The Next Man
Republicans have a habit -- stretching back over 40 years -- of nominating the "next guy in line" for president. Sometimes that works out pretty well -- the Reagan who ran in 1980 had been honed by his brief 1976 attempt to win the nomination from Ford. Sometimes, not so much, cf. McCain, 2008. There are always dark horses and out-of-left-field names in the mix, but in the end, the Tired Old Party usually picks the Next In Line.
Right now, though, there are two Next In Lines, according to Republican tradition. There's the guy who ran for the nomination last time and lost -- that's the Reagan 1980 model -- and is called the "front runner." That's Mitt.
And there's another Next In Line. That's the guy who ran on the losing ticket last time. That's Sarah Palin.
Frankly, neither one of them has what 2012 is going to be asking for.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Next Man
etoiledunord
Liz Cheney, if life were fair.
Liz is great on TV, but she's never run anything. If she runs for a governorship and once her dad is gone...
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
sooo. what about Jindel??? Competent, strong looking during recent crisis, he doesn't need weight watchers, has been a governor (a good one)... And all he needs to do is to learn how to make a speech on tv. Along with Palin, the pair would be unbeatable.
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
Matthew Gilley
Unless you're being facetious, I'm going to have to see some backup on this one. · Jul 25 at 12:15pm
Not at all facetious. I really like the guy. While his personal morals were questionable, he cut federal spending by half within two years, freed political prisoners from during the Wilson administration, He cut the top tax rate from 75% to 25% (against Herbert Hoover's wishes), and staved off what would have otherwise been a big depression. They don't call it the 'Roaring 20s' for nothing.
Coolidge simply continued the same policies.
Jun '10
Re: The Next Man
I find myself thinking about this in different ways: 1) who I would like to see as President; and 2) what we need in the next President. In the first category, Daniels and Barbour come to mind, with Christie and Jindal deserving mention (I'd rather these two finish a term or two as governors though). I wonder whatever happened to Steve Forbes. The second category is where I find myself undecided. The first term of the next president, assuming Obama is not re-elected, will be consumed with undoing the damage done by the current occupant. Stemming the tide of statism, however, is a considerably longer effort that will require continuity over a period of several elections. I'm not sure who the lead-off hitter should be for that challenge.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
I know you have a million responses to this...same problem as Rudy...lady history.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
The reality of today's politics is that we think like political junkies...but that's not the majority vote. MOST voters vote their "feelings"...that's how they got snookered last time. We need to have a candidate that can do the job, and gives the voters the conviction that he's got the "right stuff." The only Pubbies that can win in spite of not having that have to have a bad opponent (Bush I first time, Bush II both times, Nixon both times) Dole, McCain, Bush second time are proof of this phenomenon.
Love Mitch, but not sure voters will choose their local Rotary guy...in appearance, that is.
Closest possibility is Pawlenty..but the name's gonna be a tough sell. (In case you think Obama was gonna be tough..uh, uh. Timing was right for purging national guilt with that multicultural name.)
Press has done the number on Palin, "refudiate" finished her off. She's still effective, but only with the faithful. Southerner can't win, not with the deck stacked with race cards with the Urinolist bunch running the media still.
We shall see...perhaps a surprise awaits us...
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
Rob Long:
"a candidate who is an active conservative -- someone, say, who really has cut taxes; who has taken on the teachers' unions; who has run something in a demonstrably conservative way; someone with some political and media savvy. And someone who can articulate those issues, who can out-argue the left, someone who, during the presidential debates, won't have us all on the edge of our seats hoping something stupid doesn't come tumbling out."
Pawlenty, Daniels, (and of course Christie, who won’t run) - Yes. But after having to deal with the Spill [read: gov't incompetence], standing firm against the unions on his shore, cutting taxes (6 times), allowing waivers of certain state rules and regs to allow public schools to operate more like charter schools, etc., he just may have found a national voice and would be able to light a fire under conservatives (sounding far better than his SOTUA response).
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
Would have been helpful to have identified the possible candidate: Gov. Jindal.
Sorry 'bout that
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
Ruling out Newt? Hell, if obama can be elected why are y'all ruling out Newt? Anything is possible.
