I Don’t Think I’ll Last Through Another Moderate Candidate for President
So it looks like Jeb Bush is making news, possibly towards starting a 2016 campaign. This is very scary for me. I don’t know if I could survive another moderate, establishment candidate for president. I still have flashbacks about McCain and Romney and propping up these compromise candidates I never really liked in the first place. I don’t think I have it in me to do it again. I think I’d have to leave the Republican Party. Maybe leave politics all together. Maybe society. I’d just wander the earth, righting wrongs in any small village I’d encounter.
People, we need to find a conservative we can get behind before the Republican Party fades into obscurity led by forgettable moderates. I mean, there has to be one likable conservative candidate we can find. Yes, I know all the good conservatives aren’t in politics — that’s what makes them good conservatives. But hopefully we can find someone.
Again, though, I offer myself. A small handful of people say I’m likable. I’m probably not the best person for the job, as I kind of want it — something that is always a red flag. But if the only other alternative is Jeb, you kind of have to get behind me. We can’t do this again; none of us will last with this many moderate presidential candidate in a row. Each one wither’s your soul just a bit, and too many and you become a soulless partisan. That’s not going to happen to me, man.
Frank J. 2016: Save your soul.
Send to Kindle
(8 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
March 5th, 2013 at 11:13 am
Mitt Romney didn’t lose the election. It was stolen through massive voter fraud and media corruption. A Libertarian/Tea candidate would have done even worse. The only choice is ELECTABLE Republicans.
You’ll just have to learn to live with it. There will never be a Libertarian or a Tea Party president in this country. Never! Never in a million years.
March 5th, 2013 at 11:17 am
My short list (in order):
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Scott Walker
March 5th, 2013 at 11:28 am
Perhaps if you are going to wander the world, you could act like Diogenes and steal a lantern and go off searching for a good candidate.
VOTE FOR FRANKJ!!! at least we’ll have a decent First Lady.
March 5th, 2013 at 11:28 am
I won’t lie – I like Rand if for no other reason than he said in one of his debates for the U.S. Senate (to his opponent): “You know how I can tell you’re lying? Your lips are moving!” Then he stormed off stage and refused to shake the dude’s hand. I love that.
March 5th, 2013 at 11:42 am
How about Stossel, Forbes, or even deGrasse Tyson?
I’d like to see some options from outside congress, heck outside of politics in general.
March 5th, 2013 at 11:45 am
Sorry, forgot Ted Nugent (mostly for the entertainment factor – It’d be like having President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho)
March 5th, 2013 at 11:46 am
Also, can we agree to table social conservatism until AFTER we turn the economy around?
Conservatives get into terrible back biting, which produces damaging soundbites, when we get into more social issues.
If asked about womens’ rights, abortion, gay marriage, etc. we need to respond that the first, and most important issue is the economy and managing, if not reducing our debit and deficit spending. When we have a balanced budget, we can then delve into those important, and complicated issues.
No?
March 5th, 2013 at 11:58 am
If we could persuade Thomas Sowell to run we’d really be talking.
Or Frank J., of course. Or Walter Williams.
Writers are ideal because they have experience actually thinking through their ideas to their logical conclusions. Even better, you can actually tell what they mean because they tend to state it clearly. No more vague candidates, please.
March 5th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Only a dangerously insane person would want to be president. McCain and Romney didn’t really want to win. Ergo, neither was crazy. Ron Paul was insane, but he was so deranged that some of his ideas seemed to make some kind of sense. Thus, not qualified. Santorum was of unsound mind, but his name suggests he is not from this planet, and not technically eligible. Frank, you are a savant, have mastered one of the careers of evil and have successfully reproduced. This indicates to me that you are not unbalanced. Thus, if you wish to be president, I must echo our great Senator John Blutarsky: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
March 5th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Carpenter, you mean we should shun those candidates that our betters like Weepy Boner tell us are “unelectable”? You mean we should have chosen someone other than Ronald Reagan? What a loser! He only managed to carry 49 states. Reagan was too conservative to be elected. Ol’ Mondull really handed him is a** didn’t he?
March 5th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Seriously after the mess we made for the last candidate why bother. The left falls in line behind the candidate, they don’t break ranks, they don’t fuss and fume and stomp their little feet. They organize, they all pull for the same person, even when they disagree because for them getting their guy in the White House (or whatever they’re running for) is the focus. They can fight after the election but they at least understand that their guy is in the cat bird seat and they don’t really have to worry about the Conservatives for another 4 or 6 years.
