You’d think the GOP would’ve learned valuable lessons about putting forward unelectable candidates after the Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell debacles. Enter Newt Gingrich.
Not that your memories need refreshing, but the Republicans ran Angle and O’Donnell in races for the U.S. Senate in 2010 in states where a decent, moderate Republican had a legitimate shot at winning. They ran these two far right-wingers who had no appeal to independent and moderate voters and lost. And although it's getting nearly impossible to find a moderate Republican, there are still a few out there.
Now, it looks like the GOP is going in the same direction with Gingrich in the 2012 presidential election. It’s hard to understand how or why they’d go down this path with Gingrich, who in my view, has virtually no chance of winning in a general election…even against a very vulnerable President Obama (although I don't think he deserves to be vulnerable).
This begs the question: Why Newt? Especially when the Republicans have some decent candidates such as John Huntsman and Mitt Romney, who have the gravitas needed to be competitive in a general election against the President.
Then again, when you look at the overall weakness of the potential GOP nominees, it’s not hard to see how someone with Gingrich’s Herculean baggage could emerge as the leading contender among a group that many Republicans are unhappy with.
The GOP isn’t only hell bent on running a candidate with limited appeal beyond the party’s conservative base. They seem equally determined to back its entire slate of candidates into far-right corners on everything from the environment and immigration to taxation and gay rights.
According to a recent report in the “Think Progress” blog, Republican John Dansforth, who served as a senator from Missouri for nearly 20 years and later as George W. Bush’s ambassador the United Nations, reportedly said, “I’ve been watching some of these Republican debates and they’re just terrible. It’s embarrassing for me as a Republican to watch this stuff.”
Dansforth also called out debate audiences for applauding the candidates’ morbid boastings: “What have been the big applause lines in these debates? Well, a statement that the governor of Texas is responsible for killing 234 people on death row. Or that we favor torture. Or that we’re creating a fence on the Mexican border that electrocutes people when they try to cross it. Or when people show up at the emergency room at hospitals and they’re not insured don’t treat them. It doesn’t have anything to do with the Republican Party that I was a part of.”
Much like Colin Powell and other moderate Republicans, Dansforth apparently believes their party has been hijacked by right-wing extremists. And if these extremists continue to dominate the Republican Party, it’s very likely that they’ll continue to put forward candidates who appeal to no one but those on the way out right. But what should we expect from a party that allows a huckster like Donald Trump to be one of its primary kingmakers?
Simply put, the Republicans are working to ensure their own worst nightmare: Four more years of President Barack Obama in the White House. And that would be fine with me...especially given the alternatives.
Let’s hope the Republicans are arrogant and pious enough to repeat their ridiculous mistakes with Angle and O’Donnell, and run Newt for President. If they do, I'll really start thinking they want to re-elect President Obama more than we do.