Look, No Offense, Guys, But We Don't Need All 17 of You Running for President.
Matt Lewis has a book coming out where he discusses his view of the "perverse incentives" for GOP candidates. With Jim Gilmore's announcement that he intends to become the 17th Republican candidate join the race for president this cycle, it's time for all of us on the right to have a serious talk about the perverse incentives for long-forgotten political figures to announce they're running for president. Did this begin when Huckabee got his weekend show on Fox News? Is it that the perks associated with even a short-lived presidential campaign — bigger speaking fees for those no longer in office, more television appearances, a big book deal, the perception that your endorsement may matter later in the primary — are just too enticing, and the consequences of flopping as an also-ran are just too small? Is it that after a cycle where Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich all got to enjoy being frontrunner for a month, everyone thinks they deserve a turn on the roller coaster? 
Take a look at Gilmore's argument for himself: 'I bring to the table experience that others don't have.' Gilmore, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, was governor during the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. He later headed the Gilmore Commission, a congressional panel that advised Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush on domestic capabilities for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. Actually, being a governor of a state that responded to the 9/11 attacks is on George Pataki's resume, too. Gilmore said that in announcing in early August he is not seeking a bounce that might put him into the first Republican presidential debate, which Fox News Channel will host Aug. 6 in Cleveland. In order to qualify for that debate, a candidate must be in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls, as of Aug. 4. Gilmore said those rules will reward 'the most flamboyant,' and 'the most theatrical' GOP candidates. If you're a Republican and you think the lesson of the Obama era is that presidential nominees don't need theatricality, charm, and charisma, I wonder if you've been hibernating. In fact… where the heck have you been, Jim Gilmore? In the minds of Republicans, President Obama and his team have been fervently at work in their task of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Passing Obamacare. Wrecking our relationships with our allies while bending over backward to accommodate our enemies. Dismissing ISIS as a "JV team." Trading five Taliban for a guy who deserted. Lying to the country about Benghazi. Running up the debt. Wasting stimulus funds. Politicizing the IRS. Making an abominable mess at the VA. Issuing an executive order quasi-amnesty. Where's Gilmore been for the past seven years? Tea-party activists or grassroots conservatives, as you look back at the past seven years or so, do you feel like Jim Gilmore had your back? I remember somebody asked a question like this, perhaps unfairly, of Ben Carson, something in the vein of, "I love what he said at that national prayer breakfast speech. I loved the courage he showed, speaking his mind on sensitive topics like Obamacare with a disapproving president sitting up on that stage with him. That took real courage. But that was 2013. Where was he when the Tea Party was fighting Obamacare? Where was he when Obama was rising in 2007 and 2008? Where was he when Romney was trying to make Obama a one-term president in 2012?" It's easy to forget Jim Gilmore ran for president for about six months in 2007. 
