Banner ad

Monday, March 02, 2009

The GOP hopes that Jim Bunning strikes out

Senator Jim Bunning is way past his due date as a United States senator. His latest foot-in-the-mouth blunder was speculating that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead within nine months. Ugh! That was even more tasteless and cringe-inducing than when he described his 2004 opponent as looking like one of Saddam Hussein's sons and seemed "limp-wristed."

While the GOP would like to lose this guy from the ticket in 2010, he refuses to disappear. His response to strong hints from the Republican Party that they won't help him in his reelection campaign is to intimate that, if the GOP annoys him, he'll resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name a Democrat as a replacement to give the Democrats an even 60 senators. Charming.
Now, if the Senate GOP leadership continued to make it difficult for him to raise money, he would have the “last laugh,” and then added that Kentucky’s governor was a Democrat, a source recalled Bunning saying.

The implication that he would resign was talked about by “several people” after the event, the source said.

The remarks stunned his listeners, the source said.

“Why would he say that?” attendees asked each other, according to the source.

One source said he contacted a Bunning campaign official and warned, “This is going to get out — there were 15 to 20 people who heard this and it’s newsworthy.”

“It’s not because he’s old and senile — he’s always been like that. He’ll tell you what he thinks,” the source said.

But Bunning’s resistance to retirement is “sad to see,” the source said.

“The problem I see with all this media attention is, it just makes him more stubborn rather than make him ready to make a rational decision,” the source said.
Just what we want - a guy who isn't ready to make rational decisions.

Jay Cost has been blogging about how the Jim Bunning situation points to why we would benefit from stronger parties who would have the power to ease Bunning out and bring in a stronger candidate - one that is less of a whack job. Cost argues for reform of the primary process in order to give parties more power to weed out weak incumbents who are desperately clinging to their position.
This is one big reason I do not understand why partisans on both sides suffer the primary process. It has become one of many mechanisms that effectively guarantee incumbents will be on the general election ballot. What this means, in turn, is that the party usually has to tolerate guys like Don Sherwood, Stevens, and Bunning. There is no "low cost" way for Republicans to hold their incumbents accountable, which means only the Democrats do. And the same goes with Democrats when their incumbents behave badly.

Simply put, primaries are good for politicians, bad for the parties, and therefore bad for the tens of millions of people who sympathize with one party or the other. For all the talk that I hear from partisans about keeping their leaders accountable, I hardly hear any discussion about the primaries - and how inefficient they are at keeping them in line. Once a politician wins election, it becomes much more difficult for the party to make him responsible to the party. And in the case of a guy like Bunning, most Republicans have probably been reduced to praying that he'll just drop out - that's how little power they have over their elected officials.
It's a nice solution that other political scientists might endorse, but no actual politicians would dare come out and take a position that would be caricatured as a vote for more smoke-filled rooms - newly smoke-free, of course - in place of the people's choice. However, incumbents have such strong advantages that it is a rare incumbent who is defeated in political primaries. Bunning may be able to achieve that distinction if he keeps up embarrassing himself each time he opens his mouth while threatening to turn the Senate over to the Democrats. That can't be a popular position to be defending withing Republican primaries.

So, despite his inborn incumbency advantages, Bunning may open his big mouth just enough to help a worthy challenger defeat him in a party primary. Surely Mitch McConnell can find some other Republican who could take on this dodo.

4 comments:

Pat Patterson said...

Bunning could have just as easily said the Justice Ginsbirg would give birth in nine months for all the sense he has been making lately, well more than just recently. Maybe his constituents should start being concerned when he begins talking about striking out Casey of the Mudville Nine. Or worse yet that the Phillies didn't come unglued in the 1964 season.

Bachbone said...

Something must happen to politicians' heads when they get inside the Beltway to make them think they are indispensable, infallible and omnipotent. The GOP has apparently still not learned that if it adopted and stuck to some principles, regardless whether it hurt in the short term, it would help more in the long term. The RNC is unlikely to loosen up conservative giving until new leaders emerge and some of the old heads leave, voluntarily or involuntarily. New blood will freshen the conservative tree.

KentP said...

the GOP annoys him, he'll resign and let the Democratic governor of Kentucky name a Democrat as a replacement to give the Democrats an even 60 senators.

Why would he need to do that? He could just promise to vote solidly along with the Democrats himself (and keep his status and paycheck).
Of course we know this is BS, but the above threat would have been slightly more believable

tfhr said...

Bachbone,

The power of incumbency happens. Bunning has become an embarrassment and we see it for what it is but there are so many others on both sides of the aisle that are just as bad and in many different ways. TERM LIMITS!

Pat Patterson,

I respect your argument to remove term limits in California but guys like Dodd, Bunning, Byrd, Kennedy, Specter, Rangel, Hatch, Frank, and on and on, are just political locusts.