A New Post
A long, long time after 2008, in a galaxy full of internet crazies….
It is a period of civil war. Socially
awkward political blowhards, striking from their momma’s
basements, have yet to have anything but pyrrhic victories
against the evil-ish ‘Republitic Establishment’.
During the misguided battles, libertarian-lite know-it-alls and
(oxy)moronic “conservative populists” have managed to
provide the real enemy (the Leftists) with the ultimate weapon,
the DAFT STAR, a common sense-neutralizing sickness
with the power to destroy Conservatism from within.
Pursued by the Establishment’s selfish agents,
as well as the Internet Right’s bloviators and Outrage! addicts,
a new power is emerging which threatens both of them – the long lost tribe of
Sensible AND Effective Conservatives hoping to save their country
and restore sanity to Rightward-leaning politics….
If only there was such a thing as this long-lost tribe of sensible AND effective Conservatives.
Alas, Alack, and Ah-crud.
Where are ye… O ye calm and collected ‘conservers’ of the good parts of Western Civilization?
Where are ye… O ye visionaries of a less-polarized nation?
I suppose it doesn’t matter where these people are, in the end. Because this type of person – though most assuredly possessing the temperament, constitution, and ideas which this country desperately needs – would never be able to make it through a Republican (or, Democratic, for what it’s worth) Presidential Primary.
Forget “A New Post”, I might as well subtitle this one “The Codger Rises” because I am about to go full on “Hey You Kids, Get off My Lawn!” against the sorry lot of simple-minded, foresight-lacking, outrage-obsessed “internet politickers” as well as the greedy, power-hungry, manipulative “Republican Ruling Class”.
I’m done. I’m done with both of you until you grow up. We can’t convince left-leaning folks of the wisdom and benefits of a more right-leaning mindset if we can’t get our own house in order. Bicker, bicker, peck, peck. Right-leaning politics is currently nothing but a mess of bitter feuding – when what we should be striving for is consensus where we can find it and polite disagreement where we can’t.
We have to be able to get along with each other before we can bring this same model (finding consensus where possible and politely disagreeing where consensus is impossible) to our left-leaning brethren.
Since we must learn from our mistakes, let me offer some further thoughts and analyses about what happened in 2012.
THE STORY of 2012
Romney was mostly a Center-Right guy (emphasis on the Center). But he pandered in 2008 and posed as some kind of Ultra-Conservative. In 2012 he backed off on that approach to start with… but got hammered in the Republican Primaries for not being Conservative enough. So, to make it through to even get the nomination, he did two things:
1) He pandered far, far rightward on a few things (self-deportation, anyone?)…
As a result of that, he was killed in the general election for having some positions way farther right than the majority of Americans and
2) He relied far too much on (Big) Business interests to carry him through…
As a result of that, it became impossible for him to even try to appeal to the “common man”.
And that is why he lost to Obama.
Rightway79 (Microsoft Excel 2010) has done the math (spreadsheet). Obama had a net loss of voters between 2008 and 2012 of about 3.5 million. Romney actually bested McCain’s total vote count by about 1 million.
Even when you factor in the fringe candidates, there were roughly 2.5 million less voters in 2012 than 2008.
Two ethnic groups had net gains of voter total between 2008 and 2012 of about 1 million voters each (Hispanics and Asians). Those gains went about 100% towards Obama.
However… the actual reason Romney lost was because Obama shed 5.5 million White votes and Romney only gained over 1 million of those from McCain’s total. (In a point of interest, Obama lost 600K Black votes between 2008 and 2012 and Romney actually had 300K more Black votes than did McCain).
Digging deeper, it seems to become obvious that it was blue collar white votes that Obama lost and that Romney did not pick up. Most of these folks didn’t even vote for a fringe candidate… they simply stayed home because they had no option to vote for someone who they believed had their best interests at heart.
