I've been away for a couple of months. Banned, to be precise. But more on that later. First a couple thoughts.
Herman Cain. Where do I begin? The whole Cain phenomenon happened since I've been gone. First, I guess I'd say that Herman Cain is never going to be president. That stands to reason, since he will never be the Republican nominee. It just ain't gonna happen. Hell, I don't even think he really wants to be president. That's not why he got into this race. He got into this race in order to increase his speaking fees, sell books, and bolster his negotiating position with Clear Channel. His sudden rise was as much a surprise to him as anyone else. Since then he has no doubt entertained thoughts of what it would be like to be president -- who wouldn't in his position? But I bet what he really daydreams about is a regular gig on Fox.
I was a little surprised to see that his poll numbers hadn't fallen in the most recent poll, the first to be taken entirely after the scandal broke. But circling the wagons is a pretty typical first response by an accused candidate's supporters. Not so much out of support for the candidate, but because they don't want to be made to look foolish for having supported them in the first place. It's typical conservative logic. My candidate could not possibly have killed that hooker, because I would never support someone like that. It's like a mental Mobius strip of stupidity.
But it won't last. As the accusations are repeated, and Cain's floundering, angry responses continue, his supporters will slip away. Many of them were never serious about him anyway. It's still the silly season in this election cycle, the time when people traditionally toy with fringe candidates. Once the voting starts most of them move to more serious contenders. The Cain flash in the pan was destined to fizzle out anyway, the sexual harassment scandal will only accelerate it.
The question is who stands to benefit? Who's the next to take a ride on the anyone-but-Mitt rocket ride to nowhere? Santorum? Gingrich? (Why the hell does my spell check recognize "Gingrich?") Maybe. Or maybe they just dissipate amongst the herd. My guess is that Perry gets the biggest bump from Cain defectors (most of them came from his camp to begin with), maybe enough to put him back into the mid-teens, and the rest are spread among the remaining wingnuts. But in the end it won't matter. No one will be able to mount a serious challenge to Mitt Romney, and he'll be the nominee.
Let's face it, there are really only two plausible Republican candidates, Romney and Perry. And even Perry is a stretch at this point. (I bet Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself for bailing so soon.) For all the ups and downs among the rest of the field, Romney's numbers have been pretty much rock solid at 23-24% He's statistically tied or ahead in the first four primary/caucus states, in two of them (New Hampshire and Florida) by comfortable margins. He has the organization, the money, the connections, and the tacit approval of the party leaders. He has spent the last four years prostrating himself before the powers that be in the Republican party, and, most importantly, he is Wall Street's guy. In fact, a quick look at the primary calendar and it's hard not to conclude that it was designed to benefit Mitt Romney. That's not a coincidence.
Mitt Romney will almost certainly be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. And that's a problem, because he is the candidate who poses the biggest threat to President Obama. Perry? Cain? Bachmann? Give me a break. The crazier the candidate, the greater the chances of them being swept away by an Obamastorm. But Romney? Not so much. That's because conservative accusations that Romney is not really one of them are basically true. Romney is not an ideologue. Or, to be more precise, he is a very specific type of ideologue. Mitt Romney believes one thing and one thing only: Mitt Romney should be president. The rest is all just a means to that end. He is a political chameleon. Right now we're seeing Conservative Romney, and while the disguise is not particularly convincing it will be enough. Once the nomination is secure we will see the emergence of Moderate Romney, the guy who signed the Massachusetts health care law. And that guy (well, okay, maybe not the part about the health care law) will be very appealing to that narrow swath of American voters who actually decide elections. No one ever said swing voters had taste.
Here's my fear for 2012: The economy continues to be stagnant, and Obama's approval ratings continue to hover in the 40s. In that scenario, a nominee Romney almost certainly defeats him. Nate Silver recently wrote an outstanding article which outlines that very scenario (among others), in which he gives Romney an 83% chance of winning. Regardless of economic conditions he puts the president's chances at slightly less than fifty-fifty.
So the chances of a Romney victory are significant. And that's scary, especially when you consider this graph:
(I know it's not perfect. I would have liked one that included more recent data, but it was the best I could find, and anyway it illustrates my point well enough.)
As you can see, the US economy has a history of up and down cycles. And if the pattern holds true, we look due for another boom period soon. Whoever is elected next year stands to benefit from that. If the timing is right, whatever party wins 2012 will also win 2016. If it's Mitt Romney we really could be looking at the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. Imagine that without shuddering.
Which brings me to a personal note. If you're not interested in "meta-diaries," then you can stop reading now. But I'd like to address the issue of my recent banning from these boards.
About two months ago I posted a diary entitled "The President Can Kiss My A**" I'm not going to link it here. If you want to read it you can find it easily enough, but I encourage you not to. It will just make you angry, and that's not my intent. Nor do I want to rehash the whole thing. What I will say is that I was angry and disappointed with the president (still am), and I expressed it in the strongest possible terms. At one point I even said that I could live with a Mitt Romney presidency if it meant four years of benign neglect followed by the election of a strong Democrat in 2016. This statement was taken as an endorsement of Romney, and that was not my intent. Although I am not very happy with President Obama, I nevertheless prefer him over any Republican candidate. I vote straight party line -- I may not agree with the nominee but once chosen I will unhesitatingly support him. And I believe that even the worst Democrat (and I by no means consider Obama to be the worst Democrat) is better than the best Republican. I was just trying to make a point, and set up an elaborate "if" scenario that just didn't work. So for that, Daily Kos, I apologize.
What I will not apologize for are the feelings that spurred my rant. I continue to be disappointed in the president on many fronts, and on that I don't think I'm alone here. I will continue to criticize him if I feel it is warranted, but my criticism comes from my genuine belief that he is not living up to his progressive promise. What's he doing cracking down on legal marijuana growers in California, for example? Or trying to expand the government's ability to lie to its citizens? That's not the Obama we elected. So yes, I'm disappointed. But no, I would never support any Republican candidate.
Except for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt.