Look Forward Not Back
Dec 2nd, 2009 by Timothy Pancoast
Ever since November of 08 I have been hearing speculation of who the next GOP Presidential Candidate will or should be. The Huckabee camp, the Romney camp, and the Paul camp seem to be the strongest holdovers from the last election’s Presidential contenders. John McCain is clearly out of the picture this time. Then there are Thompson, Thompson, Brownback, Giuliani, Hunter, Keyes, and Tancredo. There are probably a few I missed that either dropped out early or never had enough support or recognition.
My opinion is that it is best to stop looking back at the 08 crop. America did not choose them. America isn’t going to choose them this time either, unless one of those candidates does something to earn it. Rather, than increase support most of them have seen their extra baggage get a little heavier or a little dirtier. John McCain isn’t getting any younger and “Maverikyness” isn’t starting to play any better with the base than it did in 08. Mitt Romney has been hit hard over the Mass. Health Care system’s downsides, and rightfully so. Now Mike Huckabee has his second big clemency blow-up. The others have all moved on to focus on other projects or don’t have enough support.
I think it would be wise for us to start looking at new faces for the Presidential race. At this point there is still time to find new faces, vet them, and see their campaigns off to a solid start.
Look at Mitch Daniels of Indiana.
Proven performer.
Mike Protack
I would second Daniels as an addition. I would add Thune and Barbour to the list.
As for your premise, I couldn’t disagree more. We Reagan ran 2 twice before he was nominated. GHWB once, Dole once (and once as the VP nominee), Nixon once (and twice as the VP), McCain once, Dewey once, in fact every Republican nominee with the exception of Ford who was an accidental incumbent, Goldwater, and GWB since 1956 had been run before. There was only one who won, but his father had been President so he had a built in national following. Unless we get an Eisenhower to pop up, history says that it is better to take a chance with someone we know. David Petraus or Colin Powell could defy that standard, but General Powell could no longer win the nomination.
You will never find a perfect candidate short of the Second Coming. It is better to have a candidate who has gone through the paces.
As for the Huckabee Clemency, he followed the recommendation of the judge in the case who believed that he erred in giving a 16 year old 108 years for an unarmed robbery and the unanimous recommendation of the board of pardons. He reduced the sentence to 45 years. He had nothing to do with freeing the guy as early as he was nor did he prevent the prosecuter from filing to recommit him for probation violations, nor did he prevent the state of Washington from doing the same, nor did he prevent WA from extraditing him from back to Arkansas on parole violations, nor did he make the judge give someone charged with rape and wanted in another state, a low bail.
Huckabee did not do anything worthy of speaking his name. By any legal standard, what he did was proper. The reduced sentence was still way above the average for the case. If the man had any money, the sentence would have been overturned on appeal. Going through the Clemency process actually allowed a more orderly process which had the potential to protect the public. The fact that the Democrats refused to follow the law and use those protections every step of the way in two states is not a Huckabee “blowup”. He is out of office in Arkansas and never in office in Washington state and had no more control than you do.
I think this whole thing is a pathetic attempt to link his name for pure poltical reasons. If you look at the polling for 2012, Huckabee is the strongest candidate. Around 60% of the pubic likes him. He is the only national Republican with better ratings than Obama. I have seen polling with him at almost 80% among Republicans and around 70% among independents. He even has a strong following among Conservative Democrats. He is within 4 points of Mr. Obama with 14% undecided. Yea, that means he should quit and we start all over again.
It takes a long time to build a national following. The only Republican not to be a previous candidate for President or Vice President to win had the organization of the father who was a President. If you want to win, go with Huckabee, Romney, or maybe Palin. I could see Kasich if he wins the governorship of Ohio. He ran before and would head the most important swing state. I see him more as a 2016 candidate if we don’t win or 2020 if we do. Mitch Daniels (who would have Bush loyalists) and Halley Barbour (who as former RNC chair and current RGA head has a national network) would be my exception to the rule.
BTW, it is a good post. It is a worthy discussion.
Now for a defense of Romney. He should get credit for a system which improved health coverage and did not seem to negatively impact employment unlike HI. He tackled a big issue with some of the best advise from all sides. The Democrat dominated legislature tinkered with the deal almost before the hand shakes were finished so it is not exactly the plan that he wanted especially on cost containment. I also don’t think that they planned for a global recession this deep tossing many thousands into the public treasury for subsidies. With that said, it is well over budget and has not shown itself to be a model worthy of duplication. It just goes to show that big government may not have a solution for the health care issue.