On the other hand we litmus test our candidates until there is nothing left. We one issue ourselves until we can’t agree on whether the sky is blue or cyan or turquoise. Instead of focus on the message which should be less government, more and better run businesses, less taxes and safety from criminals domestic and abroad, we take on “social issues”. I’ve got news for the abortion foes, the gay marriage foes, the illegal immigrant foes and all the other social issues people find so near and dear to their hearts. Unless we figure out a way to get our message across and someone palatable to a broader range of folks than just the anti-abortion folks or the illegals folks or the anti-gay folks we are going to continue to come in second.
Small history lesson. The Declaration of Independence almost did not get ratified in 1776. The south was offended by the wording of the document on the subject of their “peculiar institution”, slavery. It stood for a time that if the wording remained the south would walk and “Independency” would fail. The suggestion was offered that if they didn’t remove the lines it really wouldn’t matter what else they did, the representative democracy would be still-born. The choice was made to remove the lines and figure out what to do about slavery later because if there was no country the point was moot and if a country was formed and survived they could fight the issue out at a later date. This was the choice that was made for good or ill. It brought about the Civil War but it also brought about the Greatest Country in the history of the world. In order for that to have happened it needed to be a country first, independent and free. So while we trip over our own special concerns the liberals continue to dismantle the Constitution and the laws of the land.
You’ve got to had it to them, they learned the Alinsky lessons well.
March 5th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
All the above candidates are fine, but keep in mind one overarching thing…the very moment they take a sip of water while delivering a speech on camera…they’re toast.
March 5th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
a little lesson from history.
In 1968 Richard Nixon won 32 states despite being hated by the people who went on to form the Libertarian Party in 1971.
In 1972 Nixon won 49 states despite the formation of the Libertarian Party which was formed, specifically, in opposition to the Republicans and to Nixon.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan won 44 states despite being hated by the Libertarians.
In 1984 Ronald Reagan won 49 states despite being viciously hated and lied about by the Libertarians.
In 1988 Papa Bush won 40 states (I think) despite being smeared as a Nazi, viciously hated and lied about by the Libertarians.
All those huge victories where achieved WITHOUT the help of Tea-Partyism or the Libertarians who are, in fact the biggest loooosers in electoral history!
And then in 1992 the Libertarian mindset, the permanently malecontent miscreants, the Ayn Randian (satanic) worldview finally achieved its greatest goal. They helped put Slick Willy in the Whitehouse out of spite which led us directly to where we are today.
The greatest threat to America isn’t Liberalism or Obama or Hillary. Its the the Libertarians who made it possible for Commies and Socialists to get elected. Libertarianism isn’t the answer. It is a curse from Hell.
March 5th, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Ever notice that when the Republicans put up truly conservative candidates, they usually win and when they put up moderates they don’t?
March 5th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Carpenter, Carpenter, Carpenter, do you really believe what you just wrote? Until the Libertarians ran Ross Perot, they consistently achieved less than 1% of the vote. they are not the enemy, moderates like mccain, romney, and graham are the enemy. Faux Americans like rubio and scott and kachich are the enemy. Real Americans don’t care what you call yourself, unless you are a marxist, we will viote for the right person. not the party. The sheeple that follow the Republican or the marxists parties are the enemy. real Americans want elected officials that will do whats right for their community, their city, their county, and their state. Real Americans are tired of the marxist regime that call itself the “federal” government. Real Americans once had a country to be proud of, but then a wave of sheeple poured in and ruined it. The sheeple do not only inhabit the marxists party, but infest the Republican party as well. Secede! Secede from the Republicans, they have abandoned the real Americans, its time to abandon them. Come to the dark side, come to the third party, we have cookies!
March 5th, 2013 at 2:18 pm
do I really believe what I wrote? Yes because its true.
Like it or not the Libertarians are the most Hated people in America and there is good reason for that. There will never be a Libertarian President.
March 5th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Y’all can rearrange the deck chairs as you sit fit, but we’re not about to elect anyone that is going to turn this ship around. A huge chunk of voters don’t have any money so they don’t give a flying #@&^ how much debt we run up – they won’t be paying any of it back. Another huge chunk are old enough that they won’t be paying any back either. Naw, we’ve reached critical mass here in the US. We’re not going to elect people who will shrink the debt. We’re not even going to elect people who will inch towards the cliff. Our only choices are to walk towards the cliff or run (as the liberals would have).
And there’s something to be sad about running. At least we can go over the cliff and commence to fixing the mess earlier.
March 5th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Selecting Jeb would kill the GOP like a steak through the heart – and FORCE a 3rd
party to arise. So, maybe that would be a good thing.
March 5th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
A case of Coors and a bottle of cheap hooch and you can have my vote.
Throw in some smoke and I’ll do your opposition research.
