March 13, 2015

"We had Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. If it's just whoever's next up, that hasn't worked so well for the Republican party in the past."

"Jeb's a good man. You're not going to hear me speak ill will of Jeb. He's a friend of mine.... I think highly of him. I just think voters are going to look at this and say, 'If we're running against Hillary Clinton, we'll need a name from the future — not a name from the past — to win.' "

Said Scott Walker.

Hey, what if it's not Hillary Clinton? Is a name from the past okay then?

(The phrase "a name from the future" amuses me.  It's like the GOP needs someone coming in from a time machine.)

69 comments:

Tyrone Slothrop said...

It won't be Hillary, I'd stake my 401k on that. The question is, who? I'd guess Obama is in the Pocahontas club, and as a Republican I'd love to see Walker run against her, but I am a trifle worried about Webb and O'Malley. Webb is an old-fashioned Democrat who could woo the blue collar voters back to what has become a radical left-wing party, and O'Malley has big biceps and plays the guitar.

Big Mike said...

You know, there's a guy out there named John Ellis, who was a very good two-term governor of a key state that Republicans pretty much need to win in order to win the Presidency in 2016. He did a lot of good things as governor, and if you talk to folks from that state most say they'd vote for him anytime for any office.

Maybe the Republicans could nominate John Ellis?

The downside is that he's been out of office for eight years, and hasn't campaigned for any office of any sort in more than a decade. He has only ever held state office and has no national or foreign policy experience, no experience with national campaigns. And, likeable as he is, he's already in his 60s so age is perhaps an issue to some voters.

So should the Republicans nominate John Ellis? He brings a pretty thin resume and he comes with a lot of question marks and potential shortcomings.

Oh, I forgot to mention. His name is John Ellis, all right, but his whole name is John Ellis Bush. I think that if his name was only John Ellis we'd look at his resume and laugh at his candidacy. Why does having the last name "Bush" change things?

Sebastian said...

Walker has a point. It may well decide the outcome.

But the GOP goal is 270.

That means Romney states plus FL, OH, VA and NH or CO or IA. Winning FL is essential. Nothing else comes close.

Besides Walker himself, Bush is best positioned to reach the goal. No one to their right or without executive experience is relevant. Christie is a non-starter. Perry has to hurry.

The successful, conservative, Spanish-speaking governor of Florida, with an executive record unmatched by anyone in the race, a moderate position on immigration, and big-money support, will get a close look from the actual GOP base that wants to get to 270.

Revenant said...

No one to their right or without executive experience is relevant.

Anyone with the name "Bush" is irrelevant.

Curious George said...

"The successful, conservative..."

LOL Good one.

Hagar said...

Well, again, I hop that all you guys, who could not bring yourselves to vote for Romney, are happy with the president you now have.

BarrySanders20 said...

Walker is right that the GOP needs someone new. The anti-Hills are also right that the D's need someone new.

Get ready for The Jilting of Granny Hillary-all, Part IIi.

It will happen again because she's just not all that likeable. Spurned by Bill, spurned by D voters the last time she was inevitable, and primed to be spurned again.

Just how much spurning can one old gal take?

Hagar said...

You deserve him!

Balfegor said...

Checked to see if Scott Walker was descended from the Walkers of Walker's Point, of George Walker Bush fame.

And I guess he isn't. Ah well.

Revenant said...

Well, again, I hop that all you guys, who could not bring yourselves to vote for Romney, are happy with the president you now have.

Being happy with the President wasn't an option. The two candidates were Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

victoria said...

Walker is the man of the future? He seems to me to be a pale imitation of Santorum (religious freak) and Paul Ryan. You people need someone with some kind of charisma. Not the snorefest that is Walker.

Vicki from Pasadena

Michael K said...

"You people need someone with some kind of charisma."

Vicky needs stimulation ! Walker looked pretty charismatic beating the crap out of Democrats the past four years.

Sorry about Hillary and her booze problem and all that.

n.n said...

The future has merit. It implies that we survive. Perhaps that's sufficient. Baby steps, literally.

