« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Yes, We DO Need to Start Talking About 2016

We cannot afford another splitting of the conservative base.

Divide and conquer. That has been the establishment’s strategy for the last seven election cycles and it has worked. If they can divide the conservatives (or in the case of 2000, fool them into voting for a moderate), it will leave what they see as “acceptable” candidates and we nominate mushy moderate after mushy moderate. Our record in those seven election cycles? 2-5. If the establishment were the coaching staff of a sports team they’d be long gone by now.

In 2012 conservatives and libertarians were split between Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul. And some conservatives supported “compassionate conservative” (aka fiscal moderate) Rick Santorum, whom the establishment deemed acceptable. But it was Romney who consolidated the moderates and the people who don’t pay attention and vote for the “next in line” and won the nomination.

Let’s rewind t0 2008, what were conservatives saying? “Let’s keep our eyes on 2010.” It payed off, we won the midterms by one of the largest margins in a long time. But what was going on in that election? Mitt Romney was collecting chips, making endorsements, testing the waters. Other candidates were as well. Sarah Palin was endorsing winner after winner, leading some to think she may throw her hat into the ring. There was talk of what all this meant for 2012, “Keep your eye on the ball,” activists would say, “We’ll talk about 2012 when 2010 is over.” But as the new Tea Party Congress was being sworn in, it was too late. Romney was well into planning announcing his second run for the presidency. Palin, who would have been a natural rallying point for tea party conservatives (and I believe other conservatives and libertarians once she began campaigning) was beat to the punch by Michele Bachmann, whom Palin would have been too easily compared to. (Unfortunate as it is, with so few women running, that’s the reality.) And this new energized wing of the party found itself with no leader to rally behind.

It sickens me to pick up my iPad and read about how Jeb Bush is trying to “navigate” the waters on a 2016 run for the presidency and how his son George P. Bush has filed to run for statewide office in Texas but “isn’t sure” which one yet. I can’t think of a more perfect picture of entitlement and American aristocracy. We cannot afford another four to eight years of this family determining the course of the Republican Party, or worse, the nation. While Chris Christie wouldn’t be entitled (actually, I think he’d be quite grateful, which would be really refreshing), his moderate stands on issues make him a non-starter for me. We can’t afford moderation, we need a clear, concise conservative message in 2016, and we need a president with some courage to make it happen!

So my fellow conservatives, we need to keep an eye on how Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Rand Paul (three conservative/libertarians who are making movement on 2016) during these midterms, see how they fair on the national stage and rally behind no more than two of them for 2016. It should be abundantly clear to us whom we should support by time the midterms come along. With the nature of presidential campaigns these days, it will be too late by time primary season starts. Let’s keep one eye focused on 2014, and the other firmly on 2016.

COMMENTS

  • Dave_A

    No Pauls. Period.

    I’d go as far as to say he should face a primary challenger in 2014.

    The curse needs to be… expunged.

    • J. Leg

      ^ Sorry Dave, we can’t afford any more splinters, we need the libertarians in our camp. Rand is far more sensible than Ron and if we wants to make the case in the GOP primary, then I’d be all for it and if it came down to Rand and Jeb Bush, I’d support Rand Paul all the way.

      Also, Rand isn’t up for re-election until 2016.

      • Dave_A

        We need to kill the Paulist movement before one of them wins an actually important office.

        Especially, before any member of the movement gets close to having the power to pick a Federal Reserve chairman.

        If you don’t get this, you simply don’t get how abjectly economy-crushingly-destructive their view of monetary policy is.

        A Paul Presidency would give us a REAL Great Depression, with full-on deflation, and end the GOP and the Conservative movement with it.

        • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

          Better watch out. The libertarians are not going to go away and they are trying to take over the Republican Party from the precinct level on “up.” They are organizing and uniting locally. Are conservatives? Where you live?

          Some very good words of advice:

          >>>>>

          Many Republican Committees will re-organize and elect new officers now that the election is over. If you are a precinct committeeman or
          committeewoman, now is the moment of decision if you have ever
          considered running for County Chairman or some other party organization office.

          If you are not already involved in your local GOP, then now is the time to get involved.

          There may be vacancies in the local precinct organization and you should volunteer to fill that important role — or help recruit sound people to fill that basic building block of a successful Party.

