What to Look for in a Presidential Candidate
Recently, I examined what not to look for in a presidential candidate in a previous piece. The question now becomes: what should conservative voters look for in a Republican nominee?
Obama has shown electing a president to be far easier than electing one who will govern well. Republicans must nominate a presidential candidate who can achieve three primary goals: 1) the enactment of a pro-growth agenda that will revitalize the economy, 2) the reform of entitlements programs to ensure fiscal solvency, and 3) a long-term plan for the reduction in the national debt.
These three things must be accomplished in the next term. The rising tide of debt and entitlement spending threatens to wreak havoc on America’s economic security. Other issues can factor in a voter’s choice, but to choose a candidate who can’t achieve these three ends will be a wasted effort. The fate of most conservative issues is tied to the electoral fate of Republicans. If the GOP takes the White House, the fate of Republicans will be tied primarily to the state of the nation’s economy.
These goals are not easy. A president who can make them happen must possess the following four things:
Political Courage. Washington’s ability to spend unlimited amounts of money without paying for it has created an irresponsible world where political convenience rules the day. A GOP president must be willing to go against the political grain and demand that real and difficult reforms be enacted.
Republicans do not need to nominate a gadfly, or a soldier who dies on every hill, but they do need someone who will not run from a fight when the country’s future is on the line. They must be willing to push ahead in the face of political opposition.
Character. Character is important in the negative sense of not being dishonest or unfaithful. Whether or not we believe personal character is a qualifier for the presidency, the Anthony Weiner case has shown how much a lack of character can distract from the business of government.
Character is also important in the sense of having positive virtues like compassion and decency. The left will personally attack any president who proposes reductions in government as uncompassionate and inhuman. Voters will be less likely to believe these lies if the person is truly a good and decent person.
This same personal character will give them credibility when they explain to the American people what hard choices must be made.
You forgot another ingredient: A Presidential candidate must have a self-effacing humor that allows him or her to bond with the American people in good times and in bad. In other words, he or she needs to have the sense of humor of an Andrew Klavan or an Ann Coulter –
those two crack me up sometimes!
Sounds like Thad McCotter is your man!
Sorry, here’s the link I meant to insert:
http://tinyurl.com/3der9zt
“A GOP president must be willing to go against the political grain and demand that real and difficult reforms be enacted.”
In short, he or she MUST remain faithful to his or her core conservative principles. It does nobody any good if you end up with another Obama, who promised all things to all people and delivered on only a far-left liberal agenda. I guess all those independents out there who believed Obama was some sort of “centrist” and “fiscal conservative” (what a laugh) are really bummed out by now, right? Stick with what you believe in and deliver on that. Tell people what you’re going to do and then do it. People will react to that sort of honesty and backbone. If you don’t do that, then you’re just another Obama looking for votes, and we all saw how well that turned out.
What you are describing is the anti-McLame. He wouldn’t use any of Hussein’s negatives against him. As such, he ran a Mister Milktoast, vote for me I’m the war hero campaign.
So you want bold? Nothing bolder that Sarah Palin. She has been flogged by every marxist media outlet, bloggers, and talking heads, plus half of the Republicans. Want fearless? She took on the Rat Party in Alaska. She worked her way up from the bottom in her town to oil commissioner to governor. She was the ONLY exciting thing in Juan McLame whole campaign.
Then there is the successful governor of Texas, Rick Perry. He LOOKS presidential. But he’s soft on the border.
Michelle Bachmann is now earning the “Palin Treatment”. Why because she is also a threat to liberaldom. Now they are looking into her foster children. Truly pathetic.
Herman Cain brings his business acumen to the table, something we sorely need in this pathetic gov’ment. He bold, charming, and has a great smile.
He’s soft on a lot more than the border. He’s a recent convert from the Democrats, remember?
He would be as solid a President as Trent Lott or Bill Frist were as Senate Majority Leaders. Those two caved in or sold us out at every chance they got. We’d be better off with Mitt Romney. At least conservatives all know he’s a RINO. Too many think Perry is the real deal.
All very noble and textbook wisdom BUT first a Republican (even more than a Democrat for various reasons) must have some natural charisma and be able to SPEAK. Like Reagan or Ike (who could have been elected on either party line). The more serious his agenda and–let’s face it boring for most people–the more the need for style and ability to communicate.
