He's running for the Senate. I must confess that Charlie Crist is one of my favorite Republicans, and might well be a plausible path toward Republican revival in 2016 or later. He has exactly the sort of profile that might be attractive for a GOP desperate to appeal to young voters: he has a strong environmental record, comparatively good on health care, moderate on gay rights, and generally more willing to accept compromise and work in a bipartisan manner, instead of the Boehner-McConnell scorched earth model that is only making the GOP more unpopular. He's not dogmatic (though he is assuredly conservative, especially on tax issues--see Nate Silver for more). He seems like almost exactly the politician that Republicans ought to start noticing.
What's really remarkable is that Crist is an honest, ethical, right-thinking Republican in a party where such traits are much more of a liability than an asset. His support of the stimulus, is spurning of ACORN-bashing during the election, his quashing of voter suppression efforts in Florida and his support of allowing released convicts to vote--a no-brainer, in my opinion--are all principled stances of conviction that generally brought him little benefit and might actually have cost him political capital among his base and GOP elites. It's always rare to encounter real conviction politicians, and coming off of a several-year period in which the GOP deservedly got a reputation as a craven and cynical political machine that was more interested in helping its buddies than helping the American people, turning the party over to someone who is in many respects the anti-Rove might be just the ticket. Plus, speaking electorally, being overwhelmingly popular in a critical swing state that was just won by Barack Obama might well be the most valuable asset Crist possesses.
I can tell you right now that a Crist-like (hmm...that just looks wrong) Republican Party would both excite and scare me--it would scare me because Crist could probably win blue states like Oregon and New Hampshire, but it would excite me because Crist could well be the GOP's Tony Blair, reforming his party to compete in modern times while preserving the things worth preserving. And having a principled, intelligent Republican Party is good for the country. Alas, this is all speculation, but I do think that after eight years--and especially after 2012, when I fully expect the wingnut express to derail after nominating someone like Sarah Palin who will lose in a landslide--picking a winner could be a good deal more attractive to the Republicans. A Cristian (even worse!) GOP would be competitive nationally, while a Palinian GOP would only be able to compete in the Deep South, Alaska, and the Mormon Belt. So, while I'd rather have another Democrat elected to the Senate out of Florida, the GOP could do a whole lot worse than Charlie Crist.
Showing posts with label charlie crist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charlie crist. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Crist for Senate?
Moving on to something a little less serious, evidently people are talking about Florida Governor Charlie Crist entering the Senate race in his state. Let's just say that I would be surprised if he wasn't getting some significant pressure from the National GOP to run. We know that the GOP is desperate to keep the Dems from getting 60 votes in the Senate. We know that Republicans would perhaps be slightly favored in Florida in a Senate race though not certainly, and we know that the presumptive frontrunner for the Republicans has been unable to raise excitement or money. This in contrast to the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meek, who has been raising money like crazy, with generous assists from Bill Clinton.
As it stands, it's difficult to see how the Senate race in Florida would turn out--Rubio hasn't yet set the state ablaze, and it would likely wind up being a close race that hinges on base turnout. That might favor Republicans, but since Obama just won the state last year it might not. Putting up Crist as a candidate all but assures a Republican hold, as he has broad popularity and wouldn't need any additional funds. Crist is of a moderate disposition, though what sets him apart is that he does have some scruples and doesn't indulge the base in stunts like the ACORN nonsense. Crist running for the Senate, though, leaves the race for governor open. And there's a Democrat waiting in the wings for that, too. The implications of a Democrat winning the Florida governor's chair--and it's been about 12 years since the last one, so it might be time--would be huge. There would no doubt be less of Florida's famous gerrymandering in Republican favor, and the end result would be less House seats and less state legislature seats for Republicans. But it isn't inconcievable that Republicans are willing to trade a few House seats for a Senate seat--Republicans have a 70-vote deficit in the House, but they effectively only tied in the Senate. And yes, it's annoying that that's the case and that the filibuster is abused, but it is. My proposed reform would be to put a clock on the filibuster and allow it to expire after, say, three months. Seems reasonable to me. Anyway...
