The Party of the Living Dead

 

A few days ago, in India, Barack Obama gave a three-minute speech in which he referred to himself 118 times.

That speech is emblematic of his entire administration. Nearly all of his speeches have been exceedingly self-referential. All Presidents are to some degree full of themselves. Had they not been so, they never would have made it that far. But when it comes to vanity, Barack Obama takes the cake. The whole enterprise has always been about him — and no one else — which helps explain the astonishing damage he has done to the Democratic Party. The way things are going, if he were allowed to run for a third term and won, he might be the last Democratic officeholder left — which would, I suspect, suit him just fine.

Thanks, in part, to the self-absorption of their standard-bearer, the Democratic Party now controls fewer Congressional seats than at any point in my lifetime. Its presence in the Senate is at a near-record low, and one would have to go back nearly 90 years to find a time when it was in as bad a shape in the state assemblies and senates.

One consequence is that the party is bereft of fresh blood. Think about it. The minority leader in the Senate is 75; the minority leader in the House is 74. Her immediate underling (Steny Hoyer) is also 74. It is true that Mitch McConnell is 72, but he is the exception to the rule among Republicans. John Boehner is 65, and he has plenty of associates well-known in the country who are considerably younger. Think about it. Can you name a bright, young, up-and-coming Democratic Congressman or Senator?

And consider this: the likely Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party will be 69 in January 2017 (older than Ronald Reagan was when he became President). Her likeliest rival, Joe Biden, will be 74; Jim Webb will be 70; and Elizabeth Warren, who graduated from Northwest Classen High School in Oklahoma City one year before I did, will be 67. As Jay Cost points out, if Hillary Clinton now anticipates no challenger, as seems to be the case, it is because the bench is empty: there is no one capable of mounting a serious challenge.

In the recent past, the Republican Party tended to nominate the fellow whose turn it was, and, often enough, this happened well after the man’s sell-by date. In the recent past, the Democratic Party tended to have a spirited struggle for the nomination.

This time it looks as if the roles will be reversed. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s answer to Bob Dole and John McCain. The only thing really impressive about her is that she still has a pulse.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are responsible for this situation. They not only lead their party over a cliff. In the Senate, Harry Reid prevented votes and quashed debate. The chief consequence is that, in the last six years, only one Democratic Senator has managed to make a name, and she did this — not while in the Senate but while running for it. If there are any young Democrats in the Senate with the energy and intelligence of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, none of us have heard anything about them; and there is a new crop of Republican heavyweights — including Ben Sasse and Tom Cotton — who may put these four in the shade.

The Democrats can find no solace in the state houses. Andrew Cuomo, who will be 59 in January 2017, is under a cloud and may soon be facing corruption charges. Deval Patrick, who will be 61, and Martin O’Malley, who will be 54, are history. Though they were Governors in the bluest of blue states, their records were repudiated when the voters of Massachusetts and Maryland elected Republicans to succeed them. The only Democratic governor who is  in any way distinguished is the current chief executive of California, and he will be 78 in January 2017. And frankly Governor Moonbeam is friskier and more interesting than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Jim Webb, and Fauxcahontas. The Democratic Party really has become the Party of the Living Dead.

The only presidential contender that the Republicans had who could compete with the geriatric set was Mitt Romney, who is a tad older than Hillary Clinton, and he has now bowed out. All of the remaining Republican contenders are younger than Lieawatha.

Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, and Mike Huckabee are the eldest. The first will be 66 in January 2017; the second, 65; the third, 64; and the fourth, 61.

After that, the ages drop. Mike Pence will be 57; Rand Paul, 54; Chris Christie, 54; Scott Walker, 49; Paul Ryan, 47; Ted Cruz, 46; and Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, 45.

For the first time in memory, the Republican nominee will be younger than his Democratic counterpart — and, at a time when the public is unhappy with the direction the country is going, that matters.