          <<<<<

          http://www.conservativehq.com/article/10834-taking-over-gop-one-precinct-and-one-office-time

          Wonder how many of the commenters here at RS are actually "in" the Party where they live?

          About half of the PC slots across the country are vacant. If conservatives don't fill them up where you live, maybe some other interest group will — such as libertarians.

          Thank you.

          CW
          http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

      • Dave_A

        And yes, I’d pick Bush over Paul.

        I’d pick Romney again over Paul.

        It’s all about the Federal Reserve, and keeping these idiots away from it…

      • runner12

        I am with you on this one. I am a staunch socon, but also equally for small government/fiscal responsibility. I would choose Rand Paul over Jeb Bush any day of the week, although I would prefer Rubio over both.

        We do need to draw libertarians in, while still maintaining our conservative values. We cannot do thaf if we continue to nominate establishment picks. Besides, was not Perry criticized for sounding “too much like Bush” (a stupid critique, but it had traction)? What makes you think people will support another actual Bush? It is a non-starter.

        • Dave_A

          I’m not saying people would support another actual Bush…

          I am saying that a Paul in the white house is worse than electing Obama’s Ghost…

          The family has some truly abhorrent views on monetary policy, and I do not trust ‘slicker’ Rand to do what is right for the country (Weak Dollar, strong & independent Federal Reserve) even if it’s a complete violation of Daddy’s ideology….

      • westcoastpatriette

        I wish all libertarians were like acat. He had the wisdom to respect social conservatives and could even articulate their position on things and express agreement on a few. When he didn’t agree personally, he still understood where we were coming from and had the good sense to not start attacking us for our views. I really found common ground with him on limited government and fiscal issues — and found some of his arguments for how to shrink the government brilliant.

        • Dave_A

          Agreed.

          I’d dare say that the view I now hold (everything kicked down to the states, except true federal issues) is something both of us could vote for – never mind our disagreements on how things should be handled by the states…

    • commonsenseobserver

      I don’t favor a purge.
      I also don’t favor elevating them far beyond what they deserve. Whether as a reward or punishment.

      • Dave_A

        After the way the Paul movement has behaved in recent years, a ‘purge’ is exactly what’s needed.

        The whole sneaking their people into other candidate’s delegations thing, the manipulation of apathy towards local-party rules to infiltrate and hijack state-chapters of the GOP so they can further ignore the primary-electoral process….

        They are political insurgents.

        I do not have a nice view of such types of people… Ok, I -bleeping- despise them!

        And I am truly concerned as to the damage a candidate with Paul’s ideology could do if given control of the executive-appointment process…

        • commonsenseobserver

          The mainstream Tea Party supports Paul as Senator.
          And you cannot purge party members, so you’ll have to actually beat them.

  • garfieldjl

    I wouldn’t trust Ron or Rand Paul with the Presidency, I wouldn’t mind seeing either of them being put in charge of an audit of the Fed though.
    I think the media deliberately kept us divided so we’d choose the worst possible candidate to go toe to toe against Obama.
    Just about any other primary candidate could have probably beaten Obama, even with the abortion garbage thrown into it.
    Gingrich would have turned tables and gone after Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Legislation in Illinois, and pointed out that the women’s rights argument is a bunch of bull when the child is outside of the mother’s body. He probably could have handled the Akins situation significantly better than Romney, by pointing out Akins is just the Joe Biden of the Republican party.
    Santorum for all his faults could at least make a case that women could at least understand why he felt the way he did even if they didn’t agree with him. Plus due to his young daughter, the Democrats ran a real risk of having that line of attack backfiring.
    Bachmann has raised 23 foster children, so the Democrats would look like idiots attacking her over abortion.

    • Dave_A

      The ‘Media’ didn’t keep us divided – WE divided ourselves.

      Rather than coalescing around a single electable conservative candidate, we split up and jumped from one to another…

      We conducted a race to see who could come up with the WORST position on immigration, and tossed our best candidate (Perry) over that (he, as it turned out, had the best position on the subject – if you wanted to WIN) & a snarky comment by a Bad-News-Bear (Bachmann)…

      We allowed abjectly-insane Ron Paul on the debate stage, who while failing to win the vote actually allowed the media to paint us all as equally crazy (the ‘Let him die’ moment)….

