it either. However, the Republicans have somehow allowed themselves to have debate after debate moderated by the most leftist and liberal people in the media, mostly to their detriment.

It is an absolute disgrace.

I'm still convinced the GOP leadership did this to try and help Romney out. The liberals leave him alone a lot more than the others. And I don't think it's a coincidence that so many talking heads have paraded across Fox News trying to tell us that Romney is the only one who can beat Nobama. I think that's why there was desperation over Cain doing well and why there is desperation over Newt doing well.

Bachmann and Perry were easy to knock out of the running. Cain, a lot harder. Gingrich...almost impossible since he's seen all of this before and he's dealt with much greater pressure than any of the other candidates.

I hate the process and hate the GOP leadership for doing this, but I'm looking forward to the next debates, because Romney clearly knows that time is running out for him. I think we'll see Romney start to fall to pieces as we get closer to Iowa. I'm sure they would not have agreed to as many debates if they knew their man Romney was going to have so many problems.

[Agamemnon]

That would mean that the candidates in 1971, ‘72, were better.

Oh yeah, right I get it. Nixon was a better candidate than any of the (R)'s in the race now?

Let's see ... he was challenged by Cong. Pete McClosky - Pat Robertson's Korea War buddy (at least as Robertson tells it, but not that McClosky ever thought so) who IIRC got exactly 1 convention vote that Nixon didn't, and you had Cong. John Ashbrook of Ohio who, while not philosophically bad, and a frequent contributor to the John Birch Society magazine, "Review of the News," got no votes and had as much chance in 1972 as Thad McCotter does now.

And of course who can forget good ol' former California (R) Cong John Schmitz and his American Independent Party -- the guy who was a Ron Paul type before there was ever a Ron Paul. Did you happen know his daughter was Mary Kay Letourneau - the unrestrainable teacher-pedophile who was in the news a couple of years back?

So this august bunch from 1972 outpaces people like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann?

Either you don't have any depth in the conservative movement at all yourself, or you simply have no command of history cultivated over the last 40 years.

Might want to recalibrate your purity meter with some knowledge of the actual history of 1972. But who knows maybe you weren't even born then -- or if you were, clearly you weren't paying any attention.

Gingrich routinely wipes the floor with your kind of intellect. He plastered Romney soundly last night. You can complain all you want to about him: he's not perfect and in fact doesn't claim to be -- far from it, but you'll never be able to compete in his league of accomplishments with an attitude like yours.

You've already given up.

[Verginius Rufus]

I hadn’t known that Mary LeTourneau was the daugther of John G. Schmitz. He is said to have received more than a million votes when he ran as the nominee of the American Independent Party in 1972 (the party created as George Wallace’s vehicle in 1968). I heard him speak once—I think it was before his Presidential run, and definitely before his sex scandal (he had 2 illegitimate children). He died in Jan. 2001 at the age of 70.