And the last race Gilmore ran, a 2008 Senate race in Virginia, he lost, by more than 30 percentage points, to Democrat Mark Warner. Do Trump Fans Realize How Badly He Polls Against Hillary Clinton? I realize that if you're a Trump fan right now, energized by his in-your-face combativeness with the media and anyone who disagrees with him, I'm unlikely to change your mind on his qualities as a GOP presidential candidate. But let's take Stephen Covey's advice to "begin with the end in mind" — presumably that is conservative governance — and recognize that to achieve it, we need a Republican president. And as much as Trump may be rising in the polls of the GOP primary, let's take a look at his numbers head-to-head against Hillary Clinton: CNN: Clinton 59 percent, Trump 35. Fox News: Clinton 51 percent, Trump 34. Quinnipiac: Clinton 50 percent, Trump 32. Could those numbers change? Sure. But Trump has pretty high name-recognition as is, so the usual explanation that the gap "just reflects that fewer Americans have heard of him" doesn't fit. A rational Trump fan would at least acknowledge that beginning with a 17 to 24 point deficit represents a major challenge, and recognize that electing him would be a Herculean task. (One caveat: that CNN poll had Hillary ahead of Rubio by 16, Walker by 17, and Bush by 13, so perhaps we can argue that it was a Democrat-heavy sample. Most polls have these candidates trailing by single digits or tied with Hillary.) Because it's not just Democrats or independents who don't like Trump! Here's Harry Enten last month: Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him. A whopping 57 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to an average of the three most recent polls. That beats former record holder Pat Buchanan, who had a 43 percent unfavorable rating at this point in the 2000 election cycle Taking into account name recognition, Trump's net favorability rating (favorable minus unfavorable) of -32 percentage points stands out for its pure terribleness at this point in the campaign. Like his unfavorable rating, it is by far the worst of the 106 presidential candidates since 1980 who are in our database. Anyone who wants GOP skeptics to take a fresh look at Trump has to come up with some reason to believe that Trump's favorable/unfavorable numbers will significantly change for the better in the next 16-17 months. Now take the last two pollsters to measure Hillary against Ben Carson. (Because there are so many Republican presidential candidates, pollsters aren't surveying respondents on every possible head-to-head matchup.) Fox News: Clinton 46, Carson 41. PPP: Clinton 46, Carson 43. Ben Carson looks like a much safer bet than Donald Trump in a general election. I suspect none of this will be persuasive to Trump's fans; the thinking seems to be, "if you can't see why this man needs to be our next president, you're a hopeless idiot." (Funny how fan bases tend to emulate the figure they adore.) Neither the candidate nor his fan base are all that interested in building a path to enough delegates and 270 electoral votes. They mostly want to rant. Last night at happy hour, we shared some laughs about Twitter users who feel the need to list who has blocked them in their biography. (If you don't use Twitter, "blocking" is just what it sounds like — adjusting settings so that you don't see what a person writes.) Not only is there a certain oddity in people feeling that who blocked them is one of the most important things about them to share with the world, but they're certain this speaks well of them. Look, when people don't want to listen to us, we prefer to think it's because of our bravery, our willingness to tell it like it is, and that those who walk away from us are like Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, unable to handle the truth. Sometimes that's the case. And sometimes it's just that you're a jerk. When you're driving, and somebody passes you on the right, that other driver is terrible. But when you're driving and everybody is passing you on the right, you're terrible. Ariana Grande Has Been Downgraded to Ariana Tall We may have reached Peak Celebrity Obnoxiousness. California police said Wednesday they are investigating a video that appears to show pop superstar Ariana Grande licking doughnuts. Police in Lake Elsinore, where the donut shop is located, say they and Riverside County public health officials were investigating the leaked video, which appears to show the 22-year-old and a man with her "maliciously lick" the doughnuts on top of a counter. Mayra Solis, 22, a cashier at Wolfee Donuts who was on duty when Grande went into the store, said the singer didn't purchase any of the doughnuts she appears to lick. The same video, which was posted by TMZ on Tuesday, also shows Grande blurting out "What the f--k is that? I hate Americans. I hate America.' Grande's explanatory statement belongs in the Non-Sequitur Hall of Fame: 'I am EXTREMELY proud to be an American and I've always made it clear that I love my county (sic),' Grande told FOX411 in a statement. 'What I said in a private moment with my friend, who was buying the donuts, was taken out of context and I am sorry for not using more discretion with my choice of words.' Grande said she chose to express herself as she did because she leads a healthy lifestyle and is upset with "how freely we as Americans eat and consume things without giving any thought to the consequences." 'The fact that the United States has one of the highest child obesity rates in the world frustrates me," she said in a statement to The Associated Press. "We need to do more to educate ourselves and our children about the dangers of overeating and the poison that we put into our bodies. "However I should have known better in how I expressed myself; and with my new responsibility to others as a public figure I will strive to be better.' Riiiiight. Don't mess with the U.S., and don't mess with doughnuts. 
ADDENDA: I'm scheduled to appear on On the Record w/Greta Van Susteren this evening. | 
Comments
Post a Comment