I’ve written here before on this but in a different context–as an independent the only 2 Republican candidates I see that have IT are Governors Christie and Huckabee.
I also believe that had Donald Trump NOT taken that sidetrip questioning Obama’s citizenship–dreadful mistake–and stuck to his message on China, trade, jobs, possible tariffs–he could beat BOTH any Republican candidate and Obama.
I sit her hoping Trump makes a comeback and STICKS TO THE ONE POINT. He’s already backtracked a bit and come out in total favor of Medicare, which I take as a way of (1) hint he may be back, and (2) separating himself from Republican Party and its inexplicable vate to end present Medicare with 55 year olds, substitute something else thereafter. Anybody nominated will have to spend half his/her time denying he’s ending Medicare–except the Donald.
I’d like to add another requirement.
Unfortunately, television is all-pervasive in our society. And the shallowness of the average American voter is truly remarkable. So, to win, any successful candidate is going to have be “pretty.” Or at least handsome.
Appearance is completely irrelevant to the candidates actual qualifications, but these days, with our current constituency, it is essential.
That would be almost as bad a disaster as having Governor Rick “Never-Met-A-Muslim-Terrorist-I-Didn’t-Like” Christie as President.
Trump is an idiot with a fat wallet.
Please do not fall into the Trump trap! He is no conservative. See:
http://theconservativediva.net/poll-insider-on-donald-trump/
His only purpose is to stir the pot, run as an Independent, and split the conservative vote so that Obama wins another term!
Then the death of our beloved republic will truly be complete.
“Republicans would make a mistake if they nominate a candidate whom party regulars don’t trust in hopes of winning the general election. Any compromise by such a president will be greeted with suspicion as a long-expected sellout — and the compromise will be undermined, and probably fail, thanks to a groundswell of opposition.”
RUBBISH! Oh, remember “Reagan can’t win”?! Now it’s Palin.
But “party regulars” *just know for darned sure* that Romney can win. Uh huh.
*phhhht!*
Go ahead, nominate someone who wants to let up on the gas a little bit so we don’t hit the wall quite as fast. I’ll probably even vote for him, since the alternative will be the execrable policies of Obama or any other Democrat.
But what we really need is not ‘entitlement reform’, we need an end to Federal entitlements, since they are all blatantly unConstitutional, and anyone with a minimum of reading ability who is not in denial ought to acknowledge that. To ‘grow’ the economy is not the Fed’s job. All that needs to be done is for the Feds to actually follow the Constitution. This would eliminate the vast swathes of Federal regulations, from EPA to OSHA, from the Dept of Labor to the FTC, that throw not sand but boulders into the gears of business, that benefit no one but the bureaucrats and the megacorps. Then the economy would boom, wealth would spread, workers could write their own tickets as employers became desperate for anyone with half a brain to help them meet demand. Freedom would reign.
But we won’t do that. We the people are a wicked and lazy sovereign, hiring corrupt and venal ministers to run our nation, ignoring the rot and the injustice, and the flagrant violations of our own foundational Law. This does not end well.
Just to further echo your point, which I agree with. If we return to respecting Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and limit the federal government to once again only its enumerated responsibilities, it will reinforce free markets and help turn the economy around quickly. I will only vote for a President from now on who recognizes this. No more progressivism will be tolerated. I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances.
I want DOC to run. He knows what needs to be done and I think he can do it. If he won’t run then Huckabee is my next choice.
It is fine to describe the Republican candidate, but how about the democrat candidate? Sure, the dems are dumb, crooked and anti-American but they still want to win or, at least, maintain some off their criminality. At this point, their ownership of the White House, the Senate and some state governments ALL will be flushed away next year.
Many of the dem constituencies can’t afford to let that happen. Look at the labor thugs. They’ve stolen billions from their members and given much of it to the dems. They’ve got too much invested to see everything go next year. How about the media? Do they continue to worship Obama and risk it all? The communists and other anti-Americans must also see the risks associated with going with Obama.
Let us, therefore, consider which dem should run for POTUS next year. There are many candidates who wouldn’t do as badly as Obama; Biden, Clinton, Cuomo, to name a few.
