A tonic for campaign fever
Political passions so easily intoxicate political enthusiasts during election seasons and make “believers” of us. Those of us who know we are susceptible should pay particular attention to the shortcomings of our favorites.
According to a Rasmussen poll, three front-runners have emerged after Saturday’s Iowa straw poll: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann. (Ron Paul came in second in the poll, but given his isolationist foreign policy views and whiney manner, he has a low ceiling of national support that keeps him out of the top tier.)
Perry has charisma. He is a pleasure to hear and watch. On the substance side, he has demonstrated strong executive competence as governor of Texas, one of the largest states in the union and the national leader in job growth since the end of the recession. He has solid conservative bona fides. It doesn’t hurt that Perry is comfortable with sidearms, but not in a kooky, Yasser Arafat kind of way. He shot a coyote in defense of his dog while jogging—with one bullet. Could he be any less Obama?
On the other hand, politicians are in the business of persuasion. And that often involves presenting themselves not as they are but as they think you would like them to be. In the Republican primaries, candidates who are to the left of the political base try to look more conservative than they actually are.
Reports of Gov. Perry’s involvement in corporate cronyism are disturbing. In 2005 he created the Texas Emerging Technology Fund to distribute tax dollars as venture capital to Texas tech companies the state government viewed as promising. Is that the proper role of government? Is it a safe role? Did campaign contributions play a factor in the allocation of funds?
Earlier this month, he held a prayer rally at Reliant Stadium in Houston. It is biblically right for a governor to call his state to prayer and fasting in times of crisis. But was it overly self-serving? Why a stadium event? If we’re in crisis, why issue the call in May for prayer in August? Perhaps it was to allow time to organize the event. Or that the crisis could wait.
Or perhaps it was timed to support the announcement of his presidential bid just a week later.
Romney is someone we already know from the last presidential election cycle. His three greatest strengths are his national campaign experience, his outstanding business experience at time when we need a president who understands wealth creation, and his executive experience as governor of Massachusetts. He’s fully vetted and would appeal to blue state voters.
On the downside, perhaps he has too much appeal in blue states. Is he fooling someone, either liberal-leaning moderates or the conservative GOP base? He has refused to admit that Romneycare was a mistake in judgment. That’s the public health system he gave Massachusetts that parallels Obamacare, the newest federal entitlement that is helping to drag us toward national bankruptcy. In short, Romney has a trust hurdle.
Bachmann is a fiscal and moral conservative. Her commitment to spending cuts runs so deep that she voted against raising the debt limit. She is also a woman of outstanding Christian character. We can see from her family life—she has cared for 23 foster children—that Bachmann is not fundamentally caught up in herself. She has also shown a requisite toughness on the Tea Party circuit and the campaign trail. As with Sarah Palin, the media establishment has been fanatical in its scorn for her. This is in large part because Bachmann is a charming, effective, and staunch conservative who is a woman. She’s battle-ready.
But it is no small problem she has been neither a senator nor a governor but only a congresswoman. The only person ever to have gone straight from the U.S. House of Representatives to the White House was James Garfield in 1881, and there’s a reason for that. Because of
the Senate’s constitutional involvement in foreign affairs, senators have foreign policy experience. Governors have to balance budgets, deal with potentially hostile legislatures, and address a much broader constituency. Bachmann is also an unusually polarizing figure, and perhaps for all the best reasons. But the best candidate is one who can appeal to the broad middle of American voters and actually win the White House. Historically, the Iowa straw poll favorite has rarely gone the distance.
Like every human officeholder, none of the candidates is perfect. They are strong candidates, and it’s their strengths that draw us to them in the first place. But we should chasten our political hearts with a sober awareness of their weaknesses. Human government is always a choice between imperfect alternatives. There will always be regrets. We can expect flaws. But tragic flaws and outright political swindles are things that sober voters can easily avoid.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top47 Comments to “A tonic for campaign fever”
Does anyone know if Bachmann got paid by the state to take care of those children? We know that that she was paid by the IRS when she worked for them and that her business got subsidized by the state. She does seem to have a penchant for biting the hand that has fed her and her family.
