Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Look to the governors in 2016 (Not the Senators)
Hotair ^ | 08/18/2013 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 08/18/2013 9:26:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Earlier this week, CNN asked me to write an op-ed on Ted Cruz, and whether he’s a realistic contender for the presidency. My reaction: Of course he is — but probably not in 2016. And for that matter, neither are the Republicans who seem to get the most mention for that position:

No one doubts that Cruz has a bright future in the Republican Party, but that doesn’t mean the future is now.

Cruz, like Rubio and Rand Paul, have only barely arrived on the national stage and are many years younger than their sell-by date. None of the three has held executive office yet. Both Paul and Cruz have only won one election in their career. All three have made an extraordinary impact as freshmen senators, but they are still mainly untested outside of a single electoral cycle.

Additionally, Republicans have more options: By the time 2015 rolls around and candidates have to commit to a run, a number of GOP governors will be staking out their ground as well.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will almost certainly use his considerable media presence and blunt style to launch the next phase of his career. Scott Walker has to win a re-election bid in Wisconsin in 2014; a win will re-establish his fighting credentials on budgets and reform.

Mike Pence got some attention early in the 2012 cycle as a potential presidential contender, but decided to go home to Indiana to add executive office to his already-impressive conservative credentials. Susana Martinez, who like Cruz was given a featured-speaker slot at the national GOP convention last year, should sail to a 2014 re-election in New Mexico, with approval ratings that have never dropped below 60%.

We can add a couple of other names to that list, too. Nikki Haley might be a popular choice, and Rick Perry will almost certainly give it another go. Don’t count out Bobby Jindal, either, who has built a great track record of reform in Louisiana, a state that has infamously resisted it.

Allahpundit posted Larry Sabato’s prediction that Walker would emerge as the front-runner, and I think that’s a relatively safe bet, although not even odds. I’d guess it will be Walker and Martinez, assuming both win their re-election bids next year. I very much doubt that the GOP are going to go for a Beltway figure in 2016, or for any Republican from the Northeast again, either. With the plethora of executive-office holders outside of Washington ready to enter the mix, the Senate freshmen will need to get a little more seasoning before preparing for a presidential bid.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida; US: Indiana; US: Louisiana; US: New Jersey; US: New Mexico; US: South Carolina; US: Texas; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 2014election; 2016; 2016election; allahpundit; bobbyjindal; chrischristie; election2014; election2016; florida; governors; indiana; larrysabato; louisiana; marcorubio; mikepence; newjersey; newmexico; nikkihaley; rickperry; scottwalker; senators; susanamartinez; tedcruz; texas; wisconsin

1 posted on 08/18/2013 9:26:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Please..............
No more RINOS!!!!


2 posted on 08/18/2013 9:35:20 AM PDT by Flintlock ("The redcoats are coming" -- TO SEIZE OUR GUNS!!--Paul Revere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I will support the one who promises to be the Anti-Obama. The first person who declares that they will cancel ALL of Obama’s Executive Orders on their first day in office. That they will restore the military to its former greatness (first step - get rid of all the homosexuals). And with dismantle ObamaCare.

As you can see, my demands are very simple.


3 posted on 08/18/2013 9:38:32 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Democrats: Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Jindal supports increasing legal immigration, which is another way of saying he supports increasing the flow of future Democrats. Most Americans oppose increasing legal immigration, so it’s a safe bet that conservatives and Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to increasing legal immigration.

This should disqualify him, but unfortunately support for never-ending and increased legal immigration is much more common with Republican leaders than Republican voters. Who knows if any of the other contenders mentioned are any better. I would guess that Martinez is not.


4 posted on 08/18/2013 9:38:56 AM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Good old conventional wisdom...again. LOL


5 posted on 08/18/2013 9:44:27 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ll take Palin unless someone can come up with a better Govenor or former Govenor.


6 posted on 08/18/2013 9:49:50 AM PDT by heshtesh (I believe in Sarah Palin, the rest not so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thanks. Ted Cruz it is.


7 posted on 08/18/2013 9:52:44 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Earlier this week, CNN asked me to write an op-ed on Ted Cruz, and whether he’s a realistic contender for the presidency”:

That’s our problem: we are told what to believe and who to support by professional (conservative/republican-and even lib dems) pundits rather than letting US the real voters decide for ourselves!!

Sure Enough Obama wasn’t ready for the national stage but he’s now been foisted on us by the same political class!