Even with maximum union and media participation, the dems are not going to be able to steal/bribe enough votes next year, they have to mitigate their losses and one good way to do that is to run someone who is not Obama.
BTW, vote theft will be so important next year that the dems will do everything to prevent voter ID legislation/implementation in key states.
you make a good point but i think it goes deeper than that
for the dems- this is life- end of story– conservatism threatens their life; we would do well to never forget this as their desperation will inspire some drastic “wounded animal” instincts
Doc is right. Few talk about it, but a large part of our Federal Gub’mint programs – entitlement programs in particular – are unconstitutional and should be ended. Income redistribution is the core of Democrat Party principles. Republicans like to play Santa Claus too instead of sticking to their principles. Now it is time to get back to basics, but it is politically difficult to take babies away from the tit.
If the Gub’mint would just let go of its urge to meddle and be everything to everybody and just make it easy to do business and get a job, we could work our way out of the current mess in a few short years, maybe even months. Truth be told, just the expectation of such an outcome would change the business climate overnight.
Continuing down the current path to socialism is going to invite civil unrest at home or war abroad.
I think this is a good overview of what we need. I also think that the only way we will find this person is to have all the candidates in the pool for the public to decide who they trust. Whoever on the Republican side of the aisle green lighted the Democratic nomination of Barack Hussien Obama either knew or should have known that this man was not legally qualified to become President of the United States under the terms of our Constitution. If they failed to act they committed treason against this country and betrayed their oath of office. Whoever they are, they should be exposed and not allowed to “help” us chose another such “progressive” President. In more blunt terms I don’t want Carl Rove,the RINO establishment or the Left wing media to tell me who I will have to trust to save the United States of America from ceasing to exist. This one is for keeps and we all better remember we will not have another chance if we screw it up this time.
Guts; character; conservative trust; and can-do optimism? That would be Sarah Palin. She has all of that, which is why she has come out on top in all the Hot Air polls. Solid conservatives are devoted to her (just as the hardcore left despises and fears her more than any other contender).
You took the words right out of my mouth, Dr. Lippenheimer
Sarah Palin has the soundest political instincts of any American public figure since Reagan.
Palin-West in ’12.
I’m the outlier.
The country isn’t going to be repaired in 4 years. It will take 20, if it’s even possible after 60 years of stealth and not-so-stealth marxism.
The first and most important step is to defeat the criminal in chief. Every single Republican candidate (including Huntsman, Romney and Pawlenty) are acceptable to meet that criteria.
This is the last chance. People who are attempting to think 7 steps ahead or standing courageously on their convictions are bloody fools. When the barbarians are begining to clear the ramparts, it’s not the time to be squeemish. All of the talk about how the candidate must meet x, y and z is just plain dumb. If Obama wins, the purity of the opponent won’t prevent the game from being over.
My only criteria is a winner.
Unfortunately, the prior commentors are correct that looks, speaking ability and style are extremely important factors. An equally important factor is the susceptability of the candidate to Palinization. Those four things are more important than ideology. In other words, the candidates have to be tuned to the electorate, not conservatives wet dreams or a Reagen resurgance. At this point, Romney, Perry, Santoreum and (perhaps Bachmann) qualify. We’ll see if Michelle can avoid Palinization. Santoreum probably can’t get enough traction. It looks like the winner will be Romney or Perry.
Anybody refusing to vote for the winner is handing the country over to the marxists. The world will revert to it’s normal political state. Tyranny.
I agree totally. We have to identify someone who can beat Obama. I do not like Romney, but if he is the Republician nominee, I will vote for him. We have to all get behind whoever wins the primary. I do not know much about Perry, but he may be the man. I love Michelle, but I don’t think she can beat Obama. Herman Cain would make a great VP, but as a Presidential candidate, I don’t think he can beat the incumbent. Micky Mouse would make a better president than we currently have.
Comment #19 is mine. I have no idea why it says “Anonymous.”
It is time to face facts. Palin can’t win. Period.
It may be hurtful to her many fans and it certainly is unfair on an enormous level that she was treated by the lapdog media as she has been, but it simply is not realistic to suggest that she can overcome the devastating effect it has had on her “negatives”, which are astronomical for someone not even yet in the primary.