The point of all this is simply to say that pandering to any one ethnic or identity group is not going to win elections. You actually need broad appeal (go figure). And while you can’t (and shouldn’t try to) be everything to everybody, a unifying, consensus, positive message is what is going to appeal to more people.
Obama successfully turned out enough of his base to get him re-elected by playing upon grievances and setting groups against each other. This lost him far more votes than it gained him. But, the problem is that Romney played the same grievance game (just with different groups set against each other) instead of working to try and appeal to more people.
The next successful President will have to jettison the zero-sum game approach of Obama (and most modern politicians, actually). Romney, rather infamously, dismissed 47% of the voting population in his strategic thinking. And he poetically ended up receiving exactly 47% of the vote himself. By writing off 47% of the voting population and trying to target the “5-10% in the middle”, he ended up completely missing his stated aim. The hidden story, though, is that Obama did not reach that “5-10% in the middle” either. He abandoned the “Center” and turned out his base.
And, despite what “Internet Conservatives” assume and scream, Romney did turn out his base as well. He did not lose Conservative votes by trying to appeal to the middle… he just didn’t successfully appeal to the middle.(I’ve got plenty spreadsheet figures based on 2012 exit poll data to back that up, too). Obama gained Liberal votes and lost Conservative votes between 2008 and 2012. Romney gained both Liberal and Conservative votes over McCain. BUT… both Romney and Obama lost a gigantic (or , dare I say it, “yuuuuge” ) number of “Moderate” votes. The “middle” stayed home.
That is not to say that candidates should not stand for anything. We aren’t talking about appealing to the “mushy middle” here. On the contrary, the country is begging for actual Leadership at the moment. But, a candidate must be able to explain his positions – without denigrating other opinions. And, in order to explain those positions, he must actually believe in them. Pandering for optics may win short-term votes… but is not worth it in the long run (for anyone!)
So… with all that in mind, let me offer a highly uninformed and ridiculously non-analytical look at a few of the early contenders for the GOP Presidential Nomination in 2016.
*NOTE* I actually began writing this post on January 13th of this year. It began as a crankfest and then sometime in March, I decided to try and be a little more helpful and talk about the GOP candidates and offer my thoughts. When I started that section, there were exactly zero declared candidates. Now, as I am finishing this post in early August, there are 17 major officially declared GOP candidates.
All that is to say…. I apologize for the scattered messiness and probable incoherence and discontinuity that plague this post. So much has happened since I began writing that thoughts and opinions I had at the beginning may have shifted or subtlety changed. I have tried to go back through and make any needed modifications to create a consistent throughline of thought…. But… I very possibly missed something. In any case, these are all just my impressions, so treat them however you see fit.
JEB “(SLIPPING) CROWN PRINCE” BUSH
<note> Formally declared on 6-15-15
I think Jeb Bush is best considered a “What Might Have Been” prospect. I grew up in Florida while he served as Governor and he was a huge Conservative darling back then.
My guess is that actually Governing something probably moderated a lot of his views over the years and he now seems most genuinely interested in effectively leading a large and (honestly) diverse nation and trying to bring us all back together after the terribly divisive 16 years of his elder brother and Obama.
But, a third Bush in the White House is just a bit too dynastic for my tastes (and I imagine for the tastes of most regular Americans). I think he’d make a fine President and would govern firmly Center-Right (which, in my opinion, is what is needed). But, alas, that ship has long since sailed.
He was wise to stay out of the 2012 race (though many were begging him to act as a Republican Savior). But, truthfully, though the climate and many specifics have changed since then, the same optics which factored into him passing on 2012 should have made him pass on 2016 as well.
I suppose he went all-in this time because 2016 is his only chance at getting in the White House… just consider his other scenarios:
- Passes on 2016, another Republican is elected in 2016 and runs again and is re-elected (or even loses ) in 2020.