Think said...

"Why does having the last name "Bush" change things?"

Because it is a non-starter with thousands of voters, including much of the center and some of the right.

By the way, as much as I like Walker, he is like watching a Muppet talk. He has that goofy cartoony look with the big eyebrows. I am not sure how it will play with the voter looking for their next hunk. But, putting him next to Hillary will help.

Drago said...

victoria: "Walker is the man of the future?"

Says the Hillary party.

Oh yes, I understand. You are not enamored of Hillary.

Yet there she is, with Biden/Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the "youth/future brigade"

Tell us more!

The Godfather said...

@Sebastian: "moderate position" is not a plus. The Repubs keep nominating moderates for president and they keep losing (GWB being an exception: He won, but just barely both times against weak opponents).

@Althouse: I like that time machine idea. Could you build one? Or perhaps Meade (no offense, but I've never known a lawyer who could build anything other than an argument).

Titus said...

There is this young researcher in my company that pinches like 8 loafs a day.

I hope he is ok. He's too thin but I would do him because he is hot.

Beldar said...

A name from the future ...

"Marty McFly"?

Think said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Think said...

no offense, but I've never known a lawyer who could build anything other than an argument...

Then meet me my friend - completely finished my unfinished basement, remodeled my upstairs, built a great garden, fire pit, in-ground trampoline in my backyard, super fantastic pinewood derby cars, installed a water heater last weekend (did not build it though). And I put together an entire Ikea kitchen. That should count for something. Lawyers can be handymen too.

Qwerty Smith said...

I.e., "he's a great guy but we should not nominate him." I wonder if the large size of the pool of candidates, and the absence of a major poll-leader, will reduce the incentive to go genuinely negative through most of the primary season. If there are only two significant candidates and you are trailing 20%-80%, it makes sense to tear down the other candidate. But if eight people are at 5-20% each, attacking another candidate just drags both of you down, benefiting the remaining six.

Simon said...

Big Mike said...
"Maybe the Republicans could nominate John Ellis? The downside is that he's been out of office for eight years....""

No, the downside to Governor Ellis is that he is completely and profoundly opposed to the position of the base of the party on the two issues about which the base is most exercised.

Lookit: We keep nominating moderate squishes whom the party absolutely fucking hates, which fundamentally compromises our ability to campaign effectively, because we keep deluding ourselves that "middle America" will vote for a Republican if we only give them a moderate, even though they it never does.

And here's where it gets really frustrating. The base of the party infers from this that what we really ought to to is to nominate a real conservative--as if, you know, millions of moderate Americans voted for Obama because Romney wasn't conservative enough.

This is what I call the "dumb and dumber" problem, only that gibes . You can't win by nominating a RINO squish. And you can't win by nominating a fire-breathing conservative. What we might need to try, and I know this is a radical suggestion, it certainly hasn't been tried since 1984, is to nominate someone who isn't a total clot; you know, someone who isn't a fatuous mediocrity, someone who is actually any fucking good whatsoever, and who might thereby actually someone who might actually inspire those moderate Americans whose votes we need to vote for them. It's just a theory. Pandering to them doesn't work, it never has before, it won't now; pretending that we don't need them won't work, it's fucking innumerate; so maybe, MAYBE, try giving them a candidate worth voting for...

And maybe then we'll get a nibble.

Simon said...

I just find all of this talk, varying as it does between delusional and denial, so infuriating.

Unknown said...

Are there any commentators who are generally Conservative, generally opposed to Obama's policies, but refused to vote for Romney in 2012? If so, your political judgment is greatly impaired. If you oppose the steady march of leftism, you should support any of the GOP candidates for President; Bush, Walker, even Santorum. It really has gotten that bad!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Hagar said Well, again, I hop that all you guys, who could not bring yourselves to vote for Romney, are happy with the president you now have.

No, not happy. Nor would I have been with Romney. Both believe in expansion of Government. I will continue to vote for the most electable candidate who is credibly committed to smaller Government and return of power to the people.