The next President must be able to win the independent vote. I know this infuriates the hard core base of both sides, but it is mathematically impossible in a two person race to win the White House without them. And, let me declare some other bad news here and now, the harder core voices on each side of the spectrum scare independents away….however, the right will tell you exactly what they are thinking and intending and the left will lie, distort, hide, disguise and soothe.
In other words, the left will run their candidate who can be as radical and extreme as Stalin on a stick…but pretends to be a “centrist”…and they are all in on that charade together.
Those who oppose the socialist/communist/anarchist wing of the Democratic Party, (which today is essentially, not a wing, but nearly the whole of the Democratic Party) do not have the luxury of being “in it together” to defeat the rampant, unchecked leftism in this country.
Today, if a non-leftist shows any intention of attracting independents, he will be pilloried by the hard core right. This is a difficult tightrope to walk.
You can’t win without the base and you can’t win if you drive the independents to the “pretend centrists” of the radical left.
Anyone who projects any “middle ground” instincts, will enrage the red meat eaters. Being a RINO is a dirty word and can come with the slightest nod toward the independents.
If the country is indeed center-right, then someone who actually reflects that position on the political spectrum, one would think, would be a shoe in. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A Democrat can be a rabid, frothing, raging radical leftist…but pretend center-leftism and he/she will garner the entire left and the tipping point of the center….because the center-right candidate will get annihilated by both sides and be fighting two fronts.
Reagan appealed to the center, Bush SR. and Clinton appealed to the center.
Obama, who has a personal history so radical it is more in line with Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo’s politics than Bill Clinton’s…ran on a platform of moderation, centrism and unity. He has ruled (not governed, but ruled) as an extremist trying to overturn the constitution. (a little too slowly for HIS red meat base, but extremist nonetheless)
To defeat him, the GOP will need to run someone who does not scare the independents away. Hate that fact, scream at it, hold your breath until you turn blue in the face. If he wins the independents, with the help of the propaganda machine and his radical base…he will win a second term.
A Reagan would crush him. So would a Paul Ryan type. An Eric Cantor type. A Mitch Daniels type. Bright, articulate, very astute on the economic/fiscal issues, well prepared on the foreign policy issues…AND…very hard to demonize to the independents.
A very high likeability factor and a very low negatives is imperative. A red meat candidate will lose…but you can’t be so dry that you have no juice.
None of the GOP candidates have the whole package. The likeable aren’t inspiring, the inspiring are too red meat or aren’t prepared enough on some issues.
The lack of that Reaganesque candidate leaves the GOP with a “next best thing” candidate. That portends a race that will come down to a hanging chad.
And, if non-leftists lose this race, the implications for this country are too frightening to contemplate. We won’t pull together, so we are quite likely to come apart.
–The next President must be able to win the independent vote.
Right. That’s the Rino thinking that gave us Grandpa McCain last time out. Unfortunately, the “independents” broke strongly to pretty-boy Barry, and the demoralized base stayed home.
The best candidate will be the one who most rallies the base, and gives Independents the sense that momentum is on the side of the conservatives (especially as six years control of the Senate/House/Whitehouse has clearly proven to be a disaster for the nation).
America is hungering for an honest, committed Conservative to save our sinking ship. The last thing we need is a candidate whom the MSM pretends to respect.
It is absolute blind ignorance to equate the mathematical equation that the winning side must win the independent vote with “that’s the same RINO thinking that got McCain, blah, blah, blah”.
It’s childish and rather inane, in fact.
Reagan would be a RINO then and thinking that he would win the independents is the equivalent of McCain?
What utter rubbish.
We need to grow up here. Losing this election is not a plaything. Acting like adults is in order. Not puerile behavior.
Hey, Pee Wee I don’t need some long-winded keyboard jockey telling me to grow up. You grow up.
Palin is a bona fide Conservative. She is articulate (needs no teleprompter to communicate with the people). She has a strong record as an administrator. She is honest, and direct, and she actually answers questions that are put to her. She will massacre Obama in the debates and on the campaign trail. Obama’s trajectory is straight down. He no longer draws the crowds. The independents who stupidly voted for him can no longer stand the man; they hate his voice, his face, and most of all those great flapping dumbo ears of his. But more importantly, independents understand how ungodly awful the Obama record is. Palin will beat him. Hell, even McCain (Mr. Independent Maverick) could beat the boy king this time around. A can of chili could beat Obama. We need to look further into the future. We need a leader with fortitude and resolve who will take on the entrenched interests. We need *our* Maggie Thatcher. I’m for Palin.