It seems that he learned a lesson from that. Just taking an imperfect bill to get a bill works for somethings, but not something as complicated as health care.
Romney has his failure, but he has a thousand successes. He is the ultimate turn around artist. He made two careers out of fixing messes and we have some nationally. I can not imagine anyone better to get the economy straight and get the wars straight. He did it in MA from the big dig to the budget. He turned around a failed Salt Lake City Olympics into a great success. He helped more new corporations become natinal successes than anyone alive. He saved more failed companies than most people can name.
Doers make errs once in a while that is the price of accomplishment. Where there are no oxen the crib is clean, but much increase comes from the strength of the oxen.–King Solomon
Well I guess we take opposite sides on this one, but we are both equal opportunity in our stances. I was part of the Romney grass roots in 08, but I don’t feel that he or any of the other 08 candidates has earned a spot on the stage for 2012 at this point. If any of them does, great for them, but they will need to bring something more to the race in 2012 than they did in 2008. If they can’t than my opinion is that they should stay out of it.
Agreed, they need to build not coast. President Obama may look on the ropes right now, but I suspect that will change. If he does not get cap and trade, the economy is almost bound to pick up by 2012. It will be a fight.
John McCain is clearly out of the picture this time.
True. However, behind the scenes, he is using his influence (particularly with young Republican House members) to ‘remake’ the party in his own conciliatory, appeasing image (read-losing image).
Hey John; we tried it your way, and we got blown out of the water. Do conservatives a favor and get the hell out of the way…following your ‘expertise’ would be like throwing an anchor to a drowning man. Get lost.
I hear a lot about strategy of who can carry which state and who has run and who hasn’t. But I didn’t hear much about character or values or what they stand for. There should be more to picking our president then just crunching numbers. We have for far too long allowed accountants and the media to tell us who “CAN” win. We must if we have any hope of turning this nation around , return to the principles of electing our leaders because they represent our values and principles, and not because they can carry one state or another.And certainly not because they promise to solve the problems of our lives better solved by ourselves.
Spot on Frank. I guess that is a large part of why I am no longer interested in looking back at the 08 crop of candidates. That election became too much about the so called “electabilty” of certain candidates, and not about the values of America and whether the candidates really lived those values or not.
With a few exceptions I thought Romney held those values, and many felt Huckabee generally held those values, but if we end up with both of them in the race for 2012, once again we will end up with niether in the White House. The two camps created a pattern of mutual destruction that I am no longer willing to be part of. All attempts to look at values and principles (and there were several) got lost in the drama of the feud between the two camps. Republicans started looking at electability above all else and we ended up with John McCain being unelected, because people are more than just reams of data to be crunched.
Tim, I know that many see her as a light weight on foriegn policy, even many within the GOP, in reality as governor of Alaska she delt with Russia, China ,Canada and many other countries in respect to her state’s natural resources. But if anyone reads her book you will see that Sarah Palin has those family values , but more she has real conservative principles. And she has demonstrated them in her terms as mayor of Wasilla and as governor of Alaska.
She took on corruption within the big oil companies , she took on corruption within the state government, and she even took on her own party leadership who fought her while she was fighting for the people. She has the charisma to attract new people to the party. And as a bench mark, if the liberal left and the moderates hate her so much , then she must be doing something right. She also showed that she can take a punch, she has been hit with every insane accusation, from ethics charges of bribery because she wore an Artic Cat coat to a snowmachine race, to those who charged that her special needs son was actually her daughters child. So I think she has the chops to run the race. And like Reagan, she has demonstrated how she would govern as president, in the way she governed as mayor and governor. She is a free market conservative who believes that government should work for the people, not the other way around and in the smallest form possible.And I know that in some sectors this will be labeled as a negative, but she has a strong faith in God and does not shigh away from proffessing it.
As for this slobering love affair that so many moderates within the GOP have with Romney and Huckabee, well I just don’t get it. Huckabee is done, we have seen candidates destroyed by one case of letting the wrong person out, he now has two deaths that can be held over his head, whehter that’s right or wrong it is the way it is. As for Romney, well his government option healthcare plan has turned into exactly what conservatives said it would, higher cost and reduced service. How can he run without that being brought up? He could never survive a GOP primary with that around his neck. There , now I went and talked electablility.
…if we have any hope of turning this nation around , return to the principles of electing our leaders because they represent our values and principles, and not because they can carry one state or another.
To effect change, you must do both.
Look to the northern plains; your candidate is there.