- Bush’s next chance would then be 2024 and he would be 71 on election day. Ronald Reagan was 69 when first elected in 1980 and is the oldest President elected to a first term. So, at 71 and considering our ridiculously youth-obsessed culture nowadays… it ain’t happening for Jebbie in 2024.
- Passes on 2016, Hillary runs and is elected.
- Bush’s next chance would then be 2020. If elected then, the country’s Presidents would look like this: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Bush, (Bush)… dynasty much? Likely not gonna happen. And here’s a shuddering thought… 2024 would be an ideal time for both Chelsea Clinton and Michelle Obama (if they wanted it) to rise to some kind of political prominence. So… from 1988 to 2044, we could then potentially have… Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Clinton. Yikes. Someone needs to make sure that Malia and Sasha don’t have political ambitions!
- Passes on 2016, a Democrat other than Hillary is elected
- This is Bush’s best case scenario if he passes on 2016. He could then run in 2020 at the spring-chickenish age of 67 without quite as much Clinton-Bush fatigue (and perhaps even more Bush nostalgia by that point). All kidding aside, he would then be positioned as the seasoned, wise, elder statesman who can be trusted to steer America’s ship through the 2020’s. BUT…. Both age and dynasty factors, though maybe less strong here, still rule him out as a real contender in 2020.
So, Jeb Bush is “most viable” in 2016. That doesn’t mean he is actually viable at all, though.
And, granted… all of those things are purely optics. We haven’t even touched on Policy yet.
Bush is solid Center-Right (which , according to “internet Conservatives” and Talk Radio junkies*, means he is a Liberal). He’ll have major trouble getting through the Primaries (without being pulled further rightward than the country is looking for).
*Note – I am both a ‘recovering internet Conservative’ and ‘couple years sober Talk Radio junkie’…. So, I know what I am talking about.
Perhaps all of these things have come together to pop the Jeb balloon that had a little momentum at the start of 2015. I suppose it has become clear that this momentum was almost entirely based on insider chatter and the fact that he was well positioned to raise oodles of cash.
FINAL TAKE: If there had been no W., there likely would have been President John Ellis ‘Jeb’ Bush at some point in our history between 2000 and now. Jeb’s ship has sailed, and, as truthfully sad as that may be for the country, he needs to just accept that and bow out gracefully – sooner rather than later.
SCOTT “APPARENTLY NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME” WALKER
<note> Formally declared on 7-13-15
Walker became a Conservative darling for standing up to the bullies in Wisconsin’s corrupt Teacher’s Union. Despite major left-wing blowback and a ton of out-of-state money poured into Wisconsin by Liberal agents, Walker amazingly won both his recall election as well as his straight-up re-election bid. A Republican who won three straight statewide elections in Wisconsin?? No wonder folks started to talk him up as a possible Dark Horse presidential candidate for 2016.
Unfortunately, he has proven to be not yet ready for the National spotlight. Several missteps and unforced errors have made it apparent that his Presidential ambitions should maybe be put on hold until he grows a bit. There is no doubt that he is a supremely gifted state politician. But, in his case, those same skills have not yet translated into Presidential Campaigning Know-How.
I waffle back and forth about Walker. He was the textbook Dark Horse candidate…. but then the spotlight and “near front runner’ status he gained very, very quickly seemed to take a little bit of the wind out of his sails. For me, it almost just comes down to a gut feeling that he is not quite yet presidential material.
That’s not to say that he cannot grow. And, to me, his upsides are currently trailing his downsides by only a small margin. Still and all… (please notice my waffling-in-action)… If I go by my gut, he’s just not my first choice.And yet…if he somehow ends up snagging the nomination, I do believe he could grow into the role and end up being a tremendously successful Right-leaning President.
FINAL TAKE: Maybe not yet, Scott. Concentrate on governing Wisconsin. Fight the state Democrats where you have to, and work with them where you can, in order to fully balance your state budget while providing clear Leadership and growth. Make it your primary goal to truly turn Wisconsin into the jewel of the Midwest. Create an environment that makes business want to come into Wisconsin. Keep fighting the Teacher’s Unions there in order to allow for quality education to truly flourish for all young students. Let all that be your focus and be content if that is the entirety of your Legacy…. Those things would be huge accomplishments!
