Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    The Week

    The increasingly worthless GOP nomination

    Mitt Romney is pandering so desperately to the far-right fringe that he's become all but unelectable in November

    By all accounts, Mitt Romney won what may be the last Republican presidential debate. Little good it will do him if in the process he suffers the loss of the general election.

    Romney's performance on Wednesday in Arizona was both adequate and alienating. Spraying out a fusillade of negative research, he oppo-bombed a flummoxed Rick Santorum. Mitt even had the nerve to attack Rick for endorsing Arlen Specter, his pro-abortion-rights GOP Senate colleague from Pennsylvania, for re-election in 2004. Santorum lacked the minimal deftness to respond that Romney himself was in favor of abortion rights back then. The Massachusetts governor who has morphed into a reborn Michigander pressed on: The author of RomneyCare accused Santorum of being responsible for ObamaCare because Specter had voted for it. Santorum was also relentlessly earmarked on stage; the latest incarnation of the non-Romney suddenly looked like the also-ran he has been for most of the campaign. He earned a D+ grade from Game Change author Mark Halperin

    SEE MORE: The 'old, white' voters picking the GOP nominee: By the numbers

    In the Arizona debate, Mitt may have staunched his bleeding in the primaries, but he opened his veins for November.

    The debate may have been a game changer in Michigan, letting Romney slip by next Tuesday in a state he should have carried with ease. If so, he will be on his way to a reluctant nomination primarily because no one else can be the nominee. 

    SEE MORE: Are 'tone-deaf' Republicans ignoring mainstream voters?

    It will be a negative victory for a mediocre politician. Halperin accorded Romney a middling B- for his debate performance. He was artificial as usual, stiff even while sitting in a chair instead of mechanically gesturing from a podium. He was a snarky know-it-all talking down to his opponents and CNN's John King. At any moment, he looked as if he was about to turn to Santorum and say, "You're fired." It was as if the office of the presidency was a codicil in his trust fund.

    Romney's campaign, with superior resources and organization, packed the room with a claque that applauded on cue. But on television, the candidate continued his long march toward an image as unlikable as it is inauthentic. As the longtime political strategist and LGBT leader David Mixner observed to me, Romney came across as "everyone's boss." A months-long series of verbal missteps into indifference and callousness toward ordinary Americans, combined with the pressure in the primaries to move hard right, have already scarred Romney's favorability ratings with independents and general election voters. Among women, for example, the new Quinnipiac survey shows him with a net unfavorable of -15 percent

    SEE MORE: 4 ways super PACs are good for democracy

    Therein lies the potentially fatal weakness that goes beyond the well-coiffed candidate's starched persona. As he demonstrated in this debate, he's so desperate to pander his way to the nomination that he's making it increasingly worthless. 

    Yes, at first he tried to duck King's question about contraception, complaining that George Stephanopoulos had raised the issue in an earlier debate. "Why in the world," Romney pushed back, was "he going there?" But after Santorum raised the stakes with a jeremiad about "teens who are sexually active," Romney obviously felt compelled to join in the anti-birth-control chorus. He saw Santorum and raised him, bashing his vote for an appropriations bill that included a provision known as Title X, which provides reproductive services for women. 

    SEE MORE: Who is stronger against Obama: Santorum or Romney?

    Mitt's message was clear: I may not want to talk about it. My rhetoric isn't all that hot. (You haven't heard me mention Satan lately.) But I'll go where I have to, and if you want an extreme social conservative, I'm your man.

    This may do for the primary — it may be essential — but it's a disaster in the making for the fall campaign. Romney's cynical hope has to be that his shape-shifting will convince voters he doesn't really mean this stuff. He can pray that his character weakness is his saving grace — that his reputation for lying about his beliefs will pull him back from the edge of a gender gap that will otherwise pose an unbridgeable barrier to the White House. The longer the primaries drag on, and the more he has to profess his hostility to women's rights, the less likely it is that he can ever convince the majority who are women to take a chance on him. 

    SEE MORE: The GOP's 'fiercely combative' final debate: 5 talking points

    But let's not stop there — because Romney's panderathon didn't. He praised Arizona's ethnic-profiling immigration law as a "model" for the nation. By November, this appeal to the Tea Party will ferment into political hemlock. As Karl Rove correctly calculated, a Republican nominee can't prevail without claiming about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. George W. Bush got just enough — 44 percent — in his close re-election battle with John Kerry. Afterwards, Bush joined with Ted Kennedy and John McCain in an effort to enact immigration reform. The congressional GOP and the grassroots rebelled; McCain, facing the same xenophobia that suffuses this year's primary electorate, recanted. Republicans sounded like throwbacks to the Know-Nothings who spewed venom and violence against Catholic immigrants in the 19th century. 

    SEE MORE: What will the GOP do if Mitt Romney implodes?

    On his way to losing the presidency, McCain won just 31 percent of Hispanics. In an ABC News/Latino Decisions for Univision News poll, only 25 percent now favor Romney over Obama. In the Arizona debate, Romney surely eroded even that. 

