Too Many Conservatives Running In 2016 Primary

Leo McNeil ^ | March 23, 2015 | Leo McNeil

[jjsheridan5]

Cruz and Walker will quickly rise above the rest, if prior primaries are anything to go by. The pattern is fairly consistent. Primary voters, dissatisfied with the establishment candidate, look at each contender in turn, raising them in the polls, but the candidate reveals himself to be unworthy, non-conservative, or just plain goofy, and they fall back to the bottom. Because they have been truly awful candidates.

This will not happen with Cruz and Walker in the mix. They are just too good. So it will, rapidly, become a 3-way race, with the two conservatives shaping the tone and tenor of the debate. Bush’s campaign slogan will be, essentially, “hey, look at me”, while the adults battle it out.

[LeoMcNeil]

I’m pretty sure Walker isn’t running on amnesty, in fact he’s walked back his support of it. Reagan has admitted a number of political blunders, including amnesty, no-fault divorce and support for abortion funding. The point being you’re never going to come up with a perfect candidate. Each candidate is wrong on some issues and they all make mistakes while in office.

[LeoMcNeil]

I hope you’re right that Cruz and Walker rise above the rest. I’m confident Walker will, he’s a skilled campaigner. Cruz I’m less sure about, mostly because he’s only run one meaningful statewide race and that was for the GOP nomination for Senate.

I will object to one thing you said. I would not refer to Cruz and Walker as the only “adults” in the race. We should not stoop to the level of the left (including Jeb Bush), which constantly refer to themselves as adults and to anyone who disagrees with them as children. We have better arguments than the left, we don’t need to join them in making unnecessary and meaningless attacks on our opponents. Our attacks on Jeb Bush are much more potent when we aren’t calling him names.

[SoConPubbie]

I’m pretty sure Walker isn’t running on amnesty, in fact he’s walked back his support of it.

Did I say something about Walker?

A little sensitive about that Amnesty thing and Walker?

BTW, get back to me about Walker and Amnesty/Open Borders when he actually states a specific plan to deal with both the border, and those here already illegally.

McCain, GWB, Graham, etc. all say they are against Amnesty, however, we all know there are multiple definitions of Amnesty.

[celmak]

Too Many Conservatives Running In 2016 Primary

I only see one - TED CRUZ!

[LeoMcNeil]

I agree that Walker needs to state his position on amnesty and the border. He seems to have backed off of some previous comments that appeared to support some form of amnesty. I would like him to give a speech laying out his position.

[LeoMcNeil]

That’s why we lose elections, only our guy is a conservative and the rest are heretics to the cause and unworthy of even the slightest consideration.

[ek_hornbeck]

That is why I said “too many non-establishment candidates”, and not “too many conservative candidates”. I couldn’t bring myself to call idiots like Santorum and Huckabee “conservative”. But “non-establishment” is, as you point out, also incorrect. Maybe these candidates defy any label other than “unelectable”?

A lot of these guys are ringers, posing as anti-establishment when they are really in sync with the RNC's crypto (and not so crypto) liberal agenda. Marco Rubio is the perfect example of this - an establishment moderate posing as a Tea Party type. Luckily his gig was up when he shouted his support for amnesty from the rooftops.

[ek_hornbeck]

That’s why we lose elections, only our guy is a conservative and the rest are heretics to the cause and unworthy of even the slightest consideration

You have to draw the line somewhere, whether it's over a single issue or the big picture. Otherwise you take this line of argument to the point that candidates like Jeb Bush become "acceptable."

[Georgia Girl 2]

Not only will Jebbie never get your vote he will never get ours and he will never win the presidency.

[Sans-Culotte]

I agree that Walker needs to state his position on amnesty and the border. He seems to have backed off of some previous comments that appeared to support some form of amnesty. I would like him to give a speech laying out his position.

At this point, I don't care what Walker says about amnesty. He's already said too much. Once someone has tipped their hand, there's no way to forget what you've seen. Cruz is the only one (so far) who is upfront about being against it. Even if Walker comes up with some wishy-washy anti-amnesty statement, it won't matter. We'll know he's just veering right the way McCain is doing in AZ because he's running for re-election.