THE SENATORS THREE – CRUZ, PAUL, AND RUBIO
Ted Cruz, Republican Senator since 2012, surprised everyone with his announcement on March 23rd. He became the first candidate to officially launch an actual Presidential Campaign. Rand Paul shocked everyone by suddenly announcing his bid on April 7th* – well, no one was shocked by his actual announcement (he has quite literally been running for President since his 2010 Senate election) – but, no one really was expecting an announcement yet. And Marco Rubio (also elected to the Senate in 2010) announced his own Presidential bid on April 13th.
*I will note that the optics of Paul unexpectedly swooping in and announcing the week before Rubio was expected to are not great. To me, it makes Paul look a little jerk-ish.
So, first let’s look at their collective problem, the Elephant in the room, if you will. After 8 years of the disaster of Obama, why in the holy heck would we immediately risk vaulting another first-term Senator to the office of the Presidency???
Supporters of these three guys (not incidentally, including me) have had to engage in some revisionist babbling to essentially answer that question with, “Yeah… but….”.
It is difficult to get past our past objections to first-term Senators turned Presidents and remain intellectually honest. But, in the end, I believe their great contrast to Obama would carry them past the “Inexperience” label.
Now, briefly, let me give my thoughts on each of them individually. Cruz first, since he was the first domino.
TED “GIVE ‘EM HELL” CRUZ
<note> Formally declared on 3-23-15
For Conservatives, there is a lot to like about Ted Cruz. He’s a true believer. His Political Conservatism simply cannot be impugned. However his temperament is not quite in line with what I would associate with Conservatism. He suffers no (Leftist) fools. He’s a bulldog and a fighter and has proven that he doesn’t care if he steps on the toes of friend and foe alike. He is feisty and argumentative and has seemed to eschew consensus building and compromise (perhaps embodying the old Goldwater maxim that “…extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And … moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” *more on this in a minute
He also (quite unfortunately for him) shares a trait with Obama – they both tend to talk at and/or over you rather than with you. It probably comes from his ‘Prosecutorial’ background, but regardless, the last thing America needs is another Lecturer-In-Chief (even if Cruz’s lectures would be *mostly* correct and necessary).
Ted Cruz’s major drawback is also his greatest strength (and is the sole justification for his campaign) – he is an uncompromising Conservative.
This will play well with the (vocal) base… but, if the idea is to broaden the base by convincing people of the merits and necessity of Conservative political thought, Ted Cruz may not be the man to do it. Don’t get me wrong, his lawyerly rhetorical skills are second to none. But, thus far, his stridency has had the effect of making his message not much more than “preaching to the choir”.
Most pundits rate his chances of winning (the Primary mainly, but a general election, certainly) quite low. And while modern Political Punditry is more useless than a screen door on a Star Destroyer, this one they probably have right. And Ted Cruz is no dummy. He knows this full well.
I will note, however, that the man raised a poop-load of money during the first couple weeks after he announced his candidacy. What this means or portends I have no earthly idea. Perhaps just sounds and fury, in the end signifying nothing. But, more likely, my bet is that he is either A) Grooming himself to become Kingmaker later on down the road (and use that power to force the eventual nominee to hew towards some of Cruz’s political stances) or B) He is truthfully auditioning for Vice-President. Or <shrug> Maybe it’s a little bit of both (?)
*The ‘AuH2O’ chestnut about moderation and vice and extremism and virtue and all that…though it has become a kind of Conservative mantra over the years, I have recently come to the opinion that this kind of thinking is about as far away from Conservatism as one can get. I think a true Conservative knows the score and that there is a certain futility to the tilting at (modern) Progressive windmills. For this reason, we are not Reactionary. We understand human nature.