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
I would hesitate to say any of these contenders are unelectable at present because three years ago...I thought the same about Obama. And I never thought he'd fall so far, so fast, so...two years from now, I think anything could happen. I think Newt has the gravitas and elder-statemanship that many people are longing for, but I think Palin is the only person in the field who can electrify the base and possibly electrify first-time voters the same way that Obama did. Together, I think they'd be one hell of a gamble--but we could be facing a scenario where a radical change of direction is what's most appealing. As for Mitch Daniels...I see Rob's point, but a lot of my family lives in Indiana and while he's imminently qualifed, he's about as un-charismatic as you can get. That seems to appeal to the British electorate right now, but I don't see it working over here. It'd be a mistake to underestimate Obama in the debates and his opponent needs to be able to bring the charm.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
A couple of points.
1) Not Huckabee, because he didn't really present a conservative idea last time around. From his history, it is fairly obvious that he is a social conservative, but has no strong foreign policy ideas nor is he a true enemy of big government.
2) Has everyone here forgotten the first rule of electoral politics? The taller candidate always wins. The only exception in the television era (Bush-Gore) was when the height difference was essentially indiscernable. Newt is not tall. Jindal is short.
Pawlenty is tall (better than 6-4). Taller than Obama, he runs and plays hockey but he doesn't smoke, he goes to church and actually listens when he is there (he would have heard Rev. Wright), and his entire family is full of Democrats would nonetheless vote for him.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
Duane Oyen: A couple of points.
1) Not Huckabee, because he didn't really present a conservative idea last time around. From his history, it is fairly obvious that he is a social conservative, but has no strong foreign policy ideas nor is he a true enemy of big government.
2) Has everyone here forgotten the first rule of electoral politics? The taller candidate always wins. The only exception in the television era (Bush-Gore) was when the height difference was essentially indiscernable. Newt is not tall. Jindal is short.
Pawlenty is tall (better than 6-4). Taller than Obama, he runs and plays hockey but he doesn't smoke, he goes to church and actually listens when he is there (he would have heard Rev. Wright), and his entire family is full of Democrats would nonetheless vote for him. · Jul 26 at 10:19am
Forgot Kerry, who is tall and hopelessly unlikable. Clearly Bush was the only exception, both times.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
Perhaps the elephant in the room, but how about Jeb Bush? The pros: A very successful two-time governor of a large, diverse state. He weathered our multiple hurricane summer competently, he's tall, articulate (and clean). The cons: Dubya's brother, another Bush, ... his last name.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
FYI- hot off the press: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pawlenty-meets-press
Re: The Next Man
Duane Oyen:
Has everyone here forgotten the first rule of electoral politics? The taller candidate always wins.
Is Yao Ming a Conservative? If we can just do something about his birth certificate. Hmmmm.
May '10
Re: The Next Man
Jeb Bush, well, maybe not: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/27/jeb-bush-says-no-to-2012-run/
Jul '10
Re: The Next Man
If we want to use the Reagan conservative model, there are three legs of the stool: foreign policy, economics, social values. Romney actually has all three, and importantly can communicate intelligently about all three. He gets knocks from some about being Mormon, but I think people would "get over" it. After all, the last election the Democratic ticket was fought between a woman and a black man-- and we can't get over religion??!? In general Mormons are good high quality family people; granted, there's some strange stuff in their book, but I'm Catholic and the same thing could of course be argued; it took Kennedy to have voters accept Catholicism.
McCain, Romney, Huckabee split the primary vote among three legs of the stool. Had Huckabee not stayed so long in the South (who knows what kind of deal there was between Huck and McCain?) I believe Romney would have been the eventual nominee. So what did we end up with with McCain/Palin? TWO legs of the stool (foreign policy/social), ZERO economics. What did the campaign come down to in Sep/Oct of 2008? Economics! Who would have understood better than all other candidates: Romney.
Re: The Next Man
Interesting theory, Chuck. You may be right, especially about the ability of voters to "get over" any Mormon weirdness. The truth is, there's nothing weird about Mitt Romney. He's a smart, successful, engaging guy.
I like Mitt a lot, but I wonder if he's what voters will be yearning for in 2012. Part of me believes (hopes?) that what we're going to be after is an austerity candidate, a back-to-basics candidate. I'm not sure Mitt is that guy. (Of course, I'm on the record: I want President Mitch Daniels....)
May '10
Re: The Next Man
Jeb should take his wife's name. Gallo 2012!!