    His campaign may be counting on picking a Hispanic running mate to inch back up — most probably Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, or conceivably one of the recently minted Hispanic governors of New Mexico or Nevada. But post-Palin, a conscientious nominee has to be careful in his vice-presidential vetting, especially with choices who have been in high office for less than two years. Moreover, Rubio, who's Cuban-American, could have limited appeal to other Hispanics. And in any event, a surname almost certainly can't make up for an anti-immigrant position that feeds on prejudice and propagates anti-ethnic slurs. 

    SEE MORE: The latest tweets about the GOP presidential debate

    Color and ethnic identification don't trump issues. Republican Michael Steele, an African-American, captured barely 20 percent of the African-American vote in his Maryland Senate bid in 2006. Voters who shared his race were repelled by the GOP's hostility to civil rights and economic justice. No other African-American seeking major office has done as well with African-Americans as Steele — and that high water mark was pathetically low. So for Romney, relying on a Hispanic running mate to sell or compensate for his shameful capitulation on immigration may be all he's got, but it won't be enough. 

    This is not the GOP that has won in the past — where a grace note has modulated the mobilization of the base. The allegedly war-mongering Ronald Reagan, in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter, pledged to reduce and not use nuclear weapons — and it turned out that he meant it, to the consternation of the neo-cons. The first George Bush called for "a kinder, gentler" conservatism; the second for "compassionate conservatism" — even if it turned out he didn't mean it. In contrast, Romney boasts of a "severely" conservative ideology; as he kowtows to the right-wing on social issues and immigration, he signals that he would tear us apart. And if the economy continues to improve, he's painting himself into a narrow electoral corner. The party of "no" may be about to select a nominee with "no exit" into the mainstream. 

    SEE MORE: The 'most volatile race in history': Why GOP voters can't make up their minds

    From Oklahoma to Ohio, which both vote on March 6, and then onto Wisconsin and across the Midwest, Romney is well behind Santorum in the polls. He will have to keep pandering — and above all, right now, he has to win Michigan.

    In the Arizona debate, he may have staunched his bleeding in the primaries, but he opened his veins for November.

    SEE MORE: Wednesday's 'last shot' presidential debate: What to expect

    View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

    Other stories from this topic:

    Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

     