But, neither are we simply nihilists or even just useful idiots for the Left. Instead our main thrust is to slow down the inevitable Progressive cliff dive. And while doing that, we clean up the messes that Leftists leave by attempting to mitigate the damages that Progressivism creates on society. Actual Conservatives are, quite literally, the glue that holds our society together.
As such, we tend to look for and promote Aristotle’s Golden Mean as much as we can – hence my above suggestion that we “find common ground where we can, etc”. This also explains my current philosophical bent that the best answers to *most* thorny questions can best be summed up by the phrase (and necessary non-verbal cue): <Shrug> Maybe it’s a little bit of both (?).
Of course, all of this is probably most appropriate for an entirely different post…. But, I don’t feel like spending another six months writing one… so… I’ll just leave those thoughts crammed into this post here. Now…. Back to the topic at hand…
RAND “THE PALATABLE” PAUL
<note> Formally declared on 4-7-15
Rand Paul is a very talented politician. But, I am not sure that anyone could pull off what he was trying to accomplish. To secure the nomination (let alone have any chance in the general!) he would have to cobble together a coalition of support that is ridiculously unstable and patently temporary.
He would basically need to woo and keep his father’s loyal Libertarian followers while also making a play for fiscal hawks and maybe even social conservatives. And while doing all that he is also in the middle of an effort to
pander to woo non-traditional Republican voters.
In short, his only chance to break through and succeed is to attempt to be everything to (just about) everyone.
Beyond the strategic difficulties he will face, his “non-interventionist” ways were the flavor of the month about two years ago… but…. a buncha stuff has happened since then. You know…. like life and reality and stuff. Obama’s retreat from traditional U.S. responsibilities in the world and simultaneous interventions in questionable ways was not exactly haphazard or quite as schizophrenic as it seems.
The goal (and actual outcome) of Obama’s foreign policy is to diminish the role that the U.S. plays in shaping world affairs. That is certainly the same goal as Ron Paul would have… and to only a slightly lesser extent, that would be Rand’s goal as well.
And like I said, two years ago, that was probably a winning position. But what we have seen over the past 7 years (slowly) and especially in the past three years is what the world looks like when America shirks her moral duty. I’ll give you a hint… it’s a mess.
Now, this may be a controversial (or at least arguable) point (especially from the isolationist non-interventionist crowd.) However, Obama’s strategic inaction (where we normally would have intervened) and half-hearted action (where we normally would have taken a different tack) has weakened our allies and strengthened our adversaries.
FINAL TAKE: Paul made a bet and lost. He went ahead and doubled down on his father’s ideas about Foreign Policy. Because of how world events have played out, this was a huge mistake on his part. (This was actually my prediction nearly two years ago as well…. and that was even before the rise of ISIL/ISIS. You can read that take here)
MARCO “YOUNG MAN IN A HURRY” RUBIO
<note> Formally declared on 4-13-15
Boy… I am only on Candidate 5 of 17 and I am already pooped out. This is why I could not make a living by writing every day. I am far too lazy.
Rubio’s work on (and support of) Immigration Reform made him persona non grata amongst the internet right and talk radio crowd. But, I underestimated his savviness. I had written him off for 2016 because I did not think he had a chance to make a play for the nomination due to his standing with Internet Righties. (Seriously… if you want vileness celebrated and encouraged, just read through comment sections on popular Conservative blogs and news aggregators. It’s ugly out there for Rubio).
And yet… here we are now in July of 2015 and his Top Tier status is absolutely guaranteed if Bush or Walker implode early. And he may even sneak into the top tier without a crash and burn from one of those guys. He is raising a respectable amount of money… but, what’s impressive is that his campaign has the lowest burn-rate (expenditures against income) of anyone. He is running a seriously lean, yet still National in scope, campaign. His campaign’s cash on hand blows just about every other candidate out of the water.
