According to Charles Blow in this NY Times op ed that is the status of the Republican Party. As he puts it,
Republicans simply can’t find a competent, consistent candidate with whom they can fall in love and with which President Obama won’t mop the floor.
Any doubt about that seemed to disappear with the statements by Palin and Christie that they would not run (although it is worth noting the former's statement left open the possibility she would get in the race as an independent, which might be possible should Romney be the nominee).
Blow calls this an historic opportunity that is being squandered by the Republicans. After all, Obama's approval rating is down to 41% and Republican governors and state legislatures are moving to prevent significant numbers of those who supported Obama in 2008 from voting this time through their new voter id laws (about which more anon).
Yet, you cannot beat someone with no one.; And as of right now I am of the opinion that none of the ten currently in the race can defeat Obama where it matters, in the electoral college. As Blow puts it succinctly,
The White House should be the Republicans’ for the taking. And it would look more likely if their current crop of front-runners weren’t so utterly inept and fallible.
Perhaps it shouldn't be this way. Perhaps the Republican nominee might not be so important were Obama to be facing a challenge, perhaps from his left, in his own party. But with filing deadlines beginning toward the end of this month, and with the apparent movement even earlier of the contests in the first states, it seems almost certain that Obama will face no primary challenge, much less one of any significance.
Meanwhile he will continue to amass the largest war chest ever seen in American politics. His opponents will still, at least for the next three-four months minimum, continue to be attacking one another and spending money doing damage upon which the Obama campaign can build its own attacks.
From Blow's perspective, there are at this point three main Republican contenders, Romney, Perry and Cain. Others might posit that perhaps one of the others will rise, but we see Bachmann's campaign continuing to spiral downward. Huntsmann has never gotten traction, nor has Santorum - and is the Republican party likely to nominate someone who only six years ago as an incumbent Senator was clobbered in the key state of Pennsylvania by 59-41%. As for Newt Gingrich, his recent statements such as defunding the 9th Circuit , are moving him into the realm of Michelle Bachmann craziness, without the ability - given his three marriages, among other things - to appeal to the religious right.
Blow is dismissive of Romney for his lack of any clear beliefs:
The last time Mitt-Ken ran for president, The Washington Post assembled a list of his greatest hits, and it was a wonder to behold. He was for abortion rights; then he wasn’t. He was for strong gun laws; then he wasn’t. He was against “don’t ask, don’t tell”; then he wasn’t. He was for campaign finance reform; then he wasn’t. He was for “reasonable” immigration reform; then he wasn’t.
Blow offers similarly devastating commentary on Perry and on Cain, and says of the later
He says he wants to avoid racial politics, but he ensures that his campaign is soaked in racial politics.
I believe that if somehow Cain were to get the nomination, there would be a serious effort to run a White Southerner on a 3rd party ticket, for the obvious reason of the more than residual racism still a major part of the Republican party, particularly in the South.
Blow begins his column by telling us that there is still a long time until the election. True. It is possible there could be another serious attack on the US. There could be a MAJOR scandal in the Obama administration - Solyndra lacks the traction to qualify. If one gives any credence to American University Professor Allan Lichtman's keys to the presidency, one might want to note this or other stories this Fall, which strongly predict an Obama victory, independent of whom the Republicans might finally select as their standard bearer.
Please note, in offering this analysis, both that of Blow and some of my own, I do so independently of whether I think Obama deserves reelection. It almost doesn't matter. First, I expect him to win. Second, the alternatives offered by the Republicans are so much worse.
That said, I am more than unhappy with much of the policy of this administration, starting with education and civil liberties.
But this analysis is independent of that.
One last thought. I promised above the squiggle to offer some additional commentary on the Republican attempts to impose very rigid voter id qualifications. While I was at the Take Back the American Dream Conference earlier this week, I had a thought that I passed on that some thought might have some cogency.
What I say is not as a lawyer, which I am not, but at least one of the people with whom I shared it is a lawyer who has done work in election law and think it might have credence.
There is no doubt requiring government issued picture ids is constitutional - for those newly registering.
There is also little doubt that the government must provide such identification for free for those who would not otherwise have it, lest it be in violation of the 24th Amendment.
My thought was this - if I am voting from the same address at the same precinct as I did before such laws were passed, requiring me to produce such a picture id might well be illegal on the grounds that by requiring it you are tacitly accusing me of a crime in my previous voting. While not a criminal charge, my previous voting represents an acceptance of my qualification to vote and now you are imposing an additional requirement absent constitutional authority to change the basis on which I am able to vote. Thus the burden of proof should be upon the states imposing such requirements to demonstrate in each case why such identification requirements are now necessary for someone whose right to vote has already been established.
That leads to this final comment - I have not yet even seen the Justice Department aggressively enforcing the Voting Rights Act in those localities where preclearance is necessary. At a minimum one would hope a Democratic Justice Department would aggressively defend the law whose existence empowered African-Americans to vote. Absent VRA, Obama would NOT have won either Virginia or North Carolina. I would hope the President would vocally challenge the notion that there has been such massive voting fraud to require the draconian measures now being imposed, and to call out the Republicans for what they are - prejudiced, attempting to suppress votes because if all entitled to vote are allowed to vote they know they will lose.
It is this lack of aggressiveness for this and similar progressive issues that led to the depressed turnout of the base in 2010, costing the US House, governorships and state legislatures. It is also a major reason why this election can give any hope to Republicans, because they can hope that some of the Democratic base is still turned off enough to stay home.
Still, despite it all, I think the title of Blow's piece, which I borrowed for this posting, is accurate.
The Republicans are Desperately Seeking Someone. I don't think they have anyone.
What do you think?