    78 comments

    • Topkick  •  3 mths ago
      I know he was very subtle about it, but did anyone else get the feeling that the writer of this article is less than enthusiastic about Romney.?
      • susan 3 mths ago
        Seriously..how can anyone be enthusiastic about any of the republican candidates? Geez Louise...they have to be able to come up with something better than this three ring circus they are running!
      • Reuben Bright 3 mths ago
        No, they have to come up with something better than the incumbent.
      • Topkick 3 mths ago
        Agreed Reuben! And therein lies the rub! (WS)
    • Cat Lady  •  Wallingford, Connecticut  •  3 mths ago
      Any candidate has to be careful when choosing a running mate. We all saw what happened to John McCain when he chose Sarah Palin, who had next to no real political experience, but she was a woman. Women were smart enough to realize they were being pandered to, and they resented the fact that McCain thought they were not smart enough to think critically about his choice. He thought female voters would just jump on his bandwagon because his V.P. choice had breasts (he really dated himself with his Archie Bunker mentality). Any political candidate who underestimates groups of voters, like women, Hispanics, or African-Americans is going to get a big surprise. Too much is riding on this election. People are educating themselves about the issues. Candidates need to do the same.
      • Maverick 3 mths ago
        At least Palin was easier to look at than old Hillery.
      • MikeyT 3 mths ago
        While I am not a Sarah Palin fan, she had more executive experience than Obama. And look at the problems we have now.
      • steve 3 mths ago
        Women voters didn't reject McCain/ Palin because they felt pandered to. They rejected them because they had been insulted....Sarah Palin is an idiot.
    • MICHAEL  •  Roanoke, Virginia  •  3 mths ago
      They're all totally worthless, and are going to have their buttocks soooooo totally handed to them in November that it's not even worth worrying about.
    • FORWARD  •  3 mths ago
      Isn't allowing a child to starve to death because of no food to eat just as bad as abortion? Why are the Republicans against food assistance for the very same kids to swore to protect at birth or before?
      • Maverick 3 mths ago
        The real question is: Why did someone decide to be a parent before they figured out how to make a living? I am not your keeper. Grow up.
      • Lisa 3 mths ago
        Well said, PBR!
      • FORWARD 3 mths ago
        Lisa/PBR----Is RAPE included?
    • nick d  •  Mentor, Ohio  •  3 mths ago
      RIP GOP! Get religion out of government please.
    • Daves thoughts  •  Chicago, Illinois  •  3 mths ago
      as usual if the article doesn't flater the gop morons the article is biased,the reporter is a liberal and the whole thing is pandering to obama. when are you republitards going to realize we don't want your stupid notions to be part of our agenda..look at the stars bachman..(the idiot) cain (the womanizer) and palin (the quitter) and you idiots think you have somthing to say..hahahahahaha
      • Maverick 3 mths ago
        Think about this this Dave. I want you to have all the freedom and liberty that I have and will fight for yours with my last breath, lest I lose mine. The name calling is expected in a lively debate but not really necessary.
      • Lisa 3 mths ago
        Robert Shrum IS a noted liberal.
      • Sam 3 mths ago
        Vote Ron Paul-because if we default on this 16 trillion dollar debt, there won't be anyone laughing including you.
    • Bill  •  3 mths ago
      So these people are actually the best that the Republican party can possibly come up with? Seriously? The best of the best? Cream o' the crop? I almost feel embarrassed for them. Almost.
      • k w vet 3 mths ago
        well we have always felt ,embarrassed,for you left wing demorat commies,for what you put in office Almost
      • nazi feminist 3 mths ago
        I wouldn't pick any of them out of a big group, but they are all at least 3 levels better than what we have now.
      • chris 3 mths ago
        Too true Bill. No leaders in that group. Santorum is convinced Satan is real and is a bigger threat to our country than taxing the rich.
    • Capt. Thunderpants  •  Houston, Texas  •  3 mths ago
      The GOP candidates are fighting over who will be the runner up in November's election.
    • Jason  •  3 mths ago
      I read all these comments about the economy being worse than when President Obama took office and then look at the numbers to see the facts. When I look at the economic numbers I see consumer credit ratings higher than when he took office. I see new homes higher than when he took office. Unemployement has stayed the same even under the lowest tax rates in history which is very odd since low taxes is suppose to create jobs. When are these low tax rates going to start creating jobs? Most unbiased economist (not ruled by political party, emotion, or predjudice) agree with the policies of President Obama. I see our troops out of Iraq where they should have never been to begin with. I see him currently not rushing into another war with Iran when many warmongers want to just jump in there a blow something up. Osama is dead and we are getting out of our second country. I see a President that when a majority was held for two years, he still worked to include the whole country instead of cram policies down others throats. I watched him try to work with leaders to find solutions for the Speaker to not even answer the phone. So could someone without having to resort to personal attackes give concrete reasons of how Obama has destroyed this country.
    • richard  •  3 mths ago
      the gop should throw the towel in
    • A Yahoo User  •  3 mths ago
      I loathe Ron Paul's followers ... they do him more harm than good by constantly spamming their "It's Paul or Oblivion" nonsense. But I will have to say in all honesty that Paul made the most sense of anyone on that stage in Arizona the other night. He was finally given a chance to participate and made some good points.
    • Mr. Tea Bagg  •  Atlanta, Georgia  •  3 mths ago
      I don't understand? What do Republicans have against birth control?
    • Reuben Bright  •  3 mths ago
      Good to know that though the Republican primary is still being decided, the Oracle of Delphi has concluded that Romney will win Republican glory, but loose the general battle in the end.
    • Rocketman1945  •  Boston, Massachusetts  •  3 mths ago
      This GOP campaign is a textbook example of how not to run one. No one involved at any level has done anything right yet. Please, oh please, get Saint Sarah to inject herself into this farce. The comic relief would be intense!
    • David  •  3 mths ago
      I bought those Obama coffee cups with the birth certificate on one side and 'Born in the USA' on the other side of them out of the online Obama campaign store, and gave them as Christmas presents to a couple-friend of mine who are STAUNCH, ultra conservatives, and who have bought virtually every lie since the beginning on the 'birther' movement from their right-wing media outlets..
      Haven't heard rom them in a while- I'll have to call them. They're probably busy as all get up with their redstate blogs, tea parties and the like. Wow it must blow being them, realizing the weak repulsive candidates in the GOP. After this November leaves them manic depressive after Obama beats whoever they pick...I think I may get them either a spa pass, or some therapy sessions...They'll need um.
    • jimjus  •  Richmond, Virginia  •  3 mths ago
      We can have two types of people in Republican Party. One: he must be a backward religious person. The second one must be a tax cheat crony vulture capitalist. Intelligent person can’t choose Republican Party. If you want to survive in Republican Party you must talk about religion, sex, birth control, guns and 17th century life style. They can’t fit in 21st scientific world.
    • FORWARD  •  3 mths ago
      What does Republicans have against people, in general?
    • Stephen  •  Cicero, Illinois  •  3 mths ago
      Not only is Rick Santorum a fake but, according to Arlen Specte, he is also a liar.
    • Edward  •  3 mths ago
      "Many of the conservatives want to eliminate entitlement programs, criminalize abortion, ignore climate change, and essentially return America to the 1950s. Most mainstream Americans "want no part of their actual agenda.""
      I second that opinion...
    • DanP  •  San Diego, California  •  3 mths ago
      GOP goes to the JUNK YARD, looking for spare parts, thinkin they thunk.
      singing" If I only had a brain!"