Report comment to moderator
We thought we knew what we were getting when we voted for Bush. He just kept the spending going in the name of more jobs and making friends. Read his bio you’ll see what I mean.
Are we at that “vote for the least worst” spot again.
I just can’t understand why people still support Romney. But then that could just be an illusion. Maybe he is supported by the same socialists. He’s a RINO if there ever was one. But then RINO seems synonymous with REPUBLICAN these days.
We are even told by Dems who post here that Romney is our best bet. Some might say, “We should vote for Romney, even the Dems like him.”
Report comment to moderator
ARC
Maybe you could go to her neighborhood and find out if someone saw her kick her dog when she was a teen.
That’s like when I volunteered to help kids learn to read. They tried to convince me, more than once, to take a stipend for it. I didn’t want one, but they needed someone to take some of the money available. Then someone at some point, LIKE YOU, could say that I did it for money.
Report comment to moderator
ARC
I’m calling you out, bucko, for who you are!
Are you AFRAID that someone might BEAT OBAMA in the election?
People LIKE YOU don’t look for the good in what someone did, they try to find a spin on the story. I’m sure they can pay one of the foster children to speak ill of someone in the family–for the right price. Maybe your ilk can make something up–nothing has changed.
DIG for the DIRT, it’s what DEMS NEED to win.
Report comment to moderator
Part of me wants O to keep the Presidency–only it worries me what he will do next, with NO ONE objecting.
I want him to be responsible for what is happening.
OBAMA signed the first financial fiasco under Bush.
Obama was a part of the big mess, even though he acts like he just showed up when he became PRES. POOF! Out of nowhere, Obama is Pres.
The DEMS were in control under BUSH, even tho they act like the REPS have been running things all these years.
DEMS act like they were surprised by the IRAQ war, even tho they approved. “HE TRICKED US, THEY WHINE.” (Dems are good at whining and pointing and BLAMING ANYONE ELSE.)
If the tea party weren’t there to blame, they would be pointing at the REPS. I guess the DEMS & REPS (our current KINGS & QUEENS) can hang together these days and point to the TEA PARTIERS in mutual glare. Probably because they are BOTH at fault for the problems of our country.
Report comment to moderator
I do NOT want PERRY.
A vote for him is like a vote for BUSH.
It’s all about being popular and spending.
Like the guy who told a relative of mine who was trying to get into the travel business, “You have to spend a lot of money to make money.” The business was very short-lived. The relative lost a lot of money. The only person who made out was the “friend” who got to spend lots of money on all his friends.
Obama keeps spending more and more. He wants to make friends. He wants YOUR MONEY to do it with. So he will convince you to give him MORE MONEY. It is ending VERY BADLY.
Report comment to moderator
The best thing for the Democratic Party would be for Perry or Bachmann to be elected president.
A third or more of our population has seceded from the Union. These anti-citizens oppose all that is, without regard for positive alternatives, because they want the power that can be won in chaos, disorder, and crisis.
Perry or Bachmann and the Republican/Tea Party will be incapable of dealing with the savage history they are close to bringing about.
For decade after decade, independent swing voters have been electing Republicans, with the confident expectation that Democrats will be around to save their skin — be it SS, Medicare, or the greatest communist institution of all, the US Armed Forces and Veterans Administration.
What if Democrats can’t come to the rescue? The consequences are obvious. Independents will have to pick between the parties. They’ll have to make up their minds for once, not just elect some from each party and expect them to make the decisions that voters can’t make. Who will independents choose then? Democrats, of course. Independents aren’t conservative, or they would vote Republican. Independents merely lack the mental fortitude to reconcile themselves to the practical and ethical goodness of democratic socialism.
The Tea Party took the US economy hostage by threatening default. Now it is taking independent voters hostage. This time the Democratic Party should not try to come to the rescue . Obama has spent almost two years trying to moderate the harms being done by conservatives. He needs to wash his hands of this form of governance and tell independent voters that he’s very sorry, but he doesn’t have the votes to save them — or the country — from Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
“The Tea Party took the US economy hostage by threatening default.”