If, for example, the Republican Party were to nominate Scott Walker, it would have a real advantage with younger people. Hillary Clinton demonstrated at the time of her book launch that she is past it. Presidential candidates have to be quick, nimble, and affable. As became clear in her interview on Fresh Air, the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock is now slow, brittle, and petulant.

None of the prospective Republican nominees can be described in that fashion. We can quibble about their qualities, and we will. What cannot be denied is that everyone I have listed is extraordinarily talented.

This Presidential election is a real opportunity for the Republicans. Let’s hope that they do not blow it. Let’s hope that they chart a new course. Mitt Romney was right to drop out. The country is hungry for a fresh face, hungry for a sharp change in course, and this time around it will have little tolerance for the tired and the old.

If one of the younger Republicans — preferably, a governor or former governor, someone from outside Washington, someone with executive experience, someone with energy and a winning smile — proposes a sharp change of course, repeatedly denouncing “the tired, old, failed ideas of the Democrats,” the Republicans will not only win. They will win a mandate.

What we do not yet know, what we need to know, is whether any of the Republican candidates understand that the present discontents are systemic — that they derive not from the failed policies and administrative incompetence of a single man, a single administration, a single party, but from the propensities inherent in the administrative state itself. Most Republicans are managerial progressives. They suppose that all that is required is managerial competence.

That we suffer from managerial incompetence there can be no doubt. All that one has to do is think about Obamacare and one will see that.

But I believe that we face a far greater challenge — a political challenge, one that cannot be overcome by a technical remedy — and I am not at all sure that the likes of Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie recognize that the inexorable growth of the administrative regulatory, welfare state is itself a threat to our capacity to govern ourselves.

There are 74 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_645 Editor
    user_645
    @Claire

    The country is hungry for a fresh face, hungry for a sharp change in course

    My gut says–and it is just an instinct, no data to back it up–that this sentiment is going to be up against, “And we’re scared and want someone we can trust.” Not saying I think that’s Hillary, just saying, “I reckon that in a battle of emotions, that’s the way people will feel.”

    • #1
  2. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    The Castro brothers of San Antonio are billed as the next big thing for the Democratic Party. Their problem is projecting themselves to the next level since neither is likely to get elected statewide in Texas.

    Gavin Newsom is the 47-year old Lt. Governor of California and Jerry Brown’s heir apparent. Andrew Cuomo is 57. Cory Booker is 45 and hoping to Barack himself if the current questions about Newark’s Watershed project doesn’t blowup into something greater.

    • #2
  3. Howellis Inactive
    Howellis
    @ManWiththeAxe

    Against all this analysis, which seems right to me, is this, according to my wife:  Women will vote for Hillary because they think it’s time for a female president, and they like her.

    This won’t be true for the women of Ricochet, but what I wonder, and worry about, is how many low information voters are there out there who don’t know or care about “What difference, at this point does it make,” or the reset, or the lack of accomplishment, or even the spine-chilling cackle. They simply like the idea of voting for a woman, just as they liked the idea 8 years ago of voting for a black man.

    • #3
  4. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    EJHill:The Castro brothers of San Antonio are billed as the next big thing for the Democratic Party. Their problem is projecting themselves to the next level since neither is likely to get elected statewide in Texas.

    Gavin Newsom is the 47-year old Lt. Governor of California and Jerry Brown’s heir apparent. Andrew Cuomo is 57. Cory Booker is 45 and hoping to Barack himself if the current questions about Newark’s Watershed project doesn’t blowup into something greater.

    I think that Cuomo is toast. Newsom will have to become governor or senator, and Booker . . . well, we will see. You are right, though, that someone will emerge — nature does abhor a vacuum — but certainly not this cycle.

    • #4
  5. user_645 Editor
    user_645
    @Claire

    Man With the Axe:Against all this analysis, which seems right to me, is this, according to my wife: Women will vote for Hillary because they think it’s time for a female president, and they like her.

    You’re not against my analysis. I reckon, “woman, familiar, and the 90s felt good” is a very powerful combination and not to be underestimated.