Drago said...

Simon: "And maybe then we'll get a nibble."

Yours was quite the speech.

Don't leave us in suspense as to who this wonderful new candidate that satisfies your criteria.

Name names.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Unknown said If you oppose the steady march of leftism, you should support any of the GOP candidates for President; Bush, Walker, even Santorum.

But if you oppose the steady march of stateism, the steady migration of power from the People to Government, the steady diminution of personal Liberty, you should support neither the Democrat nor the Republican party in their present form.

Drago said...

Simon: "I just find all of this talk, varying as it does between delusional and denial, so infuriating."

I, on the other hand, find all this "generic" candidate babble delusional.

There are a slate of candidates.

Pick one.

If you say, I'm not prepared to choose just yet, then I get that and given where we are in the process it's perfectly acceptable.

It doesn't change the list of possibilities though.

sinz52 said...

It's an urban myth that Obama won in 2012 because the GOP base didn't turn out for Romney. (I'll explain how it started shortly.)

Let's look at the GOP vote in 2004, 2008, and 2012:

2004, Bush wins: 62,040,610
2008, McCain loses: 59,948,323
2012, Romney loses: 60,933,500

Romney got one million more votes than McCain, and only one million fewer than Bush.

The reason why Obama won in 2012 was the big turnout *for him*: 65,915,796, or 4 million more votes than Bush got when he won in 2004.

This urban myth got started because the morning after Election Day 2012, folks looked at Romney's vote total and noticed it was smaller than McCain's.

What they forgot was that this was just a preliminary vote count, and that hundreds of thousands of more ballots were yet to be counted. When the count was complete, Romney got one million more votes than McCain.

sinz52 said...

Obviously, what Walker meant by "a man of the past" was "a man named Bush, given how the last 2 Bush presidencies turned out."

As for Walker thinking of himself as
"the man of the future," National Review referred to him admiringly as "the next Calvin Coolidge." To those conservatives, that's a warm compliment!

Simon said...

Drago, aye, there's the rub: We don't have anyone like that who isn't fatally compromised; Noonan's recent column on the question, which I largely echo, called for a Churchillian candidate, and our only Churchillian candidate is Newt Gingrich, who can't win for a whole host of trivial reasons. Perhaps I'm missing someone obvious, but I can't think of a single one who would run.

So in that circumstance, you have to look for something else. You have to look for a candidate that is both acceptable to the base and who might plausibly capture the middle. And I have both good news and bad news on that point: We do have such a candidate, and he's already running for President. As I've suggested, it's Rand Paul. I'm not happy about that,because I dislike him intensely, but as I said in that post, "what we ... have is a party that comprises not only conservatives but also libertarians and what Charles Cooke's new book dubs 'conservatarians.' And we have an electorate that is increasingly sympathetic to 'conservatarianism.' And we have a candidate who embodies 'conservatarianism,' as I understand it, someone who [in Noonan's words may be able to ']make the sale to conservatives in the primaries … [and] who can win over centrists in the general election.'"

It seems that there ought to be a better option, but I know of none.

etbass said...

Seems that when Hillary throws in the towel the Dems will have to find another woman as we now have an effeminate culture in the country.

Brando said...

If Bush is their best candidate, then the fact he's a Bush is irrelevant. Same for Hillary--it's not that she's a Clinton, it's that she's an incompetent crook.

Bush was a successful, popular governor of the biggest swing state, and was pretty conservative but also has establishment cred (the idea he's a RINO is just absurd--based solely on his immigration stance, which for all their big talk any GOP president is going to have to accept a rotten status quo or implement an immigration compromise). Yes, the Bush name is a problem for a lot of voters, but it's meaningless--he's not bound to any course of action due to his family (George W certainly veered from his father's politics). His biggest liability I see is being out of politics for ten years.

Revenant said...

If you oppose the steady march of leftism, you should support any of the GOP candidates for President; Bush, Walker, even Santorum.