What all that means is that he can be in it for the long haul.
Most of the other candidates will require the backing of some Big Donors in order to keep going all the way to convention. Rubio seems to have situated himself to be able to compete even if those Big Donors start breaking for other candidates.
Furthermore, Rubio is expected to shine at the debates (first one will be August 16 and the second on September 6). Good performances there should make his stock rise faster. A million crazy things would have to happen for him to secure the nomination… but this is politics we are talking about – and not just politics, but Republican politics. Anything can happen.
THEN… if he were to win the nomination, he would go into the general election as a slight to significant favorite. I mean, come on… he is the best GOP candidate positioned to be the “anti-Hillary”. He is young; she is old. He is of Cuban descent; she is a cracker’s cracker. He is forward-looking; she is the reactionary in this scenario. The list goes on.
So, from a purely non-policy standpoint, I think Marco Rubio has a great chance of being our next President.
How does he get around the large segment of Republican voters who swear they will never vote for him EVAH (the kind who call him ‘Screwbio’, ‘Little Marco’, and other things not fit for print)?
The cynical answer is that the people saying these (usually) nasty (and more often than not, vulgar and classless) things are the same crowd who were vocally insistent that they would never vote for ‘McLame’. Turns out, they kind of did.
And they admitted it… but, then in 2012, ‘Romneycare’ was the last straw. They would never, ever, ever, ever vote for ‘Willard’.
They kind of did.
As mentioned earlier, Romney actually improved on McCain’s number of self-described “Conservative” votes.
So…. this time around, the favorite punching bags of the Internet Right are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio And there are crowds saying they will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever vote for either of those two guys. They are sick(!) of ‘Establishment RINO Squishes’ and ‘Amnesty Shills’ and they will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever pull the lever for either Bush or Rubio.
But… yeah…. They still probably would.
This is not at all to dismiss the concerns of this segment of Republican voters. But, it just seems to me that, at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, and in their heart of hearts… they will come to understand by election day that either of those men would make for fine Presidents and would help to steer this country towards a better future.
The less cynical answer is that Rubio’s policy proposals and skill at communicating them will eventually win over a good deal of his current skeptics. So much so, that the remaining Rubio-haters on the Right will be of an inconsequential number. (There are cranks and extreme yahoos all across the political spectrum. The Democratic Party has bowed to theirs, but Republicans are better at keeping ours in check).
Now then, policy-wise, Rubio appears to me to be solid. His ideas don’t seem to me to be that different from most of the current Republican candidates (Rand Paul and Donald Trump being exceptions, of course). In addition, he truly is a gifted communicator. He is both dynamic and relatable (which is a feat and a rarity).
So, I apologize for sounding like a Marco Rubio cheerleader here…. But he is probably my current first choice, so I’m not going to hide that. He’s not perfect, but who is? A solid Conservative who can win an election… such is not just a pipe dream anymore.
FINAL TAKE: Rubio/Whoever 2016!
DONALD “WE SHALL OVERCOMB” TRUMP
<formally declared on 6-14-2015>
I mean… really?
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Well…. Not really, after all, I want to give you your money’s worth.
Donald Trump is a consummate showman and promoter – a modern perversion of P.T. Barnum, if you will. But, whereas Barnum was ‘selling’ entertainment for entertainment’s sake…. Trump is simply selling himself; his ‘brand’, the Trump name is the only thing he actually cares about.
I’m no psychoanalyst and am a pretty poor excuse for a political analyst… (which begs the question of: why in the world are you silly people even reading this… but that’s neither here, nor there) but, I wanted to take a stab at pinpointing the reasons why Trump is currently at the top of some Republican polls.
There’s really only one policy-ish position which Trump can be nailed down on: Immigration. All other issues which normally are important to Republican voters are a big mystery when it comes to The Donald. This is probably because his stances on everything (including Immigration until very recently) have been nearly lockstep with the Democratic Party.