    • #5
  6. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Minor quibble. The speech was 33 minutes, not three minutes. What you linked to was a three-minute collection of the President’s “I-Me-My” statements pulled from that speech.

    Yes, that’s still more than three self-references per minute, but let nobody say we’re distorting things around here to make our points.

    • #6
  7. Palaeologus Inactive
    Palaeologus
    @Palaeologus

    Claire Berlinski:

    Man With the Axe:Against all this analysis, which seems right to me, is this, according to my wife: Women will vote for Hillary because they think it’s time for a female president, and they like her.

    You’re not against my analysis. I reckon, “woman, familiar, and the 90s felt good” is a very powerful combination and not to be underestimated.

    I think that is right. Fortunately she is a terrible politician, roughly an unpleasant version of H.W. Bush or Romney. I like both those guys, but natural pols they ain’t.

    • #7
  8. user_333118 Inactive
    user_333118
    @BarbaraKidder

    Claire Berlinski:

    Man With the Axe:Against all this analysis, which seems right to me, is this, according to my wife: Women will vote for Hillary because they think it’s time for a female president, and they like her.

    You’re not against my analysis. I reckon, “woman, familiar, and the 90s felt good” is a very powerful combination and not to be underestimated.

    and add to your list, ‘better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t’, and  ‘we’d be getting two for the price of one’, if Hilary were elected.  Both arguments may be persuasive to the pragmatic voter.

    • #8
  9. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    DrewInWisconsin:Minor quibble. The speech was 33 minutes, not three minutes. What you linked to was a three-minute collection of the President’s “I-Me-My” statements pulled from that speech.

    Yes, that’s still more than three self-references per minute, but let nobody say we’re distorting things around here to make our points.

    Thanks for the correction.

    • #9
  10. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @JoelB

    If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    • #10
  11. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    JoelB:If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    To borrow from Jonah, the feckless crap weasels we have in “leadership” of the party.

    • #11
  12. user_333118 Inactive
    user_333118
    @BarbaraKidder

    The King Prawn:

    JoelB:If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    To borrow from Jonah, the feckless crap weasels we have in “leadership” of the party.

    and the question which no one can answer is:  which candidates to vote for in 2016 who will not be owned, bribed or blackmailed by said “leadership”, once in office?

    • #12
  13. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Two reactions:

    First, the idea that most Republicans are “managerial progressives.” Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the GOP governors are the strongest part of the roster. If any group is likely to be managerially progressive, it would be them (governors are the ultimate managers). But while the now-departed Romney and Jeb Bush are certainly progressive, and I’d add Chris Christie to that list (schmoozing Obama for relief dollars) … most of the others worked within the system to change it. And that’s exactly what we want, to change that whole system. “Being a governor” isn’t enough; you have to be a governor who turns the tide, not just someone who found success within the existing system.

    That’s why I favor Walker. But you could make the same case for Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence. John Kasich is kind of in-between. Perry’s Texas was much less “progressive” to start with, but he probably fits. What Walker has going for him is that he did it in a very progressive state to begin with.

    Second, JoelB in #10 makes an excellent point. Progressives still control the media and the academy (although both institutions seem to be headed for collapse). So, to turn this country around – literally, to repent – we have to address those bastions of liberalism.

    I’d argue that the reason those institutions achieved such liberal dominance was that they were aided and abetted by politicians. If we do get a conservative in the White House, along with a conservative Congress, now’s the time to start dismantling those government-created crutches that keep the press and the academy in cultural power.

    • #13
  14. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    The King Prawn:

    JoelB:If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    To borrow from Jonah, the feckless crap weasels we have in “leadership” of the party.

    In principle, under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. In practice, recent Presidents have proved able to face Congress down. Congress passes a budget or a continuing resolution. If the President does not like it, he vetoes it; and when certain government offices are shut down, they get the blame and are charged with obstruction even though he is the one responsible. Partly, this is the work of the left-liberal media. Partly, it is due to Congressional cowardice.

