Posted on 03/23/2015 5:02:01 AM PDT by LeoMcNeil
Ted Cruz is set to announce is candidacy for President of the United States. Rand Paul is apparently going to announce early next month before going on a campaign tour. Until today technically the only candidate was Jeb Bush, who announced late last year his intentions. At the time everyone thought that Bush was going to force everyone else to declare their candidacy early. It doesn’t appear that has happened, Cruz and Paul have appeared in no rush to make a formal announcement. Scott Walker, perhaps the front runner in the race, still hasn’t formally announced his candidacy and there’s no telling when he might do so.
A formal announcement at this point is nothing more than a trivial formality. Cruz, Paul and Walker have been campaigning and engaging in the sort of activities one engages in when running for President. They’ve been doing this for months, arguably since the midterm elections. There has never been any doubt that Cruz, Paul and Walker were going to run. There’s little doubt that Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum will be running. The legal distinction between an exploratory committee and a campaign committee may matter to the FEC but in the political world it doesn’t matter at all. The 2016 primary season has been under way for some time, the only people who disagree are the paper pushers in the Federal government.
There is one consistent thing about the slate of 99% certain to run candidates. All but one of them is a conservative, either appealing to Christian evangelicals, Tea Party conservatives or Tea Party libertarians. Bush being the lone exception, it is without question that he has the support of the establishment moderate wing of the party. In fact, Bush has been openly hostile to conservatives on the campaign trail. The problem for conservatives is that this election is shaping up just like 2008 and 2012. There are too many conservatives running and only one establishment moderate. In a lust for power, half a dozen or more conservatives are willing to sacrifice the country in a vain attempt to obtain power for themselves.
Some of these people shouldn’t even run. In fact, they should step back and act as kingmakers. The endorsement of someone like Mike Huckabee would significantly help one of the other conservative candidates. Huckabee doesn’t have what it takes to win the nomination. He hasn’t been in office in years, he’s selling magic pills for diabetes on the internet wherein he looks like a rabid snake oil salesman. Nevertheless, he has a loyal base that likely would vote for whoever he endorses. There’s power in king making, a lot more than losing a race for President at Huckabee’s age. We could say the same thing about Rick Santorum. He hasn’t been in office in nearly a decade, he got annihilated the last time he ran for US Senate. He was the conservative of last resort against Romney in 2012, he really wasn’t a good candidate. Yet he’s likely to cater to his own vanity and run in 2016, further diluting the conservative vote. Bush must be thrilled.
At least Cruz and Paul have more base support than Huckabee and Santorum. Having said that, do Republicans really believe the country is going to elect a first term Senator again? Obama didn’t exactly work out very well and while Cruz and Paul are obviously better than Obama, most of the country have no idea who these two Senators are or where they come from. In the last century our country has only elected a sitting Senator twice and only one of those times did a sitting Senator defeat a candidate with executive experience. Kennedy’s victory over Vice President Nixon in 1960 was the lone exception, otherwise this country has elected Governors or Vice Presidents. In other words, the country has a tendency to elect men with executive experience. While Cruz is magnificent on any number of issues, he’s going to have a very difficult time convincing people that a first term Senator should be the Commander in Chief. Especially after eight years of Obama. Paul has the same problem. If only we could get rid of some of these candidates, Jeb Bush could be defeated. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen.
LeoMcNeil
Since Mar 14, 2014
view home page, enter name:
~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~
Return
LeoMcNeil hasn’t created an about page
So “Leo” has been on here since Mar 2014 and had NOT posted ANYTHING about him/her self so HOW does anyone know that YOU are NOT nothing but a “Concern Troll”?
Yes. We cannot get stuck with John Ellis.
That’s funny. I only count ONE.
In fact, there is only one party: The Great Squishy Center Government Party. Ideology is not their issue. It's division of spoils and the mutual awarding of financial benefit, both checks being written upon the public funds. Since there is a perception by significant numbers of the American people that the present government has failed, there is a perceived idea that the way to achieve office in 2016 is by standing for constitutional principles and conservative government. The hope, perhaps a vain hope, is that over 50% of the voters will agree at least for purposes of the election.
The fact that I am a Republican and John Boehner et al. are Republicans is not a valid concept. We disagree, obviously, in principle, on strategy, and above all on tactics. The United States has the Two=Party System as a matter of mere convenience. It has failed.
It’s way too early to make this kind of pronouncement. Having “too many” Conservatives in the race right now is a good thing; it acts as a hedge against having one who imploded in spectacular fashion like Perry did in 12 and Fred Thompson did (ok, Thompson sort of sputtered and fizzled) in 08.
Let the candidates run. Let them make their cases. Let’s see how they do on the trail, in the debates and how well they build and run organizations in the early states.
We should know who the best overall option should be after New Hampshire. That person needs to be able to take on Bush and win South Carolina and Florida (if they move their primary to mid-March. If we don’t consolidate around a candidate by then, it’ll be Bush’s nomination to lose.
But for now, we have time and can allow the cream to rise to the top.
“Cruz is the single most dangerous Republican candidate to announce a run in my lifetime since Reagan. Liberals smart enough to know better are wetting themselves today.”