      There was absolutely NO LEADERSHIP from the Party at all during the primaries – the one time where the Party should CONTROL the Agenda because the primaries are a Republican Party thing…

      We screwed ourselves…

      • garfieldjl

        Rick Perry had a good record, but he wasn’t even close to being our best candidate, it could be argued that was due to his back injury, to be fair to Governor Perry, but his primary performance was rather subpar.
        Now Rick Perry being in the VP role would have worked, considering he would have had to go up against Biden, given how low the bar would have been set for Perry, if his problems had been solely due to the treatment for the back injury and too many people on stage, he would have soundly clobbered Biden.
        Based on the primary performances in the debates where establishment backing meant nothing, it was clear that Gingrich and Cain (whom got hit with the media smear job, due to the fact they were afraid Cain could beat Obama cause the race card argument would look idiotic).
        I do think we should not have let MSDNC, DNN, DBC, DBS, etc. moderating the debates (though watching Newtzilla flatten the DNC media clowns posing as moderators was rather entertaining). Fox News did a fairly good job moderating the debates, and I really enjoyed Newt’s one on one debates with Cain, Santorum, etc., those really showed which candidates could be responsible about things.

        Also for the record I was a Gingrich supporter from the beginning, I liked Cain as well, but I was a Gingrich supporter the entire primary, so I didn’t flip flop and follow the media build up and destroy song and dance routine.

        • Dave_A

          Cain was never a viable candidate. He shouldn’t have been let in the race…

          Neither was Gingrich, although I’ll stop short of calling for him to be ‘kept out’ out of respect for his past accomplishments…

          And it was not a ‘smear-job’ – it was the truth. Both of them had abhorrant personal lives, that Obama would have torn to pieces.

          You seem to gloss over how good Obama is at negative campaigning.

          Do you really want to face ‘war on women’ with ‘Mr Sexual Harassment’ or ‘Mr Cheating Heart’?

          Because that’s how they would have been portrayed by the Obama ad-blitz.

          Perry was the only one who could survive that ‘blitz’, out of the entire group…

          We would not have needed a ‘game-saving debate push’, as the Governor would have been able to stay-with Obama in ways Romney never could have….

          • garfieldjl

            Considering that the smearjob of Herman Cain can be traced back to David Axelrod, it’s rather likely that the allegations are false.
            As to Gingrich’s past mistakes, he actually handled that rather well in the primaries, and it ended up backfiring on the media to bring it up.
            As far as Gingrich’s baggage, if we had been running against a Jimmy Carter, then you would be correct he would be a very bad candidate, since Carter for all his incompetitence couldn’t have legitimately been called corrupt.
            However, we would have been running Gingrich against Obama, and a lot of the baggage (aside from the personal part which he handled that attack very well) that Gingrich could be hit with were things that could be turned right back around and thrown in Obama’s face.
            I wasn’t supporting Newt blindly, I had looked at people’s baggage and how everything stacked up, Newt’s baggage were potential landmines for campaign Obama, and easily turned into things that could be launched at Obama.
            Heck his “ethics violations” were a potential goldmine for him to use against the democrats, particularly due to some more recent behavior where no-one got hit with any violations (insider trading where people in congress were profitting off of legislation). His ethics violations stemmed from a lawyer screwing up paperwork, and teaching a college history class. Who do you think the public would be angry at, someone that got hit with ethics charges for teaching history at a college and later cleared by the IRS, or corrupt congressmen conducting insider trading. My bet is they would be angry with the congressmen conducting insider trading.
            Gingrich would have been way more aggressive than Romney.

          • commonsenseobserver

            The allegations were probably false, but he paid them, in one case without his wife’s knowledge, which was probably more damaging.

            I think we know that Obama has no qualms throwing congressional Democrats under the bus.

          • commonsenseobserver

            On the other hand, I do wish Mitt had hammered Obama more on insider corruption.

          • garfieldjl

            If our nominee had been Newt, I’m pretty sure we would have heard a lot about insider corruption in the Obama White House.
            In the primaries until Romney started going on his undercutting everyone with smear attacks, Newt was focused on hitting Obama and not the other candidates.

