Yes, yes, yes, I know about it being too early for 2016 and all that, but nevertheless.
We have a very long list of potential candidates already, many of whom are actively doing the things that they would need to do to run; in other words, they're running right now. So my question: of all these candidates, which would you find completely unacceptable?
The list seems to include (and I'm trying to keep it fairly short, just the ones who seem at least semi-actively looking or have been frequently mentioned) Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Jon Huntsman, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Susana Martinez, Mike Pence, Rob Portman, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, and Scott Walker. Which, if any, are on your unacceptable list?
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
OK, I'm a Ross Douthat-ian, somewhat GOP-discontented conservative, so maybe not what you're looking for, but...
ReplyDeleteTo me, the question is whether any candidate is a) sufficiently inquisitive, ambitious to shape policy, and savvy to avoid another rudderless administration like the George W. Bush years, and b) compelling enough to be worth voting for over Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, much of that list comes across as good at the game of electoral politics and GOP base-stroking, but less interested in policy outcomes. Cruz, Perry and Rubio, and Martinez (based on little info) seem that way, and Pence I'm not confident of. Jindal was supposed to be the great wonk, but hasn't really turned out that way. Ryan, enough has been said about; Kasich and Portman I don't know enough about, Santorum would pursue a crazy-aggressive foreign policy and waste all his efforts fighting lost social battles, Huntsman I don't see getting off the ground. I don't know enough about Walker besides the labor battles. Christie and Paul, plus Huntsman if he got that far, I can see supporting.
The problem is, Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified in either party in terms of knowledge of process, knowledge of policy, and general dignitas. Familiarity with military issues is particularly important to me (I'm a Marine), and by accounts I've read, she seems the most at home in those areas. I would much, much rather have a President I disagreed with on some big issues who was nonetheless good at being President, than someone I agreed with across the board who wasn't. That I think is the lesson of the Bush Administration.
A good President might establish or entrench policies I don't like, but she will probably not spend down the military ability or international credit of the US, spend down the honor of the US, or otherwise launch ill-conceived projects that make the US as a whole look or be weaker.
Ted Cruz. He's got all the worst policies of the party with the added twist of apparently being a sociopathic mini-McCarthy. He's by far the scariest guy on any of the lists, and every few weeks he seems to get worse.
ReplyDeleteWhat has he done to convince you of that?
DeleteNo more Bushes. And please, not Perry or Santorum. So far, Cruz seems like too much of a partisan jerk to be President.
ReplyDeletePaul might be the only one I can vote for, based on certain red line Constitutional/freedom issues. Even Huntsman said he would have signed the NDAA. And even if someone else says they wouldn't have signed it, after Obama's flip-flop on these issues I'm just not inclined to believe anyone who doesn't at least have the voting record to back up his words.