Survivor

I have not followed the TV program "Survivor," but, from its promos and trailers, I know its premise. That is that a bunch of people of all stripes are isolated on an island ... then they, one by one, vote off the island the losers. This generates lots and lots of intrigue ... backbiting, alliances, and cabals ... until there is just one left, the survivor.

Does this sound like the Republican race for president? It certainly does for me. Have Trump and Cruz formed a partnership to kill off Rubio and Bush? Is Fiorina pissed that she is being marginalized by the men? She certainly looks to be so. Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki and Graham are in the boat on their way back to the mainland. Christie is desperately seeking someone to partner with so that, as a pair, they can vote off a few of the front runners. Paul is playing me-too-ism in his attacks  on the establishment candidates ... hoping to be drawn in with the gang at the front. Frustrated, Bush and Kasich are flailing ... striking out at anyone who gets too near. Carson, having no taste for the fight, is standing off to the side ... perhaps expecting that the front runners will vote each other off. Rubio seems a little dismayed that so many candidates are attacking him for so little reason ... so he is trying to split the Cruz-Trump alliance.

How does this all end up? The survivor of this melodrama is then transported ... sunburned, scarred and weaponless, to another island, built on the Clinton Foundation, for the ultimate battle with Hillary Medusa and her hydra-haired wig.

The Ideal Candidate

I've been musing over and over about who might be the best candidate for president in 2016 ... and I keep coming up with an amalgamation of the current field of aspirants. What would comprise such an ideal candidate?

Marco Rubio's integrity
Hillary Clinton's money
Donald Trump's immigration policy
Ben Carson's humility
Carly Fiorino's straight talk
Jeb Bush's looks
Bernie Sander's crowds
Scott Walker's leadership
Ted Cruz's love of Constitution
John Kasich's fiscal policy experience
Chris Christie's toughness
Bobby Jindal's patriotism
Mike Huckabee's populism
George Pataki's judgment
Rand Paul's outside-the-box thinking
Rick Santorum's doggedness
Lindsey Graham's foreign policy thinking

I've left a few out ... but maybe we can use them for kissing babies?

Sifting the Candidates

Integrity, experience, judgment and leadership ... these are, to me, the four essential characteristics that one should look for when selecting our next Commander in Chief. To me most candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring so far ... from both of our parties ... lack one or more of these attributes ... Hillary Clinton comes up short on judgment and integrity ... Donald Trump, on integrity ... Bernie Sanders, on experience and judgment ... Jen Bush, on judgment and leadership ... Marco Rubio, on experience and judgment ... Mark O'Malley, on integrity and judgement ... Rick Santorum, on leadership and experience ... Rand Paul, on experience and judgment ... Ben Carson, on experience ... Ted Cruz, on experience and integrity ... Lindsey Graham, on experience and leadership ... Chris Christie, on judgment ... Bobby Jindal, on leadership ... Lincoln Chafee, on all four ... Rick Perry, on judgment ... Jim Webb, on experience ... Mike Huckabee, on leadership ... Jim Gilmore, on leadersihip ... and, if he runs, Joe Biden, on integrity and leadership.

The only candidates that I feel have all four traits are George Pataki, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorino, and John Kasich ... none of whom are currently leading in the polls. And Pataki also seems to lack a certain personal dynamism to propel him even later in his campaigns. So this leaves us, I think, with Kasich, Walker and Fiorino ... any of whom, by this sifting process, might have a real eventual shot at the presidency. People, you first heard it here ...

Afterward: Thinking objectively, our current president had or has none of these four characteristics ... so there must have be something else that was at work in 2008 and 2012.

