T1B

Washington (CNN) -- A new CNN poll finds that about half of Republicans sympathize with the tea party movement. The other half either remain aloof or (5%) even express hostility.

That second group of Republicans has received remarkably little media attention this cycle. Yet their man -- Mitt Romney -- has held steady in first or second place for the past three years. Meanwhile tea party Republicans have bounced from Sarah Palin to Donald Trump to Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to (now) Herman Cain, transfixing the media every time they lose faith in one messiah and search for another.

Yet sooner or later, the tea party Republicans must converge on a single choice. When they do, they will present the non-tea party Republicans with a troubling menu of possibilities.

Possibility 1: Romney is nominated, Romney is elected.

From the point of view of non-tea party Republicans, this is the ideal outcome of the 2012 election. Yet it is also an outcome that looks worryingly out of reach. As we enter the final 12 months of the election countdown, Romney still cannot rise above 30% support in his own party. Worse, while it's easy to imagine (say) Herman Cain's voters shifting to Rick Perry or vice versa, it is very hard to imagine where Mitt Romney will find the additional Republican votes he needs.

Possibility 2: Romney is nominated, Romney loses.

For non-tea party Republicans, this second outcome opens all kinds of ugly, ominous possibilities. If candidate Romney loses, tea party Republicans will claim that the GOP lost because it failed to nominate a "true conservative." That claim may fly in the face of political math (how would a more extreme candidate win more votes?), but it will pack a lot of emotional punch. Intense partisans are always ready to believe that the way to win is to be more intense and more partisan. Back-to-back losses under John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 will open the way to an ultra-conservative nominee in 2016 -- and a true party debacle.

Possibility 3: A tea party Republican is nominated and loses.

From the point of view of a non-tea party Republican, the third possibility is the most tragic waste. A winnable election will be thrown away on an ideological adventure. Yet within the disaster might lurk a silver lining. At least the GOP will get the ideological adventure out of its system. For three years, Republican activists have lived in a fantasy world in which fringe characters like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain somehow "speak for the common sense of the common people." It seems incredible that anybody could believe such a thing. It seems crazy that anyone would actually need a presidential election to disabuse them of such notions. But as Benjamin Franklin said: "Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other."

Possibility 4: A tea party Republican is nominated and wins.

This possibility has to be reckoned the most unlikely. But it cannot be excluded as utterly impossible, on two conditions:

If the U.S. economy continues as weak and sick as it is today, and;

If tea party Republicans revert from the utterly unelectable Herman Cain to Rick Perry, who as governor of Texas possesses at least the paper qualifications for the presidency.

Then - who knows? - anything might happen.

Perry would be a much weaker candidate than Romney, but if the voters are determined to fire the incumbent, then even a weak challenger can prevail. (See Barack Hussein Obama, 2008 candidacy of.)

In which case, not only tea party Republicans but all Republicans and all Americans will confront the problem: what next?

The tea party stands for a series of propositions that don't meet the reality test: that deficits matter more than jobs, that cutting deficits and tightening credit will accelerate economic growth, that high taxes and over-regulation are the most important reasons that growth has not revived, and that America still offers the world's best opportunity for the poor to rise. Tea party plans call for a radical shift in the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor -- and promise big reductions in government spending without touching any of the benefits of current retirees.

If put into practice, the tea party platform is a formula for political and economic crisis.

Fortunately, it remains a long-shot outcome. If you're betting the odds, you want to put your money on possibility three. As for possibility one -- that's just good government. And nobody seems to get much excited about that these days.

Papa Willie wrote:Who gives a fuck?

The mouth breather who jerks off to a photo of slick willie wrote:Cain? Seriously? The sexual harasser Cain?

Mikey wrote:Cain can't pull himself out of his own ditch. How's he gonna do it for the rest of the country?

Goober McTuber wrote:Cain? Seriously? The sexual harasser Cain?

88 wrote:What if Cain beats Obama and his ideas pull the United States out of the ditch the Democrats are wallowing in? What kind of disaster would that be for CNN?

Goober McTuber wrote:The sexual harasser Cain?

War Wagon wrote:Is America ready for its 2nd first black president?

The Seer wrote:You'd think the d'rats would have another card to play in their deck any time a legitimate, dynamic black individual that can out-think any of their victim-hoods comes along....

88 wrote:I assume the word "festered" means "diminished in importance to a point where it is not at all important to the Republican Party." Who is the voice of the Religious Right these days?

Bill Wineke wrote:The perennial American debate about abortion seems to have taken on a bizarre twist this year: The Republican candidates for president have staked out positions far more extreme than those of most abortion opponents.

This week, for example, Mitt Romney said he “absolutely” supports the Mississippi personhood amendment, which would define “life” as beginning at the moment of conception.

The proposal, which is also endorsed by both Democratic and Republican candidates for governor in Mississippi, is so controversial that it is opposed by the National Right to Life organizations. The Catholic Church in Mississippi says it is too extreme. It would make illegal all abortions, including the termination of pregnancies caused by rape, incest or which prove grave threat to the life of the mother.