It's too bad, because Walker is an appealing fellow who is right on lots of things. And enough with comparing today's amnesty of God knows how many illegals with the smattering that Reagan legalized. Sadly we've reached a point where Regan's greatest mistake is now seen as a virtue among GOPE types.

[Crusher138]

It is going to be a battle between Cruz, Walker and Bush. They will represent the right, middle, and left of the Republican party, respectively.

Bush will lead in fundraising, but Cruz will have the heart of the core of the party. Walker, if he doesn’t screw up, could be the compromise candidate.

If we nominate Cruz, we will win the White House no matter who is the opponent. If we nominate Walker, it is a toss up. If we nominate Bush, we will have our asses handed to us, especially if the Democrats nominate someone other than Clinton.

[LeoMcNeil]

There are more issues out there than amnesty. The problem I have with Cruz is that he hasn’t accomplished anything in the Senate. There isn’t a single bill that he’s pushed through the Senate successfully. You could have said the same thing about Obama back in 2007. If Cruz can’t work with other Senators to get a bill passed, what makes you think he’ll be successful as President?

[LeoMcNeil]

Why do you think Cruz wins the White House hands down if he gets the nomination? I think he wins if he gets the nomination, I feel the same way about Walker. I can see Cruz losing though, in part because he’s not really experienced as a campaigner. Cruz can run a campaign in a primary but he’s never had to run a serious campaign against a Democrat. No one can question Walker’s ability to campaign against the left, his three wins in Wisconsin speak for themselves.

We will agree though that Bush would lose, probably no matter who the Democrats nominate. His brother will impede his ability to obtain independent votes, his views will keep conservatives at home.

I’m also lost how Walker represents the middle of the GOP. Union busting isn’t really associated with being a moderate.

[jjsheridan5]

I will object to one thing you said. I would not refer to Cruz and Walker as the only “adults” in the race.

'Twas an analogy. Not name calling. Bush cannot speak at as high a level as the others, and so will be excluded from the debate between Cruz and Walker. This leaves him on the outside looking in, trying to draw attention to himself. Much like a child interceding in a debate between adults. Thus, the analogy.

[jjsheridan5]

That’s why we lose elections, only our guy is a conservative and the rest are heretics to the cause and unworthy of even the slightest consideration.

The debate over who is a conservative, is generally a healthy one. And you are right, that some go too far. But what you don't recognize is that both sides will, occasionally, go too far, including your side. The "no-RINO" side goes too far when they don't allow candidates to change their positions over time. Obviously, a great deal of skepticism needs to be applied to such changes, but it goes too far when such changes are rendered impossible. But your side goes too far (not necessarily you), when they view holding candidates up against mainstream conservatism as "purity tests", or make references to ideas like "then Reagan wasn't a conservative", (stated derisively) "only your guy is conservative", or "no candidate is perfect."

Don't worry: the mainstream conservatives will accept either Cruz or Walker, even though a miniscule number of voters (the type that comment on forums), may scream "RINO". And, no, the people who held those candidates up against the ideal were not conducting a purity test, but were a necessary part of separating the good candidates from the bad.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, this is how the RINO wing always wins, the Conservatives field about 6 candidates and split the vote.

[Sans-Culotte]

There are more issues out there than amnesty. The problem I have with Cruz is that he hasn’t accomplished anything in the Senate. There isn’t a single bill that he’s pushed through the Senate successfully. You could have said the same thing about Obama back in 2007. If Cruz can’t work with other Senators to get a bill passed, what makes you think he’ll be successful as President?

You cannot seem to grasp that amnesty is a deal breaker. Amnesty will be the beginning of unchecked illegal immigration forever. It won't matter who runs for anything if the republic has turned into Mexico, Jr.

You answered your own question about freshman senators by the example of Obama. He hasn't accomplished much, has he?

[Crusher138]

Why do you think Cruz wins the White House hands down if he gets the nomination?

I think that he is Reagan-esque in his oratory. He is very smart. His conservative principles are solid.

To top it off, for the mushy/feel good middle, voting for the first Hispanic President would be a plus. Might even negate the "first Woman President" vote, especially if our VP is a woman.

I still feel that a strong conservative clearly and elequently voicing conservative principles will win the general election. A Hispanic background is just icing on the cake.

[TexasRepublic]

Crowded field? The others should drop out now that Ted is here.