    At least for the time being, nothing will be fixed until and unless we have control of Congress and the Presidency.

    • #14
  15. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Paul A. Rahe: But I believe that we face a far greater challenge — a political challenge, one that cannot be overcome by a technical remedy — and I am not at all sure that the likes of Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie recognize that the inexorable growth of the administrative regulatory, welfare state is itself a threat to our capacity to govern ourselves.

    Amen, brother!

    • #15
  16. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    KC Mulville:Two reactions:

    First, the idea that most Republicans are “managerial progressives.” Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the GOP governors are the strongest part of the roster. If any group is likely to be managerially progressive, it would be them (governors are the ultimate managers). But while the now-departed Romney and Jeb Bush are certainly progressive, and I’d add Chris Christie to that list (schmoozing Obama for relief dollars) … most of the others worked within the system to change it. And that’s exactly what we want, to change that whole system. “Being a governor” isn’t enough; you have to be a governor who turns the tide, not just someone who found success within the existing system.

    That’s why I favor Walker. But you could make the same case for Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence. John Kasich is kind of in-between. Perry’s Texas was much less “progressive” to start with, but he probably fits. What Walker has going for him is that he did it in a very progressive state to begin with.

    Second, JoelB in #10 makes an excellent point. Progressives still control the media and the academy (although both institutions seem to be headed for collapse). So, to turn this country around – literally, to repent – we have to address those bastions of liberalism.

    I’d argue that the reason those institutions achieved such liberal dominance was that they were aided and abetted by politicians. If we do get a conservative in the White House, along with a conservative Congress, now’s the time to start dismantling those government-created crutches that keep the press and the academy in cultural power.

    I agree with both of your points. If Scott Walker is as sound as he seems to be, . . . Let me add that I regard him as the front runner. The mainstream press was full of Romney, Bush, and Christie, and they have name recognition, which gives the two still in the race an advantage in the polls for now. But I do not believe that either of them has staying power. Bush is beyond the eight ball, talking about the issues that interested him twelve years ago. In 2012, Christie, by his conduct, helped elect Barack Obama. People will not forget.

    • #16
  17. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    And to think so many in the Grand OLD Party are intent on nominating the Jebster. Young in age, old in name.

    • #17
  18. user_139804 Inactive
    user_139804
    @MikePoliquin

    I think that there is a lot to recommend and support Claire’s analysis here:

    We have a very risk-averse set of people in our population who believe that government has their backs and we have a lot of people who subscribe to the idea that it’s time to make sure each victim group gets its turn at the wheel. This is the Obama coalition, and, yes, both sets of people include a lot of women.

    I don’t believe it matters who runs for the Democrats. Their nominee inherits two powerful national political assets, and, like Obama in both elections, their nominee can count on them as long as the Republicans keep to the “next man up” meme: enough voters really do believe the welfare state has their backs, and they also really do believe the Democrats are more fair to victim groups than Republicans.

    A Republican has to win both arguments to reach across the aisle and get the Democrat votes needed to win. This does not mean the Republican has to be liberal. It means that the Republican has to explain in clear terms that the welfare state secures neither prosperity nor freedom, and that this particular Republican — each national Republican has to make this sale individually — will proudly and sincerely lead the whole country.

    • #18
  19. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Paul A. Rahe:

    The King Prawn:

    JoelB:If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    To borrow from Jonah, the feckless crap weasels we have in “leadership” of the party.

    In principle, under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. In practice, recent Presidents have proved able to face Congress down. Congress passes a budget or a continuing resolution. If the President does not like it, he vetoes it; and when certain government offices are shut down, they get the blame and are charged with obstruction even though he is the one responsible. Partly, this is the work of the left-liberal media. Partly, it is due to Congressional cowardice.

    At least for the time being, nothing will be fixed until and unless we have control of Congress and the Presidency.

