« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

2012 is starting to look a lot like 1996, and if the GOP establishment has its way, Mitt will be the next Bob Dole

Coming into the 1996 election, the GOP was excited, energized, and fready to take complete control of the federal government. In 1996, the voters, disgusted in part by Clinton’s policies ( including the first attempt to have the federal government take over health care ) and the many  emerging Clinton scandals ( which is what happens when the Dem candidate gets a pass from the MSM) were thought ready to elect a Republican, actually, “any” Republican, to the White House.Indeed, the phrase “broken glass Republicans first came into use in the 1996 campaign.

Two years earlier, in 1994, the GOP won sweeping victories in Congress, including taking the House after decades of Democrtat control, in part because of Democrat scandals and abuses or power, and the clear and concise policies expressed in the Contract With America. 2010′s Congressional election closely mirrors voter sentiment in 1994.

And in 1996, there was a rather large GOP field of potential candidates, again similar to the present. Some flirted with the idea, some openly declined to run, some actually announced,  but then dropped out before the primary season, other after the primaries started..

Among the list at any one time..in no particular order:

Howard Baker, James Baker, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Colin Powell, Lamar Alexander, Bob “B-52″ Dornan, Phil Gramm, William Bennett, Thomas Kean, Carroll Campbell, Pete Wilson, Arlen Spector..and probably a few more I’ve omitted.

It’s also fun to try and match up today’s group with their 1996 “equivalents”, i.e. Phil Gramm=Tim Pawlenty, Pete Wilson=Chris Christie, Thomas Kean=Haley Barbour, etc…

The GOP establishment wanted a known, reliable, “proven” candidate..one of their own, someone they were comfortable with..and that was Bob Dole, who also happened to be old, tired, and uninspiring, a vapid, weak campaigner, unable to inspire and excite the conservative GOP base, and who indeed probably initially figured that there was no way he could lose. Well, he found a way.

And a big part of that loss was because the “establishment” was enamoured of the idea of the BRGs..the “broken glass Republicans”….they assumed that we couldn’t wait to vote for Anybody But Clinton.

And they were W-R-O-N-G. No conservative wanted another four year of a Clinton White House, but there is a HUGE difference between voting against someone, Clinton/Obama)  as opposed to voting FOR someone who finally expressed your hopes, your beliefs, and has a vision for the country has closely emulates yours.

And Mitt Romney is NOT that candidate.70% of the GOP base has already shown that thwey don’t want him as their nominee. The establishment feels they can give him the $$$$ he needs, and they may be right, but they can’t give him the passion, the energy, to excite  the conservative base of the party. We don’t trust him, based upon multiple past flip-flops, and to boot, he’s a lousy, wooden, seemingly-artifical candidate.

So they’re going to attempt to ram him through the process, and we’re going to have a replay of 1996. The GOP will take the Senate in 2012, and Mitt/Dole will LOSE in 2012.

And we will have wasted a desperately needed four years; four years in which we could have started to successfully turn this country back onto the course of  fiscal sanity, personal responsibility, and a reaffirmation of our rights and liberties.

 

 

COMMENTS

  • griffinelection

    excellent take on what we face if Romney were to get a nomination. You need the base first and foremost. Second, you need independents to believe in your candidate. If the base doesn’t believe in the candidate, neither will independents.

    The tea party movement and House takeover, wasn’t done just so that we could put a moderate in the White House.

    Romney is a slick snake and I am afraid he will bite us if we give him the chance.

  • Scope

    like there was in 2010 to get better R candidates elected. I keep wondering what happened to that same Tea Party movement now in these elections. The liberals hated the Tea Parties, but so did the elite R’s in Washington, that were not going to allow those young upstarts to get in their way. Wasn’t there an R old incumbent Senator who said they had to be marginalized. The Roves and the Bushies were in full agreement.

    I am not a fan of Dick Armey but, he and his Freedomworks organization promised to come out strong against Romney. Where are they? Who got to them to back off their promise?