So, this is a theory that just happens to fit the facts. Repubs want to keep the Dems from 60, and they are willing to potentially sacrifice a governorship and elect a more moderate senator and perhaps shred Florida's GOP to hold the Senate seat. They're that desperate. I guess I just don't know what Crist gets out of it. A higher national profile for 2016? Someone with his profile doesn't stand a chance in 2012. I don't know. But it will be fun to watch.
(BTW, as I've said before, Charlie Crist is perhaps the best hope for a Republican renewal, which is something that even this lefty would like to see.)
As it stands, it's difficult to see how the Senate race in Florida would turn out--Rubio hasn't yet set the state ablaze, and it would likely wind up being a close race that hinges on base turnout. That might favor Republicans, but since Obama just won the state last year it might not. Putting up Crist as a candidate all but assures a Republican hold, as he has broad popularity and wouldn't need any additional funds. Crist is of a moderate disposition, though what sets him apart is that he does have some scruples and doesn't indulge the base in stunts like the ACORN nonsense. Crist running for the Senate, though, leaves the race for governor open. And there's a Democrat waiting in the wings for that, too. The implications of a Democrat winning the Florida governor's chair--and it's been about 12 years since the last one, so it might be time--would be huge. There would no doubt be less of Florida's famous gerrymandering in Republican favor, and the end result would be less House seats and less state legislature seats for Republicans. But it isn't inconcievable that Republicans are willing to trade a few House seats for a Senate seat--Republicans have a 70-vote deficit in the House, but they effectively only tied in the Senate. And yes, it's annoying that that's the case and that the filibuster is abused, but it is. My proposed reform would be to put a clock on the filibuster and allow it to expire after, say, three months. Seems reasonable to me. Anyway...
So, this is a theory that just happens to fit the facts. Repubs want to keep the Dems from 60, and they are willing to potentially sacrifice a governorship and elect a more moderate senator and perhaps shred Florida's GOP to hold the Senate seat. They're that desperate. I guess I just don't know what Crist gets out of it. A higher national profile for 2016? Someone with his profile doesn't stand a chance in 2012. I don't know. But it will be fun to watch.
(BTW, as I've said before, Charlie Crist is perhaps the best hope for a Republican renewal, which is something that even this lefty would like to see.)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Which Republican should Democrats want to face in 2012?
Which one indeed? I think it depends on what Democrats themselves want. If we want the best opportunity to hold the White House, I think the answer to my question has to be Sarah Palin. Her "colorful" past might well yield some more interesting anecdotes--just how pally was she with Ted Stevens?--and her "maverick" reform-oriented image will not likely survive a GOP primary race. This is not to mention that she wears poorly with time and can't take the pressure that comes with the nearly two years that presidential campaigns take these days. She barely lasted a few weeks in 2008 before she became an incoherent babbler with Katie Couric. How's she going to be in November 2011, with Mitt Romney running attack ads about aerial wolf shooting in Iowa and New Hampshire? She'd likely suffer a meltdown, and even if she won the nomination she's not terribly popular with the electorate and not particularly knowledgeable about policy. So she'd be unlikely to win, and Palin stands as a perfect example of the Peter Principle--had McCain not picked her, she would probably have made a fine regional politician and possibly a reform-oriented voice within the GOP, though not likely a national candidate. Oh well.
So Palin is the option if Democrats want to win. What's a step down from that? Well, I think that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is probably the Republican that Democrats would be most able to live with. Crist, unlike most of his comrades in the party of Rove, is scrupulously honest and principled. He's conservative, but he knows how to appeal to the center while not ceding the right. Crist would be a good candidate for a "Sam's Club Republican" sort of philosophy, which is a bit more generous to the middle and working classes than classical conservatism is. Crist is phenomenally popular in Florida, which I hear is kind of important for presidential candidates to win. Crist would likely govern from the center and win over much of the public in the process, while moving Republicans into sensible territory on economics and the environment, unless the Club for Growth gets to him first. Of all the plausible Republican candidates, Crist would likely be the most palatable to Democrats should he win in 2012. Whether that is likely, who's to say, though I suspect it won't matter as President Obama will probably win a second term unless he ushers in a new great depression. Republicans might think he can easily be ousted, but they probably thought that in 1936 as well when Alf Landon managed a whopping eight electoral votes against FDR. (Curiously, for all the Republicans' talk about how the New Deal didn't work, it sure seemed like people wanted him to keep enacting those policies since they voted him in more than a few times.)
But I know who I'd prefer the Republicans to nominate most of all: Mike Huckabee. That's right. Huck's probably going to run, and while I definitely don't want him to be president I think that putting him in charge as party leader would probably be best for the liberal order. This does not hold true on social issues, but Huckabee has clearly little love for his party's establishment, and the feeling is evidently mutual. If Huck were able to lead a movement against the assorted neocons and supply-siders running the store of the Grand Old Party, and instead reorient the party toward realism and fiscal responsibility of the Eisenhower style (and perhaps a hint of social justice along the way), then it is hard to see how liberal goals in many areas wouldn't be easier to achieve. Now, I am assuming Huckabee is a realist because of the article he wrote in Foreign Affairs which gave broad hints at this sort of thing. I'm going a bit more blind on economics because of his idiot FairTax idea, which he should scrap immediately. His record in Arkansas suggested a lack of Norquistian ideology on economics, and a party that was honestly worried about spending would be a good addition to the country. Honestly, despite the religious craziness I wouldn't be as averse to a Republican party with that sort of configuration--social conservatism, economic moderation, foreign policy realism. And if Huck could get the conservatives to abandon their Nixonian deception, vote caging, etc., then so much the better. He does seem to have a spot of integrity at times. I'm unsure as to whether he stands a chance--most libs dislike him and are afraid that the folksy shtick will work again like it did for Bush (to be fair, Huckabee is much more charming than Dubya ever was), but I've talked to hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who actually kinda like Huckabee. If he can make these folks like him he's probably got a future in politics. Still, he's not exactly in the mainstream on the social issues, though I suspect he could tweak the rhetoric quite a bit to make it all more palatable. The man is nothing if not a talker.
Honestly, though, it seems as though remaining Republicans are going to be looking for a "pure" conservative, so I doubt very much that Crist and Huckabee are going to fit that model. Honestly, Palin shouldn't be considered a conservative, but because she's so adept at manipulating culture war grievances she might well win the nomination. It'll probably be some wingnut Southern gov, like Haley Barbour or Mark Sanford or Bobby Jindal. And, frankly, none of those guys are presidents. I know Republicans are giddy about Jindal, but really. Really. I've seen him on television and he comes off as a nice guy--he has a nerdy vibe about him, which isn't too bad a thing to have in a party that has taken such an anti-intellectual tack of late. But Jindal isn't particularly magnetic or appealing--he has all the charisma of a high school chemistry teacher. Which, as I said, isn't the worst thing in the world--it's comforting in a way--but there are certain intangibles one looks for in a president and I'm not sure Jindal has them. Plus, I think the Catholic factor is not inconsiderable. As someone who grew up in an evangelical household I can assure you that the religious right will be keenly aware of that fact (many of them don't believe that Catholics are saved), and while it wouldn't be as much a dealbreaker as Mitt Romney's Mormonism it won't be trivial. Then again, they may just choose to ignore it, though the exorcism story will raise eyebrows. I doubt his race will be much of a problem, as even the most hardened racists will feel the need, when in polite society, to point out a few minority members that they like. Jindal could well fit that role for the, um, less progressed part of the Republicans' southern rump. If Jindal can win in David Duke's backyard he clearly can transcend the racial issues, so they likely won't be a factor. Jindal says he isn't running for now, but they all say that at this point, don't they? I seem to recall a certain freshman senator from Illinois pledging to serve a full term in 2005.
So Palin is the option if Democrats want to win. What's a step down from that? Well, I think that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is probably the Republican that Democrats would be most able to live with. Crist, unlike most of his comrades in the party of Rove, is scrupulously honest and principled. He's conservative, but he knows how to appeal to the center while not ceding the right. Crist would be a good candidate for a "Sam's Club Republican" sort of philosophy, which is a bit more generous to the middle and working classes than classical conservatism is. Crist is phenomenally popular in Florida, which I hear is kind of important for presidential candidates to win. Crist would likely govern from the center and win over much of the public in the process, while moving Republicans into sensible territory on economics and the environment, unless the Club for Growth gets to him first. Of all the plausible Republican candidates, Crist would likely be the most palatable to Democrats should he win in 2012. Whether that is likely, who's to say, though I suspect it won't matter as President Obama will probably win a second term unless he ushers in a new great depression. Republicans might think he can easily be ousted, but they probably thought that in 1936 as well when Alf Landon managed a whopping eight electoral votes against FDR. (Curiously, for all the Republicans' talk about how the New Deal didn't work, it sure seemed like people wanted him to keep enacting those policies since they voted him in more than a few times.)
But I know who I'd prefer the Republicans to nominate most of all: Mike Huckabee. That's right. Huck's probably going to run, and while I definitely don't want him to be president I think that putting him in charge as party leader would probably be best for the liberal order. This does not hold true on social issues, but Huckabee has clearly little love for his party's establishment, and the feeling is evidently mutual. If Huck were able to lead a movement against the assorted neocons and supply-siders running the store of the Grand Old Party, and instead reorient the party toward realism and fiscal responsibility of the Eisenhower style (and perhaps a hint of social justice along the way), then it is hard to see how liberal goals in many areas wouldn't be easier to achieve. Now, I am assuming Huckabee is a realist because of the article he wrote in Foreign Affairs which gave broad hints at this sort of thing. I'm going a bit more blind on economics because of his idiot FairTax idea, which he should scrap immediately. His record in Arkansas suggested a lack of Norquistian ideology on economics, and a party that was honestly worried about spending would be a good addition to the country. Honestly, despite the religious craziness I wouldn't be as averse to a Republican party with that sort of configuration--social conservatism, economic moderation, foreign policy realism. And if Huck could get the conservatives to abandon their Nixonian deception, vote caging, etc., then so much the better. He does seem to have a spot of integrity at times. I'm unsure as to whether he stands a chance--most libs dislike him and are afraid that the folksy shtick will work again like it did for Bush (to be fair, Huckabee is much more charming than Dubya ever was), but I've talked to hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who actually kinda like Huckabee. If he can make these folks like him he's probably got a future in politics. Still, he's not exactly in the mainstream on the social issues, though I suspect he could tweak the rhetoric quite a bit to make it all more palatable. The man is nothing if not a talker.
Honestly, though, it seems as though remaining Republicans are going to be looking for a "pure" conservative, so I doubt very much that Crist and Huckabee are going to fit that model. Honestly, Palin shouldn't be considered a conservative, but because she's so adept at manipulating culture war grievances she might well win the nomination. It'll probably be some wingnut Southern gov, like Haley Barbour or Mark Sanford or Bobby Jindal. And, frankly, none of those guys are presidents. I know Republicans are giddy about Jindal, but really. Really. I've seen him on television and he comes off as a nice guy--he has a nerdy vibe about him, which isn't too bad a thing to have in a party that has taken such an anti-intellectual tack of late. But Jindal isn't particularly magnetic or appealing--he has all the charisma of a high school chemistry teacher. Which, as I said, isn't the worst thing in the world--it's comforting in a way--but there are certain intangibles one looks for in a president and I'm not sure Jindal has them. Plus, I think the Catholic factor is not inconsiderable. As someone who grew up in an evangelical household I can assure you that the religious right will be keenly aware of that fact (many of them don't believe that Catholics are saved), and while it wouldn't be as much a dealbreaker as Mitt Romney's Mormonism it won't be trivial. Then again, they may just choose to ignore it, though the exorcism story will raise eyebrows. I doubt his race will be much of a problem, as even the most hardened racists will feel the need, when in polite society, to point out a few minority members that they like. Jindal could well fit that role for the, um, less progressed part of the Republicans' southern rump. If Jindal can win in David Duke's backyard he clearly can transcend the racial issues, so they likely won't be a factor. Jindal says he isn't running for now, but they all say that at this point, don't they? I seem to recall a certain freshman senator from Illinois pledging to serve a full term in 2005.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Republicans' best hope
Of all the Republicans whose names have been bandied about as GOP presidential prospects, I think Charlie Crist--who will be stumping for the recovery package with Obama today--is the one who holds the most promise, for a few reasons. For one, he runs a hugely electorally important state where he is very popular. For another, he's a moderate conservative who really does live up to both terms. And, also, he's not as much a hostage of the movement as seemingly every other Republican officeholder these days, as one could see from his unwillingness to demagogue against ACORN and his insistence in honoring folks' voting rights. This isn't really evidence of ideological purity in any respect so much as it is a belief in a principle other than that anything that helps the Republican Party is good. That seems to be what Bill Buckley's movement has descended to, but Crist would likely make a popular, pragmatic president.
I suspect that these things will keep Crist from attracting movement support--I'm guessing it's Palin/DeMint 2012, and in 2016 we'll get another faux moderate, phony reformer in the Bush mold who will say all the expected things, and by then there will probably be a few scandals in the Obama Administration and among Congressional Democrats that the Republicans will be able to run against as superficial "reformers". I suspect that only if the GOP loses again in 2016 will they pick somebody like Crist, in much the same way that the UK Labour Party needed to lose a heartbreaker in 1992 before Tony Blair could take over.
In any event, who else has the GOP got? Bobby Jindal is problematic--he's smart and he has a reasonably good (though overrated) personality, but he's ultraconservative (perhaps too much so) and I think that religion, rather than race, will be the problem. Jindal would be the first Republican Catholic nominee for president. Even though there are some conservative Catholics I tend to think that this will be as much a problem for the religious right as was Mitt Romney's Mormonism. (Plus he has an exorcism story in his past that would keep him from being taken seriously by, well, anyone.) Jeb Bush is also Catholic, although his problem is his last name. Palin is a nonstarter--she's the right's McGovern. Huckabee might be promising if he'd stop sounding like a crazy religious nutter and move to the left on economics and foreign policy, and reorient the GOP as a Christian Democratic party. I don't know if he's willing to do this, but it would be an idea on where the GOP could go next, and probably a popular one. Huckabee, though, seems intent on coasting on his charm, and it isn't going to work. Romney himself is always a better candidate on paper than in real life, someone who somehow should be more compelling than they actually are. He's got a hell of a resume and the look and mind of a president, but there is an emptiness and a slickness there that puts off most people. And once you get past the top tier, you get people like Mark Sanford, John Ensign and John Thune, who don't seem to be able to persuade anyone outside the base over anything. It's actually quite likely that Ensign won't even win reelection in 2012 in a state won by President Obama by 17 points.
So, it's all up to Crist. Or David Petraeus, I suppose, if he ever wants to get into electoral politics.
I suspect that these things will keep Crist from attracting movement support--I'm guessing it's Palin/DeMint 2012, and in 2016 we'll get another faux moderate, phony reformer in the Bush mold who will say all the expected things, and by then there will probably be a few scandals in the Obama Administration and among Congressional Democrats that the Republicans will be able to run against as superficial "reformers". I suspect that only if the GOP loses again in 2016 will they pick somebody like Crist, in much the same way that the UK Labour Party needed to lose a heartbreaker in 1992 before Tony Blair could take over.
In any event, who else has the GOP got? Bobby Jindal is problematic--he's smart and he has a reasonably good (though overrated) personality, but he's ultraconservative (perhaps too much so) and I think that religion, rather than race, will be the problem. Jindal would be the first Republican Catholic nominee for president. Even though there are some conservative Catholics I tend to think that this will be as much a problem for the religious right as was Mitt Romney's Mormonism. (Plus he has an exorcism story in his past that would keep him from being taken seriously by, well, anyone.) Jeb Bush is also Catholic, although his problem is his last name. Palin is a nonstarter--she's the right's McGovern. Huckabee might be promising if he'd stop sounding like a crazy religious nutter and move to the left on economics and foreign policy, and reorient the GOP as a Christian Democratic party. I don't know if he's willing to do this, but it would be an idea on where the GOP could go next, and probably a popular one. Huckabee, though, seems intent on coasting on his charm, and it isn't going to work. Romney himself is always a better candidate on paper than in real life, someone who somehow should be more compelling than they actually are. He's got a hell of a resume and the look and mind of a president, but there is an emptiness and a slickness there that puts off most people. And once you get past the top tier, you get people like Mark Sanford, John Ensign and John Thune, who don't seem to be able to persuade anyone outside the base over anything. It's actually quite likely that Ensign won't even win reelection in 2012 in a state won by President Obama by 17 points.
So, it's all up to Crist. Or David Petraeus, I suppose, if he ever wants to get into electoral politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)