Ron Lipsman gives us an advance look at some of the potential GOP presidential candidates for 2012
Since I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, I have cast six presidential ballots – all for Republicans, but in every instance with my thumb and forefinger clasped firmly on my nose. My two votes for Reagan were offered up enthusiastically, optimistically and with confidence that I was voting for a candidate devoted to individual liberty, Constitutional faithfulness, American exceptionalism and free market principles. In my six votes since (four Bushes, a Dole and a McCain), I knew without doubt that the person for whom I was voting did not come remotely close to matching Reagan's belief in the ideals I just cited. Of course, in each case, my candidate appeared substantially more palatable than the egalitarian, statist-obsessed leftist that the Dems put up – so the choice was foreordained; although, in the end, it felt like a choice between an uber liberal and liberal lite. Therefore, in some sense, it didn't matter that much who won as the victor continued to lead America down the path toward Euro-socialism, multiculturalism, moral degeneracy and economic calamity.
Here we go again. We are in the season in which dozens of would be Presidents are making their final decision as to whether to throw their hat in the ring for 2012. The election is still two years away, but in our increasingly insane system – in which an obscene amount of money is required to make the run – late entrants into the race (as Fred Thompson proved in the last cycle) do not have a chance. Within a few short months, we shall have before us a playbill with probably a dozen actors listed, each of whom has decided that he or she is the answer to our Republican presidential prayers. Thus, the question again: when I vote for the survivor of the Republican primary/caucus marathon, will it be with my nostrils clenched, or will it be with the enthusiasm that I felt for Ronald Reagan? In this regard, it is worth mentioning that of my six previous Republican votes for President, not once did I vote for the eventual winner in the Republican Presidential primary.
Pundits, pollsters and the media have been handicapping the field for a while already. One could list as many as two dozen people who are considered "potentially serious candidates." I must say that I feel somewhat more encouraged than I have been at the corresponding point in previous cycles. Within the field there are definitely several candidates who appear worthy of the mantle worn by Reagan. Two in particular are very attractive to me: Jim DeMint and Mike Pence. Now admittedly I might not know enough about either of these potential candidates to be certain that we don't have another Trojan Bush in the making. But DeMint's book, Saving Freedom is a glorious manifesto for individual liberty and Pence's recent article in the October issue of the magazine Imprimis entitled "The Presidency and the Constitution" is a testament to Constitutional faithfulness that is inspiring. I know even less about some of the other contenders (Barbour, Daniels, Jindal, Pawlenty, Perry, Thune), but their conservative credentials appear strong and – at least at first glance – it seems quite possible that I might be able to cast an enthusiastic vote for one of them.
But you will note that I have so far omitted mention of the four names that garner the most play in the media – and the likelihood is that my eyes will be gazing at one of their names on my electronic ballot as I decide whether my nose must be shielded before I tap the box next to their name.
Gingrich. In principle, Newt passes muster. His conservative credentials are impeccable. The books he has published, the causes he has championed, the candidates he has supported since he was chased from power, all reinforce his unquestioned conservative beliefs. But Newt is damaged goods, thoroughly demonized by the left, and he has a track record of volatility and questionable judgment. I'm sure that Obama is licking his chops at the prospect. I don't think that it will happen. Still, I would vote for him with some enthusiasm, but I would be worried.
Palin. More damaged and demonized goods – maybe more so than Newt. More chop licking by Obama. It would take a book to explain the incredibly negative reaction she elicits. But the sad fact is that some of that reaction emanates from certain conservative quarters. Therefore, I doubt that she could secure the nomination – if she even decides to run. She is extremely attractive, with bona fide conservative credentials, but one cannot escape the feeling of insufficient gravitas for her to be considered Presidential material. Of course the current resident of the White House apparently had gravitas (now unmasked as arrogance unsupported by talent) and charisma. We know how that turned out. I would vote for her over Obama of course, but as with Newt, I would be worried.
Huckabee. He certainly has played a magnificent game since 2008. If one watches his TV show and reads his words, one senses that his adherence to the principles enunciated earlier are solid and unshakeable. There is just the little matter of his failure to live up to those principles when he was Governor of Arkansas. If it comes to it, I'll vote for him. But I doubt that I'll be able to keep my fingers off of my nose – although the stench I‘ll be attempting to avoid will not be nearly as pungent as it was for McCain.