How long have they been around? 3 years tops? Hmmmm yeah I don’t think they’ve ever had any control in spending.
Report comment to moderator
“Now it is taking independent voters hostage.”
Right, they clearly can’t think for themselves. They are just stupid sheep, aren’t they Scroop?
What control does the Tea Party have over them at all??
Your partisan philosophies are entirely narrow, biased, and unhelpful.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP
YOU are REALLY CREEPY.
Report comment to moderator
THORN
And the Tea Party still has no control over the US finances.
But, as per the DEMS spin, they are doing what is right and good for America. So far, so good.
As the Dem. woman said about that fact that she doesn’t have a job, “It’s not Obama’s fault.” She had a zombie look on her face.
Report comment to moderator
He shot a coyote in defense of his dog while jogging—with one bullet. Could he be any less Obama?
When I saw those two sentences next to each other my first thought was, “Could he be any more Putin?”
Report comment to moderator
#10 — Evangelical arguments always reduce to personal attack.
Report comment to moderator
Good thoughts D.C> but I must hone in on a comment with which I disagree.
D.C. INNES wrote; “But the best candidate is one who can appeal to the broad middle of American voters and actually win the White House.”
That is what they said to get McCain nominated. It’s the moderate mantra rehashed over and over and it’s just not true. It is conventional thinking but not very observant. What I see the middle of America thirsting for is candidates of conviction and courage of conviction.
Report comment to moderator
THORN – Yes, if you put a gun to my head, I’d probably rank independents as the dumbest of all political demographics. They lack conviction and what is politics without conviction?
T-vangelicals are the smartest, followed by all other Republicans. Religious Republicans are smartest in precisely the way that Milton makes Belial the smartest of all the demons in Pandemonium, endowed with the skill “to make the worse the better reason, to perplex and dash/Maturest Counsels.” Call it a genius for counterfactual (cf. creationism). Evangelicals are the postmodern masters of spin.
Liberals have average brainpower. Some of them are academics, but these eggheads lack the tribal smarts enjoyed by almost all conservatives. They don’t have the instinct to kill. They’re moths.
Independents rank at the bottom. Everybody kisses up to them, but, strictly off the record, everybody agrees that Independents are dumb as posts. Their stupidity isn’t a matter of IQ so much as an effect of their robotic temperament. Instead of choosing the correct answer in each case, independents always estimate the average between two mutually incompatible and contradictory answers and think the result is beautiful. Moreover, their relationship with the Republican Party is sick. Independents are like women who sleep with abusive men, call 911 every time they get hit, and then always drop the charges when their man calls from jail begging to be let back home. 2010, for example.
Report comment to moderator
#6 – “A vote for him is like a vote for BUSH.”
1. I disagree. This sounds too much like a Democrat sound-byte talking point. And it’s just not true.
2. So what? I would vote for Bush against Obama any day. But Perry is not Bush (which if fine to both of them).
3. Don’t evaluate candidates too much on presumptive fears about how they will be criticized by the left and the media. Don’t let the left choose our candidate.
4. The opposition to Perry is just too paranoid and coming too fast. The left is scared.
5. I still prefer the other Rick, but I like most all of them.
Report comment to moderator
We still have 15 months of this ahead of us. A lot can happen during that time. Any prognosticators?
Report comment to moderator
My first thought when I saw the title of this post was, is campaign fever kind of like cabin fever? You know, where you’re stuck in the middle of a country in campaign mode for so long and you can’t wait for it to be over? Last week I was getting so tired of all the robo-calls on our phone. Mostly Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, though there were probably others.
Report comment to moderator
Any prognosticators?
Obviously not writ in stone, but I still think Romney ends up being the nominee and subsequently loses to Obama.
The Democrats in 2016 find themselves in the same situation Republicans did in 2008. Their outgoing two-term president is still supported by most of the party, but the partisan fringe is mostly dissatisfied.
Chris Christie, having wisely sat out 2012, “pulls an Obama” and wins in 2016.
Report comment to moderator
Any prognosticators?
