I am writing this from Dubai one day before South Carolina voters go to the polls. While it might have been nice had I been able to wait until late Saturday night when the votes were counted, with deadlines being deadlines, I must write now. In a way, though, it doesn't matter, since the particular observations I want to make aren't dependent on the outcome.
It makes no difference whether Republican voters decide to give former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich's presidential aspirations a last minute boost or decide to end the party's agony and give former Governor Mitt Romney a decisive win, that might help him clinch the nomination. It makes no difference, because the story of this Republican primary contest has already been written. In short, it has been more of a fratricidal embarrassment than an election. And, in the process, real damage has been done both to the Republican Party and to the country.
It was clear from the beginning that the Tea Party and the religious right would cannibalize the GOP. But watching it play out has been ugly. Their first victims were the more solid and experienced "should've run" Republican governors who chose not to enter the race. Next in line were the "never should've run" half-baked candidates who were each, for a short time, catapulted into the lead of this lack-luster field only to be humiliated and forced to drop out when it became clear that they "were not ready for prime time."
It is Romney who is paying the dearest price, and there is something almost sad about this election's Romney story. He is the classic "born with a silver spoon in his mouth," son of power and wealth, with a picture book family. Other things being equal, one might have thought that Romney would have been "the perfect Republican candidate," but for two deep "flaws": he is a Mormon and his political conversion to conservatism is considered unconvincing by many hardliners. As I watch Romney in debates, fielding challenges from lesser candidates, behind the starched shirt and crisp smile, you can see in his eyes a mix of desperation and anger. It is as if he is saying to himself "I've worked too long and too hard and have been the 'inevitable winner' for too many months for this to be happening to me." What he knows is that each attack has drawn blood and that continuing attacks can prove fatal.
Now I know that politics is rough business, but in my many decades of following presidential campaigns, I've never seen Republicans behaving like this. There is an old adage that says "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." Historically, it is Democrats who have the bitter primaries and then have to make up and embrace at their convention as the party faithful swoons over their new nominee.
This is not to say that Republicans aren't, at times, quite nasty. They have been, but for the most part the GOP had tried to adhere to what have come to be known as "Reagan's 11th Commandment" -- "thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican." And when GOPer's did attack, it was often done discreetly -- with no fingerprints (remember the Bush-team's rumor campaign about McCain having fathered a non-white child, just before the South Carolina primary in 2000). In any case, by the time the party's establishment has made their choice clear, the GOP rank-and-file would respond, stopping their attacks and "falling in line" in support of their party's candidate.
This year's presidential contest started out being quite civil. But a combination of desperate candidates, the fervent desire of some hardliners to block Romney's bid for the nomination, and the explosion of "super PAC's" awash with money, have all contributed to changing this primary's political dynamic.
The attacks have been harsh and they have been sustained. And over time they have only become more intense and personal. As a result, real damage has been done. A recent poll, late this week, showed that: one in six Republicans said that they would not vote for Romney should he win the nomination; almost one half of all Republicans believe that Mormons are not Christians; and, at this late date, four in 10 Republicans remain unsatisfied with the candidates and still hope others will run. None of this adds up to anything good for Romney or for Republican chances in November.
One final observation that I must make is how hurtful this primary has been to America. From my vantage point here in the UAE (where I am teaching a short three week course at New York University's Abu Dhabi campus), each of the GOP debates and the rather bizarre story lines that have shaped this campaign, have made the race for the presidency look more like a clown show than a serious contest to determine who will lead the mightiest nation on earth. Their marriages, their money, their irresponsible hawkishness, and Islamophobia, and what appears to be their willingness to say almost anything, no matter how outrageous, in order to court favor with the hardest of their party's hardliners -- has resulted in producing a long-running embarrassment that, unfortunately, the whole world is watching.
So it doesn't matter who wins South Carolina's primary -- the damage has been done.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
| Romney | Santorum | Gingrich | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delegates | 1.19 Thousand | 265 | 138 | |
| Fundraising | $76 M | $16 M | $21 M | |
| Intrade | $9.62 | $0.03 | $0.01 | |
| 520 K | 200 K | 1.5 M |
Some people may want to attribute Newt's last minute success in the SC "debates" to his skills.It is more complicated than that. Newt skillfully played his race card in front of audiences most vulnerable to blind racial hatred. That was the tie breaker between Mitt and Newt.
While it was shameful, it worked for Newt at this time, for this audience. Only history will reveal the damage done to race relations in this country now, and for months and years to come. Does he really think this country can survive being racially divided? If so, he is the only one on the planet who shares such belief.
I am anxious to see what Newt will do when someone skillfully challenges him on his hypocrisy. How does he demonize the "establishment" and Washington, and otherwise criticize the insiders when he was apparently on the take from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mack? In Newt's skillful way, he is trying to say he was only a strategic adviser to these agencies, not a lobbyist. In the final analysis, the score is Newt (plus 1-2 million) (tax payers minus 1-2 million)
Despite his claims of being a new Newt, this is vintage Newt.
Read this again and vote for jobs. Vote republican
And even though you cannot fully and fairly compare them straight up to Obama's regulations, Bush's high rate of regulations imposed in 2006-2007 is very high.
If your lovely speech was based on facts, you might get more sympathy for your point of view.
Meanwhile, the Florida contest between Romney and Gingrich promises to be unspeakably ugly!
"Tench Warfare".
Knives, Chains and Brass Knuckles.
We can use a bit more hysteria in Washington if it means fewer liberals.
America is just the modern day Roman culture. History repeats itself, the foundation is cracking.
O(bama is far more sophisticated than these fplks. But look where his views have gotten us. Obama called the Israeli settlements both illegal and an obstacle to peace. Isn't he paying for the latest round of settlements, which are designed to loosen the Palestinian grip on East Jerusalem? So how did sophisticated views and legal correctness produce anything valuable?
The basic fact is that the majority of Americans view the rest of the world with ignorance, superiority, and even contempt. Many have gotten these views from watching (and even reading) about the rest of the world in/on the mainstream media.
So, why would you expect Americans to be getting accurate views from the politicians who vie to represent them? Why would you expect intelligent behavior from a guy like Santorum, who's marriage is so weakened by the behavior of people he doesn't know who live across town, across the country, or elsewhere on the planet?
Meanwhile, Romney has been casting himself as middleclass, whilebeing so wealthy that his exact wealth fluctuates by millions daily. Shouldn't he have been laughed off the world stage the first time he made this claim? Instead, he's in the running for being the next prez.
Yeah right, Zogby! And all the mud slinging during the democrat primary was what; class?
THERE WERE NO "UNLAWFUL" WARS!!! You are being conned. Stop listen to your sources and use your own good senses. We were attacked by Afghanistan on 9/11. There is no denying that. Even our enemies didn't deny that. We had the moral right to retaliate, and the legal one, when we entered Afghanistan.
As far as Iraq is concerned, in 1991 Saddam signed a peace agreement that stated U.N. INSPECTORS would come in and verify the destruction of his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. SADDAM SIGNED THAT! I know you know that that's true. that's how he ended the war in 1991. Do you remembered what happened after that? 14 times during the Clinton administration Saddam threw out the inspectors. In 1998 Clinton attacked Iraq. It was legal, and no one claimed that it wasn't. 3 times during the Bush administration Saddam threw out the U.N. inspectors. We had a LEGAL RIGHT to go in. We were also LEGAL because it was approved by congress. That's right! It was approved by republicans and democrats alike. SO HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE "UNLAWFUL?" I doesn't matter if there were weapons or not. Saddam was playing a cat & mouse game. He was responsible.