There was an interesting article on MSNBC's First Read today, detailing in some length that "conservatives-that-aren't-Palin" Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry have combined poll numbers that defeat Mitt Romney's by four points, thirty-four to thirty. This led me to think- which of those three morans would the Teabagger nutcases most be likely to elect?
This led to some postulation over the effects of the Tea Party base on the electability of each candidate. The obvious choice is of course Bachmann, who has easily twice the name recognition of either Governor Perry or Random Pizza Exec Cain. However, when one delves into the Teabag base that would carry them to the general, one sees the problems with all the three.
Let us first defeat Bachmann- her nutbaggery and general conspiracy-blithering is overcome by her greatest weakness. Out of the ultra-conservatives I've discussed her with, few were truly comfortable with the issue of her in the Oval Office. As can be expected, the Republicans through up stonewalls to the conclusion that their discomfort may be sexist, but they were illogical and piddly pillars of sand. The same bigotry could transfer through to one Herman Cain, who, while an arguably more legitimate candidate that Bachmann has the glowering weakness of his skin color, one that delegitimizes his candidacy in that massive subsection of mostly Southern conservatives that still wish that the Civil War was won by the Confederacy.
This leaves only Perry. Perry, while hopelessly flawed, and who if elected would likely consider seceding from himself, has the advantage of being a white, southern, conservative, militantly pro-life, Christian, evangelical, heterosexual man. The mold of the perfect Republican candidate is that of Perry, and any outside of that mold becomes an iconoclast to at least part of the GOP base. Bachmann and Palin are women. Romney is a Mormon, a religion many Teabaggers distrust, as well as a comparative moderate. Pawlenty shares part of the same moderation as Romney, as well as some of Newt's infinite supply of faildom.
There are walls. The first of those challenges to a Perry candidacy would be the intimidating, while rather bouncy, triple chins of Rush Limbaugh and Chris Christie- Rush because he controls fifteen percent of the vote and Christie because he just generally does everything Perry does but to a different degree, and has that Teabag cachet that would make him instantaneously the frontrunner if he decided to run. Slightly less threatening would be that spectre of doubt that the GOP holds after the fiasco about secession, one that to this day makes many in the base hold distrust about his patriotism. The third is that, in the words of critic, editorialist and philosopher H. L. Mencken, "nature abhors a moron", and his incessant whining and raving could unite the saner voices in the right against him, strengthening the very same Mitt Romney who he wants most to be weakened.
The fourth wall is one that both Rick Perry and the progressive netroots should both rise up against- the force known by Christopher Hayes as the "financial state" and what he and I agree is the greatest threat against democracy.
I have little doubt that Perry would be a pleasing and submissive pawn for the banks and their brutal chess game. However, there are some in the field today who would be a knight, bishop, or rook- namely, Newt Gingrich. The Republican primary swings at the caprice of the bankers, and that caprice may swing unfavorably to that irksome Governor of Texas.
The Governor has mighty obstacles to overcome. However, I see primary victory by anyone but Romney as rather implausible. If I were to bet, however, with the knowledge that Romney was not to win, my money would be on a charismatic and utterly malignant governor from the state of Texas.
Tomorrowsprogressives.com