Is there anyone you’re holding a candle for in the presidential sweepstakes? Who is the next Reagan?

The New York Times has an article today noting how the GOP is torn in giving a third chance for Mitt Romney:

“People say he is a very fine man, but he had his chance,” said Frank Keating, the former Oklahoma governor. “I think they’re looking over his shoulder at the next attractive candidates.”

Mr. Romney’s indication in New York last week that he may run in 2016 has set off excitement among his loyalists in the Republican donor class and assurances from his consultants that he can bring a different dimension to the campaign this time.

But interviews with more than two dozen Republican activists, elected officials and contributors around the country reveal little appetite for another Romney candidacy. Beyond his enthusiasts — a formidable constituency given that many are donors — opinions range from indifference to open hostility.

Read it here.

I don’t have anything against Romney, but I guess I’m looking for a Republican candidate who is inspirational and aspirational. That’s kind of the same problem I had last go around in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. I’m looking for someone with a clear vision as well as a blueprint, of where they want our country to go.

And that might be the very reason Republicans keep struggling at the Presidential level. Hands down, Obama is the worst president of my lifetime. Even worse than Jimmy Carter. At least Carter attempted to lead.

But without a Republican alternative for voters who can articulate a vision and a path to achieve it, it could be a rough row to hoe.

So, you tell me. Which Republican candidate should we be paying more attention to in the months to come? And what is their vision?

21 Replies to “Is there anyone you’re holding a candle for in the presidential sweepstakes? Who is the next Reagan?”

  1. Anonymous

    if romney gets in, wrecks mike huckabee’s chances, and gets out again, i think justice will have been served

    Reply
  2. Liberty Dick

    Rand Paul is the Reagan of our time. There isn’t anyone else everyone can get excited about.

    Paul Ryan attacked veterans in that shutdown budget.
    Ben Carson is crap on guns.
    Huckabee is terrible on many issues.
    Jeb Bush, for Christ’s sake his last name is Bush so that is going to cost him points. (Not with me I am still fond of GW.) Plus he is all for Common Core. And how is he on immigration again?
    Whoever the nominee is I hope they tap John Thune for the VP spot. He is usually solid on every issue, charismatic, and professional.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “Jeb Bush, for Christ’s sake his last name is Bush so that is going to cost him points. ”

      Agreed, but Barry Obama is making ANY Bush look more & more plausible in 2016.

      Obama’s ability to unite the US against Obama is simply amazing.

      Reply
  3. Aaron Pilcher

    I would put Romney in the “good” candidate category, probably not great. Walker has demonstrated a stiff backbone, but needs to build a better network before he’s in a position to win the nomination. For that reason, he’s still in the “good” category. Anyone but Ted Cruz. Decent principles, but he has no idea what he’s doing. Creates more problems than solutions. Rand Paul could be a decent candidate if he didn’t come across as colder than Hillary. Jeb is the elephant in the room, no pun intended. He’s got the money and the name ID. Thune is in the same position as Walker, without the union battle to talk about. Rubio was out the day Jeb announced. Voters go the polls for the big issues, mainly the economy and national security. Sometimes the values voters show up. Most voters don’t go to the polls for things like common core or immigration, despite their constant attention through the process. In terms of predictions, that leaves me looking for a candidate with decent name ID, a good network, and a good stance on the economy and national security. At this point, any not-Obama would play well on the economy. Then, thinking about national security, the name “Bush” might be an attractive option come November, 2016. Not saying Bush is the best, but at this point I don’t see anyone else taking the nomination from him.

    Reply
  4. William Beal

    At this point in time, I’m leaning toward Scott Walker. He’s not “flashy,” but he’s managed to win 3 elections in 4 years and “sits on a throne, made of the skulls of his enemies.”

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    At least we don’t need to contemplate a Liz Warren primary run-I think I would have hidden in a cave for a few months; the banshee Hillary is bad enough.

    Heaven help us! We don’t need Jeb Bush as President-he is maybe one notch above a Democrat. I think Romney had his shot and needs to stand aside. I like Ben Carson, and I like Rand Paul. I also like Ted Cruz, but I don’t think that he can get enough votes to win because he is so solid on his conservatism.

    I think whoever gets the nomination needs to be careful with their running mate. We need to think about setting someone up to have a go in 8 years afterwards.

    Reply
    1. Mark Schuler

      I was really hoping Warren would run, putting her extremist agenda out there in the light of day for all to see. Would have marginalized her once and for all in about two months. She’s the Ted Cruz of the left: just a trainwreck throwing bombs at everything she doesn’t agree with.

      Reply
  6. Troy Jones

    There are nearly 25 Republicans that are talked about as potential candidates. We know in the end, the field will be significantly diminished by the beginning of 2016.

    I define top tier as people who have experience, name ID, an organization or access to quickly develop an organization, and a message that resonates with at least a major component of the GOP voter (gotta have or get all of these. If you are missing one, the candidate can’t win and has no business running). The others are potential candidates who have to do something over the next six months to prove mostly they can develop an organization and raise money.

    My Top Tier is Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Paul, & Romney

    Those on the next tier who have the best chance of moving up are Rubio and Walker. If they do, they move to the top of my list but I need to see them do something as a national candidate.