No one is quite sure how this loony idea would fare should it actually become law. There's some indication that it would make illegal many forms of birth control and, also, give legal protection to the millions of fertilized embryos now being stored by in vitro fertilization centers.

Let's be clear here. Romney is considered by most political experts to be the guy most likely to be the Republican presidential candidate next year. Let's also be clear that the national unemployment rate remains at about 9 percent. Under most circumstances we might expect to think he has a good shot of becoming President of the United States.

And he doesn't think the position of the National Right to Life movement is sufficiently anti-abortion?

The only calming thought about this craziness is that Romney surely doesn't believe a word he, himself, says.

I'm not so sure about his colleagues.

Herman Cain announced over the weekend that he, too, opposes all abortions, including those to end pregnancies caused by rape or incest. It was just a few days ago that Cain was saying he thinks abortion should be illegal but that the decision to have one should rest with the woman involved and with her family.

Positions on the abortion front move fast and furious these days. Cain, I would point out, leads Romney in some national polls.

Moving right along, Rick Santorum is not leading in the national polls but he has staked his claim. Santorum would not only make illegal all forms of abortion, but he would also forbid health insurance plans to cover birth control as well.

“It's not O.K. Because its a license to do things in a sexual realm that are contrary to how they are supposed to be,” he says.

Rep. Michele Bachmann has introduced federal legislation declaring that life begins at the moment of fertilization and should be guaranteed protection under the 14th Amendment.

Were I to be involved in the anti-abortion movement, I would be appalled. These folks have worked for years to build opposition to legal abortion – but there's always been kind of a wink and a nod involved. Sure, we're against abortion on demand, but we don't really demand that a pregnant woman die or that a teenage girl be forced to carry her father's baby to birth.

Well, bye-bye respectability.

The most lunatic fringe position on this issue is now the official position of the leading candidates for president of the Republican Party.

Goober McTuber wrote:This week, for example, Mitt Romney said he “absolutely” supports the Mississippi personhood amendment, which would define “life” as beginning at the moment of conception.

BSmack wrote:
You must have forgot the last election cycle when 1/3 of the GOP primary field raised their had when asked at a debate if they did not believe in evolution.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:You must have forgot the last election cycle when 1/3 of the GOP primary field raised their had when asked at a debate if they did not believe in evolution.

It's a theory... That claims that hundreds of thousands of years of selective breeding of the best and the brightest have brought us the cream-of-the-crop, such as... AP and Bradhuskers. Let's just err on the side of caution and keep its staus as a "theory" for now.

BSmack wrote: Obviously doesn't understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" as a group of propositions that have been tested and are generally regarded to be correct

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:I assume the word "festered" means "diminished in importance to a point where it is not at all important to the Republican Party." Who is the voice of the Religious Right these days?

You must have forgot the last election cycle when 1/3 of the GOP primary field raised their had when asked at a debate if they did not believe in evolution.

I don't remember that. Refresh my memory. Who raised their hand?

BSmack wrote:
Tencredo, Brownback, Paul and Huckabee as I recall.

And Walker, Bachmann and Cain make those 4 seem like paragons of normal.

Derron wrote:

BSmack wrote:
Tencredo, Brownback, Paul and Huckabee as I recall.

And Walker, Bachmann and Cain make those 4 seem like paragons of normal.

And with this epic blast, BMonica declares the 2012 election season open and ready for civil discourse. Let the games begin!

Jsc810 wrote:Republicans can't blame their disaster on the Tea Party.

Wagon wrote:The more I listen to Cain, the more I like what I hear.

poptart wrote:

Wagon wrote:The more I listen to Cain, the more I like what I hear.

Why on earth anyone other than the hyper-rich would support this assclown is beyond me.

Bizzarofelice wrote:I really don't understand the attraction to Cain.

What specifically makes him better than the rest?

Tom In VA wrote: He might or might be able to even more fully expose the duplicity with the "progressives" but it has been interesting so far.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: He might or might be able to even more fully expose the duplicity with the "progressives" but it has been interesting so far.

whaddya mean?

War Wagon wrote:The more I listen to Cain, the more I like what I hear. Dude is a straight talker.

Judy Woodruff: "Do you view China as a potential military threat to the United States?"

Herman Cain: "I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States."

Woodruff: "And what could you do as president to head that off?"

Cain: "My China strategy is quite simply outgrow China. It gets back to economics. China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy -- much bigger -- but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China.

"And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes, they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat."

Felix wrote:it's obvious he doesn't have any business running for the office of POTUS.....

Atomic Punk wrote:I used to be a nuclear weapons instructor after leaving my squadron for 3 years at Nuclear Weapons Training Group for 3 years at NAS North Island in Coronado, CA.

Atomic Punk wrote:Feelsdicks,

Tell me something you stupid piece of shit... What nuclear capability does China really have? Guess what. I used to be a nuclear weapons instructor after leaving my squadron for 3 years at Nuclear Weapons Training Group for 3 years at NAS North Island in Coronado, CA. Look it up, or even Google map it. It's inside the gate on the right next to the Navy SERE school building.

You don't know fucking shit. So save it.