    Probably the only one still talking about and supporting the Tea Party movement is Rush. Why did the success of the Tea Parties suddenly disappear, and even much talk about the movement.

    Why are so many Tea Party supporters now willing to go along with Romney being the nom. I am not foolish enough to think beating Obama is a walk in the park, but with every passing day, every new scandal, every new drop in the polls, and much of even Obama’s base now not behind him, the chances grow that he is increasingly vulnerable. Have we become so very desperate to get rid of someone who can be beat that we will vote for someone slightly to his right, and leading in the polls, rather than the conservatism we have been fighting for since the onset of the Tea Parties?

    I just don’t understand what is happening, and why. This is the people’s country, not the inside the beltway Country Club member’s.

    • wonkish1

      I love the guy. He has a played a huge role in kicking off the Tea Party movement.

      • Scope

        Go and continue your arguing with everyone else you don’t agree with. So far today I’ve seen you tell everyone the way debates should be held, the correct debate formats, the way campaigns should be run, the correct way to read polls, the best campaign tactics, how retail politics really work, and you had the nerve to reply to someone who had the nerve to post a positive opinion of Perry that their opinion was BS.

        I’ve read past your posts today mostly, and have decided for myself that you are over caffeinated, and over opinionated, but it was a little curious to see you use my posting name in yet another sensationalist post title.

        Stop peeing on my lawn. You are not allowed to turn my grass yellow. Thank you.

        • wonkish1

          First of all I was just asking you a friendly question, you don’t have blow up about it.

          In regards to the comment that had your name in it, maybe you now realize what its like to get sniped buddy! Like you were doing to me whenever I posted over the last few weeks.

          According to you, I can’t have an opinion about how debates should be held or an idea for the Perry campaign to get a boost in the polls.

          Also, I didn’t say anything about the “correct way to read polls” today. I did comment on some of the polling numbers though.

          Also I didn’t say anything about how “retail politics really work” I just challenged someone to tell me how it can be that big of a factor in a general election given that their is over 300 million people in this country.

          And I called someones post BS because he said that Perry was the ONLY one that could debate Obama. I wouldn’t have said anything he just said that he would do well against Obama. But he had to insult the rest of the candidates by saying they couldn’t.

          Maybe I should just be opinionated like you and just talk about how great Perry is all day and attack anybody that post any negative news about him you don’t like. I’m sure that is big improvement.

          But thanks for psuedo stalking me

          I’ll stop “pissing on your lawn” if you “stop pissing on mine” agreed?

          • Scope

            I have ignored you as I said in my post. I haven’t replied to anything you have posted today simply because I see you as a very opinionated, bossy, I know so much better than you, poster who mostly lives on caffeine drinks. You responded to my post remember? You used my name in another one of your sensationalist posts about your poll fetish.

            I have ignored you today totally yet you can’t help yourself with coming after my posts. Get over yourself already. The world doesn’t revolve around the wonkish’s opinions and ideas. Sorry wonkish, I am married and have a wonderful husband. I refuse your invitation to the prom.

            I don’t only reject those that pee on my lawn, I reject those that poop on my lawn, and refuse to clean it up as well.

            Again, get off my lawn. I’ve already decided that you don’t even have a lawn to pee on.

          • wonkish1

            Again I didn’t mean any offense in the question I asked you before about Armey. I was genuinely curious.

            But I offered you a chance numerous times for us to resolve whatever the issue you had against me was. You ignored every one and then waited until I posted something later and then sniped me. Calling into question my motives. Putting words in my mouth, etc. I warned you that if we didn’t get to a truce I would be forced into sniping back.

            If its any consolation from now on if you don’t bother me I wont bother you. And that will include posts that I like of yours or I find interesting.

            P.S. I don’t get your fixation on poop and pee.

          • Scope

            over and over. I have ignored your most recent comments because they are arrogant, I know it all, just listen to me, and just believe what I say.

            Get off my posts, starting now, and I will continue to ignore you as I have done most of the day. OK.

          • APA Guy

            “I refuse your invitation to the prom.”