    All the other 2nd tier potential candidates, I think they have something fundamental that will prevent them from accomplishing what they need to do to move up to top tier. I think these potential candidates should really focus on either positioning themselves for a future run or being selected as the VP candidate.

    Kinda a show me stance.

    Personally, I’m quite comfortable with all mentioned above except for:

    1) Romney: Despite being one I think could be a great President to deal with the economy and budget, losing twice tells me as a candidate there is a fundamental flaw that makes giving him the nomination too risky. We must win this election if we want to make change. Controlling Congress is like having all the sockets without the ratchet- You can only remove those nuts already fairly loose. The Presidency gives you torque.

    2) Christie: He has a personality and demeanor that only works in certain environments (e.g. the rough and tumble of New Jersey politics). I can’t see it playing well in the genteel South and with the “nice” of the Midwest.

    My first hope is either Rubio or Walker do things where they can move into the first tier. I think they have both experiences and perspectives that will suit the nation going forward and be well-received in the general. Walker is especially intriguing for me. I think he is such the “anti-Obama” that he will engender an apolectic reaction from liberals/Democrats that will be over-the-top. Kinda like what Obama did to us Conservatives. We found him so offensive with regard to his policies, we forgot to sell our own agenda and were just too negative.

    If they fail to move up, today, I’d probably go in this order:

    1) Paul: While short on Reagan-esque charisma, he is extremely strong about talking about issues in a way I think will resonate with a nation looking for something other than Obama’s style. Definitely a deep thinker. His biggest weakness is Bush’s strength. This makes giving him the nomination risky in my mind but a risk I think I’m willing to take today. I’m hopeful he will do things in the next year to make me think he is less of a risk.

    2) Bush: From an organization perspective and confidence he will run a well-run campaign surrounded by competent people, he has to bed clearly the strongest. After Paul, I think he has the best style with regard to how he talks about issues. Even when I disagree with him, I step away with “but I respect his position as it is well-considered.” There are some potential candidates who even in agreement with their stance, I go “that is an ineffective way to bring people to our position. Sheesh.” Clearly, Bush’s weakness is that he is a Bush. Bush gets the nomination and I think he will find a way to configure an Electoral College victory. Bush is in my mind the least risky nominee.

    3) Huckabee: He doesn’t quite have Paul’s or Bush’s strengths to the same degree but neither their weaknesses.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      awesome analysis mr jones. regarding huckabee, nobody anywhere was begging another arkansas governor to be our president the first time he ran, and this time from what i see nobody is begging any fox news hosts to run. huckabee has a natural appeal to churchladies of a particular vintage, but doesn’t seem to resonate with anyone else. he is provably less able to win than romney, and not that many want romney to run when it gets down to it. re: your top picks, i agree on bush but am a bit skeptical on rand paul’s wider appeal. bush is as likely to win as rounds was in the senate race, and is hated by pretty much the same people.

      Reply
  7. Anon.

    You really have no say in who the next Republican Presidential Candidate is going to be. Yes, you will have a primary, but it doesn’t matter. Jeb, Chris, Mitt, Ted, Scott, it doesn’t matter. Heck, they might even pick David Duke to be their running candidate, and you would have ‘no’ say in it, whatsoever. Right now our candidate is being manufactured for human consumption, and we will be eating the soylent green before we know it. The only thing you might have any hope in changing for 2016 will be the platform, but I hope your name starts with T and ends with Sanford. Gang, Fox and Friends is kind of neat, but it is time to get back to work.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      the senate used to pick the president and it was set up that way for a pretty good reason, the president was supposed to oversee the execution of the legislative directives from congress as well as provide leadership. even though the system has morphed into a nationwide “coronation”, the real requirements of the job remain the same. you need someone with sufficient expertise and experience and an understanding of the separation of powers and techniques of cooperation. jeb bush is an ideal choice on all of this criteria, but of course lets agonize about who we’ll annoint to be the next king over us, or how little a role we play in the primary process because our votes for ted cruz won’t count.

      Reply
  8. Dicta

    I’d like Paul Ryan, but him getting the chair of Ways and Means all but eliminates that chance. I agree with Troy above that Romney lacks the it factor to get him over in the general, and Christie is too abrasive. Paul is interesting, as he has moved himself from the fringe into the party’s good graces in the past year or so.

    Jeb and Rubio are the other two I see as possibilities, with Jeb on name recognition and Rubio’s perceived “better” chance to recapture much of the lost hispanic vote. It’s early, so we’ll see.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    Kasich-Martinez

    Pres Kasich–OH- GOV-not flashy but well spoken; handled budget in 90s

    VP Martinez-NM ( which could be a GOP pickup into Dem Blue states); GOV-Hispanic-Woman-great personal story of caring for mother.

    Reply
  10. Troy Jones

    Kasich and Martinez are two great examples of those on the upper echelon of the 2nd tier. Both might step up but especially Martinez is intriguing to me.

    Reply
    1. Veldy

      Kasich and Mike Pence both good outliers that could be in the hunt if they get in, I don’t look for Susana Martinez to jump in.

      Reply
  11. Anonymous

    the dems are highly adept at targeting and eliminating minority non-democrats who’d oppose them. they’re going to force a series of all-caucasian republican tickets until we are able to dismantle what they do to people with their destruction machine.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      …and by all-caucasian i mean all-wasp. this won’t end until we take apart the destruction machinery and trample it to bits. here’s to freeing free speech.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.