John Podhoretz has a good post. He writes, in part:
So why is this happening? Simple. You’ve probably heard that the president and his team are looking to raise $1 billion to run on in 2012. They may make it; they may not. But what is that money to be spent on? He won’t have to spend it in a primary, it looks like. So that means the Obama team will have hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to spend with one object and one object only: Destroy the eventual Republican nominee. Go after him. Drag his name through the mud. Run commercials every 15 seconds in six battleground states in which he removes wheelchairs from Medicare patients and grabs checks from Social Security recipients. And should there be a personal problem, a marial difficulty…well, Katie, bar the door. Imagine being Mitch Daniels, with your complex marital history, contemplating the onslaught of a negative campaign that cascades over you beginning in June 2012, just as you’re trying to “define” yourself to the American people. Pretty horrible to contemplate.
Everybody in America already knows and has an opinion of Obama. It will be the Obama team’s job to help everybody develop an opinion of his rival that is unabashedly hostile. And they will have the dollars to do it, though it should be said even an ad campaign in the hundreds of millions can’t in themselves cast a magic spell. But it can help.
This is the logical outcome of two things: a) the increasingly personal nature of the negativity of American politics; and b) the astonishing sums of money that can now be raised through small donations over the Internet. Tough road.
This raises a frustrating point. I think John’s absolutely right about all of this. I think everybody in the mainstream press knows that this is the case. But nobody wants to blame Obama for it. It is simply understood by reporters at the New York Times or NBC that Republicans “fight dirty.” And so their coverage reflects that even before anything dirty has happened. Well, whatever the merits of that assumption, it’s also true that Democrats fight dirty — and that goes for Obama, too. And yet how much grief does Obama get for it? Remember, he’s the guy who said his chief opponent in 2008 was “cynicism.”
If a Republican president was scaring away candidates with his planned war chest, you know this would be a major media narrative. But because Obama is supposedly so uplifting and hopey-changey, the subject is barely on the radar.
I think of that 1 billion dollars and think of Meg Whitman. That money could end up being a liability. People could end up just getting sick of seeing three of his ads every time their show goes to a commercial break. And I don't think he will get to a billion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're going to need someone running who has the poise to counter the Obama muckfest with "there you go again." Palin can't do it. Newt can't do it. Romney can, and that's the most galling thing about this election so far.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But nobody wants to blame Obama for it."
What is there to blame him for? He wants to raise a lot of money. He'll have all that money to spend in the general election. I don't think that either his team or Obama himself have specifically mentioned running negative ads constantly (though I'm sure they will do that). I don't understand what there is to give the guy grief over.
Are we to the point, where it's wrong for candidates to want to raise a lot of money and win re-election? I don't think so. He's not doing anything any different than anyone else is doing or would do in his place.
Re: why are candidates not running, JPod is right that money matters - but even more so are two facts:
1, Obama is a good campaigner and still commands loyalty from his base. He'll be hard to beat no matter what.
And
2, The Dems don't have a VP candidate who can step up to the presidency next cycle, or an outstanding Senator who looks likely to step up. Not even a Governor who is on the radar. Most of the candidates for the GOP are young, certainly young enough to wait a few years and take advantage of a natural weakness on the other side. Why would Rubio or Ryan or anyone who has an actual shot of exciting people, not just wait four years?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI told people for weeks that Daniels would not run, due to his marital issues. Obama has one theme; Search and Destroy. All one need do is go back to Senate Candidate Obama and what he did to Jack Ryan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethat's what politics is. if you're afraid of this, you shouldn't be running in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRichard, I wish you were right, but I fear you're wrong.
The media created narrative for Whitman was that she was a billionaire who was trying to "buy the Governorship".
The media created narrative for Obama's first election (even after he refused federal matching funds as he promised to do during his campaign), was that Obama was being supported by "millions of disenfranchised voters sending in their nickels & dimes so they can have a voice". THAT's likely to be the same narrative that's trumpeted this time around. No matter how much money Obama spends, and no matter where it really comes from, it will be painted as coming from "little people", and that will be Obama's reality.
I agree with Podhoretz entirely. Obama's smear machine makes the Clinton Cabal look like 8th grade school girls. Some people, rightfully, don't want to put their families through it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"2, The Dems don't have a VP candidate who can step up to the presidency next cycle, or an outstanding Senator who looks likely to step up. Not even a Governor who is on the radar."
You are not paying attention. Some may not be on your radar, but they are out there.
Somebody like Andrew Cuomo could sweep in 2016, especially with the built-in Dem advantage in CA, NY, PA, IL and such blue states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is why the next president will be either Obama or Palin. Only Palin has a chance to survive the billion dollar attack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama "wants" to raise a billion.....that's questionable this time around.