I have already made my prognostication. Romney wil get the nomination–precisely because he is “moderate.” Joel Mark and other loyal Repbulicans will vote for him and chastise those who will not. They do not seem to care that the GOP does not actually represent our interests or vote as we want.
—–
Regarding D. C. Innes’s editorial–It is not correct to characterize Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is for free trade among nations–as non-isolationist as they come in that regard. He is a non-interventionist. He does not believe that the United States’ sovereignty extends past our borders or that we have the right to dictate the affairs of other nations.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I should add that Romney will probably choose Bachmann as his running mate, which will satisfy Joel Mark and other loyal Republicans that Romney really is a conservative and really does value our votes.
Report comment to moderator
Just read Scroop’s @7…
Pretty cynical and twisted point of view, I think. While I agree that much of the population will come unglued if the budget is cut, I think it’s quite wrong-headed to think the economy will get back on track by itself, or, even worse, “jump-started” with even more spending and raising taxes. The wrong-headed approach is made even worse when it vilifies the very people who are, and are calling for fiscal responsibility. So instead of working to get everyone on board with fiscal responsibility, Scroop’s working to drag everyone down to the same level as the people who want free bread and circuses, when everyone needs to roll up their sleeves and get to work…
Report comment to moderator
I fail to see why Bachmann did anything wrong by listening to her accountant’s advice to take advantage of tax breaks, etc. Who in business wouldn’t???? As long as she didn’t do anything illegal, and Arcadia and Company can’t prove that she did, they’ve got nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Romney will probably choose Bachmann as his running mate
This strikes me as highly, highly unlikely. As the primary progresses Bachmann will no doubt start attacking Romney. I don’t see him forgetting that. Besides, from Bachmann’s point of view, signing on with Team Mitt actually tarnishes her image. Many of her supporters would view an alliance with Romney as her “selling out”.
I expect Romney to choose someone who never entered the primary. Maybe a Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie or Marco Rubio. Currently Rubio is dominating the political futures markets, which give him a 36% chance of being the VP nominee. It makes sense. He’s from Florida, which is a battleground state, and he’s Hispanic, which might pick up some Hispanic votes. Plus he’s “young and fresh” and has some Tea Party support, while not being a total “nut” from the establishment point of view.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE_IT_MAN – We liberals aren’t as smart as you but we aren’t idiotic enough to work for your political agenda, when we have our own, which is so well founded in history, contrary evidence, and scholarly review. We also think y’all won’t be able to fool all of the people next Nov. 2012. But you might, as they can be fooled some of the time. Either way, however, you will crash and burn. Shouldn’t the crashing and burning of Tea-vangelicals be our “number one priority”? Why does only Sen. McConnell get to have delicious deserts? I’m eager to be persuaded otherwise
Report comment to moderator
I tire of view points and policies that don’t work. Just because something is supported by a large grop or number doesn’t mean it works.
Look around at the world and point out the countries and policies that do work. What kind of policies and ways of governing are they? Why do we Americans keep trying things that don’t and won’t work?
Please tell me why the fiscal policies that work for a family don’t work for a country? Please tell me why the way a family is run is wrong to run a country?
And when is name calling or despising someone appropriate?
Don’t all of us have acquaintances, friends and family members we don’t agree with about this or that? Does that mean you don’t like them? Don’t get along with them? Don’t work well with them?
Our country is in trouble. “Let’s just all get along.”
Report comment to moderator
Romeny gets harassed for his SS views
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297483/confronted-at-town-hall-romney-falsely-claims-raising-payroll-tax-cap-wouldnt-strengthen-social-security/
Report comment to moderator
BOB Please tell me why the fiscal policies that work for a family don’t work for a country? Please tell me why the way a family is run is wrong to run a country?
Hi, The successful families I know didn’t become prosperous through cutting spending but by increasing income. Although forced at one time or another into frugality, living on a shoestring is not what produced their wealth. One of my brothers moved into a less expensive house and his wife made plans to stop homeschooling and return to work. None of that would have done a bit of good, if he hadn’t spent family money on a series of business ventures. The third try made him wealthy. But the key was spending, not living hand to mouth.