            Game, set, match as far as I’m concerned :)

  • avagreen

    Spread the word, post on as many blogs, websites as possible.
    The GOP establishment isn’t as numerous as the ones that aren’t part of the “establishment”. We have the numbers; therefore, the power.

    It’s our to squander, or ours to use.

    We can be as much a source of power as the squatters in New York. There are more of us.

    ~ava

  • David123

    pretty critical of Obama. I don’t remember Dole or McCain coming out with something that critical of Clinton or Obama, repectively.

    We absolutely do not need a “gentlemanly” campaign in 2012. Romney has called out that anti-Mormon pastor. May he criticize Obama’s anti-American pastor even more severely. Romney doesn’t need to throw mud – he just needs to speak the truth often and forcefully – the truth about Obama and Wright, the truth about Obama and Ayers, the truth about Obama and Holder and Fast and Furious, the truth about Obama and Solyndra.

    In 1996 the economy was doing pretty well, America was at peace, and while Clinton seemed to have “woman problems”, they were just simmering in 1996, not at a full boil like they did later. Romney’s hill is a lot less steep than Dole’s was.

    Ex-Massachussetts Governor Romney and Obama could have an interesting conversation about the professionalism of Massachussetts law-enforcement officers.

    If Romney gets the nomination, it means no one was a more effective campaigner than he was. Romney shouldn’t get the nomination on a silver platter – if someone is more effective in the primaries, that person will be the R nominee.

    If Romney is the nominee, I’ll vote for him enthusiastically. If Perry is the nominee, I’ll vote for him enthusiastically – same for Bachman, Cain, Santorum, or whoever the nominee is.

    • Ausonius

      And because they are not identical, even Romney, although he is not a conservative, may defeat MAObama.

      “Gawken’s” essay is meant to warn us not to make the mistakes of 1996 in 2012. Bob Dole was a terrible candidate: just as the white-haired McCain had no chance against the cool black dude, Dole had no chance against ladies’ man Clinton, whose appeal I still do not understand, but the logic of female sexuality will always remain a snake pit of mystery. :)

      By making old mistakes again, a Romney campaign could give BIG BRObama victory. I am not sure that a Romney nomination ipso facto spells defeat, because of the dire circumstances facing America caused by the radical socialist, crypto-Communist now inhabiting the White House.

      But by following the losing strategies of McCain and e.g. the present-day Republicans in Ohio, Romney can blow the election.

      It will be up to us to insist that Romney support the enactment of a Conservative agenda in as many cases as possible: perhaps he will respond to Conservative support, perhaps he will stab us in the back. What is certain is that he is an East-Coast Republican, and not a Conservative.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    If we take the “un-electable” part of what you wrote then I agree.

    Dole was a terrible candidate.

    Mitt, on the other hand, looks VERY comfortable explaining the economy and talking about it.

    Is he me first choice?

    No.

    Do I think he can make Obama a one term president?

    Yes.

    What I would prefer right now is for Perry to get his stuff together and get some plans out there rolling or for Gingrich to make a move.

  • keonemichaels

    Truly, he has a shot against Obama.

    Conservatives don’t realize that they reallly need the independents MORE than the TEA PARTY base. Huntsman is the only candidate Liberal independents like myself would vote for in the present Republican lineup.

    I vote the candidate not the party and this election I don’t think I will vote for Obama unless one of the more extreme Republicans gets the nod.

    Huntsman is a rational man and a good administrator.

    • funwithknives

      Rationality and “…being a good administrator.” are hardly Leadership enhancements,and *lukewarm* is really being generous in describing Biker Jon . {aka,Born to be Mild}
      Dole and McCain were losers, and enough of the electorate saw it, to not vote for them. Huntsman is just more of the soft neo-con dreck that still permeates some GOP quarters. America is most assuredly DONE with soft-soapers, and wants a winner in as large a package as possible. Jon Huntsman is not That Guy, even on steroids. You’d vote for Obama under some circumstances, after what his historical record and current conditions display? If so, what are you doing here?

