US Politics

Peter Wu

15 FEB 2012

Don’t know about you but I am a keen follower of US politics. I love it because it is not only entertaining, it is perhaps the only time that the politicians can be openly ridiculed, poked fun with, get caught out with skeletons in the cupboard, or make a fool of themselves.

Watching the wildly fluctuating primary results so far, it is pretty clear to me that the Republican voters have grave misgivings about the quality of the candidates, or their election platforms, their background. If the Republican voters can see this, so can the Democrats, and the rest of the nation.

Mitt Romney appears to the front-runner so far – only just. However, all indicators tell me that he is the front-runner not because of choice, but because the party has no choice. The other candidates simply don’t measure up. Or they have too many baggage. Or also-runs. If he is eventually nominated to contest the White House, I can’t help but ask myself this question:

Why is it for a country of 340 million people that the party can only come up with a bunch of nit-wits? Admittedly, true presidential materials are rare. But the Democrats have produced two great presidents in recent time, namely Bill Clinton and Obama. For the Republicans, the last person to occupy the White House – Bush Jr – was nothing short of a disaster. Ronald Reagan was hugely popular but was he real presidential material? As a statesmen he was found to be wanting. Hey what do you expect? He was a B-grade movie star after all.

The Democrats are not saying much but I am sure behind closed door, may be some open ones, they are rolling with laughter on the floor. With such weak candidates, they might as well give up and surrender now. Contest. What contest? I think a total humiliation come election time may be too horrendous for the party strategists to think about.

ATTACHMENT

David Usborne: Republicans can choose between scary, nuts, or Romney

What's changed is that he is doing even worse among Republican grassroots voters than four years ago

No doubt about it, the Republicans are in a mess. It had more or less sunk in after his wins in Florida and Nevada that Mitt Romney was going to have to be their nominee this November because everyone else just wasn't viable. Or, less politely, the non-Mitts – Rick, Ron and Newt – were scary, nuts or both.

But there is a problem here and it came into focus on Tuesday night. What if the grassroots of the party just can't stomach Mitt whatever the media and the party elders tell them? What will the party do then?

This could be the conundrum now. Romney was a retread candidate even before the nomination race got under way in Iowa last month. Wasn't he on the menu last time around? He fell flat in 2008 and eventually had to cede the game to John McCain because he was wooden, élitist, too rich and unable to connect. And conservatives were suspicious of his past positions on social issues. So what's changed?

What's changed, remarkably, is that he is doing even worse among Republican grassroots voters than four years ago. Or, at least, he did here on Tuesday. Fighting Mr McCain, who became the nominee, Mr Romney got 60 per cent of the vote in the Colorado caucuses in 2008. This time, against foes that would seem far less formidable, he achieved 35 per cent in this state. This is surely not a good sign.

It rather makes nonsense of the assertion that Romney is a much-improved candidate this time around. Did you watch his speech here on Tuesday night? I was on a balcony above his left shoulder. Put simply, he stank.

We hate to break it to the Republicans but this Mitt is the same lousy candidate he was four years ago and don't kid yourselves that he isn't.

Get out of this muddle if you can.