That's like saying "if you want to eat healthy, order the double bacon cheeseburger with fries and a Coke instead of the double bacon cheeseburger with gravy fries and a Coke".

Which is to say, only a delusional individual could think that's helping anything.

averagejoe said...

The idea that American voters are going to vote for another Bush is not credible. The name Bush, and the presidency of George W has not been rehabilitated sufficiently for the ordinary citizens who don't follow politics to cast their votes for him. A large part of this has to do with these same voters relying on democrat party media for their knowledge. Which is why Bill Clinton is considered a great statesman instead of a pedophile conman. And which is why Hillary could run against Jeb from her jail cell in Fort Leavenworth and still carry 49 states and 500 electoral votes. It's also why Hillary will never have to face justice for her crimes and will never see the inside of a jail cell. It's also why an anti-American racist incompetent twat like Barry Hussein Soetero has been elected president twice.

BDNYC said...

Walker, Rubio and Bush.

Who else is there on the GOP side?

Todd Roberson said...

I remain convinced that the eventual Republican nominee has yet to enter the public discourse as a declared candidate.

I realize that time is by conventional standards short, but the Democratic field is very weak.

I'll go out on a limb suggest that the Dems have more or less conceded the upcoming presidential election. Sort of like the GOP did when they offered up Bob Dole against Clinton.

Thoughts?

Sebastian said...

"@Sebastian: "moderate position" is not a plus"

Well, if you want to win FL and OH and VA, it is. At least a candidate much to the right of Bush on immigration is unlikely to do well (unfortunately).

"Bush was a successful, popular governor of the biggest swing state, and was pretty conservative but also has establishment cred (the idea he's a RINO is just absurd--based solely on his immigration stance, which for all their big talk any GOP president is going to have to accept a rotten status quo or implement an immigration compromise)."

Exactly. Everyone has done him a favor by defining his overall stance as "moderate," which helps him capture part of the base (and positions him well with swing voters in the general). He is conservative enough to appeal to evangelicals -- not clear Walker has a definite advantage there. The center of the base will look at his actual record and think strategically about FL and OH -- swallowing hard, no doubt.

Doesn't mean he'll prevail. Walker is obviously strong competition.

Key question: who is most likely to win FL?

Simon said...

Unknown said..."If you oppose the steady march of leftism, you should support any of the GOP candidates for President; Bush, Walker, even Santorum."

Then Revenant said...
"That's like saying 'if you want to eat healthy, order the double bacon cheeseburger with fries and a Coke instead of the double bacon cheeseburger with gravy fries and a Coke.'"

No,it's like saying "if you want to live for as long as possible, then given a choice between polonium and arsenic, take the arsenic." The result of an election is never a sede vacante; someone wins. You want the candidate who will roll government back, but better the candidate that rolls it forward slowly than the one who rolls it forward full-throttle.

Sebastian said...

"The idea that American voters are going to vote for another Bush is not credible"

Maybe, but "American voters" are not the issue. FL and OH and VA are key. Anyone much to the right of Bush in FL, Kasich in OH, or Gillespie in VA has no shot.

If polls show that FL voters have turned against Jeb, that's the kiss of death. If he retains strong support there, he is viable in the primaries and the general.

In terms of process, if Christie is out, Jeb the "moderate" will have a good shot at winning NH. The Republican machine may give him SC. He'll be competitive in all the big states, and will have money and organization.

If Jeb makes it to the general, none of the reputable political science prediction models will adjust for name. Final outcome will be driven by factors like economic conditions and opinions about Barry.

Todd Roberson said...

The Dems are not the problem now. There are irrelevant fossils and getting more so each day.

We heard in 2010 "if you just give us the House we'll ...". Then we heard in 2014 "if you just give us the Senate, we'll ..."

So far, no bold action to change course.

There is a massive opening for someone with the stones to exhibit uncompromising leadership. Wait for it ... Wait for it ...

Mark Caplan said...

A name from the future should be Hispanic.

Carl Pham said...

I thought we just got done with 8 years of choosing the new exciting blood over whoever's up next. How'd that work out?

kcom said...

