At Red State, Erick Erickson offers another astute roundup of the state of the Republican field and perhaps his most succinct assessment of the dilemma and the current mood of the GOP grassroots is this: “A president spends the least amount of time debating and giving speeches and it seems conservatives are about to pick their guy based on the job criteria at the bottom of the classified ad and not the top.”
Welcome to the challenge of the American political system. You can’t win the presidency without being a good campaigner, and yet the skills required to be a good campaigner are completely different, and perhaps diametrically opposed, to good governance.
-
Campaigning requires appealing to the broadest swath of voters possible, which usually includes persuading moderates of your moderate sensibilities while simultaneously persuading your party’s passionate base that your heart lies with them. Campaigning means often hedging, blurring, or punting on hard decisions, while the job of being president is almost entirely a series of hard decisions. (Thus the difficulties of a man who voted “present” so often in the current role.)
-
Campaigning is about motivating all of the interest groups within your party, while governing is about breaking the news to them that they can’t get everything they want. (Another aspect of the job this current president hates and tries to avoid.)
-
Campaigning is about appearing to represent a nation’s ideals, hopes and dreams; governing is about dealing with realities as they are. (“Hey, maybe we need a secure, faraway place to keep captured al-Qaeda, after all!”)
-
Campaigning is about developing a wide-ranging, ambitious agenda that offers some tangible benefit to every American; governing is about prioritization and deciding which desirable goals get the most time and energy and attention and which ones are left until later, or perhaps never. (Obama’s message to Hispanics is that he really will push for amnesty someday, promise.)
-
Campaigning is about the future; governing is about the here and now.
-
Campaigning is about optimism; governing is about realism.
Considering the state of our deficit and debt, the next president is going to have to spend a lot of time saying “no” to people, and the American electorate has gotten quite used to presidents saying “yes” to spending requests and appropriations bills that come to his desk.
For what it’s worth, Erick prefers Gingrich to Romney… and then salutes the former speaker by comparing him to Hannibal Lecter. Of course, that’s in reference to Gingrich’s demonizing Romney’s business success at Bain Capital, a bit of anti-capitalist demagoguery that has left some other conservatives fuming.
It's hard to take Erick seriously. He has and apparently continues to advocate for Rick Perry. Governor Perry may be a nice guy, but let's face it, he does not have the intellectual credentials to be the most powerful man on the planet. I'm looking for a candidate that is both smart and has a proven track record. And even Perry's track record is suspect. The governor of Texas is one of if not the weakest chief executive of any state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said.
It is hard to take seriously, especially when we know Perry has been vividly offering populist class warfare - vilifying "Wall Street".
It isn't conservatism, or sound.
I was entertaining Perry prior to his entrance into the Primary, seeing him as an experienced CEO from outside of Washington. But then, even before he got in the Race, he started off with this anti-Wall Street nonsense, which mimicked Obama exactly. It was truly absurd.
After a few debates, it was clear Mr. Perry is a true public sector product, who was fortunate to inherit a healthy environment, created a great deal by GW Bush's sound executive offering in Texas. Perry was lacking in substance and ability, which seems common in comparison to what we see coming from the Private Sector.
Anyhow, Erickson is stuck on image I feel, or simply always was engaged in image/identity politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe'll see what happens as a result of the primary but it looks like many Republicans are willing to go "re-litigate" the 90s instead of making Barack Obama the issue. That is exactly what we will spend next fall doing if Newt is the nominee. Instead of talking about the ineffective policies and corruption of this president we can all be treated to non-stop evening news and articles about Newt's various business deals, about his women issues, about whether he can actually govern.
If the point of a nominee is to carry the party message forward, I don't think Newt can do it. Not because he's can't deliver the message but because no one will want to listen to him. They will be distracted by his numerous personal and professional foibles. It's Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle all over again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter listening to part of the Gingrich/Huntsman debate, I am ready to reconsder Huntsman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep -- he was pretty impressive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseErickson's preferences seem to be (1) Perry, (2) Huntsman, (3) Gingrich. I suspect he'd prefer Bachmann or Santorum over Gingrich or Romney if he thought they had a realistic path to the nomination. His first two choices have both won many elections and done lots of governing.
I'd note that his argument against Romney is that he would not be very good as candidate or President. Newt he sees as having some good campaign skills, Perry or Huntsman have solid track records as governor. I'd add that Newt's reputation for campaign skills are based almost entirely on debates, which will not be nearly as important in the fall. I strongly suspect either Perry or Huntsman would do better than he would against Obama. I also suspect that Perry would beat either Newt or Mitt one-on-one if he gets the chance to do that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCampaigning skills and governing skills are not mutually exclusive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Erickson has pushed some real losers...
I am sure, or hope, his intent is positive.
But Mr. Erickson was foolishly embracing the fictional equating of the two major US Political Parties. It is one thing to want more sound conservative candidates and policy, another to completely blur reality. Even another, which Erickson is utterly guilty of, to foolishly undermine your own best interests - especially with utter distortion of the facts, record, reality.
Erickson has played the ultimate fashion, and it has scorched his credibility. He is a prime example of peddling the old image/identity game, which is the weakest political offering. It isn't empowering conservatism.
It is a predictable display, which has grown comical, to see Mr. Erickson pick a typical entrenched Beltway Insider, who sits on couches with Nancy Pelosi peddling Global Warming nonsense at the request of Al Gore, over a Private Sector product who has sincere ability and accomplishment as a proven CEO. Erickson's stuck on fashionable slant, foolishly debasing a healthy political offering for the good side.
It isn't conservatism nor is it even attractive politics.
Erickson is just another part of the problem...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat you and Erick seem to be forgetting is something called The Contract WIth America. Why wouldn't you consider that good governance? Gingrich has a new Contract With America and he's letting us shape it. Why woudn't that be good governance? No I'm not arguing for direct democracy by the way.
NRO should look at the original Contract and discuss it's plusses and minuses. And then talk about the new Contract as well. Instead you are running 40 year old stuff about his days as a teacher. By the way half of this country could use a good teacher as well. Thats what part of the campaigning is.