2000 GOP candidates compared to 2012 GOP candidates?

[ChairmanSanchez]

George Bush---Mitt Romney
John McCain----Rick Santorum
Alan Keyes---Ron Paul
Orrin Hatch---Newt Gingrich
Steve Forbes---Herman Cain
Gary Baerer---Michelle Bachmann
Lamar Alexander---Rick Perry
Elizabeth Dole---Jon Huntsman
Robert Smith---Buddy Roemer


Sounds accurate?

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Thad McCotter - John Kasich

[shua]

George Bush---Mitt Romney
John McCain----Rick Santorum
Alan Keyes---Ron Paul
Orrin Hatch---Newt Gingrich
Steve Forbes---Herman Cain
Gary Baerer---Michelle Bachmann
Lamar Alexander---Rick Perry
Elizabeth Dole---Jon Huntsman
Robert Smith---Buddy Roemer


Sounds accurate?

I'm not seeing the connection here for most of these.  John McCain's 2000 campaign is closest to Jon Huntsman's, not coincidentally.

[Mr. Morden]

The 2012 primary race seems closer to 1996 than it does to 2000.

Lamar Alexander plaid shirts = Santorum sweatervests
Steve Forbes's flat tax plan = Herman Cain's 9-9-9
Phil Gramm's epic fail of a campaign = either Tim Pawlenty's or Rick Perry's epic fail of a campaign, I can't decide which

But the big thing is that the weak frontrunner isn't really in a one-on-one contest with any of his rivals.  He battles against several of them at once, and so the not-Dole / not-Romney vote is divided.  Also, more than one of the frontrunner's main rivals are completely unacceptable to the party establishment, and the party establishment will do anything to stop them from winning.

[Senator Clarence]

Mr. Morden- I agree with your analysis... I'd put Buchanan in there as Newt's equivalent even though Newt himself was a player in that campaign without even running

[For Oklahoma]

Alan Keyes---Ron Paul

Uh, no. Alan Keyes is waaay too extreme. I'd say Dubya 2000 = Perry + Paul 2012

[shua]

Alan Keyes---Ron Paul

Uh, no. Alan Keyes is waaay too extreme. I'd say Dubya 2000 = Perry + Paul 2012

Dubya's campaign was way too moderate to be compared to Perry, and no relation at all to Paul.

[King]

The first three comparisons are all insulting for the dignified person involved (Bush, McCain, Paul).

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

Alan Keyes---Ron Paul

Uh, no. Alan Keyes is waaay too extreme. I'd say Dubya 2000 = Perry + Paul 2012

Dubya's campaign was way too moderate to be compared to Perry, and no relation at all to Paul.

"Nation building."

[angus]

Dubya's campaign was way too moderate to be compared to Perry, and no relation at all to Paul.

George ("Humble foreign policy") Bush was very moderate in the 2000 campaign, and I agree that he doesn't really compare to Ron Paul.  Paul is a purist.  He wants to start dismantling large apparati of the government, and I'm not sure anyone can be compared to him from 2000.

McCain was a serious neocon.  Nuke 'em all/let God sort 'em out.  Big on sanctions against Iraq and defense in general.  Consistent.  He also didn't kowtow to the Liberty University crowd.  Is there anyone like McCain this year?  I don't think so.  Then again, the picture is so different now that no comparisons are apt.  Iraq doesn't even exist anymore, for example, mainly due to the not-so-humble foreign policy that George Bush pursued once he was elected.

Hatch was a smooth talker.  He was the anti-terrorist point man from the late 90s, and that was a large part of his campaign.  He was much more serious than Bush about such things.  Maybe Santorum is a bit like Hatch in that regard, but Hatch at least had a sense of humor.  Also, Santorum also has a little of the Gary Bauer in him.  It's difficult to make on-to-one mappings for these candidates.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Bush made a few sops to the Buchananites, but the foreign policy he ran on was essentially that of the liberal Rockefeller-Ford-H.W. Bush faction (not the Buchananites, and not the neocons, who essentially won out in a "coup" after 9/11, and were in turn forced to share power with the liberals again after the '06 midterms).

[angus]

Bush made a few sops to the Buchananites, but the foreign policy he ran on was essentially that of the liberal Rockefeller-Ford-H.W. Bush faction (not the Buchananites, and not the neocons, who essentially won out in a "coup" after 9/11, and were in turn forced to share power with the liberals again after the '06 midterms).

Exactly, and this is also why such comparisons are apt to be inept.  Mitt Romney talks quite negatively about China when he talks about foreign policy, but who was talking about China in 2000?  We know that George Bush did say that on the issue of most favored nation trading status, he agreed with Clinton.  I can hardly imagine Romney saying that today. 

"Trade with China will promote freedom. The case for trade is not just monetary, but moral - not just a matter of commerce, but a matter of conviction."
   --Dubya, 2000

"China is cheating and needs to follow the rules."
    --Willard, 2011

[ChairmanSanchez]

I am not comparing views---Keyes is a mega HP, and of course I would never compare Paul to Keyes in terms of their political viewpointa. I am talking about the campaigns, and who reminds me of who campaign wise.

It appears the Smith-Roemer line was the only good one

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

Do you mean in terms of ideology/political style, or in terms of their performance in the primaries?

Comparing Lamar Alexander to Rick Perry is just plain disrespectful to Lamar.

The closest parallel I can see is Forbes-Cain in that both are the "rich businessman with no elected office experience and a highly regressive tax reform plan."

[ChairmanSanchez]

Do you mean in terms of ideology/political style, or in terms of their performance in the primaries?

Comparing Lamar Alexander to Rick Perry is just plain disrespectful to Lamar.

The closest parallel I can see is Forbes-Cain in that both are the "rich businessman with no elected office experience and a highly regressive tax reform plan."

I really messed this up. In Lamar Alexanders case, he reminds me of Perry view wise, but is a much better campaigner. In Keyes/Paul, its style and performance. Cain was much better then Forbes (who was as awkward as Romney is) at campaigning.

Santorum has the views of Gary Bauer but has run a campaign that is similar to McCains, while Romney has been this years Bush, as he has been favored from the start.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

Do you mean in terms of ideology/political style, or in terms of their performance in the primaries?

Comparing Lamar Alexander to Rick Perry is just plain disrespectful to Lamar.

The closest parallel I can see is Forbes-Cain in that both are the "rich businessman with no elected office experience and a highly regressive tax reform plan."

I really messed this up. In Lamar Alexanders case, he reminds me of Perry view wise, but is a much better campaigner. In Keyes/Paul, its style and performance. Cain was much better then Forbes (who was as awkward as Romney is) at campaigning.

Santorum has the views of Gary Bauer but has run a campaign that is similar to McCains, while Romney has been this years Bush, as he has been favored from the start.

Lamar is much more moderate than Perry. He was basically a reform-minded center-right governor in the '80s and still gives off that vibe in the Senate. Rick Perry wants to get rid of the Department of Education; Lamar Alexander used to run the Department of Education. In terms of campaign style, Lamar's problem was that he tried way too hard to be the down-to-earth nice guy and came across as sappy (the plaid checkered shirts, the "Come on along" slogan); Perry had the look and the image down, but when he opened his mouth he had nothing substantive to say.

I'd recommend  reading Losers by Michael Lewis. It's about the 1996 Republican primary. You will come away realizing how much of a shill Phil Gramm is, how weird Steve Forbes is, how fatally genuine Morry Taylor was, and gain a tremendous amount of respect for John McCain.