8 posted on 08/18/2013 9:53:52 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Is John Boehner the Neville Chamberlain of American Politics?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Senator is not an executive position like governor or PotUS is. No senator has ever defeated a sitting president for reelection, and only one or two senators have defeated a governor in their bid for the presidency. Warren G. Harding defeated the governor of his own state, Ohio, for the presidency - in a year in which the Democrats were in bad odor following WWI. If I had my way, only governors would even be considered for nomination for the presidency.
9 posted on 08/18/2013 9:57:52 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
the Senate freshmen will need to get a little more seasoning before preparing for a presidential bid. He lowered the bar.

Why? BamBam only had 2 years in the US Senate when he ran.

It is going to start out as a crowded stage. Look for several retreads from 2012.

It is curious that Morrissey concludes: "I very much doubt that the GOP are going to go for a Beltway figure in 2016, or for any Republican from the Northeast again, either."

By 'Beltway' I assume he means Congress and K-Street. The GOP-Elite don't even realize there is a whole nation outside the Beltway. I also notice that Jeb Bush seems to be missing from several of these predictory articles/threads.
10 posted on 08/18/2013 10:07:51 AM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Let’s not forget Jimmy Carter was the governor of Georgia. So much for the wisdom that governors make better presidents.


11 posted on 08/18/2013 10:10:45 AM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
If I had my way, only governors would even be considered for nomination for the presidency.

Levin should have added an amendment that no person currently holding an elective position can run for another elective position without first resigning the current elective position.

That would knock about 3/4 of the wannabes out of contention, because they would not give up a sure thing for speculation.
12 posted on 08/18/2013 10:12:04 AM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

Nixon was both Senator and Governor. Clinton - impeached. Open-checkbook George.

Yeah. Governors aren’t all that great either.


13 posted on 08/18/2013 10:14:06 AM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

RE: Jindal supports increasing legal immigration, which is another way of saying he supports increasing the flow of future Democrats.

How does supporting LEGAL immigration translate to future Democrats?

I know of MANY LEGAL immigrants who have good jobs or start businesses who would NEVER vote for Democrats.


14 posted on 08/18/2013 10:35:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

RE: No senator has ever defeated a sitting president for reelection

There is no sitting president up for re-election in 2016.


15 posted on 08/18/2013 10:36:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

While I tend to be in agreement with the basic contention, owing to executive experience on the part of governors, I have a notion that the only reason this line is so noticeably being pushed of late is due to the GOP-E’s desires to put a damper on the burgeoning groundswells of support towards Cruz and Paul.

Personally, the only two candidates that would motivate me to even bother voting at this point are Palin and Cruz. Otherwise, I’m pretty much through with the GOP. I really don’t even look to the Party for much of anything anymore.


16 posted on 08/18/2013 10:42:19 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
Jindal supports increasing legal immigration, which is another way of saying he supports increasing the flow of future Democrats.

Depends on where the legal immigrants come from. My wife is an immigrant from Canada, and she was in the past an officer in the Constitution Party. There are places from which the immigrants are not likely to be welfare addicts.

17 posted on 08/18/2013 3:01:01 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Rand Paul’s immigration speech
03.19.13 | Hon Sen Rand Paul (KY)
Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2998395/posts

...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.

[but he’s not against amnesty, snicker, definition of is is ping]


18 posted on 08/18/2013 6:25:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

It’s true that immigrants from some places are less likely to go on the public dole, but that still doesn’t mean they won’t (on net) favor the Democrats. If we are talking more educated and productive immigrants, then we are mostly talking parts of Asia and Europe. Pretty much all Asian American groups favor the Democrats, and there is no reason to expect that to change. And it’s hardly worth considering Europeans since there isn’t any reason to expect their numbers to increase.

Even in your example I’d argue that your wife is probably in the minority of Canadians. Which is to say, if Canada were suddenly absorbed into the US, how do you think most of them would vote?


19 posted on 08/18/2013 9:24:54 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

It’s true that immigrants from some places are less likely to go on the public dole, but that still doesn’t mean they won’t (on net) favor the Democrats. If we are talking more educated and productive immigrants, then we are mostly talking parts of Asia and Europe. Pretty much all Asian American groups favor the Democrats, and there is no reason to expect that to change. And it’s hardly worth considering Europeans since there isn’t any reason to expect their numbers to increase.

Even in your example I’d argue that your wife is probably in the minority of Canadians. Which is to say, if Canada were suddenly absorbed into the US, how do you think most of them would vote?