A country is a family, too. Just as my brother’s family had resources that not every family enjoyed, the government has an unusual capacity to borrow. This is fortunate, because hard times can only be overcome by new revenue, which requires spending. Investment is spending.
Despite predictions of calamity, interest rates are falling. People who have lots of money won’t invest (spend) it themselves but they are eager to practically give it to the US government to spend and invest.
(While I admit there is a difference between operating expenses and acquisition of assets, the fact is, during a downturn, keeping people alive and mobile is a form of investment, because it is the necessary cost of a future income stream. I’m sure my brother spent some of his loans at the gas station.)
The government could renounce its capacities and act like it’s been evicted in the Dust Bowl, but moving into a hobo camp in The Grapes of Wrath won’t restore wellbeing. Only spending will do that, and nobody but the government is willing to spend.
White people have tribal memories of hibernating through ice age winters in northern latitudes. Government stimulus makes them feel robbed of their ancient capacities. But there’s no reason for austerity just for the sake of austerity, when economic winter can be turned to spring by a dose of Keynes.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH wrote; “The successful families I know didn’t become prosperous through cutting spending but by increasing income.”
Ah but I’ll bet they actually work for that income themselves instead of extracting it from others who worked for it. Or do they?
Also, I’ll bet they would decrease or hold spending down when the income was not coming in. I’ll bet they wait for their income to increase before spending irresponsibly.
SCROOP MOTH does not understand the difference between private sector and public sector spending. The private sector spends its own money. The public sector spends the private sector’s money.
The answer is to empower the private sector.
Report comment to moderator
#24
Yes, you are probably right. I meant my comment about Romney and Bachmann somewhat facetiously. I was remembering that John McCain chose Sarah Palin and the evangelical right just went gaga–as though McCain had had a revelation from God or something.
Romney will not choose Bachmann, I’m sure. But if he follows the McCain playbook he will choose somebody to pacify Christian Republicans–and they will fall for it–again.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I wish that I could increase my income by just taking it from somebody else. Actually, that would be stealing. I guess I don’t want to do that. Uncle Sam, however. . .
Report comment to moderator
The stock market is feeling disempowered as a consequence of the prospects for government austerity.
Gov. Perry is the guy who doesn’t understand the difference between private and public sector spending, for the net job increases in Texas were due to government employment. Government doesn’t spend your money or my money, it spends public money. There are three at least three libertarian-proof reasons why taxation isn’t theft.
Report comment to moderator
DC Innes: (Ron Paul came in second in the poll, but given his isolationist foreign policy views and whiney manner, he has a low ceiling of national support that keeps him out of the top tier.)
Frank: How about just a little fairness, DC?
Ron Paul is not an “isolationist.” He is a non-interventionist free-trader.
Isolationists don’t want anything to do with other nations. Kinda like, you know, America’s official non-interaction with Cuba — an economically-struggling nation barely 100 miles from us.
Non-interventionist free-traders, on the other hand, want to be friends and trading partners with any nation who is interested (the “free-trader” part), while steadfastly refusing to influence other nations by “projecting American power” (i.e. stationing the U.S. military) within or near their borders.
Hey DC, here’s a suggestion for World Magazine — something that most of your staff and readers could really benefit from:
How about you interview Boston U. professor Andrew J. Bacevich — a West Pointer, Vietnam vet and retired army colonel, as well as a socially conservative Roman Catholic — on what a just, reasonable and sustainable US foreign policy would look like?
(I suppose an interview of Ron Paul himself would be too much to ask … )
In the meantime, how about a little charity — dare I say “honesty”? — toward a fellow Christian: please refrain from smearing Ron Paul an “isolationist.”
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I don’t know that I could agree with bringing every US foreign station home…so to speak. But we could certainly do with fewer, and I appreciate Paul’s continued stance on the market and economic position, which he does not cater to the big two parties.
It’s likely I’ll vote for him this go around. We need some economic reason in the White House for once, and I doubt he’d make much progress retreating much of the military.