Now piss off.
Palin is a gutsy conservative, that is for sure. However, she has infected her chances of winning by being too polarized with too many.
She is the kind of candidate you either love or hate, which puts her in extreme territory of having a base with rose-colored classes clashing with those who don’t have to think twice about how much they dislike her.
No, hopefully, Palin will step aside and be the king-maker that has been a proven benefit of her’s to the conservative movement.
I’m with you, Doc. First off, ANY GOP candidate can beat Obama, that’s how disillusioned the voters are with him, some even from his own party and prior supporters. Second, Palin is the only one around that’s the real deal. She’s been vetted to the extent that the msm knows they can’t get anything else on her – unlike the current crop of candidates – which makes them even more furious and anxious. She is tested against the viciousness of the msm. No one – and I mean, no one – can withstand and push back like she has done and continues to do.
You know, when someone is as fervent, as insistent, as vitriolic, as panicky about the possibilty of a President Palin such as cfbleachers is, I’m suspicious they are a troll trying to push us toward a lesser candidate than Palin. Just sayin….
I think McCain was a “throw away” candidate. I do not think the Republicians expected to be able to win and so they sacrificed McCain. They expected to be running against Hillary. Surprise, surprise. Too bad they were not more positive in their thinking.
I’ve got to agree mostly with Frank on this one, cfbleachers.
Got to win? Well, yes, that *is*, after all, the idea: to make the necessary changes one has to win.
Maybe it’s Governor Perry (*if* he chooses to run). A bit less so Rep. Bachmann. I’d discount the rest of the current pack.
So far, I bet we all agree on that.
“Why not” Palin is the sticking point.
I’m NOT persuaded that “her negatives” [those created out of whole cloth by the - as you say...heh heh - lapdog media] are insurmountable.
I believe that these perceived “negatives” can indeed be neutralized with a crystallizing advertising campaign…that is to say, one that addresses both the
“The Emperor Wears No Clothes” aspect along with
the “Competence, Experience and Integrity are What Is Needed and What I Have (and, if you haven’t noticed, the other guy DOESN’T)”
aspects of voters’ concerns about today’s and the future of America.
Ed, Frank’s opinions reflect a lightweight imbecile.
Her “polling negatives” are so high nobody could overcome them. She can’t win. Period.
It’s probably not fair and it does not reflect her good points, but it is a reality. As a national candidate she is damaged goods. Beyond repair for the top of the ticket. They brutalized her and it is NOT worth losing this election to try to remedy that by saying “nyah-nyah, anyone who says this is a RINO who wants McCain”. That’s a two year old with his thumb in his mouth.
This requires an adult conversation.
There is no “consensus” candidate. However, to win the White House you MUST attract the center. This is not an “if” question. And facing the reality is different than liking the reality.
Bryan Preston had a wonderful bit today on the Tatler about Romney being completely tone deaf. That’s a reality. Romney fans may not like to hear it, but the three items Bryan pointed out were dead on the money.
I like Herman Cain but he is, I’m terribly afraid…really, really very short on knowledge and preparation in a couple of key areas.
Pawlenty would fit nicely, but he has no real charisma to build up enthusiasm.
Newt has stumbled so badly, it is nearly impossible to recover.
Michele Bachman has a ton to offer, but the “flake” image did not originate with Chris Wallace. It has some stickiness and she tends to flub too much.
Huntsman is a non-starter.
I think a Cantor type, Paul Ryan type, Mitch Daniels type would accomplish what is needed. None of them are running. This election is not worth the risk of losing by getting into asinine childish fights about being a RINO every time it is mentioned that the center can’t be ignored in order to win.
cf, I gotta go with Frank on this one. You have a fundamental assumption here, which I believe to be false. There was a nice article linked on Townhall.com (I think) today about what appeals to “independents”.
Basically, Independents are not really midway between Pubs and Dems. They support Paul and Kucinich and Nader, etc…. All the folks they support have clear values upon which they stand unapologetically. Reagan had that quality. You knew where he stood. Independents do not like flip-floppers like Mitt. This is where “articulate” comes in, spelling out what you believe in.