Question: Who was "next up" for the Republicans in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected? I doubt it was George W. Bush but I don't know who it might have been.

rcocean said...

I agree with Scott Walker but the Republicans are stuck on stupid. This is a party that chose Ford over Reagan in '76 and nominated McCain in 2008. Its like some of them are so stupid/ignorant they vote purely name recognition.

Revenant said...

You want the candidate who will roll government back, but better the candidate that rolls it forward slowly than the one who rolls it forward full-throttle.

First of all, the last Republican President to not "roll it forward full throttle" was Dwight Eisenhower. Certainly no sane person would expect Bush or Santorum to qualify -- they follow the usual Republican pattern of wanting increased military spending plus tax cuts paired with no significant entitlement cuts.

Secondly, the objective evidence is that the ONLY thing that slows the growth of government is for the Presidency and Congress to be controlled by different parties -- ideally, a Republican Congress and Democratic Presidency.

Thirdly, electing a Bush or Santorum in 2016 means that the earliest we could expect a President who *wasn't* a worthless piece of shit would be 2024.

So, no. Better four more years of gridlock and then a shot at a better President in 2020.

Anglelyne said...

average joe: "The idea that American voters are going to vote for another Bush is not credible"

Sebastian: Maybe, but "American voters" are not the issue.

That American voters, minus the scare quotes, are "not the issue" is exactly the freakin' point when it comes to another Bush.

richard mcenroe said...

I don't doubt the GOP (east) will try to turn on Walker.

Then it will Walker with three election wins since 2008 against Karl Rove, which means Rove is already starting five wins down.

richard mcenroe said...

The Democrats obviously see the AARP vote as key with their bench of candidates. Old White Wimmen for the win!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Reading history, you will find repeated instances (feudal Europe, Ottoman empire, etc) where positions of political power created with specific intent to be non-hereditary, became through lack of adequate oversight hereditary.

(Similarly, where the office of King\Sultan morphed through inattention into power held by the Mayor of the Palace / Grand Vizzier.)

We.do.not.have.dynasties.in.this.country.

For that reason, if for no other, I would not vote ANY Bush or Clinton into elective political office.

Qwerty Smith said...

Simon said: "You want the candidate who will roll government back, but better the candidate that rolls it forward slowly than the one who rolls it forward full-throttle."

Righto. While accepting the worse of two evils for now can sometimes set up a genuine good later, that seems unpredictable and rare. The usual result of boycotting is to permanently move the ratchet further in the wrong direction, creating new constituencies to defend lousy institutions. You want liberty? Push for liberty candidates in the primaries, then pick the least bad candidate in the general. When has the establishment ever picked someone good for fear that the principled people would otherwise stay home? Like everyone else, the establishment thinks it is right and good.

Phil 3:14 said...

Seems like a lot of commenters are looking to be inspired. I can get my inspiration somewhere else.

How 'bout a little competence. From that perspective Romney had the best resume of the past 14 years.

But he wasn't inspiring!

Drago said...

Revenant: "So, no. Better four more years of gridlock and then a shot at a better President in 2020."

Well, there has been a significant development in the last 6 years that we have never seen before: the dems are now willing to go full throttle via the executive branch alone (not in the usual "last 50 years" sort of way) and it appears that the congress and the courts will not stop them.

If Hillary is elected, there will not be gridlock. She, like obama, will simply "rule" by executive decree.

And that will be that.

Not that our little republic experiment isn't already over. It is, to a large and increasingly unrecoverable extent. I was simply hoping that we could fight a few successful holding battles before it all comes crashing down into a greece-like scenario.

Unknown said...

--Vicky, the little old lady in Pasadena sez --- He seems to me to be a pale imitation of Santorum (religious freak) --

This kind of discerning judgement is why California is circling the drain.

Michael K said...

"Which is why Bill Clinton is considered a great statesman instead of a pedophile conman."

Bill Clinton got credit for the economic boom of the 90s which began after the 1994 election turned the Congress over to the GOP. Clinton was smart enough to pivot and agree with them as they solved his problems. Obama could do the same but he is too much an ideologue.