Even if he does, so many things went his way the last election aren't even close this time around. The "thrill" is gone. The novelty (and "guilt appeasement") of voting for a black man is long gone.
The guy has shown no capacity to really campaign (how many Democrats has he helped elect recently?). Even the media cheerleaders have a tough time bucking up his feckless approach to governing.
Republicans can still blow it with a horrid candidate but its going to take someone pretty flawed to give Obama a chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the economy dips into another recession late this year or next, not even a $10 billion war chest will save the President. The problems for the GOP is that the cupboard is quite bare.
I cannot think of one GOP pol out there (save Dick Cheney,who is now elderly, retired, and in ill health) that I would consider voting for. Not one. I see a lot of generic conservatives (at least they bill themselves as such), a few misfits, and 1 or 2 who are insane; but none who are proven, capable, rock solid, across the board conservatives.
If the economy goes South we may rid ourselves of the Anointed One, only to get a Mitt or a Pawlenty. That may be an improvement, but only on the margins.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFalse premise. Who is it who's not running? Are there many (any) big-name Republicans on the sidelines? Do we even have more than a few big-name Republicans? Compared to prior election cycles such as 1996 and 1980 for Republicans and 2004, 1992, and 1994 for Democrats, is this year's opposition party entry rate for the big guns any lower than in those years?
Arguably our big names either are running (Romney, Gingrich, likely Palin, Paul), or aren't running for personal or health reasons (Jeb, Cheney). How many other big names are there, in truth? Huckabee might barely qualify. But anyone from Mitch Daniels and Pawlenty on down aren't big names.
If you don't care about big names and it's sheer quantity of candidates you want, we have plenty already, as in every cycle - and we'll have more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that President Obama has no choice other than to go very negative in the general election. Although he will try to do it through proxies rather than directly himself. The fact of the matter is that we are mired in the worst ongoing recession in the post-1945 era. This is poison for the incumbent.
The GOP should be able to win the 2012 presidential election if they focus on the economy, talk about how it is hurting the electorate, and discuss what the GOP will do to fix the economy if they come to office. The GOP will draw blood on this issue if they are smart enough to raise it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo matter how short of a billion dollars he comes, the MSM will more than make up the rest. However, no amount of money can change Obama's record, and there is no sign that he and his Democrats will do anything to make the economy or debt situation any better by 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Goldberg: please remember the past subjunctive: "If a Republican president was scaring away candidates with his planned war chest, you know this would be a major media narrative" should be "If a Republican president WERE scaring away candidates . . ."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUh, this is a good post by Podhoretz? His reasons are awesome for pansies.
No link, so I don't know what else he wrote, or where he wrote it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis chief opponent WAS cynicism...and there were very good reasons for that...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Sam. Cuomo would certainly be a favorite. And, there are several of other names that the Dems could pick from, depending on how things go, and what the mood of the country is like. Evan Bayh is sitting out there, if they want to go the "moderate" route.
Even with all his marital problems, Antonio Villaraigosa would be a huge hit with the Hispanics, which of course is becoming a powerful force in Dem primaries.
Cory Booker is a rising star in Dem politics. And Martin O'Malley has "Presidential aspirations" written all over that forehead of his.
The one thing the Dems don't have, are many marketable female prospects. Their female governors in the last 6-years have largely been complete failures. And, their female Senators are also fatality damaged with respect to national viability. If the GOP could find a woman - say Nikki Hailey or someone similar, they could be very well positioned in 2016, should Obama win in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProbably wishful thinking but any hope at all that such an ad blitz could backfire? I mean, everyone gets tired of political commercials during election time and if the President launches them in such huge numbers . . . well, only time will tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do agree that a lot of people are probably aiming at 2016 as a much softer target. The American electorate likes to flip the party in the White House every eight years. It's very, very, very hard to flip it after only four years - only Reagan has managed to accomplish the feat since 1892. So aspiring Republicans really have their work cut out for them in 2012.
While conversely, it's almost as hard for either party to keep control of the White House for more than eight years. It was more common in the 1860-1960 century, when first the Republicans and then the Democrats enjoyed several long runs in the White House. But since the FDR/Truman era of five straight Democratic terms ended 60 years ago, only once has a party managed to hold onto the White House for three straight terms (Reagan / Bush).
Or to display the pattern of consecutive terms by party since the 1952 election: 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, ?
Maybe a lot of people are betting on that last ? being another 2, therefore the reluctance to waste their powder on a difficult 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Scott Wilson - Hillary is definitely running in 2016 and she'll be a major player. Whether she gets the nomination or not is of course open.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse