Forty five days.

Barack Obama has been President for just 45 days.

In that time, the Democrat Congress passed and the President signed the largest spending bill in history.

In that time, the Administration has proposed a budget blueprint representing the greatest increase in government spending since the Great Society, and the most radical reorientation of government priorities since the New Deal.

In that time, the Administration proposes trillions of red ink over the next three years to pay for its increased spending.

In that time, wealth redistribution, not wealth creation, has become the defining goal of the US government. 

 In that time the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen almost 1,200 points, or 15%. It has fallen almost 3,000 points, in total, since Obama’s election.1

At what point do people recognize that this collapse in market confidence is no longer a judgment on the last 100 days of 2008, but a reaction to Obama and the Democrats and their plans for the future?

And from that judgment, who will carry that mantle for the Republicans and become the standard-bearer in 2012 to contest these troubling national priorities?

Trying to predict the Republican nominee this far out brings to mind a quote from computer scientist Alan Kay who said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

Still, a little invention and deduction represents an irresistible elixir.

So, what do we know?

The Candidates:

First, there is no shortage of people who would gladly pick up the mantle for the GOP, current demurring statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee show no signs of burying their 2008 primary axe or presidential ambitions.  Romney came out on top on the CPAC straw poll this past week. He has a history of good luck in straw polls. Primary elections are a different story.  

Huck has his own TV program to stay in the public eye, but one need only look where Huckabee won in 2008 to see the limitations of his candidacy.

There are potentially as many as seven governors in the hunt.
 
Charlie Crist of Florida, who has found that the way to cope with Obamanomics is to embrace it, is making noises. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, who claims no interest in higher office - and bears a striking resemblance to the “universal accountant - finishes two terms in a Republican state that Obama turned blue.

Then there is Bobby Jindal from Louisiana, who gave a cartoonish reply to the President’s address before Congress, and for all his potential, cannot find gravitas amid intelligence and capability.  His future is bright, if not in the next election cycle.

There is Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, the advocate of Sam’s Club Republicanism, who keeps the governor’s mansion red in a very blue state. He is coy about his ambition, committing neither to a third term or a presidential run. He has a respectable record and a few maverick stands, including some that cause conservative heartburn, but has yet to demonstrate the he is worthy of the accolades he received both before and as a finalist on John McCain’s VP list.

Two potential newcomers to the national stage join Pawlenty from the birth year 1960; Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Jon Huntsman of Utah. Sanford is a product of the New Right. Socially conservative and fiscally responsible in the southern tradition.

Huntsman is something different. A Mormon from one of the most conservative states, Huntsman supports civil unions. His map for GOP recovery starts with breaking the Republican Party off from its congressional representatives for whom he has little use.  He seeks an almost Clintonesque “Third Way” that sands the perceived hard edges off conservatism to meet the demands of a new era. Just don’t call it “Compassionate Conservatism.”

Then there is Sarah Palin, the much maligned vice presidential candidate who was derided by the elites of both parties, but embraced by the grass roots of the GOP.

Beyond the governor’s mansions, Congress is filled with people who wake up each morning and see the President of the United States reflected back in the mirror.

Senator John Cornyn just won reelection in Texas by a large margin in a Democratic year. He may get the itch. Jim DeMint of South Carolina is ambitious, but it is yet to be seen whether that ambition is for Senate leadership or national leadership. 

And then there is the sleeper.  Senator John Thune; the Daschle-killer. He’s kept a low profile since his election in 2004 and critics point to his thin record.  He’s got to make it past re-election in 2010, but his tenacity and political savvy speak volumes when you consider that he is the first candidate to beat a sitting Senate Majority leader since 1952. He shouldn’t be underestimated.

Because ambition is not limited to the Senate, I include Representative Mike Pence from Indiana and Eric Cantor from Virginia.  Both are solid conservatives with credible track records.  However, only once in American history has a House member been elected president; James Garfield in 1880.2 The odds are clearly against them.

Outside elected officials, there’s Newt Gingrich.

Enough said.

There’s also Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida.

Ann Richards, former governor of Texas once famously said that if George W. Bush’s last name was Walker, he wouldn’t have had a chance in a race against her. For Jeb, it is ironic that the family name keeps him from running on a sterling record in Florida, when memories of his brother’s misunderstood presidency are still too fresh.

Historical Guidelines:

So what do we make of this tangle of ambition?

If one word sums up GOP nominating history, it is tradition.

Geographically, since 1952, all GOP presidential nominees have come from just five states; Arizona, California, Kansas, Michigan and Texas. Three of those states produced winners, California, Kansas and Texas; accounting for 34 years of Republican control of the presidency in the last 57 years.