Romney. Can you say RINO? Romney has a proven track record as a fake conservative. The words "Massachusetts Health Care" should be sufficient to instantly disqualify him. If elected, there is not a chance that he will lead the charge to reverse the country's inexorable slide toward Euro-socialism, international feebleness and economic decline. And yet he is widely perceived to be the front runner for the Republican 2012 nomination. Should he achieve that goal, it would prove that the Tea Party revolt of the last two years has been for naught. The thought of voting for him – despite the fact that I will do so if left no other choice – is deeply disheartening.
But perhaps fate will be kind and one among the earlier group of names will emerge as the victor. I will vote enthusiastically for the person who can help the US turn the page on the sorry age of Obama and lead our country out of the leftist wilderness.
“Hooray for has-beens” should be the Republican presidential slogan in 2012.
While anything is technically possible, some of the “dark horse” names you mentioned, specifically Jim DeMint, have absolutely no realistic chance of getting the nomination and even worse prospects of winning in a general election. All of the “front runner” candidates, including the four you mentioned here, are barely preferable to the alternative. Knowing that my state votes overwhelming Democrat anyway, I’d be inclined to throw away my vote on the Libertarian or Constitution party candidate if Huckabee or Romney won the nomination.
Yes, I agree with most of what you have said, but let’s not let our love for America and the Constitution lead us to nominate someone pure like Barry Goldwater who got 39% of the vote. Reagan was not all that pure but he had charisma and he knew how to ride the wave of change after the worst president in history, before Obama. The first requirement of any nominee will be can he win, and win big?
A viable GOP presidential candidate for 2012 is a challenge. As you say Sarah Palin has been so demonized by the MSM that a run by her would have the effect of energizing the left. Never mind that she could not possibly do worse in that office than the current occupant. As an aside; the entire nation really dodged a bullet with Barack Obama. If he’d even been 10% effective we’d be buried under an unmovable pile of redistributive social justice mandates by now.
Romney is a RINO and his attempt at health care as Massachusetts Governor is all the evidence you need to realize he has no true conservative roots. He’s photogenic and has money to burn, but cannot convince anyone of his supposedly conservative credentials.
Likewise with Mike Huckabee. I live in Arkansas and Huckabee was a serial disappointment as Governor. His pardons of murdering criminals was the most difficult to understand. I once heard a person at a Garland County Republican Party meeting mention that he’d actually met Governor Huckabee. He said; “I had a long conversation with the governor and he’s the most agreeable liberal I’ve ever met.”
Newt Gingrich has been trying to reinvent himself since his ouster as Speaker. It remains to be seen if he has been successful. While I agree that the liberal media would make every attempt to skewer him; I believe he would be able to weather such a storm. He certainly knows Washington and would run rings around Obama in a debate of the issues. As with Palin, he would give the liberals something to rally around and may energize the liberal base to vote against him. But I think he would make Obama look so bad after the first debate that there wouldn’t be another after that.
As for the second tire candidates; the only warning I can make is careful of the MSM: Last time they got behind a republican candidate (McCain) it was only because they believed him to be the most beatable. Whomever the MSM excoriates the most is the candidate that probably has the best chance of unseating Obama.
Bill Wavering, using your media criteria suggests that Palin is the best candidate. Other than her there are no conservatives in the batch mentioned in the article. Newt even prefers the Dream amnesty for millions and never saw an illegal that should not be allowed to stay.
Unless something really strange happens in 2012 we will become a 3 party nation with the GOP withering and dieing when the tea party achieves major party status. Right now there is only one party the republicrats.
Mickey,
The nation has experienced the death of a political party and its replacement by another only twice in its history (Federalists -> Whigs and Whigs -> Republicans; sadly the Democrats have been with us since the beginning.) The last time this occurred was more than 150 years ago. I fear that the likelihood of such a transformation occurring again successfully is small. If the Tea Party becomes a bona fide party, it might not kill the Republican Party, rather it might ensure perpetual power by the Democrats.
Far preferable would be if true conservatives took control of the Republican Party more or less the way that true liberals have captured the Democratic Party. Then perhaps, 80 years from now, the following statement that applies to the previous 80 years, could not be made: Every Democratic president (with the possible exception of Kennedy) has been a hard-core, doctrinaire liberal, wheres every Republican President (except one) has been a RINO.
Possibly: It is practically conventional wisdom that the more vitriolic the MSM gets the more they fear the candidate. I was convinced in 2008 that the major reasoning behind the pillorying of Sarah Palin by the MSM was fear. The last thing progressives needed was a woman who balanced family and career, motherhood and political activism, and did it all without the support system of child care, abortion rights, and litigation for equality that feminists say they must have in order to be successful.
