2010 Sure Is Dragging...

So, as I sat and watched Morning Joe early today (as I always do), a discussion broke out about the 2012 Presidential Election. It carried over into The Daily Rundown with Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd (which I also always watch if I'm still in front of the television). The big question was: why is it taking so long to start? We are already two weeks past midterm election day and nobody on the Republican side has formally announced plans to run for President (though most of them also won't formally say that they aren't either). Many people are probably thinking, "Thank God, a break from campaign season." But for those people like me, who thrive on this kind of thing, we're really sitting on the edges of our respective seats. Chuck Todd pointed out that in 2006, Tom Vilsack announced plans to run for President only TWO DAYS after the midterm election. Now, I realize that didn't turn out quite the way Mr. Vilsack planned, but he seems happy as a cabinet secretary anyway. There are all the candidates, possible candidates, viable candidates, celebrity candidates, formidable candidates, laughable candidates, etc...but nobody seems to want to be the first to put on the boxing gloves and start the fight.

I had already dedicated one post to possible contenders, but let's reemphasize those we may or may not be discussing; and there are different levels of the candidates in my mind. (Disclaimer: the names of these groups do not reflect on the quality of the candidate, just name recognition and perceived interest)

TOP TIER CANDIDATES: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich

LEARN MORE ABOUT THEM CANDIDATES: Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, John Thune

DARK HORSE/CLAIM-NOT-TO-BE-INTERESTED CANDIDATES: Mitch Daniels, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal

Here's what I think the problem is: all of them are worried about jumping in too early and not being able to shore up support across the board. Let's be honest, a lot of their respective constituencies would cross over: The Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich/Barbour/Santorum voters look very similar. Just as the Romney/Thune/Daniels/Christie voters probably all have the same priorities. Nobody wants to get in the ring first, because then he (or she) becomes target #1. And to be honest, the biggest concern is probably the potential "she" in that race. If Ms. Palin decides to jump in, it'll deal a huge blow to Huckabee and Gingrich's chances. That's why she'd wait until later to get in. I am quite surprised that some of those listed in the lower two categories aren't talking more openly about it, because they're going to need time to get their names out there, and set themselves apart from the other well-known Republican contenders. Do we all know Sarah Palin? You betcha. But do we all really know John Thune? I don't think so. Jeb Bush deals an interesting blow to the field too. His name is quite "well known" so he may not have to take time introducing himself to the country, but he may very well need to use that time polishing that name. Will the Tea Party rise up and get Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich as their nominee (and probably lose a blowout to Barack Obama in the general) or will Republicans believe that it's going to take policy intellect and rhetorical moderation to beat a sitting President and nominate someone else?

And all this time, President Obama (and his team in the White House) sit back and salivate at the thought of some of these contenders. You can bet that they'll be campaigning against some of these folks in the near future. They'll start their subtle attack early and many contenders in the field (i.e., when the President referenced Governor Romney when talking about healthcare). You'll start to see that more and more. They'll begin to juxtapose their own positions with those who they see as possible 2012 opponents. And they'll start doing it very soon. They pretty much already have. They can run against all the Republicans and their ideas (or lack thereof) at once. But my question for the White House is: what do you do if the Republican ticket isn't the only one you're running against??? Did you see the Huffington Post story about an independent bid being shopped around? If you haven't you should:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/bloomberg-scarborough-2012-president_n_784593.html

People are always chatting about possible third party bids...we'll here's what is probably your best shot at it for a while. An actual Independent Presidential ticket consisting of President Bloomberg and Vice-President Scarborough. So what do you do then if you're the White House? Michael Bloomberg is a true independent, who's done marvelous things for the city of New York, and he's pro-choice and pro-gun control just like the Democratic president...but Joe Scarborough is pro-life and pro-gun, presumably like whoever the Republican nominee will be. You can bet an independent ticket will have to work a million times as hard and strive not to highlight the differences between Bloomberg and Scarborough, but the similarities; in other words, they'll focus 99% of their energy and attention on FISCAL issues and claim that neither party has had a viable, working solution that's good for the middle class. So what do you do? What if the 2012 race looks like this: Obama/Biden (D) vs. Bloomberg/Scarborough (I) vs. Romney/Thune (R). What does that look like when election night is over. Who do you vote for and why? The announcements may have not come yet...but believe me, they're coming.

