Thursday, December 08, 2011
Could "None of the Above" still join the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination?
Conservatives like me who haven't quite gotten comfortable with any of the existing GOP presidential candidates yet may be intrigued by Larry Sabato's analysis of the obstacles and odds that would confront a late entrant into the race.
The current selection system guarantees that a relatively small number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have a wildly disproportionate impact every single election cycle. They've seized this power arbitrarily, and they maintain it for absolutely no reason other than that they've threatened to hold their noses and turn blue (i.e., hold their 2012 primaries in 2011) if their childish demands for primacy aren't respected by everyone else. This is profoundly anti-democratic (small "d"), and I will work to reform and replace that system regardless of the results of this cycle.
For now, speculation like Sabato's remains improbable. But it's a good excuse for me not to change my side-bar endorsement ("Draft Paul Ryan") for at least a few more weeks.
Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Could "None of the Above" still join the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
(1) Adam made the following comment | Dec 11, 2011 2:44:50 AM | Permalink
I've only been loosely following the Republican Nominees, but I'm curious - what is the problem with Jon Huntsman? Seems like the most reasonable candidate among them all by my (admittedly relatively uninformed) opinion.
(2) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Dec 11, 2011 2:11:45 PM | Permalink
Dear Adam: Hmm:
1. Huntsman has said he "trusts the scientists" on global warming. He doesn't specify which scientists, but if they include Phil Jones & Co. his wits are deficient. The second round of "Climategate" emails show a gang of zealots reaching for blackjacks to bolster their supposed evidence. Too, JH's response to "We need to do something about global warming" was originally "Cap and Trade." He has since backed away from this gross invitation to fraud and favor seeking, but that he'd even consider it again leads me to think his wits are deficient.
2. He went to work for The One. That alone sinks him for me. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that JH's motives were patriotic. But in every election, the candidates have to have at each other. Every time JH tries to do this, The One will smirk and say, "If my administration is so bad, why'd you come to work for it?" He will be on the defensive all the time, a remarkable achievement given The One's ignominious record.
There's a lot more I could say about JH's awfulness as a GOP nominee, but I'll close with the gag that made the rounds in 1944 when FDR was considering renominating Henry Wallace to continue as his Vice-President:
Delegate One: Whaddya thinka Wallace?
Delegate Two: He's muh second choice.
Delegate One: Whosyer first?
Delegate Two: Any scrofulous worm with leprosy, syphilis, who swindles widdas and orphans, and burns down churches.
So say I.
(3) Milhouse made the following comment | Dec 13, 2011 12:35:05 AM | Permalink
1. Huntsman has started to see the light on the warmening hoax. And in any case, Gingrich has the same flaw.
2. How about "Because flawed or not, you're the president, and my country needed me"? Would you ask the same question of someone who served in the military under Obama?!
I too am asking Adam's question: why not Huntsman? What exactly is so "moderate" about him, other than cosmetics? If he's a true conservative in moderate clothing, then surely that is so much the better, isn't it?
The comments to this entry are closed.