Forming third parties is extremely difficult. The institutionalized parties here in the US have rigged the game to purposefully exclude such things. Look at how difficult it is to get a third party candidate on the ballot. Now look at how often that threshold changes from state to state.
We probably came closer to that in this election cycle then at any other time in the last 50 years. As opposed to creating a third party, I could see T.E.A. Party candidates springing up to challenge any incumbent that fails to toe the conservative line. As more and more conservatives take their places in Congress, they will be ‘sound-byted’ by news organizations and more people will begin to realize these new conservatives aren’t the knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, extremists the MSM paints them to be.
The biggest challenge is still media spin. Just as the media praised Clinton’s supposed surpluses and berated George Bush’s deficits; the electorate forgot to look at who was actually in control of the purse strings during those times. It was a republican congress that forced Clinton’s hand during his second term just as it was democrats that spent Bush into trouble in his second.
…it was democrats that spent Bush into trouble in his second.
That argument is a bit of a tough sell considering that Bush also carried deficits during his first term and the first half of his second term when he had Republican majorities in both houses, and especially in light of the fact that he managed to veto all of 11 bills during the final 2 years of his administration in which the Democrats held control of congress – setting a 200 year record low for the use of the veto pen by a president. The problem was that Bush didn’t disagree with the Democrats on the level of spending – only on the direction. One of the most successful misinformation campaigns of all time has been the casting of George W. Bush as some fanatical, anarcho-capitalist uber-conservative by the Democratic party and the media. Now they can paint anybody to the right of George W. Bush – a bar set so low that several Democrats would qualify – as a fanatical right wing extremist. Hardly a new strategy (lest we forget uncle Teddy’s drunken, red faced raging on the senate floor about coat hanger abortions and gestapo raids if Robert Bork found his way onto the supreme court), it just took a Republican president as bumbling, ineffectual, poorly spoken, and suicidal in terms of media and public relations as GWB to make it stick. Nominating a bunch of two-time silver medalists to challenge Obama in 2012 certainly isn’t going to help the Republicans shake that image. Nominating any of the current “front runners” is basically saying to the American people: “We’re completely out of new ideas”. Even if that’s true, or even if your ideas were never really that bad in the first place (which is debatable for a lot of Republican policy moves in the last 8 years), you may want to try picking somebody to champion your old ideas whose only claim to national recognition is having previously lost in the same contest.
*last sentence should read “is not having previously lost in the same contest.”
“As an interesting aside: I saw a cartoon the other day entitled “The American Public Finally United” and it had a picture of two people. One person was saying “I’m against Barack Obama because he’s a socialist.” The other person was saying; “I’m against Barack Obama because he isn’t.””
And both were thinking “I’m against Barack Obama because he is Black, but I can’t say that.”
I can only guess that most non-blacks that voted for this guy were deceived into thinking that BHO was mostly white and would act that way and that most blacks thought they were voting for a black man. Then they both found out that he represents their side about as Don Corleone represents Italians. Leave the gun, take the cannoli.
Patrick: Aside from your rant being full of crap, please revisit the 11 vetoes and record bla,bla, bla. It seems assbackwards.
Aside from your rant being full of crap, please revisit the 11 vetoes and record bla,bla, bla. It seems assbackwards.
Not to quibble, but can you point to anything in my “rant” that is inaccurate?
A quick examination of a graphical breakdown of Bush’s budgets (by comparison to Obama’s budgets and budget projections) shows pretty clearly that Bush carried deficits long before the Democrats took both houses in ’06 (note that the majority-Democrat congress was not seated until the 2007 budget year). A quick peak at the first page of this analysis by former American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute analyst Veronique de Rugy confirms.
As noted by George Will in his March 16, 2006 column, as of March 23, 2006 Bush had gone longer than any president since Thomas Jefferson (who neglected to veto a single bill in two terms as president) to issue a veto – setting a new record.
And finally, a quick look at a list of vetoes issued by President Bush shows a total of 12 – 11 of which were issued after the Democrat-majority congress was seated in January 2007.
Since you brought it up, of those 11 vetoes a grand total of 2 were for appropriations bills. One was for the second stem cell research bill of his presidency, two for SCHIP, 2 for the ’07 Farm Bill, one was for the Intelligence Authorization Act of ’08 which would have barred waterboarding, one for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 a version of which Bush later signed after a minor revision, one for the ’07 Water Resources Act which wasn’t funded, and his final veto in 2008 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act which reversed cuts in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers and was passed over his veto. In totality, 7 vetoes over the course of 2 years that were related to spending. An average of 3.5 per year. Not exactly the stuff of fiscal hawks, despite your apparent delusions to the contrary.
