The liberal writer Gene Lyons echoes the conventional wisdom when he says, “What’s alarming about the GOP contest isn’t the indecisiveness or poor reasoning processes of Iowa voters. It’s the dismal quality of the choices they’re offered. Is this the best that one of America’s two major political parties can do?”
I’ve argued before that what will matter in this race isn’t the quality of the field (which I concede is comprised of unusually weak candidates) but the quality of the nominee who emerges. This field will be long forgotten not only years from now, but by the GOP convention in the summer.
To help illustrate the point: last night C-SPAN broadcast a 2000 Iowa debate which featured GOP presidential candidates Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes, and Orrin Hatch. This hardly constituted a political Murderer’s Row. It didn’t matter. George W. Bush emerged as the nominee and defeated Al Gore for the presidency.
The Republican Party simply has to hope that its best candidate wins the nomination and that he is formidable. My guess is both things will happen.
Sometimes, Mr. Wehner, your writing is less than it could be.
While the “nominee matters” the nominees have gone from Newt as Stateman in early debates to Lucy on the line.
It didn’t take reading CK for me to realize that current crop of candidates are making President Obama “look presidential.”
Look at the terrible position your party is in: a fine gentleman like Mitt Romney (I’m borrowing from your Presdient Obama is a decent man then moving on to chronicle is indecencies) is forced to endorse Ron Paul.
I wonder if Paul has theonomist tendencies? You know, the Jews no longer chosen, but hey we Christians (no Aliens, mind you!) now are!
How do you explain finding yourself here?
Sometimes, Mr. Wehner, your writing is less than it could be. n nWhile the "nominee matters" the nominees have gone from Newt as Stateman in early debates to Lucy on the line. n nRick Perry from Stallion to knackery material. n nBachmann? C'mon. n nSantorum will vote for Paul? Really? n nMamma mia, che Torre di Babele! n nIt didn't take reading CK for me to realize that current crop of candidates is making President Obama "look presidential." His numbers can only continue to stay healthy enough for re-election. n nLook at the terrible position your party is in: a fine gentleman like Mitt Romney -I'm borrowing from you: President Obama is a decent man, then moving on to chronicle his indecencies- is forced to endorse Ron Paul. n nI wonder if Paul has theonomist tendencies? You know, the Jews no longer Chosen, but hey we Christians (no Aliens, mind you!) are! n nHow do you explain the GOP finding itself here? n nI'd give Tannenhaus a shot if he didn't like his own take so much.
"His numbers can only continue to stay healthy enough for re-election." n nActually, the stabilization of his numbers was brief. The latest pollling shows them falling again. n nYes, the crop from which we conservative Republicans must choose in the primary season is thin. But Wehner's point is unassailable. The nominee and how he matches up against the incompetent one is all that matters. It will be Romney and he will match up fairly well. The rest will be deservedly forgotten n n
You're right, of course. n nRasmussen shows Romney leading President Obama by 6 right now. n nI like Romney. For all of his accomplishments he's not at all smug. It's also nice to see a man of quiet (and in his case, sometimes despised) faith excel. n nI'll vote for him unless he names a really unsuitable VP.