The Candidates

In order to sift through the many candidates for President in 2016, I have been trying to reduce each of these aspirants to a few words. I realize that not all of you will agree, but then some might. Here goes:

Republicans
Donald Trump -- vainglorious

Jeb Bush -- establishmentarian

John Kasich -- Eagle Scout

Chris Christie -- straight shooter
Ted Cruz -- automaton

Rand Paul -- anger management issues

Rick Santorum -- goody two-shoes

Bobby Jindal -- right reason

Scott Walker -- proven by fire
Marco Rubio -- some questionable judgments

Carly Fiorina -- crisp communicator

Rick Perry -- Mr. Sincerity
Mike Huckabee -- bizarro Bill Clinton
George Pataki -- past his prime
Lindsey Graham -- chicken hawk
Ben Carson -- soft-spoken genius
Jim Gillmore -- forgettable

Democrats

Jim Webb -- caustic commentator

Hillary Clinton -- Queen Cruella
Bernie Sanders -- unrepentant hippie
Martin O'Malley -- typical pol

Lincoln Chafee -- soporific
(If announced) Joe Biden -- unfiltered thoughts

The First Republican Debate

The upcoming Fox News Republican presidential-candidate debate to be held on August 6th in Ohio will have only ten participants based upon their poll rankings. Thus there is plenty of jockeying by the many declared and undeclared Republican candidates to make it onto this Fox stage ... as this probably will seal the fate of those not invited. Therefore which polling to be used is a major issue ... see: Washington Examiner Article and Washington Post Story.

If I had my druthers I would like the debaters chosen to be Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Dr. Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Chris Christie, and Bobby Jindal. I think that this group represents a sensational cross-section of conservative thought and accomplishment. I would have few reservations if any of these people become the eventual Republican candidate ... although I would prefer Scott Walker or Marco Rubio ... with possibly Fiorina or Carson as the veep candidate. (I reserve the right to change my mind after the debate.)

This group then would comprise two Hispanic senators, one woman, one black, one Indian-American Southern governor, two very successful Midwest governors, one straight-talking East Coast governor, one multi-billionaire, and one, a former Southern governor from the Bush dynasty. And three of these debaters would also be accomplished private-sector professionals (when was the last time that happened?) What then could be a better cross section of patriotic conservative Americans?

Unfortunately not making the stage would be Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham.and a slew of other lesser wannabes (see: 2016.Republican Candidates List.). Few of this group float my boat.

Mr. Cool

The then Senator Obama once told Harry Reid that his "gift" was being able to read from a teleprompter so easily.  That certainly is true, but he has a much larger asset ... and that is his "coolness".  Marshall McLuhan once prophetically observed that television is a cool medium.  And President Obama fits this medium like a chamois glove.  He even strides "cool."  I seldom can watch him perform on television without singing to myself that old 1959 Coasters' song Charlie Brown:

Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O      (see: All Lyrics)

So, in the upcoming Presidential election, Obama (I like to call him The Barry to reprise that other cool media character, The Donald), has the natural advantage in the upcoming debates.  Neither Rick Santorum nor Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich are particularly cool personalities ... Romney is cooler than the other two, but still boiling hot compared to The Barry.  What does this suggest?  To me, it implies that, if the election is determined on emotion (as it was in 2008), Obama will win in a walk.  However, if the U.S. electorate chooses to view things this fall with a preponderance of logic, then Obama will loose in a landslide.  It should turn out to be a classic battle between the head and the heart.

And what will determine the mood of electorate then?  My guess would be the degree of angst (created by the world situation) that is roiling the voters ... the hotter things are, the less well "coolness" will play.

Burning Up Ants

For me, the analogy that best fits the Republican presidential-primary race is one of a small child burning up ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass.  The child is the national media who seem to be taking a sadistic puerile pleasure in incinerating the candidates one by one with opposition research, innuendo, gotcha debate questions, and sneering asides.  And it has worked beautifully.  Tim Pawlenty, pffft!  Michelle Bachmann, pffft!  Herman Cain, pffft!  Rick Perry, pffft!  Jon Huntsman, pffft!

Who's next? 

