The DPE Would Be Flattered if Mr. Will Were a More Intelligent Commentator
Prior to the
primary this Forum mused about whether or not Republicans were trying to deliberately lose the 2012 Presidential race because Conservatives think it would be better for the party. The argument was that the party should nominate Mr. Romney, but so weaken him that he loses. This would leave the party in control of the Congress (even if they are a minority in the Senate they still control it), it would purge the party of any moderation and it would open the 2016 election for a massive sweep by Conservtives. Michigan
Here is what this Forum was saying a few weeks ago.
"So what is going on here? Well suppose the Republicans have decided that 2012 will be a better year for them if they lose the Presidency with Mitt Romney as the nominee. This does a lot of things for the party.
- Republicans do a lot better in non-Presidential elections with Democrats in the Presidency. With Mr. Bush in office Republicans were blown away in 2006 and 2008. With Mr. Obama in office Republicans had a huge win in 2010.
- Looking ahead, if Democrats are in the White House, Republicans could win a massive victory in 2014, with a huge majority in the House and a strong majority in the Senate.
- If Mr. Romney loses that would be the end of any Republican whose is considered “moderate”. Mr. Romney’s loss would be blamed on the fact that the Republicans did not nominate a true Conservative. This would make a true Conservative a lock for the 2016 nomination.
- A 2016 lineup could be a lot stronger than the 2012 candidates (really, how could it be weaker). The big four, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and Robert McDonnell would all be considered strong candidates, particularly compared to Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. The Democrats have no bench strength, no strong candidate waiting for 2016. "
Now WP columnist George Will is starting to wonder also if the Republican would not be better off just concentrating on winning the Congress.
If either is nominated, conservatives should vote for him. But suppose the accumulation of evidence eventually suggests that the nomination of either would subtract from the long-term project of making conservatism intellectually coherent and politically palatable. If so, there would come a point when, taking stock of reality, conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than, and not much less important than, electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.
And Mr. Will echoes the argument that the Republicans will have a stronger line-up in 2016, at least compared to the confederacy of dunces in 2012.
Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal to ’s Rep. Paul Ryan, Republicans have a rising generation of potential 2016 candidates. This does not mean conservatives should be indifferent to the fate of this year’s nominee, and it is perhaps premature to despair of Romney’s and Santorum’s political aptitudes. Still, the presidency is not everything, and there will be another election in the next year divisible by four. Wisconsin
So welcome aboard Mr. Will, glad you read The Dismal Political Economist and you are certainly welcome to our thoughts and ideas. A little credit would be nice. Of course, the idea that people like Paul Ryan are qualified to be President, well, you can keep the credit for that idea, we don't want any part of it.