Anyone else fascinated by the post mortems following the collapse of Scott Walker’s presidential campaign Monday? Each one seems to be bringing another facet to light on what was supposed to be one of the leading candidates.
From a newsroom perspective, writing the headlines could have been fun, playing with the surname:
Walker
quits
race
or
Walker
ends
run
for instance, except that officially he’s only suspended his campaign – the technical difference meaning he can still accept financial contributions. So maybe it’s more
End of the road for Walker.
One of the telling strands for me is that the Wisconsin governor spent most of his campaign chest building a national organization rather than concentrating on the face-to-face opportunities of the first-round states. I haven’t heard much about the traditional New Hampshire living room presentations by White House hopefuls so far this round, and after last weekend’s Michigan straw poll, in which the winners were all folks who showed up, unlike the so-called frontrunners, let me return to the importance of building a following one voter at a time rather than by flooding the airwaves with ads.
In other words, this Walker didn’t lose much shoe leather walking from household to household making himself a household name around here. Or, apparently, in Iowa, which borders on his own Wisconsin.
From a campaign finance point of view, it costs peanuts to rent a motel room and move about, if you’re serious about running. Or, for the more committed, renting an apartment.
The national stories, as you may have seen, are raising detailed questions about his integrity, spending, organization, preparation, demeanor, inner character, inability to lead, and so on. One that I’d add spins off from his assertions that God had called him to run – a claim supported by his pastor. From my perspective, that just might violate the Fourth Commandment, taking the name of the LORD in vain. As the New Jerusalem Bible translates the text (Exodus 20:7), “You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name.” (Name meaning power, rather than a word alone.) Admittedly, nobody really expects humility from a campaigner, no matter how much the faithful are supposed to practice it. Still! A dose of it wouldn’t hurt.
Some other interesting examinations are focusing on the failure of big money, meaning the super PACs, to deliver public support thus far in the race. Well, it’s still early. Just wait.
~*~
The other hot development involves the GOP’s two leading candidates at the moment. Surely the Donald didn’t expect to get through this unscathed, did he? Carly Fiorina’s getting traction in her attacks on him, but it comes at a price. As a Washington Post headline put it today: “Trump’s sexism vs. Fiorina’s dishonesty.” A Slate headline, meanwhile, crowed her “days as GOP star are numbered.”
This fight could be riveting, especially if it drags out or others jump in. Want to talk about entertainment value and combative style?
~*~
While things are still relatively quiet here in the Granite State, it does have some of us wondering. Jeb Bush seems to be managing his funds prudently, has significant Establishment connections, and is still plodding away. Is it possible he might be the last man standing when it comes time for the nomination? Or are there other twists in the plot ahead? Someone, say, meeting folks where they live?
Jnana's Red Barn 
If I were a political party, I would fight like hell to shorten the campaign season. I can see nothing good for the GOP coming out of more than a year for the public to get to know these people!
Part of their problem at the moment is that they tried to do that, but the strategies are backfiring. Should we start with the winner-take-all primaries?
No, I kind of like the early winnowing out, and the idea of seeing the candidates long-term. I was just thinking in terms of the parties. There is always the risk of people just getting tired of the whole thing.
Personally, I’m hoping one or more of those considered “out there” (such as Sanders, Trump) will run as independents. We do not need dynastic presidencies. I do not consider either Sanders or Trump to be that radical or revolutionary on most issues. However, I am more than a little concerned that a certain candidate from the D’s and another from the R’s are considered “viable” and “inevitable”.
There should be many candidates running not just one or two from each party in the primary. And some should be challenging their party and its leadership.
And that’s why it’s getting so interesting! Not much is going according to the anticipated script so far.
Sounds like what you’d really like is a parliamentary system. Better yet, as in some municipal elections, presidents could run without party identification altogether.
What we’ve had the past few decades has been dysfunctional, and I’m not sure you can blame all of it on any system. Maybe the system has actually prevented some of the characters from doing even worse damage.