Myth of the Great Candidate that said “No”


Currently it’s common to hear sorrowful wailing because the Republican Party is forced to choose one of the candidates running for president. If only XYZ had ran, THEN we’d have something to get excited about.  This lack of interest from the Great Candidate(s) is then used as a corollary argument that Barack Obama is seen as unbeatable by the smart guys.

I submit to you that this balderdash is completely refuted by the pesky facts. Following are some of the names that are repeatedly tossed out as our great lost hope.

Chris Christie – Really? A moderate from New Jersey with two years in elective office? From Day 1 has steadfastly said “No” to running in 2012.

John Thune – Really? A guy who is in his first term in the Senate (and he had to be talked into running again after losing the first time) and is not known outside South Dakota?

Sarah Palin – Love her but no. She wisely realized it wasn’t in the cards and at just 48 she has plenty of time to wait for better opportunities.

Mitch Daniels – Its fairly well established that his wife and family were opposed to a presidential run. No mystery here.

Tim Pawlenty – Oh wait….

Bobby Jindal – Barely into his second term as Governor of a small state, will turn just 41 later this year, no way is 2012 his best time to run. Huge future potential.

Marco Rubio – In his first term in the US Senate, also will turn just 41 later this year,  no freaking way should he rush things. Huge future potential.

Haley Barbour – Oops, wrong list.

Paul Ryan – Extremely hard to run for President from the House, not well known by the average person, at just 42 has a huge future, we need him more in Congress at this point.

Unless I’m forgetting someone those are the names that get tossed around yet there are very good and obvious reasons why none of them will be the Republican nominee in 2012.

Contrary to popular folklore the GOP does not have a bench of 600 pound gorillas ready to come in, unite the party, and sweep to victory who instead cravenly decided to enter the bunker for four more years.

In fact there is only one person I am aware of who fits that description. Only one person with the organization, name ID, political experience, political ability, and the potential to draw the various factions together. And his last name simply makes him a no go for 2012.

Besides, when you consider that the Democrats had to choose between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama in 2008, I think our choices of Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum begin to take on a certain luster.


Category: , , ,

RSS feed

5 Comments Leave a comment

My thoughts exactly

texashistorian (Diary) Wednesday, January 25th at 10:50AM EST (link)

and I am glad you put this in a diary. There will be no brokered convention, no last minute savior, we have our dance partners for better or worse.

What a lot of people who are pressing the panic button seemingly fail to grasp is that no matter who the candidates are, we’d be having the same discussion. It reads like this

Mitch Daniels: call a social truce? He’s a RINO!!!

Paul Ryan: too young, no executive experience, voted for X piece of legislation in 2005 etc.

Bobby Jindal: horrible Republican response to the SOTU previously, too young, not telegenic, not enough time as a governor, supported this or that law in his state blah blah blah

Chris Christie: a disaster on the 2nd amendment, not a social conservative etc. Rockefeller RINO

And on and on it would go. There is going to be something, and likely several somethings about any single person that would be a candidate that many of us won’t like. It would look just as ugly and doom-and-gloom around here over them as it does with our current candidates.

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.

- Paul Johnson

 

Agree 99.9%

barleycorn (Diary) Wednesday, January 25th at 11:54AM EST (link)

I think there could be a deadlocked convention. Deadlocked to the extent that no one candidate has 50% plus one.

Modern sensibilities seem to be offended by the idea of a convention making up its own mind about who to nominate. Conventions are expected to be decided in advance via the ‘will of the people”.

An example of this was in 2008. Barack Obama did not win a majority of delegates but tremendous pressure was put on Hillary Clinton to get out because he had a few more than she did, (This completely turned on it head the whole justification for “super delegates” to begin with.)

So who knows what might happen if we get to the convention and Gingrich and Romney each have 46% and Ron Paul has the other 8%.

meant as reply to texashistorian

barleycorn (Diary) Wednesday, January 25th at 11:56AM EST (link)

(sigh)

Its best that one of the candidates wins enough delegates due to superior performance

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 1:45PM EST (link)

great column

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Yes GC you are exactly right... the last thing we need now is a "brokered candidate".

texastaxpayer (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 1:50PM EST (link)

I am afraid that would be fatal as the internal divisions in the party are already so distrustful of each other.

“Texas will again lift it’s head and stand among the nations. It ought to do so, for no country upon the globe can compare with it in natural advantages.” Sam Houston