      The most telling part of your diatribe starts out with” I don’t think…” DO TELL!!

      • keonemichaels

        characterized as such and not just as insults. What you consider snappy little insults won’t convince me of your position.

        Rationality and good administration I still think are part of what constitutes good leadership on a global as well as national basis. Most folks that have held leadership positions will advise you that is indeed the case. Read some world history if you “think” differently.

        Calling names (“a neuter and cipher”) is just childish. Huntsman has the best qualifications of all of them. Just my opinion. In America we still have a right to an opinion? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you can’t countenance any other thoughts but your own?

        • funwithknives

          no bonafides to support your position.” Snappy little insults” are assuredly in the eyes{however narrowed} of The BeHolder. You claim Jon has THE BEST qualifications, but you do not list many,if at all. Additionally {you seem to forget/delete this} you actually think Barry IS an Acceptable Choice., in your humble opinion. This was and continues to be my initial reason for response. You are part of a Problem in this Republic . It was founded and advanced on the backs, lives, and brains of real leaders,not “…rational and good administrators”, but here you are advocating for flaccid , meandering “Leadership. If Jon wants to be Chief of Staff or similar , no problem here. But I am done wishing for a spine, with a brain tied to it, as are so many others, demonstrated by 11/2010.
          Dole, McCain and similar have a place in our Republic,I know this to be true. They are here to continually remind us that losing your way and failing to see you are lost, does our Republic no good, and in fact is harmful in the extreme. Mileposts, on the road to losing, if you will.
          I never cared to convince you either way. Your mind,was set in stone before you ever logged on, and even *a childish American ” could see it. You honestly think independents would prefer your description of A Leader, { your #2 is Barry?} compared to what else is out there ? You rated my “feeble infantile ridicule” and still do. ??? Are you so insecure in your *beliefs* you will not give 5 real iron clad reasons to consider Jon? I have not seen one,from you, yet. Please,be so kind, indulge me, and use facts, easy on the opinions. Pretty please???

    • nick2253

      But I don’t know if he could win for a couple of reasons.

      1) The Republican Base is more important that you realize. Yes, the independents are important, but independents break towards Huntsman at about the same rate as they break towards Romney, so in that regard, Huntsman isn’t that much more valuable than Romney. Also, it’s the enthusiasm of the base that gets people out and knocking on doors on election day.

      2) I feel that Huntsman is too smug to be elected President. That may just be me, but he comes across like a Steve Jobs wannabe: he has the attitude that “he knows what’s best,” but people don’t seem to respect him enough to respect that attitude. I think Huntsman has to tone down the rhetoric if he wants to get anywhere.

      3) Huntsman has really poor name recognition, and he seems to be doing little to change it. I mean, he’s got the credentials, but no body knows who he is. He doesn’t really have any stand-out claim to fame like some of the other candidates. And in the debates, he wastes his time on lame jokes.

      However, there is a lot to like about Huntsman.

      1) He was a great governor. Utah benefited greatly from his leadership.

      2) He has better foreign policy experience than any other candidate. As a former ambassador to China, Huntsman has probably the best foreign cred that you could have right now.

      3) He’s been successful in the private sector. No, it’s nothing quite like making an Olympic Games profitable, but he took over as CEO of his family’s business.

      4) He dropped out of high school to be a keyboarder in a rock-in-roll band! I mean, how cool is that!?

      Just my two cents.

  • http://www.asterling.com asterling

    Tom McClintock warns about what would happen if Obama is reelected and explains that the Republicans lost in CA this past election because they nominated nearly all wimpy, weak RINOS, not because “Democrats won.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/08/a_second_term_for_obama_would_make_the_united_states_go_as_california_has_gone_111620.html

    He is SO right and so is this article. Mitt Romney seems like a nice guy, but we can’t afford that right now.

  • nick2253

    but when you drill down, there are a lot of differences that make 2012 nothing like 1996.