Trump is not a fan of Obama (and, after nearly 8 pretty disastrous years, what reasonably sane person is?), but he has always been BFF’s with the Clinton’s. Yet, his decades of Republican apostasy apparently don’t matter to his fan base.
As best as I can tell, ‘Trumpism’ seems to be a (toxic) mix of Nativism, Economic Protectionism, and Megalomania.
So… Immigration. No other declared candidate can be described as a Hardliner on Immigration. I guess Trump saw that as his ‘in’, because that has been his one-note tune since he jumped in. Whether he actually believes the rhetoric he is spewing or not remains to be seen. It’s very possible he is simply the grandest opportunist of all time.
Trump’s main appeal (besides talking up Immigration as though he were “really for real… no, I promise guys, I am” an Immigration Hawk of Hawks) seems to be his combativeness. His ego propels him to fight on his own behalf like a boss. He has no trouble talking to media types as though they were nothing more than annoying, know-it-all school children who need to be taught a lesson (which is actually what most of the mainstream media is). To that end, he does deserve some credit.
Many Republicans are cheering his absolute refusal to bow down to any narrative the Leftist media tries to pin on him. He doesn’t care.
But… it is perhaps true that many Republicans are confusing self-serving bombast with principle.
And Trump is not actually the first one to turn the tables on the media during this election cycle. Carly Fiorina has actually done this on numerous occasions (and, honestly, with a fair bit more class than Trump would ever be able to muster). But Trump is loud… and he’s rich. And he wants you to know that he is yuuuge-ly rich. He will tell you so… even if you don’t ask.
Look, the guy has no shame. his confidence speaks for itself. As the Millennium Falcon approaches, you can almost hear Obi-Wan saying, “That;s no moon… that’s Donald Trump’s Ego!”
And for people who really haven’t “thought out” their Conservatism, I guess I understand his appeal. But, the bottom line is that Donald Trump is far from a Conservative and I’m not sure he will do anything good for either the Conservative Movement specifically or right-leaning politics in general.
FINAL TAKE: Donald… You’re Fired.
Seriously, my fellow travelers who call yourselves Conservatives, please look elsewhere. If you want a combative political Conservative, back Ted Cruz. If you want political outsiders, back Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina. There are far better candidates for us to be debating about.
Rounding up the “top ten” who will be sparring in the first debate on Thursday night (8-6-15) are:
Mike “Shoulda Ran Again in ’12” Huckabee
Ben “Call Me Dr. Mr. President” Carson
Chris “Shoulda Also Ran in ’12” Christie and
John “Second Coming of Jon Hunstman” Kasich
Of these, only Carson is worth talking about. If he can find his footing, he stands to start doing better. But, as a political outsider, his campaign has simply not been run well to date. Perhaps unfortunately, even an outsider has to know how to play the game in order to get anywhere near the White House (no matter how much people say they are tired of the political ruling class, they simply won’t support a true outsider who doesn’t already have the boatloads of cash and name recognition of a Trump-type).
The debate may not be make-or-break for him, but he desperately needs a good showing in order to start picking up some momentum heading into Fall.
The remaining seven candidates will be invited to a candidates forum, lovingly labeled as “The Kid’s Table” by the ever supportive internet crowd.
They are Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore.
Of these, only Bobby Jindal and Carly Fiorina are truly worthy candidates (in my book).
But… I am all “thunk” out, and I don’t want to delay posting this any longer…. seriously. it took me nearly 8 months to even put this piece of garbage together. I am pathetic.
In any case… hope there were a few moments of humor as well as a touch of useful information to be had.
Thanks for reading!
FINAL FINAL TAKE:
Heck…. any combination of Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Jindal, and Fiorina would work for me.
But…. if Bush somehow squeaks out the nomination, I’ll still vote for him.
The only people I’d have trouble voting for would be Trump or Paul. But, that’s just me.