Republicans are suspicious of newcomers and tend to “road test” nominees.

Since 1964, every Republican nominee, with the exception of George W. Bush, had previously sought the Republican nomination. Since 1976, the runner-up, again with the exception of 43, has been the nominee the next election cycle.

Nixon was nominated first in 1960 but won in 1968.  In 1976, incumbent Gerald Ford beat back a challenge by Ronald Reagan, who took the nomination in 80. In 1988, it was George HW Bush who won, having been beaten out by Reagan in 80. In 1996, it was Bob Dole who took the nomination, having been beaten by Bush.  And in 2008, it was John McCain who won the GOP prize having been beaten by George W. Bush in 2000.  An uncannily consistent process.

2000 was an anomalous primary year for Republicans. The top ranking candidates from 1996 after nominee Robert Dole were Pat Buchanan (21%), Steve Forbes (11%) and Lamar Alexander ( 3%).  Though Alexander was the candidate most feared by the Clinton White House in ’96, Republican primary voters clearly did not think so.

With Buchanan and Forbes as unacceptable nominees, and with Alexander having a weak claim, 2000 was an unusually open year. With the addition of Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, Orrin Hatch and Gary Bauer, the field continued to be weak.

But for the candidacy of Governor Bush, whose claim was rooted in familial Establishment politics and superior fund-raising, the strongest candidate would have been John McCain, running for the first time. Had Governor Bush not run, McCain in all likelihood would have been the nominee.

In large part because of the weak bench in 2008, 2012 will likely depart from Republican tradition again and be a more open primary like 2000.

 The top three vote getters after McCain in ’08 were Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and, amazingly, Representative Ron Paul.  Of the three, Mitt Romney stands the best chance, given his wealth and network. While it is all but certain that two and perhaps all three will try again in 2012, their showing and limitations in 2008 will ultimately keep them from the capturing the nomination in 2012.

So who is the candidate?

Strategically, the Party will likely gravitate to a candidate who has not been mired in the battles in Washington, as necessary as it is that those battles be fought.

Congressional candidates are less desirable on a number of levels. First, opposition researchers parse procedural votes to create voting records that are distorted at best. Remember Kerry voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

Second, members of Congress have little if any management experience.  This was muted in 2008 as both candidates were Senators, but it will matter in 2012 when Obama will have four years in the White House under his belt.

Simply stated, governors have the closest approximation of responsibilities required of the presidency in our political system.  Federalism also allows states to serve as laboratories of innovation and to allow state programs to reflect a model of governance that can provide voters with an idea of the candidates’ management style, priorities and ability.

Moreover, voters show a preference for executive experience. In the six elections since 1960 where political power changed hands, four candidates ran as sitting or former governors and two as sitting or former vice presidents.  Only Kennedy and Obama won from the Senate. In both cases, their youth ironically compensated for their lack of management experience. Kennedy was the youngest elected president at 43. Obama is the third youngest president since 1960.  Bill Clinton edged him out for the silver by one year upon inauguration.

Historic Party geography would indicate a nominee from the Great Lakes, Plains or West.  This would bode well for Pawlenty, Huntsman or Palin. 

But who has the wherewithal to unseat a sitting president? As everyone knows, unseating an incumbent is no small matter. It has only been done twice since 1952; by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. And with no disrespect President Clinton, he accomplished it after 12 years of Republican rule, when the GOP brand had become stale and won by a plurality. Both victories were achieved amid significant economic and/or foreign policy uncertainty.

So for Republicans, what did Reagan have that set him apart from other candidates in his quest for the nomination?  He had the unflinching faith and enthusiasm of conservative activists at the grassroots that trusted him implicitly. And why was Reagan able to win the electorate at large?  By explaining plainly how conservative principles and values relate and help ordinary Americans in a way that current policy wasn’t working.

Of the three governors, only Palin has that ability right now.

I can almost hear the gasps from the horrified and the giddy.

You know who you are.

During the 2008 campaign this journal documented the attacks and distortions hurled at Governor Palin. Those charges don’t bear repeating here.

But that the caricature endures begs an interesting intellectual question.

If Sarah Palin really is a vacuous, gun-toting, wolf-hunting, religious zealot, expressionless but for hackneyed clichés, why did the liberal establishment commit colossal resources to her political destruction?

Consider that simple media contempt kept Dan Quayle from ever exceeding his political station.