I also disagree that Palin is “unelectable”. If she throws her hat into the ring, she will instantly have a huge following. It will come down to her or Romney. Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Pawlenty, none can beat her for the Conservative vote. She would clobber Romney for the nomination.
But what about her unfavorables? What about them? (shrug) Those change the moment she becomes a candidate. People then have to take her more seriously. They will have to investigate, once she becomes an option. Neighbors will knock on doors to discuss. Pundits will discuss. The topic becomes electric.
cf, the moment she declares, she becomes “electable”. The moment she becomes electable, it is game over for everyone else.
Let’s put it this way, cf:
If it is Palin or Bachmann or Santorum or Pawlenty or Cain, whom do you choose? Pawlenty, maybe? Mmm… no.
If it is her or Romney, whom do you choose?
If it is her or Obama, whom do you choose?
Finally, would she be a good President and one who would move us in the right direction, because she has a proper compass?
“Unelectable” is another Media lie. They said the exact same thing about Reagan. He was a dunce and unelectable. Palin becomes electable the moment you acknowledge you would vote for her. The Left seriously hopes she is the nominee. They thought the same thing about Reagan.
For Palin, I will knock on doors, make phone calls, and donate money. I won’t for anyone else, because to me, they are all 2nd-tier, and I cannot honestly sell them. I won’t campaign for a Generic Republican, a “not-Obama”. I have to have a person to campaign for. I’ll vote for anyone but Mitt, and donate money, too, but I won’t campaign for them.
cf, I do not think you have a problem with Palin, personally. I think you know she is the best of the lot, which is why you started your post with her. It is just that you have been convinced that she is unelectable. You would vote for her, though.
Marc, I think Palin is a doll. I have stood behind her when she was being pummeled for no reason. I have bashed the left for their treatment of her.
Between her and Obama, I would vote for her a bazillion times in a row.
(between a dung beetle and Obama, I would vote for the dung beetle a bazillion times in a row)
I am convinced she could lose to Obama, I am convinced she is damaged beyond repair, I am convinced that the TRUE CENTER (not imbeciles who would vote for bizzaro candidates) has been infiltrated with the effects of the smear campaign against her.
I think Sarah rallies the base, but has too much baggage, fair or unfair…to overcome with the very people who MAKE THE DIFFERENCE in votes in this campaign…and I am NOT willing to risk losing just for one candidate.
I understand the logic, but she WILL LOSE a number of the indpendent votes or people will stay home. Obama wins, in a landslide based on polling numbers against her. I’m not willing to take that risk. Are you?
cfbleachers
“…Marc, I think Palin is a doll. I have stood behind her when she was being pummeled for no reason. I have bashed the left for their treatment of her.
Between her and Obama, I would vote for her a bazillion times in a row….”
Don’t believe it. Troll-alert. No one who EVER supported Palin would ever talk about her like this. Besides, the vicious language used, when it could just as easily be cordial, signals a lib. Choice of words – usually with “F” generously thrown in – gives them away every time. If I’m wrong, do yourself a big favor and stop sounding like a lib.
“the harder core voices on each side of the spectrum scare independents away”
is absolutely correct.
leadership, governance, integrity, and optimism are essential.
it is the ideological rigidity of both extremes that is destroying what remains of America.
fifty percent of us want the other fifty percent (left and right) to get out of the way. 2012 is your last chance.
unfortunately, there is no clone of the best of Calvin Coolidge and Harry Truman running for president because neither extreme would allow it.
please explain how “conservatism” is extreme?
i might agree that conservatism is radical (haha oxymoron) in the sense that it seeks to alter the stagnant status quo of leviathan but how are conservatism’s principles “extreme?”
individual liberty?
self-sufficiency?
respect for constitution?
respect for law?
capitalism versus collectivism?
smaller government?
these principles are extreme?
cfbleachers, you are extremely insightful, and I tend to agree with you.
Do you really think Paul Ryan could get those “independents”? He does certainly have the sunny personality of Reagan — incredibly resilient and good-humored no matter how ridiculous and vicious the attacks on him. But will he run??? Or could the GOP come together and DRAFT him for the nomination???
