|
|
|
And they’re off!
Mitt Romney defeated former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by just eight votes in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday night, and by Wednesday morning both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry looked to be out of the race.
With that, the battle to replace Pres. Obama has officially begun. And replace him we must.
By any reasonable measure or metric, Obama has failed miserably, and the mantra of the Republican nominee, no matter who it is, should be a simple one: “Can you stand four more years of this?”
Meanwhile, Obama is building up a $1 billion war chest, and he’s certainly not going to be spending all that money on positive ads. Whoever wins the Republican nomination is going to get hit with a smear-storm of epic proportions. This isn’t going to be a cake walk by any means, despite Obama’s lousy record.
And that’s why the battle taking place for the GOP nomination is such a critical one — because the election that will be held in November is arguably the most important one in our lifetimes. Perhaps the most important one ever.
From the start, the GOP race was going to come down to Mitt Romney (the Establishment candidate) versus the anti-Romney (a more conservative challenger), with the only question being who would ascend into the anti-Romney position.
Once all of the candidates declared, various would-be contenders for that title rose through the ranks on the basis of their particular strengths but soon seemed to fall just as fast due to perceived weaknesses or faults. Tim Pawlenty, as a successful governor, looked good for all of about five seconds, until conservatives realized he was too much like Romney to be the anti-Romney. Sure enough, no sooner did Pawlenty drop out than he summarily and wholeheartedly endorsed Romney.
Michele Bachmann was up next, thanks to some strong debate performances, but the liberal media were able to use some relatively minor factual slip-ups (especially when compared with Obama’s many whoppers) to successfully portray her as a “know-nothing.”
Rick Perry jumped into the race and supplanted her as the conservative champion, looking as he did like the perfect candidate — at least on paper. But then, in his first debate appearance, he started talking and almost instantaneously disqualified himself by strongly supporting illegal immigration and, worse yet, sounding like a liberal elite in characterizing opponents as nativists. In the debates that followed, things only went downhill from there for Perry, and he faded fast. He's "not presidential timber," as they say.
And they’re off!
Mitt Romney defeated former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by just eight votes in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday night, and by Wednesday morning both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry looked to be out of the race.
With that, the battle to replace Pres. Obama has officially begun. And replace him we must.
By any reasonable measure or metric, Obama has failed miserably, and the mantra of the Republican nominee, no matter who it is, should be a simple one: “Can you stand four more years of this?”
Meanwhile, Obama is building up a $1 billion war chest, and he’s certainly not going to be spending all that money on positive ads. Whoever wins the Republican nomination is going to get hit with a smear-storm of epic proportions. This isn’t going to be a cake walk by any means, despite Obama’s lousy record.
And that’s why the battle taking place for the GOP nomination is such a critical one — because the election that will be held in November is arguably the most important one in our lifetimes. Perhaps the most important one ever.
From the start, the GOP race was going to come down to Mitt Romney (the Establishment candidate) versus the anti-Romney (a more conservative challenger), with the only question being who would ascend into the anti-Romney position.
Once all of the candidates declared, various would-be contenders for that title rose through the ranks on the basis of their particular strengths but soon seemed to fall just as fast due to perceived weaknesses or faults. Tim Pawlenty, as a successful governor, looked good for all of about five seconds, until conservatives realized he was too much like Romney to be the anti-Romney. Sure enough, no sooner did Pawlenty drop out than he summarily and wholeheartedly endorsed Romney.
Michele Bachmann was up next, thanks to some strong debate performances, but the liberal media were able to use some relatively minor factual slip-ups (especially when compared with Obama’s many whoppers) to successfully portray her as a “know-nothing.”
Rick Perry jumped into the race and supplanted her as the conservative champion, looking as he did like the perfect candidate — at least on paper. But then, in his first debate appearance, he started talking and almost instantaneously disqualified himself by strongly supporting illegal immigration and, worse yet, sounding like a liberal elite in characterizing opponents as nativists. In the debates that followed, things only went downhill from there for Perry, and he faded fast. He's "not presidential timber," as they say.
Herman Cain quickly grabbed the anti-Romney mantle, despite only a rudimentary grasp of the issues. In a Fox News interview, for instance, he clearly had no idea what the “right of return” in Israel was about, and that was only one such example.
Nevertheless, his personal story was so powerful and his personality so appealing that he was able to overcome that in the mind of most voters — but not the revelations of sexual harassment and intimidation of women who worked under him. Even though his accusers seemed factually-challenged, to say the least, and the whole thing looked like it was right out of the liberal “politics of personal destruction” playbook (see Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, et. al.), Cain’s message simply couldn’t be heard over the din of so many accusations.
So Cain stepped out and Gingrich stepped up. Gingrich is a brilliant guy, but his conservative apostasies are legion, from supporting the kind of health care mandate that’s at the core of both ObamaCare and RomneyCare to teaming up with Nancy Pelosi on global warming. And then there’s all the personal baggage — like the two divorces and three wives, for starters — the kind of stuff that Democrats would use to bury him in a general election.
One minister summarized the dilemma of Republican voters when he said: “We have a Mormon [Mitt] with one wife, a Catholic [Newt] with three wives, and an evangelical [Cain] who may have a harem.”
Ron Paul surged in Iowa, but his isolationism, coddling of the mullahs of Iran and accepting their quest for nukes, as well as his support of drug legalization, will ensure he doesn’t go far in the Republican race.
And so, finally, it was Rick Santorum, who has essentially been living in Iowa for months — “sleeping in a vat of ethanol every night,” as one pundit only half-jokingly put it.
I spent a day with Santorum a few years ago, when he was running for re-election to the Senate. I got to interview him and attend some political events with him, and no doubt he is the real deal. At one event, I met a guy named Leo, one of his top supporters, who also happened to be producing my brother’s first movie at the time. Quite a day, all in all.
Still, it remains to be seen if Santorum can sustain this momentum, when Romney has now won Iowa and will win New Hampshire big and then has all the advantages like money and organization beyond that to prevail in the long run.
One thing I know about Santorum, from the time I spent with him, is that he is a fighter. Indeed, he has already vowed to fight Romney “in every corner of every state on every issue.” But can he win that fight? I certainly hope so.
If not, then it will be Mitt. He’s no Reagan, not by a longshot. Yet, at the same time, he stands head and shoulders above the present occupant of the White House.
Without a strong enough conservative challenger to win the GOP race as the anti-Romney (and only Santorum is left to be that challenger) there’s no question that the nomination goes to Romney. Then, in the general election, Romney can and should win again — this time, ironically enough, by being the anti-Obama.
Yes, it will be Mitt.
But, in both cases, only by default.
e-mail: tom3264@msn.com, or go to tom’s Facebook page to send a message