The fact is that the bias exhibited in the examination of Palin pales in comparison to any contemporary politician. Her every word parsed, her every movement examined, her background, upbringing and family subjected to unprecedented levels of intrusion.  Nothing like this was done to Obama, who certainly had his share of views and associations to own up to, and he was the Democratic nominee.

The answer lies in Palin’s authenticity. 

She doesn’t just talk conservative principles; she lives them. That is why she connects so well with the grass roots.  And even if she does not speak for all women (see NOW) her real life experience makes it easier for working women or homemakers to relate to Palin.  Generationally, Palin is as new as Obama, but represents the flip side of hip-urbanism.

When Mitt Romney talks about tax cuts to spur the economy, you get a mental picture of an auto dealer on the hustle or a board meeting on a corporate takeover.  When Palin does it, you see kitchen table economics.

She is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-faith, rugged individualist, a social and economic conservative who balanced family and career and has been successful at both. She doesn’t shoot, fish or ride snowmobiles for the cameras. Her decision to bring a Downs baby to term is a life choice, not a political opportunity.

It is because of this that Palin has become a threat to and the antithesis of what constitutes today’s woman’s movement. For the National Organization of Women (NOW), you can’t be a modern woman without supporting abortion rights. For them, Palin is the definition of heresy, requiring all efforts to prevent her rise to power.

But going beyond gender politics and to the heart of the matter, isn’t Palin, well, stupid?  Type “Palin and stupid” into Google and you get 6 million hits. 

But I am less concerned here.

The elitist Left, which worships on the steps of academia, believes that stupidity is the nuclear weapon of partisan politics; and insult sure to obliterate opponents at whom it is lobbed.

It is also an all purpose response for any question a liberal can’t answer. Go and try, the results will astound you.

Stupidity is subjective for liberals, of course, based not on the quality of the institutions of higher learning for our presidents, but more importantly, the lessons and politics taken from them.

Consider Obama, Kerry, Gore and Clinton.  All Ivy League, and geniuses one and all.  

The New York Times was rapturous in the early days of the Clinton administration when the President would have policy bull-sessions in the Roosevelt Room into the wee hours of the morning, dressed in sweat pants and drinking Diet Coke; all reminiscent of college days.

Republicans? Uniformly dumb. Reagan was brutalized for his lack of intelligence, laziness and war mongering. He ended the Cold War without a shot, reduced strategic nuclear arsenals in half and revived the American economy to its strongest growth in decades, but he was considered a useful idiot of the Right during his presidency. 

George HW Bush, scion of the Eastern Establishment, the youngest naval aviator in WWII and Yale graduate, Congressman, CIA Director and Vice President, “couldn’t figure out a supermarket scanner.” And George W. Bush could have added a degree from Princeton to his sheepskins from Yale and Harvard and still be considered the least intelligent president in American history.

For a liberal to call a Republican dumb, is like a Republican calling a Democrat unpatriotic; it is the ultimate insult, something so consequential to the source that it requires no explanation.

But Joe Six-Pack understands patriotism with a certainty that does not lend itself as easily to the sophisticated metrics of the Upper West Side of New York when it comes to education and intellect; which is why talk of dumb Republicans is rampant and Democrats are forever paranoid about patriotic labels.

So dispense with concern about the “dumb” Palin comments.  What will matter is her record and conduct in office.  With three years of additional seasoning and careful consideration of her 100 days in the glaring national spotlight in 2008, a stronger Palin will emerge.

There is no doubt that Palin had moments during the campaign that gave even Republicans pause. But I wonder how many of us, given the same opportunity, could have done better with 48 hours warning.

What matters most here is that in all the clutch moments, during her announcement, her speech to the convention and her debate with Biden, Palin came through.  She consistently drew bigger and more enthusiastic audiences than McCain throughout the campaign and far over shadowed her opponent, Joe Biden.

In many ways, Obama is the anti-Palin.  A contest between them would not be a debate between old and new, but of right and wrong.

So here we are.

We live in a difficult time. At home, the economy is sagging, with many Americans out of work. Overseas we face complex threats on several fronts, including Iran and a resurgent Russia. Our first-term President talks the American economy down and doesn’t seem to know how to make it right. Our foreign policy seems muddled between a renewed moral presumption and a hollow strategic pragmatism; neither of which advances our true national interests.

And the Republicans best hope? A governor that has been smugly dismissed by the media and the elites of both Parties as well as a chunk of the citizenry. A candidate who is excessively conservative, narrow-minded and just plain stupid.

Oh.

That was 1980.

Obama and the West Side, consider yourselves warned.

© Copyright 2008, Mountain Greenery Productions

Website design by KateKreations. For more information email kate@katekreations.com