Michael K said...

"Not that our little republic experiment isn't already over. It is, to a large and increasingly unrecoverable extent."

I thought that Romney was the last best chance to turn it around as he was the guy who knew how to rescue failing enterprises.

I like Walker but he may not be enough. Hillary, although I think she is not going to make it, would be the end of the republic.

AJ Lynch said...

What Rev said.

Roost on the Moon said...

Reince Priebus is a name from the future.

Smilin' Jack said...

""We had Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney.If it's just whoever's next up, that hasn't worked so well for the Republican party in the past.""....It's like the GOP needs someone coming in from a time machine.

Or at least someone not coming in from "Night of the Living Dead."

james conrad said...

I say Walker is smart to play that "bush fatigue" card and, he plays it in a respectful way.

Mick said...

That Hillary Clinton is mentioned as a candidate for POTUS is proof that the US is basically over. What a joke.

machine said...

...should write a letter to Tehran and ask them what to do.

EMD said...

...should write a letter to Tehran and ask them what to do.

Thanks for that. Scott Walker's signature on that letter was quite damning. As was Jeb Bush's. ?????

Moneyrunner said...

The comment about that “letter to Tehran” clicked. Here’s a great illustration of how ... this station is now the ultimate power in the universe ... err ... the Liberal media dominates the conversation. Nearly half the Senate signed an open letter to Tehran and it took less than a week for the Conventional Wisdom™ to call it everything from treason to a mistake. Republican signers are backing away from it and a bimbette at The Federalist is calling its stupid. The Republican circular firing squad is, as usual, working overtime.

MadisonMan said...

I wonder if that's a mis-speak.

Name For the Future sounds a lot better than Name From the Future.

Unknown said...

Based on his record as Governor, Walker would make a fine President.

Compared to Hillary, ANY of the GOP candidates -- even the uninspiring RINOS (Bush), utopian Libertarians (Paul), regional firebrands (Cruz) or religious zealots (Huckabee, Santorum) would likely make a better President.

This assumes that the prospective voter wants to slow down the steady march of Leftist cultural expansion and/or Statist government expansion. Any purported "conservative" who cannot see this or is looking for "inspiration" or is not emotionally satisfied with the candidate -- is simply clueless.

KK Kraska said...

There will never be another Republican president. The GOP is finished as a national party. The numbers show it time and time again, but like the Bourbon kings of France, they learn nothing and forget nothing.

Simon said...

Moneyrunner said...
"Nearly half the Senate signed an open letter to Tehran and it took less than a week for the Conventional Wisdom™ to call it everything from treason to a mistake. Republican signers are backing away from it and a bimbette at The Federalist is calling its stupid. The Republican circular firing squad is, as usual, working overtime."

They committed a plain per se violation of the Logan Act. Is that violation prosecutable? No, probably not, but are we really supposed to ignore the fact that nearly half of the Senate was willing to do something that they either didn't know or didn't care was illegal? Worse yes is the content of that letter: Are we really supposed to ignore the implication that nearly half of the Senate believe that a treaty, unlike an executive agreement, binds future Presidents? (Any President can abrogate any treaty at any time for any reason (s)he sees fit, as for example President Bush's partial abrogation of the Vienna Convention.) It's an ugly incident.

Simon said...

Unknown said...
"This assumes that the prospective voter wants to slow down the steady march of Leftist cultural expansion and/or Statist government expansion."

That's exactly the problem—it's the "delusion" part of the "dumb and dumber" problem that I mentioned earlier. Many people on the right believe (as do many on the left) that their opinions are representative of the opinions of the average prospective voter. That is incorrect. The average voter (not wholly unlike the average conservative) wants to cut federal spending and cut federal bureaucracy, but wants to do it without cutting anything that government does of which they approve. When confronted with the reality that cutting back government means shuttering actual, real government departments, they spit the bit, which is why we lose the "government shutdown" play every time it's tried.