What do you think of Thad McCotter, who’s just entered the race? I think McCotter could win a whole bunch of those Rust Belt “Reagan Democrats.” He doesn’t have Reagan’s boisterousness, but he does have a sense of humor, and that star-spangled electric guitar gives him a certain “cool” factor….
I just re-read my own comment, and realized that I was just speaking to superficial considerations. In all seriousness, the reason I like McCotter, and think he could win, is that the man is a VISIONARY. He THINKS differently than all these other people — and he can by golly ARTICULATE it. (Without a teleprompter!) THAT’s the real reason he could win those independents.
At this point I would settle for a president who simply does no further harm! Four years of scorched earth is enough.
However if we are talking wish list, then it is foolish to believe that any candidate can win whose major appeal is only to his/her base. We are way past the stage that either a party Republican or a party Democrat can succeed. The president sworn in January 2013 will have to command the middle, the independents and the wishy-washy. That requires compromises BEFORE the election.
The path to victory in 2012 is a strong, positive, inclusive pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-business platform that probably includes a few bitter pills on things like immigration and environment. It would help if the candidate could demonstrate some facility with foreign policy as well.
– … it is foolish to believe that any candidate can win whose major appeal is only to his/her base.
Yeah maybe so, but I am certain that 2012 will be an even bigger year than 2010. There is no hiding the disaster of Obama’s agenda; and they can’t push the blame off on the Republicans, because the Democrats had control of the House for 4 years and of the Senate for 6 years and of the executive for 4 years; they can bitch about Bush all they want, but they OWN this economy; and they have no accomplishments to point to, aside from the Obamacare Bill that voters roundly despise. Independents will move sharply to the right in 2012.
The only thing that could help Obama is if the Republican conservative base gets slapped across the face with another moderate squish like McCain.
Yes, it is important to draw votes from outside of the party; but it is even more important for Republicans this season to LISTEN to the rank & file. It is key to get as many conservatives to the polls as possible. So, my message to the GOP leadership: you are going to win independents this time anyways, so do not — DO NOT — piss off the base the way you have in virtually every election since Reagan, but most particularly in 2008 when we lost to a college lecturer who once gave a nice rousing speech full of meaningless fluffy mush.
i agree with your position throughout this thread dr. frank
i believe there is an important distinction between pandering/courting the “middle, moderates and independents” as an end in itself versus confidently advocating/demonstrating the simple principles of “conservatism” in order to persuade the “middle” to move to it
You are right. The election must present voters with a clear choice – socialism or capitalism. That means the GOP must choose between winning regardless of the damage to principles or winning because of principles. Seems to me that the latter course is the only basis on which the necessary changes can be made.
I am going to have to move against the grain (of this thread anyway) and say that the issue is winning, not cheering up the base. The president’s policies have been a disaster but he remains personally popular and he will have gobs of money and a well-oiled marketing machine. Having a presidential election at the top changes the dynamic down the ticket, so 2010 may not be a good predictor — maybe the wave breaks right again, or maybe not so much. I think the key for the opposition will be to stay on message — this election is about jobs, growth and opportunity. The tone has to be super-positive, not negative.
Last time, I voted for Palin, in spite of McCain.
I won’t waste my vote like that again.
If the Republicans don’t nominate a Constitutional Conservative, I will remind everyone that Abraham Lincoln led a “3rd Party” when he was elected President.
No one gave Abraham Linoln any chance of winning. However I think the vote counting was more honest 150 years ago.
I meet all the criteria listed in the article and in the comments, even the handsome part.
Marc Malone for President! Woot! 
Thank you for the advice. Why not send this to all potential candidates and ask them to pay for the next edition. Then report on your follow-on balance sheet.
While all you election pundits argue about ‘Perry and ‘Palin’, you’re burning brain cells ’cause THEY AREN’T RUNNING yet.
You wanna be deciding what to do about 2012 and 2014-2016? Then take over both houses of congress so that every democrat never holds another office again, while some are charged, prosecuted, sentenced and jailed for violating the Constitution, tyranny against the governed, and being part of a communist takeover of our government after starting the House Un-American Activities Commission again.
We MUST win this election cycle by completely taking over the House and Senate with a veto proof super majority, NO MATTER WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT.