So then, which part was “full of crap”?
Patrick,
While I think we’re both in agreement that George Bush was no true conservative; his deficits were indeed smaller in his first term before the Congress went majority democrat. The fact that he didn’t’ veto anything is the millstone around his legacy, the fact that Congress has the power of the purse is enough to make the statement that they were certainly complicit in the creation of the deficit they campaigned AGAINST during the 2008 presidential election.
“The problem was that Bush didn’t disagree with the Democrats on the level of spending – only on the direction.” But this is the ‘push-pull’ of ideological difference between democrats and republicans that‘s been on display for generations.
Look at the current debate over tax policy. Democrats don’t give a fig about tax cuts. They would have gladly allowed the Bush Tax Rates expire for all Americans, as long as they were able to push the blame on republicans. “No one gets a tax break because those evil republicans decided to protect the uber-wealthy’s rates at the expense of the rest of America.”
Now that Barack Obama has struck this deal with republicans, democrats are incensed. Not because of the additional money added to the deficit, they’re mad because this presidential compromise pulled the rug from under them by under cutting the narrative. Now the narrative says that democrats are so enraged over the possibility that some rich people might actually get to keep the money they legally earned, that in order to ensure their screwing, they are willing to forgo any extension of tax rates at all.
“Nominating a bunch of two-time silver medalists to challenge Obama in 2012 certainly isn’t going to help the Republicans shake that image.” Agreed: Back in February of 2010 I made the following observation; “Here I must note that I’ve always been of the opinion that /progressives have always had a personnel advantage over conservatives. Not only that, but the progressives know it! The progressive believes in the absolute infallibility of government; and from birth their children are groomed for life as a bureaucrat. Progressives rise through government in the same manner as conservatives rise through business. Progressives gravitate to government service with the best and brightest to elective office. The best and brightest conservatives most always gravitate to the boardrooms of our Fortune 500 companies. After all; business success may shower wealth on an achiever but the high offices of government grant power over individuals.”
This statement says the republicans are always fielding the ‘second team’ against democrats. And it happened again in 2010. In another post in October I pointed out how many people were criticizing conservative, grass roots candidates because they weren’t as polished as their liberal challengers, yet we had wanted ‘real’ people to step up and take these liberal politicians on. So; which way is it going to be?
I’m not certain that an ‘old’ candidate with a new message can’t win. If the compromise that republicans have negotiated here actually expands employment opportunities; then republicans have legitimate reason to tout conservative ideals as turning a jobless recovery into a jobs recovery because of those principles. The new message is; “Conservatism works every time it’s tried.”
Oh don’t mistake me – I didn’t mean to suggest that Bush was worse than, or even as bad as, Obama or the Democrats in terms of spending. Just that he wasn’t much of a conservative, and the mostly successful liberal frenzy to hysterically brand him as the next Murray Rothbard is unquestionably one of the biggest marketing scams perpetrated in history. As a result of that complete and utter misdirection Republicans are in a tougher spot in terms of marketing their next presidential candidate, and they’re only compounding their woes by nominating these has-been candidates who have already missed the brass ring at least once. I mean Romney and Huckabee? Really? The guys who somehow managed to lose out to John McCain? How many times did the Democrats run Mondale or Dukakis?
Well Patrick
That’s more like it. The crap I was talking about was the Bush bashing and don’t tell me that wasn’t what you were doing. Your first post sounded like the Democratic talking points. Besides Bush is gone. Except for his book tour, of course, which is pretty good.
I can see your point. So how do conservatives proceed? We garnered political successes across the nation in the most recent elections; and with decidedly non-professional political candidates in some races. Do we attempt to emulate this once again in 2012? Can a formerly unknown or little known candidate capture the energy of the Republican Party?
Barack Obama has likely put paid to the idea that you actually require experience to hold the nation’s highest office. But I still don’t think we’d want to toss a novice into a presidential race.
The narrative for the MSM in 2012 is already set. As you say; to offer a retread candidate from 2008 in 2012 the MSM will say; “Really; Huckabee? What makes anyone thing he can beat Obama when he couldn’t beat McCain?” Well, this is where I think the difference lies.
In 2008 the MSM spent quite a bit of time, IMHO, touting John McCain as the best the Republican Party could hope for. They said; “He’s a man of compromise. One that can, and will, work across the aisle.” I really believe they determined that McCain would be easiest to beat, so they did all they could to drag him across the primary finish line. Remember; as late as the spring of 2008, McCain was practically a one man campaign because of money issues; and more than one conservative pundit had him marked as a dead man walking.
