That's just as true, by the way, if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
That's because if Perry wins the nomination, the 2012 election should become the showdown we've all been awaiting.
Every four years they tell us that the coming election will be most important presidential race of our lifetimes. It almost never is, of course. But this race — whatever else it turns out to be — will almost certainly be the most defining presidential campaign since Reagan-Carter.
We need some definition. The national divide grows ever deeper and the cable chatter grows ever louder. It's time we settle some things.
That's where Perry comes in. After the Ames straw poll — a weird Iowa affair wherein candidates literally pay for their votes — the Republican race seems to be down to three candidates, matching Perry against Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.
What makes Perry stand out — besides his willingness to, say, call Social Security a Ponzi scheme — is that we've seen the other two.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a Mitt Romney time, but this clearly isn't it. He's a character from one of those time-travel movies, except he comes from no recognizable era, past or future. What I mean is, he looks human, but he makes you wonder if you can trust your own eyes.
In any case, he's not the anti- Obama figure that the moment demands. After all, he's the author of Obomneycare, as T-Paw, in his brief showing, so aptly put it. He's a (gasp!) semi-moderate in sheep's clothing — that is, if sheep used to wear ties and now wear easy-fit jeans. The Wall Street Journal calls Romney weak. In The New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat says Romney has been running for five years without a single original idea. (Douthat, who wants Chris Christie to run, is no fan of Perry either, calling him the Republican equivalent of a cross between Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi.)
Romney says he's different from Perry, whom he calls a lifetime politician. Romney spent his formative years, of course, leveraging failing companies. Romney might have been a lifetime politician himself, though, if he hadn't kept losing elections.
Ron Paul: Moderate Loser.
Ron Paul
It is hard to describe second place as losing, but Paul supporters have been accustomed to winning straw polls. They pride themselves on being able to out-mobilize and out-organize everybody else. This time they got beat. The loss was close, which only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Feeding into the stereotype of Paul supporters as being heavily tilted toward dopey college students (a polite way of saying slackers), more than one of them complained that the line to vote was "too long."
So on the one hand Dr. Paul gets them all to turn out and wave signs and make speeches praising each other, but standing in line and actually voting is beyond their effort level.
Young people are known for not turning out, which explains why Dr. Paul has never won a presidential primary.
He had the largest and most passionate group of followers (practically a cult) in terms of tent size and activity, but too many of his supporters are better at the social gathering aspect of organizing rather than the nuts and bolts of getting the job done when it counts.
Tim Pawlenty: Big Loser. Out of the game.
Tim Pawlenty
Initially I had him marked down as "neutral: still in the game." This is why waiting a day beats rushing analysis to the Internet marketplace.
He finished a distant third, and the media declared it a disaster. He had a solid ground organization in the state, but he never got past the perception that he was "bland." This was always an unfair characterization of him. He is a good, decent, thoughtful man who was probably the biggest real threat to Mitt Romney. Yet the ascent of Michele Bachmann hurt him the most. If anyone but Bachmann wins the nomination, Pawlenty remains a solid choice for the Vice Presidential slot.
His tent was very impressive, and his supporters passed out ice cream and other goodies as fast as people scooped them up. His supporters were loyal, but not as intense as those of Bachmann or Paul. Pawlenty ran on "electability," which is code for "competence." Once again, for better or worse (I argue worse), ideology crushed competence. He may have been the best of the bunch and everybody's safe, alternative choice. That got crushed under the Bachmann tidal wave, which simply inspires burning passion among her supporters.
Ron Paul was not a threat to Pawlenty. Michele Bachmann was. As the winner, she will face intense scrutiny from a hostile media who despises her. This could have allowed Pawlenty to quietly and slowly rise under the radar as the caucuses near. Now we will never know.
Rick Santorum: Moderate winner.Still in the game. Santorum was outspent heavily because he does not have the resources of the other candidates. His supporters are fewer but share his burning passion and unequivocal stances on social issues.
Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus in 2008, proving that social issues absolutely trump economics in this contest. While this gives Santorum an outside shot, Michele Bachmann also has solid credentials on these issues. If she stumbles under the coming media destruction campaign, he could rise.
