Earlier this week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was answering questions from the Austin American-Statesman about a variety of issues, when the paper brought up Cornyn’s upcoming re-election campaign. “Will you ask the president to appear with you on the campaign trail?” the paper asked.
“I will probably ask the president to help me do some fundraising, but probably not on the campaign trail,” Cornyn said, adding, “We’ve talked about his poll numbers.”
Cornyn is running in Texas — and he’s already made it clear that he doesn’t want to even be seen with the president next year. That’s … rather humiliating.
I thought about Cornyn’s comments when I saw The Politico’s Elizabeth Wilner’s piece, speculating about what the Republican National Convention is going to be like for the outgoing president in about a year.
Twenty-five hundred delegates to the Republican National Convention pause in their exchange of hellos on this opening night and break into warm if not wild applause.
Up to the podium steps George W. Bush. A cocksure grin and a wistful glint in his eye reflect his new convention role: not to be the party’s nominee but to introduce him. Sort of.
The outgoing president’s appearance tonight has caused some nervous hand-wringing in Republican circles. Convention organizers have struggled for weeks over the question of how to use the event to spit-shine the Grand Old Party brand yet still pay homage to the president under whose watch it got tarnished.
That Bush would participate in this convention somehow was never in doubt. Despite the difficulties posed, his absence would have been even more awkward. After some talk of an address via satellite from Crawford, Texas, convention officials ultimately scheduled this appearance tonight in the hope of putting some distance between Bush and the nominee, who won’t arrive here for two more days.
It’s still quite a ways off, but I’ve been mulling over the scenario myself. I’m not sure if Wilner’s take is quite right.
First, as Steve M. noted, no one should underestimate just how far gone the die-hard GOP base really is.
Even a year from now, the party regulars will still be Bush end-timers. Like middle-aged moms and dads at a state fair cheering on a pot-bellied rocker two decades past his sell-by date, they’ll just swoon, still seeing him the way he looked to them when he was in his prime.
That may sound hard to believe, but I think it’s absolutely right. For the 28-percenters, Bush could come to their house, shoot their dog, and set their home on fire, and they’d assume he must have had a good reason. To think that Bush would not receive an enthusiastic response from the GOP faithful at the Republican National Convention is to underestimate the nature of far-right hero worship.
Indeed, at a recent debate for the party’s presidential candidates, Mitt Romney said, “Let me tell you, it’s been very popular lately for people across the country to be critical of the president and the vice president. And I know they make mistakes. But they have kept us safe these last six years. Let’s not forget that.” It was hollow rhetoric — which was met with sustained and enthusiastic applause.
I’d add, however, that there’s a distinction between the starry-eyed, Bush-loving activists and the party establishment figures who actually care more about winning elections than messianic public relations.
Tony Fabrizio, a major GOP pollster and party insider, was asked by Newsweek whether Bush would even be invited to the convention. “If they’re smart, no,” Fabrizio said. “Especially if things don’t change in Iraq, we’ll have the problem the Democrats had in 1968 with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam. The question becomes: where do we hide the president?”
It’s going to be a very common question very soon.