Here in Reagan country, even grandpas and grandmas are chomping on the bit to campaign for TED CRUZ.
Yup. Romney dropped out. Christie has imploded. Bush has basically locked-down the moderate/liberal Republican segment.
The annoying/worrying thing is that I could see him winning a handful of primaries with low percentages, and then building a “momentum” narrative with help from his liberal media buddies (who really just want a stooge for Hillary to beat).
Right now there is only one guy running officially.
Maybe because the message is more important than the messenger? Or has modern culture simply destroyed that old-fashioned notion? Personally, I believe that good information and ideas could come from anyone at any time. Better to focus more on the actual idea than the source.
Limiting the number of candidates might be wise, but impractical in reality, IMHO. The thing we need to VERY diligently keep in mind is avoiding the MSM choosing our candidate. They want a weak centrist (like Jeb, Christie, or Mitt) to lose in spectacular fashion to their minority-hero of the moment (Hillary). Let's not let that happen this time around, shall we?
You demonstrate part of the problem with the conservative vote. It’s Ted Cruz or no one for you, all the others are conservative heretics. The problem is that conservative voters, as a group, do this. The end result is that we dilute our votes because no one is good enough everyone is a heretic on one issue or another and is summarily dismissed. It’s ridiculous, it’s how we end up with nominees like McCain, Romney, Dole and Bush.
I won’t vote for Bush and I can’t say he’s inevitable. At least not yet. The problem is that we can be certain that Bush will pull 40% of the GOP in most of the primaries. If conservatives split their 60% between 6-10 candidates, how can we expect to defeat him?
I lean towards supporting Walker at this point, for no other reason than he’s a Governor who has done an exceptional job in a blue state. He’s dismantled the unions, cut taxes and he’s been solid on conservative social issues. The problem with Cruz is that he excites FR and very few who aren’t solidly conservative. He’s also a relatively inexperienced first term Senator. Paul has the same problem, though he’s managed to alienate his libertarian base so one wonders how he can come up with any pathway to the nomination. Huckabee and Santorum are old has been’s or never were’s. Rubio would be better off as a running mate.
Conservatives can win this nomination. Our 60% can beat the moderates 40%. We’re just too picky, arrogant and vain to get behind one candidate who can win. While we’re nitpicking over candidates, can any of us say we wouldn’t prefer Scott Walker over Jeb Bush?
Pretty much the way I see it, too.
Between the Open Primary, and the number of conservatives on the ballot, Jeb will win easily.
And lose the Presidency to whatever the Democrats run just as easily.
I'm sure Karl Rove and the rest of Team Jeb are very happy to see the conservative vote split. With any luck, conservative anti-Bush votes will consolidate very quickly around a single candidate (no later than SC, hopefully by NH or even IA), but a more likely scenario will be a Cruz vs. Walker split on the right.
I agree Jeb Bush is a disaster.
I didn’t even know there were “about” pages on FR. I would be happy to create one.
I’m not against having more than one conservative run. My issue is that I’m looking at the race right now and I see the establishment candidate that the moderates are clearly behind and I see at least six conservatives splitting money and votes. We could potentially have even more conservatives throw their hat in the ring. Rick Perry is still out there, so is John Kasich and Ben Carson. If we divide ourselves 6-10 ways, how can we beat an organized foe like Jeb Bush?
Jeb Bush’s early announcement all but killed off Chris Christie. Donald Trump is apparently exploring a run but he’s a gimmick candidate who won’t gain any traction. Carly Fiorina is also a gimmick candidate, weaker in name but stronger in message. Let’s face it though, Bush is getting the big money from Wall Street and these other moderates aren’t going to come close.
Right now, I’m for Cruz. I had some questions about Walker and his exact stance on amnesty, its meaning and some conflicting interview statements over the last year or two, but I’ve accepted his latest stance conditionally and look forward to an amicable test between patriots.
I don’t have a mind to trash him. I guess in the right circumstances if Cruz doesn’t prevail, I might go with Walker, but there are NO others I’d vote for, period.
As far as this ‘experience’ meme goes, I don’t hold much cotton to that. There are plenty of history’s (our history) statesmen who have lesser governance provenance. Some of them gambled, sacrificed and TOOK this country from England’s King. And, in the aftermath forged a foundation for a free country that would have lasted for ages had it been run thereafter by honest men.
In a battle such as we face now with liberals, government as a self perpetuating entity and the evil that surrounds them, perhaps what we need are the true of heart, the expertise to express it, and the determination to actually do what they promise.
If you look at his Blog History, Which he has so kindly posted as articles to suck up F.R.'s Bandwidth.
You will find he shares our point of view on Ted, but has some concerns.....
And suffers from PDS which is morphing into "I Support Cruz BUT Syndrome.
Buts are for Cigarettes sir.
When was that, I missed jeb's announcement? He did announce an "exploratory" to see if he might run, but the ball-less bush, DID NOT announce he would run. Not that I care.
There may be too few parties but that’s the system we have in the United States. In our history there has never been a sustained shift to three or more parties. Every few elections a third party comes around only to lose badly and never be heard from again. After 200+ years of elections, I don’t see this changing anytime soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.