    Last time we had a showdown over the budget Obama barricaded roadside views and open air monuments. I’m relatively certain that republicans came out on top of that fight, if just barely, and only by overcoming quite the campaign by Obama’s rear guard media. By saying we need to wait until the next election to have a positive effect you sound more like Boehner than I’ve come to expect. I can’t see how we ever win that mythical election that actually counts if we don’t make the argument every day, in every fight, and with every proposed piece of legislation.

    • #19
  20. user_996141 Member
    user_996141
    @EndOfPatience

    Man With the Axe:Against all this analysis, which seems right to me, is this, according to my wife: Women will vote for Hillary because they think it’s time for a female president, and they like her.

    This won’t be true for the women of Ricochet, but what I wonder, and worry about, is how many low information voters are there out there who don’t know or care about “What difference, at this point does it make,” or the reset, or the lack of accomplishment, or even the spine-chilling cackle. They simply like the idea of voting for a woman, just as they liked the idea 8 years ago of voting for a black man.

    Consider this:  How many of those women have friends or relatives out of work, have had their health insurance change for the worst, have seen prices rise while income is stagnant or declining, etc., and THEN hear how anyone claiming things aren’t super special swell is a Republican liar.  There’s a reason that trust in the media polls almost as low as trust in Congress.

    I’m not disputing that what you wrote will be true for a significant portion, but I think that what Claire wrote above is true with a larger portion.  The Democrats and their operatives with bylines have seriously squandered their credibility among those people who are scared.

    Now, whether the GOPe will take advantage of the situation, …

    • #20
  21. M1919A4 Member
    M1919A4
    @M1919A4

    I share Professor Rahe’s hopes but also Claire’s doubts.

    Even after the failures of the economy to begin hitting on all cylinders following the government’s “pump priming” and monetary fiddling, the collapse of what foreign policy and international standing we had at the start of the administration, and six years of increasingly totalitarian meddlesome interventions in our social fabric, Rasmusssen this morning gave President Obama a 51% approval rating.  That is not comforting for anyone who retains some hope that self-government is possible.

    The best encouragement that I can offer is found in this note from Commentary: 

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/01/30/scott-walker-rejects-premise/#more-856562.

    If we have a chance, it seems increasingly likely that it is in the person of Governor Scot Walker.

    • #21
  22. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    The Democrat’s 2016 playbook is written already. It doesn’t matter who the Republican Candidate (RC) is, his/her record, or his/her positions on issues. The RC could be young, middle-aged, old, male, female, cis-, trans-, white, black, brown, yellow, red, gay, straight, fat, thin, tall, short, good looking, ugly, center-right, far-right, RINO, solid conservative, from the east, west, north or south. It will not matter.

    The RC will be painted as a racist, xenophobic, islamophobic, sexist, homophobic, Tea Party bigot from the Religious Right. The campaign will be denounced as a phallo-centric, climate-denying, tax breaks for the rich, war on women, crusade to crush the poor and throw grandma over a cliff onto an ice floe without any medicine or even dog food to eat. Because SCIENCE!!

    The Democrats will be largely supported by the major media in this effort.

    Consequently (to borrow some of my verbiage from another comment) 2016 will not be decided on issues as much as it will be decided in the cage. The Left is going to fight fists, boots and all. There is no depth to which they will not stoop to win.

    The RC is going to have to take off the gloves, run right straight at the Dem, and not let up.

    Since Clinton is the likely Dem, here’s an example. We will know the Republican is serious if he/she runs right straight at her on Benghazi, keeps after her until she provides a true timeline of her actions and whereabouts on that night, then rubs her face straight into it and doesn’t let up. This is just one example, there are other issues as well (reforming the IRS and national defense to name just a few).

    Romney was not that guy. I seriously doubt Bush is either.

    Pro tip to the RC:  You can say “reform capital gains tax, eliminate corporate income tax, foster a climate for small business job creation, [etc.]” 1,000,000 times a day from now until the day after the 2016 election, it will not sink into the heads of anybody who doesn’t already believe it. Doesn’t matter that it’s true, you’re just wasting your breath and playing into the class warfare rhetoric the Dems will be using.