    First, and probably most importantly, Mitt Romney is not Bob Dole. Dole was old, and unenthusiastic. Romney has spunk, is younger, and actually looks presidential. In his debate performances, Romney is deftly able to parry his opponents attacks, and continues to reinforce his message about economic experience. In fact, Romney’s debate performances are much more like Clinton’s than Dole’s.

    Second, in ’96, the economy was improving, and people were quite happy with their economic statuses. Not so in 2012. Unless we see a major turn-around in the next few months, Obama won’t have a good economy to stand on, which is arguable one of the reasons that Clinton won.

    Third, the 21st century has been the century of liberal spoilers, not conservative spoilers. In 1996, Perot arguable stole much of the pro-business Republicans and Independents. For the last few elections, the spoilers have been about environmental and corporate policy (see Ralph Nader).

    Fourth, the Republican Party today is very different than the Republican Party of 1996. Not only does the Tea Party play a big role in conservative politics, the South does as well. There really isn’t such a thing as a southern Democrat when it comes to Presidential elections any more. And Clinton, a native of Arkansas, was able to take advantage of that in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tenn. Obama, a native of Chicago, will get no love from the South.

    Fifth, Obama is no Clinton. Clinton had a reputation as a moderate Democrat (he even called himself one), whereas Obama has cultivated a reputation of an extreme Liberal, and even bragged about his rating as the Most Liberal Senator in an interview during the 2008 primary season. It was easy for a lot of people in ’96 to be apathetic: their economy was good, and the president wasn’t that extreme either way. In 2012, neither of those will be true. Clinton and Obama also had drastically different foreign policies. During his presidency, Clinton’s foreign policies were somewhat popular, and he helped expand trade between nations across the globe. Obama, on the other hand, has largely continued the very unpopular foreign policies of Bush. In this case, independents will be much more likely to vote R than D.

    Lastly, the tired “fact” that 70% of Republicans don’t want Romney is just false. All that means is 70% of Republicans prefer someone else to Romney. And although the media might like us to think otherwise, we actually have a strong and diverse field of candidates in the primary. I think the fact no candidate has really every stayed above 30% is a testament to the strength of the candidates as a whole, not their weaknesses.

    • http://realpolitik-kaiser.blogspot.com/ Patrick

      Well, either to their relatively equal strengths or their relatively equal weaknesses.

      Also, if I remember correctly, Clinton liked to position himself as a “centrist” and not a “moderate” (though for the life of me most of the time I can’t figure out what the difference really is between the two).

      However, the rest of that is a very good analysis. Bravo.

      • nick2253

        As far as moderate vs. centrist, I feel like that’s the same as pot?to vs. pot?to.

        Maybe I’m being optimistic when I consider the candidates as being strong, but I like to think so. Personally, I believe that we would have a more likely front-runner by now but for the diversity of the candidates. I mean, you’ve got the spectrum from:

        Romney: Establishment, pro-business, strong business experience, somewhat centrist
        Perry: Establishment maverick, hardline conservative, some business credentials, strong government experience
        Cain: Political outsider, pro-business, strong business experience, southern conservative
        Paul: Establishment maverick, libertarian, heavily pro-market
        Bachmann: Establishment maverick, hardline conservative
        Santorum: Establishment, hardline conservative, bipartisan experience
        Gingrich: Establishment, strong government experience, somewhat social conservative
        Huntsman: Establishment, pro-business, business experience, strong government experience, centrist

        Really, there’s someone here for everyone. In most elections, you have one or two fringe candidates that have some upper single digit number of supporters. Here, we have two front runners with over 20% support (Romney and Cain), and then a solid mid-tier of Perry, Gingrich, and Paul between 8 and 14%. Then you have a respectable lower tier of Bachman, Huntsman, and Santorum, all polling between 2 and 5%. It’s amazing to me that eight, eight candidates are capable of getting above 2% in polls. Considering I’d be happy to campaign for most of them, and definitely vote for any of them over Obama, I consider that a pretty strong field.

        • nick2253

          When by this time there were only 5 candidates that routinely appeared in the polls, and Giuliani was the leader with under 30% of the vote.

        • LibertyWins

          I think you are dreaming.