Mitt Romney barely escaped the searing magnifying-glass flash when George Stephanopoulos, as a debate moderator, asked him in early January if a state could ban contraception (see: Contraception Question).  This out-of-left-field question was so bizarre that Romney deftly batted it away.  But it clearly presaged the current White House tactic to eliminate a GOP candidate or two by swinging the focus away from the economy and onto social issues.  Does Stephanopoulos's then-silly question seem staged to you now?

Unfortunately, poor Rick Santorum has taken this media bait on the White House's "social issue strategy" and is slowly frying under the ensuing media magnification.  And the Democratic machine is now taking the unusual tactic of spending part of its huge war chest to run opposition ads against Romney in the Michigan primary ... since the convenient media narrative is that he must win there to have a chance at the nomination.  And I think the Democrat strategy with Newt Gingrich seems to be that his ego is so big that he will seek out the seering sunlight focused beam all by himself ... thinking it is the spotlight.

And, looking back on things, I can see that the decisions that were made by Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Sarah Palin to stay out of this nomination melee were quite perceptive.  I think that they must have seen that big magnifying glass in the sky ...

Merry-go-round



First Bachmann, then Santorum, then Romney, then Gingrich, then Romney, then Romney again, then Santorum, then Santorum again, then Santorum once again, and now Romney again ... I am getting a bit of vertigo from this rapid changing of front-runners in the the Republican Presidential nomination race.  Still the handicapper "pundits" think that Romney will be in front when all the ballyhoo is over in Tampa in August.  As a regular reader of this blog might know, I want Romney to win this carousel derby.  However, the whirligigging of this race has been a little unnerving, but I can find some solace in that I haven't seen a dark horse rider reaching for the brass ring ... yet.

Culture Warrior

Apparently the race for the Republican Presidential nomination has shifted away from fixing our economic malaise and reining-in our national deficits toward the remedying of traditional right-wing cultural issues ... abortion, gay marriage and sterilization services.  The evidence for this is Rick Santorum's three primary/caucus victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri on Tuesday.  Some of the precipitating events for these upsets occurring, I think, may be the better-than-expected unemployment statistics that were recently released by the Obama administration ... coupled with the recent HHS's Sebelius's abortion/sterilization health-care-coverage edict that has roiled the Catholic Church ... and the recent overturning of the gay-marriage ban in California by the 9th Circuit of Appeals.

My take on this political sea change is that it is a huge mistake on the part of American conservatives.  To paraphrase James Carville ... "it was, is and will be the economy stupid."  I honestly believe that we have not yet even begun to reverse our forced march toward national penury.

Inoculation Time

The conventional wisdom (whatever that means) says that Newt Gingrich (and maybe Rick Santorum) will now be coming after Mitt Romney with both gun barrels blazing in the ensuing Presidential race.  This media narrative results from the supposed effective negative ads that Romney's Super-PACs ran against Newt in Iowa.  Such attacks are believed to have sunk Newt's caucus chances there.  And Newt is just vindictive enough to try to turn the tables on Romney and spend every dime he can raise or borrow to slime this now-seeming frontrunner.

I think Mitt Romney should welcome this Gingrich vitriol and respond quickly to each and every charge (i.e., his dog riding on the car roof, Bain Capital layoffs in the companies it took over, Romneycare, etc.)  In effect, the more that Newt, Santorum, et alia throw at Mitt, the less negative surprises that The Barry will have to spend his billion-dollar war chest on ... when (and if) Mitt is his opponent when the real race begins  in the late summer.  (This theory is based on the assumption that voters will tire of hearing the same charges over and over again.)  This political tactic is know as "inoculation" and has been used effectively, particularly by Bill Clinton, in past elections.

But the important caveat is that Romney must respond quickly to all of these brickbats with convincing ripostes.  If he lets them stand and fester, then he will indeed be in deep sneakers.

As you may have guessed, I still believe that a Predident Romney is our best chance for curing our in extremis nation.