    • #22
  23. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @BallDiamondBall

    MICHELLE OBAMA DEFENDS ‘AMERICAN SNIPER’
    I think they’ve found their candidate:

    “I had a chance to see American Sniper this week on that long flight we took,” Obama said. “While I know there have been critics, I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.”

    • #23
  24. Koblog Inactive
    Koblog
    @Koblog

    Yeah, I’m votin’ fer the Butcher of Benghazi. She’s got my back.

    • #24
  25. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    M1919A4:I share Professor Rahe’s hopes but also Claire’s doubts.

    Even after the failures of the economy to begin hitting on all cylinders following the government’s “pump priming” and monetary fiddling, the collapse of what foreign policy and international standing we had at the start of the administration, and six years of increasingly totalitarian meddlesome interventions in our social fabric, Rasmusssen this morning gave President Obama a 51% approval rating. That is not comforting for anyone who retains some hope that self-government is possible.

    The best encouragement that I can offer is found in this note from Commentary:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/01/30/scott-walker-rejects-premise/#more-856562.

    If we have a chance, it seems increasingly likely that it is in the person of Governor Scot Walker.

    The Commentary piece by Seth Mandel is, indeed, good.

    • #25
  26. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @BallDiamondBall

    I am going to re-read 1984, with the Republicrat party in mind:

    “If there is hope,’ wrote Winston, ‘it lies in the proles.’

    If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflexion of the voice, at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength. would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet ——!

    • #26
  27. Julia PA Member
    Julia PA
    @JulesPA

    The King Prawn:

    Paul A. Rahe:

    The King Prawn:

    JoelB:If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    To borrow from Jonah, the feckless crap weasels we have in “leadership” of the party.

    In principle, under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. In practice, recent Presidents have proved able to face Congress down. Congress passes a budget or a continuing resolution. If the President does not like it, he vetoes it; and when certain government offices are shut down, they get the blame and are charged with obstruction even though he is the one responsible. Partly, this is the work of the left-liberal media. Partly, it is due to Congressional cowardice.

    At least for the time being, nothing will be fixed until and unless we have control of Congress and the Presidency.

    …we don’t make the argument every day, in every fight, and with every proposed piece of legislation.

    So many people continue to think and act in self-destructive ways even if they are on a path to doom. It is only when they become immersed in the facts that their lives are headed toward rock bottom, that some of those people will jump ship.

    Conservatives need to prove to more of the people in this country that the current track we are on is taking us to rock-bottom.

    We many not ever capture every person who is headed toward rock-bottom, but if some of them begin to see that better ideas and choices can right this ship, we might have a chance at making some headway.

    Leaders, not candidates, need to beat the drum of sanity, liberty and freedom, not just at election time, but all the time. People don’t change their minds overnight.

    • #27
  28. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Yes, all that great young talent. And the Republican nominee will be:

    Jeb Bush

    Since this is one of the few ways the Republicans can screw this up, it will inevitably happen.

    • #28
  29. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    J Climacus:Yes, all that great young talent. And the Republican nominee will be:

    Jeb Bush

    Since this is one of the few ways the Republicans can screw this up, it will inevitably happen.

    There are days when I think as you think. But we tried the guy whose turn it was last time, and my bet is that Mitt Romney was on the money when he said that we need a fresh face. What I mean by that is that his minions surveyed his supporters from 2012 and that they were told that a new face is needed. It is, I think, Scott Walter’s to lose. We all know what he went through, and we all admire his grace under pressure.

    • #29
  30. Yeah...ok. Inactive
    Yeah...ok.
    @Yeahok

    The Democrat party does not need a “bench”, they’ll just create a candidate from focus group data. An unknown is better because it’s easier to maintain the fiction.

    Monitor the warnings of looming disaster on CNN. Climate, economy, immigration, asteroids… the next democratic star will be a gay Russian climate expert.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.