Bionic Man

Why should Republicans settle for just one nominee?

Posted

Like a lot of Republicans, I‘m not feeling the love for any of our potential nominees. Mitt Romney’s polls are stuck in the low to mid 20s. Most of his opponents have a brief time in the sun and then fade away. Republicans are like the beautiful girl at a cocktail party who keeps looking over her date’s shoulder to see if someone better is coming in the door.

No one has yet ignited the party. But, to win the nomination and ultimately the White House, a candidate needs thousands of true believers working 24/7. Would you run over your grandmother to get Romney elected? I didn’t think so. Mitt is the kind of guy you want your daughter to date: polite, presentable and gets her home by 10pm.

To win, our party needs an irrational passion that our guy, and only our guy, can save the country. Four years ago, Obama had it, as did Hillary; McCain did not. Jack Kennedy had it in 1960; Goldwater did in 1964; Nixon, believe it or not, had it in 1968. Reagan and Clinton, of course, did. Bush didn’t; W did. Gore and Kerry were a bust. But, when you’re an incumbent with a dismal record, performance trumps passion, which is why we can’t squander such a golden opportunity to win the White House.

I’ve got a question for my fellow Republicans: Why do we have to settle for a single candidate? Let’s combine the strengths of each and morph them into one great, unbeatable candidate. Surely there’s a secret laboratory somewhere in Nevada that could do this mash-up.

Let’s start with Romney. He looks, talks and acts like a president. Other than George Clooney or Tom Hanks, who better fits that role? Tall, trim, good looking, smart, rich, well spoken. Great family. No scandals. He knows how to take over failing institutions - like the Winter Olympics - and make them successful. He was elected governor in a liberal state and did a credible job. (Never mind about that health care thing – nobody’s perfect.)

And while Mitt may not be an expert on foreign policy, we can leave all that to John Huntsman. He’s an ambassador to China, he speaks fluid Mandarin and he’s a former governor. As a bonus, he has beautiful, fun loving daughters who are great on TV. He can’t go anywhere but up.

What about Newt? Just as the American League has a DH, Newt should be our DD – Designated Debater. Newt is the smartest guy in either party and with little money or organization, he’s at or near the top of the polls. Of course, we wouldn’t want him to actually be president, but think what he could add to this mash-up ticket. And, boy, would Tiffany’s be pleased. For extra measure we should include Bachman and Santorum to shore up the social conservatives and the Tea Party folks. Let’s not forget to mention Ron Paul for the isolationist grouchy contrarian vote.

I feel certain that with this mash-up morph mega fusion nominee we can easily win back the White House. Then we can create jobs, lower the deficit, limit the growth and power of the Federal government, reform the tax code, re-build the middle class, become energy independent, curb the power of public employee unions, have an enlightened foreign policy and get Congress to work together.

I’m kidding about the last one.

Bob Gardner is the president of The Advocacy Group in San Francisco, a veteran Republican ad man and an occasional visitor to Rhode Island. He also couldn’t be happier to see Linc Chafee reassigned to the State House and out of Washington so that he can stop doing harm as the “pretend” Republican he always was.