I really believe the current stable of candidates should be enough. All we have to do is grade the rhetoric coming from the left wing press. The one they talk loudest against, is the one they fear the most. The one they fear the most will probably be our best chance to win.
I would be interested in knowing who you think should be the conservative standard bearer in 2012? I think it should be Haley Barbour
IF conservatives want their best chance at winning the presidency, only Sarah Palin will do. She has a strong media presence and is a celebrity in her own right. Ideal qualifications for the office. The nomination is Palin’s to lose–and my guess is that she won’t lose it. And she is right–she could beat Obama.
The crap I was talking about was the Bush bashing and don’t tell me that wasn’t what you were doing.
I was merely responding to Bill’s point by pointing out that Bush was a spendthrift for years before the Democrats took control of congress, so blaming the Democrats for “spending him into trouble” isn’t entirely fair or accurate. Nothing I said was inaccurate. It certainly wasn’t intended as bashing, the man just, unfortunately, doesn’t have a good fiscal record as president (at least not as a Republican or a conservative).
I still don’t think we’d want to toss a novice into a presidential race.
A novice politician, no. But perhaps somebody who hasn’t sought the presidency before. Someone who doesn’t have a lot of negative association in the public psyche. Someone who can’t be accused of flip-flopping when he tailors his campaign message differently than the last time he ran, which will inevitably happen with Palin, Romney or Huckabee who all ran last time. Someone less polarizing (Palin is either loved or loathed, Huckabee’s religiosity and previous occupation will turn off anybody outside the religious right, and the necessity of Romney’s big “Mormon speech” last time out should serve as evidence enough). In other words, the GOP needs its Obama, or its Clinton, or its Kennedy (speaking purely in terms of campaign strategy, obviously). Somebody charismatic with a decent message who doesn’t have a stack of negatives to overcome.
I would be interested in knowing who you think should be the conservative standard bearer in 2012?
I honestly can’t think of anybody off the top of my head. There haven’t really been any standout national leaders in the Republican party since the roof caved in in 2008. I think Chris Christie would make an excellent president, but I don’t know how he’d do as a candidate. I think Marco Rubio’s got himself well-poised for a run barring anything politically suicidal in his term(s) as senator, but as of 2012 he’ll have been a senator for less than 2 years, which would make mounting a run for president a bit ambitious for someone outside of the Democratic party.
I think it should be Haley Barbour
Way too old, way too southern, way too establishment. Here’s the Democrats’ response: “Tobacco industry lobbyist!” You may as well yell “fire!” in a crowded polling station. I would want Haley Barbour on my campaign team or working with the party if I was running, but I think nominating him would be as good as forfeiting the election to Obama.
Why do I continue to say that Palin is the ideal Republican candidate? First, she’s already quite well-known. Much of the American public is in a populist frame of mind and she’s the ultimate populist candidate. Huckabee could count on support from the religious right, but Palin can easily claim this part of the Republican base as well, plus add to it by attracting many independents, and it is the independents who will decide the 2012 election. Conservative enthusiasm for Gingrich is misplaced–he’s the guy who shut down the government, and would be a great target for liberals. Also, his intellectual style might impress conservative intellectual fanboys, but it would turn off masses of voters. I wouldn’t worry too much, though, about any conservative candidate unifying the liberal base. Why? Because the liberal base is very small, and by 2012 it will become almost negligible. The country’s right turn should be blindingly obvious to liberals–but I can attest to the fact that many of them are oblivious to it. The ‘right’ to which the country is turning is only in part traditional conservative or even libertarian–it is populist. Just wait till Tea Party politicians really get a close look at American business elites. TP folks are a loose cannon–and some of them will begin to take aim at corporations that took bailout funds only to lay off lots of people while continuing to pay corporate officers gigantic salaries. It’s quite conceivable to me at least that populist hostility to ‘big’ institutions–which conservatives have reinforced since it helps them in their attacks on government–can be directed at targets conservatives would rather protect. Also, lots of TP supporters don’t have any problem with Social Security or Medicare and thus aren’t really opposed to the liberal welfare state. While TP people may talk a game of constitutional conservatism, they’re not going to cut off their own benefits when libertarians implore them to do so.
Palin has the potential to be the right-wing populist president whose personal style and positions will appeal to more voters than would be lured by the other presidential hopefuls.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MQuidam, jt and IC Politics, Rachel Alexander. Rachel Alexander said: Intellec. Conserv.: Will I Have to Hold My Nose Yet Again? http://bit.ly/gWfoT2 [...]