  • Colin Carr

    I hope Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Kelly Ayotte, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan are our main candidates in 2016.
    Also hope Susana Martinez or some other quality women throw their hats in the ring.
    Hope Bush and Christie are not names that we hear during the primaries.
    My ideal ticket would be something like either Rubio/ Ayotte or Jindal/ Paul. Thoughts?

    • Dave_A

      Perry/Walker.
      Perry/Rubio.
      Walker/Rubio.
      The headliner needs to be a governor, and of our governors Perry is the most experienced (plus Texas is the GOP ‘model state’)… If we can get him to be ‘Next in Line’…..

      • garfieldjl

        Unless Perry has a remarkable improvement when it comes to debate performances, I highly doubt Perry will be the nominee for 2016, and if he is it’s even more unlikely that he’d win.

        He has a pretty good record, but he was a total flop when it came to advocating conservative values. Rubio would be a good option in 2016, if Newt is healthy, I’d say he’d be a good potential candidate, Jindal is a good candidate. Scott Walker would be a good candidate for that matter.

        Three people that shouldn’t be the nominee are Perry (unless there is a dramatic improvement when it comes to debates, if there is a dramatic improvement then he goes off the list of whom shouldn’t be the nominee), Rand Paul (he’s a little out there on stuff, not as bad as his dad, but still), and Chris Christie.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Kelly Ayotte? I don’t think so.

      Ryan-Martinez, Jindal-Ayotte, Martinez-Ryan, Rubio-Ryan etc.
      Yes, that’s a lot of identity politics. So?

  • Jim_Riggs

    I don’t believe Ran Paul could get 40% of the vote in a general election.

  • revtm

    lets actually pick someone from a swing state or a flippable blue state.
    McDonnell
    Martinez
    Kasich
    Portman
    Snyder
    Johnson

    • commonsenseobserver

      Oh, please, no McDonnell or Snyder.
      Kasich is a tad unpopular.
      Conservatives were screaming about the possibility of a Portman pick.
      Johnson is intriguing, but would he be interested?

      • revtm

        I dont know why conservatives would scream about Portman he is far more conservative than people will give him credit for

        • commonsenseobserver

          Definitely. On the other hand, he is tainted by the Bush record, and is also not noted for any distinctive “flavor” or policy principles.

          • revtm

            sad he gets tainted by the Bush record, his record under bush was actually pretty good.

    • Dave_A

      *cough*SCOTT-WALKER*cough*

      • revtm

        Scott Walker doesn’t have a college Degree. I don’t think he can be elected president in this day and age without it

  • commonsenseobserver

    1) Paul Ryan/Mike Pence/Bobby Jindal

    2) Marco Rubio/ Scott Walker

    3) Susana Martinez

    4) Kelly Ayotte/ Ron Johnson/ Pat Toomey/ Mary Fallin/ Rand Paul

    5) Bob McDonnell/ Rob Portman/ John Thune/ Rick Snyder/ Brian Sandoval/ Rick Santorum/ Mike Huckabee/ Mitch Daniels

    6) Jeb Bush/ Condoleezza Rice/ Jon Huntsman

    7) Chris Christie

    Mike Pence may actually be underestimated. He has Midwestern appeal, possesses some foreign policy experience, stood firm on the bailouts, and will be gaining executive experience. On the other hand, he could be labeled as an extremist, has a low national profile, and may have alienated some values voters, who previously supported him, with his condemnation of Richard Mourdock. “Boring old white man”? Maybe, but not the Rob Portman-type.

    Paul Ryan will have to explain the auto-bailout, NCLB, and Medicare Part D, among others, and lacks executive and foreign policy experience, but also has Midwestern appeal, stands for a distinctive and substantive vision of common-sense Conservatism, with an ability to articulate the case for limited government and free enterprise.

    Bobby Jindal has disappointed many with his backstabbing of Mitt Romney, and his refusal to recognize the Democrat strategy of divide-and-conquer, but may have the background and vision to counter this strategy, ironically, with broad appeal to both Conservatives and moderates. He has opposed substantial state tax relief in the past, but is free from many of the inconsistencies of the Bush era Republican Party.

    Marco Rubio had better stand for something soon, other than the DREAM Act, being Hispanic, and defeating Charlie Crist.

    Scott Walker is, well, interesting.

    Governor Martinez, show a little more real fight in the Governor’s office, and stand firm against the tax-and-spend Democrats! And we’ll have to see about immigration.