I guess the GOP primary nomination race is really hotting up right now. I got the shock of my life yesterday when I heard that Donald Trump wasn’t running (but he managed to again plug Celebrity Apprentice). Huckabee also took a bow out of the race, preferring to take the Anti-Reagan root and stay in show business. 18 months until the election and the news regarding the Republican nomination race is about who is not running? I’m from the UK, so I’ve only paid attention to US Presidential elections since 2000, so I don’t know whether this is the done thing around these parts.
No one will say it, but even with unemployment at 9%, a budget deficit which is like an anvil hovering above America’s heads and a Health-Care bill which sends conservative activists foaming at the mouth- Obama is bloody difficult to beat. While people are trying to flipping the argument and declaring Obama’s venerability because of the issues states above, no one is asking the question “why can’t the GOP rally around a candidate, any candidate who is serious of economic issues to head up against Obama?” Again, the unemployment level is at 9%, it will be difficult for Obama to get it under 8% come next November, and even thats not much to shout about – where is the candidate that can beat the man?
I am firmly in the Lawrence O’Donnell side of the argument, which is that from the field presented, only Tim Pawlenty has a real shot at beating Obama. He is boring enough to beat Obama, and believe me the GOP need a boring, uninteresting candidate who is solid on the issues that matter to the people that need to move away from Obama and vote for Republicans – independents.
Which brings me to the other “serious” candidate being tested by GOP operatives, Mitch Daniels – a candidate who I also feel hasn’t a shot in beating Obama. I personally think the personal stuff is none of anyones business, but that makes him a lot more interesting and colourful than he needs to be in the 2012 race. But its not his family situation, the red mark against Mitch Daniels name, for me, is the fact that he was George W Bush’s economic adviser. It will not take a superstar of a political strategist to construct a winning response to Mitch Daniel’s candidacy – “Handing the keys to same people that drove the economy into a ditch” and “George W Bush 3.0 (John McCain being 2.0)” – being the obvious ones.
If you’re not a partisan and don’t care much for the social nonsense but you care about economics, Mitch Daniels is not your guy. If you hate the economy America is living with at the moment, Mitch is not your guy. He may not be totally at fault, but the guy did have a say in what went down during the Bush Administration and the economic policy positions they took.
I am going to leave the last words to my girl Rachel, who (briefly) makes my point about Mitch Daniels.
Just a normal everyday bloke writing about films.