          If Ron Paul were the establishment he’d be the top pick. He’s a RINO because, he’s really a Constitution Party guy playing a Republican. Do you remember who he endorsed in 2008? Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party!

          Gary Johnson is also a RINO, he’s a Libertarian Party guy playing a Republican.

          • nick2253

            I said “Establishment Maverick.” Ron Paul has been a Congressman for twelve terms, and whether or not he agrees with the Republican Establishment (the “maverick” part), he is very much “establishment” in the sense of his continued presence in DC.

            Also, and this is really a non-sequitur, but I hate the term RINO. I mean, when you get way out into the fringes, it is clear that you have people who are not Republican. But what does it take to be “Republican”? In the case of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both men support a number of traditional Republican positions, and if you look at just their fiscal policies, Johnson especially would look very much Republican. If you look at Paul’s positions on abortion and gay marriage, they are in line with what a vast majority of Republican voters think. According to PollingReports nearly 60% of Republicans favor some form of legal recognition for gay couples. Also, a fairly consistent 40%+ of self-identified Republicans support Roe v. Wade. Of the 60% that don’t, PollingReports has no data on whether they think abortion should be illegal, or if it should be up to the states to chose. My guess is that there are a fair number of the latter.

  • LibertyWins

    also added insult to injury by siphoning off votes from Dole. Perot took away 129 electoral votes from Dole. That would have defeated Clinton.

    Without Perot,

    Dole gets 288 electoral votes verses 250 electoral votes for Clinton.

    Although Clinton, like, Gore in 2000, would have beaten Dole in the popular vote.
    Clinton 49.23%
    Dole 49.12%

    Who knows how it would have gone down without Perot?

    Pat Buchanan certainly had the stones to take on Clinton and would have made Perot redundant. Again who knows?

  • kcdude

    Clinton ran center to leaning just right. I think Dick Morris was very involved in having him run in that manner. Not that he ever was center or leaning anywhere right. He just ran that way. Dole would be more like McCain. It seemed almost as if Dole had stayed around and carried water or paid some sort of dues and therefore he was anointed. Dole had no real fight in him. His wife was a much more effective campaigner – like Palin.

    • LibertyWins

      if true, would not matter much since most of Perot’s support was from much further to the right than Bob Dole. They would have either stayed home or voted for Dole.

      The Perot people and the Buchanan Brigades were the early forerunners of the Tea Party. Which also stands as a warning not to trust third party candidates even if they seem better than the GOP nominee.

      2012 is all about defeating Obama. If we can get a solid conservative in the White House, its just gravy. Although I hope we get both!

  • minister_of_war

    If so, who would you say would be Obama’s Dick Morris?

    Dick Morris convincing Bill Clinton to support a number of conservative reforms & go to the middle is what made Bill Clinton win re-election. If Clinton would have spent his 3rd & 4th year persuing a far left liberal agenda like he had his first two years, Bill Clinton would have lost re-election in a landslide. And that’s what’s going to happen to Obama, because he refuses to go centrist on any issues period.

  • minister_of_war

    From 1995 – the election in 1996, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress. This gave Bill Clinton real ammunition that he could use against Republicans when he blamed Republicans for gridlock.

    This is the reason that I was actually slightly happy when Democrats retained control of the US Senate in the 2010 Election. Democrats in the US Senate now have a huge portion of the culpability for why Congress can’t get anything done.

    I can’t wait until the 2012 election when Republicans retake the White House & the Senate to go along with strengthening our hold on the US House. That night will be truly glorious.

  • streiff

    all the faux analysis aside.

    The reason Clinton won in 1996 with 49.2% of the vote was because Ross Perot took 8.4%. No Ross Perot and we would have inaugurated Bob Dole as the 43d president.

    I don’t like or trust Romney. He’s a proven weasel on any issue you wish to bring up. In a way he’s like Obama because as far as anyone can tell he has one core belief: that he should be president. Having said that, he will beat Obama because he’s really the antithesis of Bob Dole.

    • LibertyWins

      Amen!