Rick Santorum and Herman Cain
Herman Cain: Loser. He and Santorum really both needed that fourth place slot, and Santorum snagged it. Cain had a packed tent that was field with volunteers serving Godfather's Pizza.
Outside the tent was a beanbag toss for people to play while they waited. The speeches had people cheering, but the biggest knock on the Cain campaign is that people love his speeches without it translating into votes.
The speeches on this day were just as good, and the vote results simply were not.
The "Cainiacs" love his business record, but losing to Santorum clearly shows that social issues rule at this event. Social issue voters, particularly those activists opposed to abortion, will stand in line in for hours in any weather to vote. They are committed, and that trumps the enthusiasm generated from great speeches. New Hampshire is a better fit for Cain.
Rick Perry: Neutral. The media initially called this a big win for Perry, given that he announced his candidacy the day of the event from South Carolina. He got over 700 write-in votes, and he did have some people there determined to get him some votes. The problem is that there were others who were angered at his not only deliberately snubbing the Iowa Straw Poll, but directly competing with it to try and marginalize it altogether.
Rudy Giuliani tried this strategy four years ago and it failed. Those who loathe the role Iowa plays want Perry to break the Iowa stranglehold. Those who like Iowa's role want Perry to be humbled.
Mitt Romney: Neutral. Romney is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination. Nothing has changed that. Bachmann can claim she is his main rival, and Perry will try to do the same. Perry's hard-edged Southern conservatism is not built for New Hampshire, but Perry will bank on Romney not being embraced in South Carolina.
A solid showing without even competing could have made Romney a big winner and cemented his status. Instead, all he did was not lose anything. When one is the frontrunner, breaking even is good enough. Had Ron Paul won it may have allowed Romney to diminish the entire event and further help himself. This reasoning angers the Paulbots, but the bottom line is they are the insurgent movement and Romney is the establishment. Until proven otherwise, the establishment is in charge. That is why it is called the establishment.
Newt Gingrich: Loser. Despite a solid performance in the debate, Gingrich was not expected to compete in the straw poll. Yet then he showed up anyway and gave a speech. So he did not have a tent or a ground organization, but he also could not say he skipped the event altogether like Romney did. Gingrich is banking on this event being seen as irrelevant. Yet if so, why show up at all?
Gingrich will remain in the game as long as he keeps shining in the debates. He is a national figure, so he is not as dependent on regional success as Pawlenty for example. Those who say his time is past do not watch the debates. So while he lost at this event, he is not out of this race by a long shot.
Jon Huntsman: Loser. Nobody knows why he is running. He still has not told us. His debate performance was uninspiring, and he skipped the straw poll. Given that his strategy, if one can call it that, is to be the liberal Republican and media establishment darling, Huntsman was not a fit for this event. Iowa is about conservative activists.
Thaddeus McCotter: Loser. With Huntsman, people do not know why he is running. With McCotter, people do not even know he is running. He pointed out that his candidacy just got started in the weeks before the Straw Poll, but he spent a decent amount of money to earn 35 votes.
Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, and Fred Karger are also running for president. Johnson represents the stoners, Karger the pro-gay marriage supporters, and Roemer... well... somebody.
Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin are the last two undeclared potential candidates. Mayor Giuliani did not hurt or help himself because his moderate stance on some social issues fits better in New Hampshire. He has a national presence, although bypassing Iowa last time hurt him.
As for Governor Palin, she is still a rock star. She lit up the Iowa State Fair more than anybody else already in the race. Even Ron Paul cannot match the combination of loyalty, intensity, and sheer love that Palin brings out in her supporters. The normal rules of politics simply do not apply to her. She can enter the race whenever she likes and instantly compete.
Also, unlike Perry, she did not burn Iowa bridges. While she has not made any announcements (prediction: she declines to run), at least she was on Iowa soil pressing the flesh.
With the Iowa Straw Poll over and done with this cycle, the Iowa Caucus is four months away.
I have not even announced my intentions yet, and I already have a chance to bypass Gary Johnson. I have the same number of delegates as Romney and Bachmann.
No comments:
Post a Comment