This Republic needs to be run the way we want it run, according to the Rule of Law. Should we get lucky there may even be real conservatives in the Executive branch in 2012, or ’16 (Palin, West, Rubio?).
In the mean time, campaign, petition, donate, act as if whoever runs for prez is irrelevent.
Look for honesty! Barack’s Nightmares from His Lying Father
Barack Hussein Obama could easily have been Rasheem Mohammad Jones.
As if news that the unemployment rate has risen to 9.2% and the federal deficit has hit a record 33 months–27 straight Obama months–weren’t enough of a burden, a report that his father may have planned to put the pre-born Barack up for adoption is being circulated by the Boston Globe and the Huffington Post and other staunch allies and card-carrying members of Obama’s MSM Club.
The “Rasheem” is a personal speculation. He could have been called Abdul, Rahman, or some other Islamic name like Hussein. His daddy, a real piece of work to put it mildly, would have wanted a nice, Muslim family to adopt and raise in accord with Islamic law his ill-conceived conception with Stanley Ann Dunham.
Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was born a Muslim although his only son has said he subsequently became an atheist and Junior has long denied he himself was a Muslim. None of that amounts to a hill of halal beans, however. Under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, you’re a Muslim in perpetuity. Pre his conversion to atheism, Senior would have wanted and expected his progeny to be reared in the same tradition as he was regardless of his atheist mother’s wishes.
All this puts poor Barack in a fine pickle with respect to his multi-married father from whom he received many of his dreams. Not only has he failed to revive the nation’s economy but his father Barack Senior didn’t even want him. Fortunately for the president if not for the country, abortions were hard to get back in 1961.
Still, what does such a personal realization do to a kid’s dreams even if the kid is now president of the United States? And, what’s worse, having a father, and mother, who wanted to get rid of him or a father who is a proven, deceitful liar totally devoid of character and integrity?
Needless to say, the White House and both sides of Obama’s family are denying there is any truth to the verified documented adoption story. The Globe clarified everything by saying it was predicated on a lie, not the adoption feature of the revelation but Barack Senior’s lying. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4989
“Character. Character is important in the negative sense of not being dishonest or unfaithful. … Character is also important in the sense of having positive virtues like compassion and decency. … This same personal character will give them credibility when they explain to the American people what hard choices must be made.”
Dwight Eisenhower once said that integrity was the most important characteristic for a leader (any leader) to have. Character is akin to integrity. Out current leader has neither.
I still get a kick out of Sarah Palin’s supporters. They seem to think that if they wish hard enough that Palin will give up making money and run for President. She made her mind up when she found out that as a candidate she would have to give speeches for free.
So, if Sarah doesn’t run (she really isn’t going to run you know) then let’s address the four qualities the article mentions and see who among the people who are actually running for the GOP nomination (No Christie, Perry, Palin or Huckabee here) has them.
1. Political Courage. Well, Romney doesn’t have to courage to defend himself on the charge that he invented Obamacare. Pawlenty doesn’t have the courage to challenge Romney to his face. On courage the winner would have to be Michele Bachmann. She isn’t afraid of the Democrats and if the Republicans need it, she will oppose them too. Winner: Bachmann.
2. Character. One thing you might not know about Michele Bachmann is that she has taken in 23 foster children. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been married 23 times (figure might be an exaggeration). Mitt Romney would like ot have 23 wives at the same time. Tim Pawlenty would be happy if 23 people voted for him. Bachmann has been married to the same man since the 70s and has five biological children as well as the 23 little ones she took in out of the goodness of her heart. Winner: Bachmann
3. The Confidence of the base. Mitt RINO, oops, I mean Romney does not have it. Ron Paul has the confidence of a tiny piece of the base but nobody else. Pawlenty will lose what little confidence the base has for him when they learn how many times he tried to raise taxes in Minnesota. Guess who has the total confidence of the base? Winner: Bachmann
4. Ability to inspire optimism. Listen to Michele Bachmann’s speeches. Her audience is left believing that anything is possible in America. Especially the part where she says Obama will be a one term president. Winner: Bachmann.
You’d better all practice now. Soon you will have to learn to say Madam President!
Our next President will be the candidate with the best hair. Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Perry, Jindall & Huntsman all have excellent coiffure credentials. Newt, DeMint & Santorum: not disqualified, but on the mane bubble.