Too bad he isn’t 25-30 years younger, they’d have a hard time denying him coverage then. Jon Stewart’s clip the other day was really funny. Especially the Gary Busey joke.
Report comment to moderator
“Government doesn’t spend your money or my money, it spends public money.”
So it doesn’t need to tax us then!!! WOHOOOO No more taxes!!
Report comment to moderator
Umm, Thorn, unfortunately that probably means they’re just going to print more. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
Fine by me. At least the hypocrisy would be over with.
Report comment to moderator
#26 Our country is in trouble. “Let’s just all get along.”
Bob Buckles,
I knew a would-be councilman that ran on that slogan “Let’s just all get along.” He was the senior pastor of the largest and most influential, liberal Congregational church in a liberal town. He lost. A few short years later he ran off with one of his wife’s employees. The point is: NO.
No we can’t all just get along, and that’s for a very simple reason. The spiritual powers of light and dark are clashing like I’ve never seen before; and people in positions of leadership and influence (whether secular or ecclesiastic) are prime targets. That’s why those positions matter. There is a spiritual battle raging over the heart and soul of the people—for the nation really. I doubt it will stop until that is resolved—one way or another.
But don’t be too dismayed Bob. Just because the heat is on doesn’t mean we must lose our cool, or our humor. Stay in place, stay on course, and nurture your peace. And however it plays out, as you already know, it does not in any way affect our hope.
Be well.
Report comment to moderator
#37 Thorn, there’s a certain appeal to that because it brings everything to a head: after a certain point, the interminable anticipation of going over a cliff seems to be as destructive as actually going over. I’m not so sure that it is though.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#33), I pointed out the same thing in #20.
It is deplorable that a writer at World would use the inaccurate term isolationist to describe a man who is not one at all.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
Yeah, I saw your posting after doing mine.
“Deplorable,” yes. But given the Americanism commonly harbored by most American evangelicals, only too understandable.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn (34): Too bad [Ron Paul] isn’t 25-30 years younger, they’d have a hard time denying him coverage then.
Frank: Hey, Rand is just 48 …
Report comment to moderator
DC Innes: According to a Rasmussen poll, three front-runners have emerged after Saturday’s Iowa straw poll: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann. (Ron Paul came in second in the poll …
Frank: Actually, he came in fourth in the Rassmussen poll — he came in second in the Ames straw poll.
But get a load of this: Ron beats the Rickster in this recent poll of Texas Republicans, 22% to 17%.
(I wonder if it has anything to do with the Rickster caving in to TSA tyranny?)
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if it has anything to do with the Rickster caving in to TSA tyranny?
Doubt it. I’m thinking it’s more “familiarity breeds contempt”. All Texans have Perry “in their face” all the time because he’s governor. He makes more decisions that directly affect them, so there’s more opportunity for him to do something that ticks off a given person. Like the TSA thing, but not just that. Ron Paul doesn’t do much that directly affects me, so I don’t have as much reason to dislike him.
Also, and this is just a theory, Perry may poll lower in Texas simply because of his uber-Aggie background. That and the pretty boy image. The perfect hair, the used car salesman smile, etc.
Report comment to moderator
I live overseas, but my home district is Ron Paul’s district in Texas. He is the best Congressman we currently have, and I am happy and proud that he represents me.
Report comment to moderator
A fascinating perspective from a British cousin.
Report comment to moderator
DC Innes: According to a Rasmussen poll, three front-runners have emerged after Saturday’s Iowa straw poll: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann. (Ron Paul came in second in the poll …
Frank: Actually, he came in fourth in the Rassmussen poll — he came in second in the Ames straw poll.
But get a load of this: Ron beats the Rickster in this recent poll of Texas Republicans, 22% to 17%.
(I wonder if it has anything to do with the Rickster caving in to TSA tyranny?)
I completely agree with you Frank…for DC to post such uninformed and factually inaccurate diatribe is very sad. We need Ron Paul NOW! Is he perfect? NO…but he sure is a whole lot closer to the ideal candidate than what we are seeing in the field and in the White House.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!