March 5th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
actually “if” Libertarians really cared they would try to infiltrate (or infect) the Democrat party and cause it to lose again and again. If Libertarians cared they would try to SPLIT the Democrats from the Liberals! If Libertarians cared they would try to ruin the Democrat party.
If Libertarians cared they would stop making it possible for the Clintons and the Obamas to communize the USA. If Libertarians really cared about America they would stop lying about every Republican that gets elected.
But that is not the case so I think that Matt Musson is right. Another party, a 3rd party, a Libertarian party is a good thing….
oops. I forgot. There already is a Libertarian party of loooosers that never win national elections. It’s a 4th party that is needed not a 3rd.
March 5th, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Selecting Jeb would kill the GOP like a steak through the heart
Damned pesky cholesterol from that charbroiled NY strip!
Or was it stake Tartar?
March 5th, 2013 at 4:22 pm
My short list of presidential candidates:
1) Dr. Ben Carson
2) Anyone but another Bush
March 5th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
There will be a liberatarian president sooner or later. It may have to wait until the collective IQ is raised by brain augmentation during the tech singularity……but it will come
March 5th, 2013 at 7:47 pm
There are more than one problem with our politics.
1. Frank is right, anyone insane enough to want to be President is not sane enough to handle the job.
2. Even the most committed Conservatives move to the Left as soon as they reach D. C. because they seek approval from the others present. This is why insiders are always a disappointment.
3. The only Conservative Candidate who will maintain his/her equilibrium in the Oval Office will be completely unacceptable to the Establishment Conservatives. This candidate would ride rough shod over their comfortable little niches and power, no matter which party they claim to represent. Nothing is more frightening to the establishment than a principled candidate.
March 5th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
“I’d just wander the earth, righting wrongs in any small village I’d encounter.”
Kwai Chang Fleming.
March 6th, 2013 at 1:44 am
#7 YES, Yes, and YES!!!
Anyhow, where the bloody hell is the Tea Party movement? Has anyone noticed that the last time people got mad as HELL and decided not to take it anymore Conservatives stormed the place in 2010? Why stop? Why change that? Just weed out the Christine O’Donnell types and we’re bound to do it again. There’s not a single reason to believe that conservatism can’t win out even with the establishment Republicans in place.
March 6th, 2013 at 2:01 am
#26 – CarolyntheMommy,
Bacon for you!
March 6th, 2013 at 8:29 am
Our problem in getting decent candidates is basically the media. Anybody remember any negative stories about Mitt Romney BEFORE the primaries? He was Mr. Electable Nice Guy according to the media until after they’d weeded out the good candidates. Only then did the knives come out.
I used to think it was the liberal media until I started paying more attention to Obama. You ever notice how his liberal base has to drag him kicking and screaming to do stuff they wanted and he promised? Gay marriage, gun control, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo, ending drone strikes. What does he do mostly? Give money away. Ok that’s sort of liberal as far as it goes, but where does he spend it? Corporations. The liberal base wants that even less than we do, but it’s never brought to their attention. Where did the stimulus go?
Why does the media except Fox hire almost all liberals, and almost all all super-partisan our side right or wrong liberals who won’t point out how lousy a liberal president Obama really is? Why does Fox love squishy spendy Republicans?
What we’ve got here is a media that helps concentrate money and power in the hands of the few and well-connected that run the corporations that own them, the Time Warners and Viacoms and Comcasts and GEs and News Corps. Follow the money; but don’t just follow the money, follow the power. Who’s got more power: a guy with 10 billion in a boom economy where everyone’s competing for good workers, or a guy with 1 billion in a depression where it’s here or the bread line? Who’s got more power, a guy who owns a senator that can do the things listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or a guy who owns a senator when there’s no limit on the power of Congress except what other Congressmen will vote for?
The media’s main method is just not mentioning stuff, while giving people the impression that they’ve got a decent overall grasp of the situation. Sometimes they lie outright, edit videos, etc., but mainly it’s just quiet omission. With subjects I’m really interested in, I’ve noticed every time that most of the debate is bull where nobody has any idea what they don’t know. Legislators don’t know a thing about what they’re legislating on, pundits don’t know a thing about what they’re pontificating on.
One thing I can do about it is pick a topic, open my mind and be humble, and actually study the best available information from both sides of the debate. After I’ve read a few dozen of the most scholarly articles from every side of that debate, I’ll find that there are counterarguments to the surface arguments from both sides, and most people on each side only know the first layer. I’ll also find that one side runs out of counterarguments before the other. You can’t know every topic that well, but you can know a few, and you vote on those rather than all those things that you only know the surface of.