Why Are GOP Voters Unhappy With This Field?

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Looking at these two posts, we're left with a mysterious question: Why is the expected Republican turnout lower than in 2000, when it was, in my humble opinion, a weaker field?

Eight years ago, several of the contenders in Iowa had never been elected to statewide office - Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes. The frontrunner, George W. Bush, had spent at that point a grand total of five years in elected office. Of two who had been elected to statewide office multiple times, one chose not to compete in Iowa (McCain) and one was an afterthought (Orrin Hatch).

By comparison, this field includes a governor who served for ten years, a senator who won twice and served eight years, a two-term mayor of the biggest city in the country, and McCain, a member of Congress since 1982, is competing in Iowa this time. Romney is the comparably inexperienced one, and I've heard few people contend that their biggest gripe with him is inexperience; between his business accomplishments and the Olympics turnaround, most people think he makes the cut. Even the trailing candidates, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter bring decades of experience in government to the table.

Heck, the guys who have dropped out so far - Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo - have more experience in government than Forbes, Bauer and Keyes.

Is it that the job of the presidency looks different in 2008 than it did in 2000? Does a dangerous world, with complicated problems at home and abroad, seem to require a greater man (or woman) to handle the responsibility?

01/03 11:27 AM Share