Make No Mistake...

Alright, so let's not mince words here: Georgia is a red state. A pure, through-and-through, red state; at least as far as this cycle goes. It hurts to lose in such a sweeping manner, it really does. But I can handle loss; there were some legitimate, hard-fought races that were settled last night: Agriculture Commissioner, won by Gary Black...who I voted for (Congrats Gary), State School Superintendent, won by John Barge, who I did not support, but is at least competent in the educational field, U.S. Senator, handily won by Johnny Isakson; no surprise there, even the Governor's race, which I think must have been one of the smelliest races, because everyone I've talked to, who voted for Deal or for Barnes, said they held their nose while they did it, etc, etc, etc...

What I don't like about this "wave" of conservatism is that some really BAD candidates got (re)-elected last night too, for no other reason than they were Republicans in a Republican year. I cannot see how anybody with two ears or a brain could cast a vote for Casey Cagle. The man has a silver tongue, yes; but the luster only hides the fangs. Devoid of any conscience or ethical guidepost, he coasted to victory on the (R) by his name. Just like Sam Olens. A terrible candidate for Attorney General, won his race pretty easily because of his party. Just like Mark Butler in the Labor Race, dogged by ethics complaints. All these terrible candidates, with nothing to offer but party labels and enough ethical questions to keep that commission up for nights on end, made it to top statewide offices because it was a "Republican year." Because "conservatives" voted straight ticket ballots in this "Republican year." I didn't even do that. I lean Democratic most of the time, but I didn't let the little (D) or (R) make the final decision for me. I don't know what voters were thinking, because they weren't. They weren't thinking. They were following the R's like sheep. Well, let me be the one to break it to you: because you voted by the letter and not by the candidate, you missed out on Carol Porter. Ms. Carol is one of the most intelligent, talented, articulate, and ethically sound candidates I've ever had the privilege of meeting for any office, any where, whatsoever. Period. And yet, people just didn't seem to care. It's okay though, I'm willing to bet this won't be the last time you see her on a ballot (at least that's my hope). Make no mistake about it.

The U.S. House of Representatives morphed into a bit of Red Sea itself last night. And I don't think that had as much to do with the President as it did with Speaker Pelosi. She was the whipping girl on that side of Congress this year. I didn't prefer her as speaker anyway, but it doesn't matter now. (Soon to be) Speaker Boehner will find out what it's like to have national eyes on you all the time. The wave was somewhat mild in the Senate. As Democrats held on in West Virginia, California, Colorado, and most surprisingly by a large margin in Nevada. You just can't seem to beat Harry Reid. I would also like to say to the Tea Party: I know you guys would love to take credit for the enthusiasm and the wins, but there were some places last night, where you got nailed to the wall. Voters were angry, but not stupid. The stamped return to sender on your Sharron Angle, your Christine O'Donnell, your Ken Buck, and it looks like the voters of Alaska are about to slap you in the face and keep their Senior Senator Lisa Murkowski. They'd rather manually write-in her name than have to swallow anything brewed by Sarah Palin and Joe Miller. And you should remember that come 2012; just because your radical, incompetent, out-of-the-mainstream candidates can win primaries, does NOT mean they can win general elections. In states where it counts, moderate candidates win general elections. Period. This is why you'll hear many Democrats say they hope Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012; cause she can sure win a Republican primary...but get (as President Bush once eloquently put it) a "thumpin'" in the general election.

All in all, only time will tell. Can Congress get things done? Can they work together and compromise? Can Speaker Boehner lead more cohesively than Ms. Pelosi? Can the President and Republicans find common ground? And can Republicans and (Tea Party) Republicans coexist in the same legislative building without tearing one another apart? Make no mistake, it's all calculated with 2012 in mind. Oh and by the way, just in case you were wondering when the 2012 Presidential Election talk starts...it already has ;-)