At CPAC this year, a number of speakers made the point that
President Obama would be a one-termer because his policies would
fail. Rush Limbaugh drew applause when he said, "We can take this
country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate.
It's no more complicated than that." But the problem is, finding
the right candidate is easier said than done.
CPAC featured a number of 2012 hopefuls, and being perfectly
honest, it was hard to look at any of them and say, "This is the
one who is going to beat Obama."
You could make the argument that Romney, who won the CPAC straw
poll, is the early frontrunner for the nomination in 2012,
because the economy is likely to be a big issue and there's
historically an "it's his turn" bias to the GOP primaries. At the
same time, his speech at CPAC really didn't evolve much from the
sort of checklist conservatism that categorized his
campaign. He also maintains the credibility problem. At one
point, he blasted President Obama for wanting a government
takeover of health care, while touting the Massachusetts system
as a free market model for the nation. But in reality the
Massachusetts plan is a big government plan that is actually
quite similar to Obama's campaign proposal. In both cases, the
government provides subsidies to individuals to purchase
government-designed health plans on a government-run exchange.
Romney tries to give himself some wiggle room by saying, "the
final bill and its implementation aren’t exactly the way I
wanted," but he signed the bill knowing that he wasn't running
for reelection and that it would be implemented by a liberal
successor. It's amazing how this guy continues to treat us like
we're idiots.
Mark Sanford is somebody to keep a close eye on. Though he ended
up near the bottom of the straw poll, I think that had more to do
with lack of name recognition. The poll showed that size of
government was overwhelmingly the most important issue to
conservatives, and I expect that sentiment to grow as frustration
mounts with Obama administration spending over the next few
years. This plays into the hands of Sanford, one of the few
Republicans who can actually claim to be a consistent defender of
limited government. His Friday night speech was thoughtful and
introspective meditation on, among other things, the ability of
individuals to shape history when they're willing to take on
losing battles. At the same time, it was a bit meandering, and
I'm just not sure if he has the charisma, TV savvy, or ambition
to go the distance.
Huckabee is trying to use his opposition to the bailout and
stimulus projects to make economic conservatives more comfortable
with him, but his appeal is still limited in scope, and if he
runs again in 2012, he'll face more competition from evangelicals
from Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin, should she run.
Pawlenty, meanwhile, gave a decent speech, and could emerge as a
more plausible version of Huckabee. He appeals to the same sort
of working class and evangelical voters. As a Midwesterner, he
could be a threat in Iowa. But he'll have a difficult time
appealing to economic conservatives, and it's hard to see him
really lighting a fire under anybody.
The point in all of this is that before conservatives get too
attached to the idea of Obama messing up so badly that
Republicans take back the White House in four years, it's
important to keep in mind that in America there tends to be a
bias that favors incumbent presidents. Back in 2004, Bush was
very beatable, and at several points during the year his approval
rating dropped below the 50 percent threshold, but given the
alternative of John Kerry, Americans decided to give him a second
term. In 1980, Republicans had Reagan waiting the wings when
Carter faltered, but would that election had ended up the same if
there weren't a Reagan, and somebody like Dole or Bush I were the
Republican nominee?
UPDATE: Yes, Ron Paul spoke. And no, I don't think he'll be a
viable presidential candidate in 2012 -- at 77.