20 posted on 08/18/2013 9:24:58 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

It’s true that immigrants from some places are less likely to go on the public dole, but that still doesn’t mean they won’t (on net) favor the Democrats. If we are talking more educated and productive immigrants, then we are mostly talking parts of Asia and Europe. Pretty much all Asian American groups favor the Democrats, and there is no reason to expect that to change. And it’s hardly worth considering Europeans since there isn’t any reason to expect their numbers to increase.

Even in your example I’d argue that your wife is probably in the minority of Canadians. Which is to say, if Canada were suddenly absorbed into the US, how do you think most of them would vote?


21 posted on 08/18/2013 9:25:02 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; JoeFromSidney

First of all I’d point out that I am talking about Jindal’s support for INCREASING legal immigration, not permitting some level of legal immigration.

Second, supporting the current mix of legal immigrants at the current levels of legal immigration does indeed equal support for importing future Democrats (on net). There is simply no denying this considering how Hispanics and Asians vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. That you know many legal immigrants who would never vote Democrat is good, but surely you realize they are not representative of most immigrants. They are in the minority.

So to call for increasing (already too-high) levels of legal immigration is pretty much the same thing as calling for increasing the flow of future Democrats. This is undeniable as it relates to Schumer-Rubio, as that bill would increase chain migration and low-skilled immigration.

The only argument you can make that increasing legal immigration isn’t a good thing for the Democrats is if this increase is made up of the type of immigrants that are likely to vote Republican. Good luck with that. Even if they exist, there is no way a shrewd slime ball like Chuck Schumer will allow any bill demographically favorable to the GOP to emerge.

But even if you can identify such immigrants and devise a policy to get more of them, the question remains; why must we INCREASE legal immigration? We could reduce overall immigration and still have plenty of room for the type of immigrant more likely to give the GOP a chance to win their vote. Why not call for abolishing the absurd Diversity Lottery? Why not call for ending chain migration? Why not call for cutting back on refugee settlements? Why not call for being stricter with asylum seekers? Together that would reduce legal immigration by hundreds of thousands a year, and that would be conservative immigration reform.

That’s what I don’t get about people like Jindal. Why do they call for more over that which we already admit? Why call for increasing legal immigration? Why not at least call for a reshuffling of the current mix first?

When I hear Jindal and other Republicans talk about how much they love legal immigration, and how they want increased levels of it, I wonder where such talk comes from? Is it a genuine position, and therefore they are simply clueless and delusional about the appeal of small government conservatism to most immigrant communities? Or is it an attempt to head off the inevitable and ridiculous name calling that the Left will always employ against Republicans who aren’t as enthusiastic about importing future Democrats?

I don’t know. I suspect and fear that it has never even crossed Jindal’s mind that we might reduce immigration even though that would clearly be in the best long-term interests of any conservative movement.


22 posted on 08/18/2013 9:25:15 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

All I’ve said about Jindal then also applies to Rand Paul. Just because immigration is legal doesn’t make it desirable or beneficial for the country.

Paul is more disappointing though since he once hinted at pairing any legalization of illegal aliens with a moratorium on other types of immigration.

He also dared question the insane policies that would allow garbage like the Boston marathon bombers to ever be allowed in the country. But I guess he’s backed off of that.

And now he’s mindlessly calling for ‘more legal immigration.’ I guess there was nothing in his speech calling for an end to Ted Kennedy’s Diversity Lottery or unending chain migration? You know, something conservative?

I think Paul may be the most delusional 2016 candidate. He seems to really believe that small government, libertarian-type conservatism will appeal to young and non-white voters.


23 posted on 08/18/2013 9:35:39 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Aetius; JoeFromSidney

Before we talk about Asians, let’s make one thing clear -— Asian-Americans consist of a variety of groups, many of whom have nothing in common except regional distribution. They are NOT a race, because any number of non-Asians are also classified as Asian-Americans, including Bangladeshi Muslims. There are a HUGE NUMBER of Christian Asians who come to this country ( Filipinos and South Koreans and a significant number of Taiwanese as well ).

So, let’s understand WHY Asians voted for Democrats overwhelmingly the last time ( it wasn’t long ago that they voted REPUBLICAN <-— see George H.W. Bush for instance ).

So what did account for the Asian category vote shift toward Obama? One answer may be that two groups, Chinese (From Communist China, not Taiwan) and Indians, that Republicans perform badly with, increased as a larger share of the Asian electorate.

Republicans poll very badly with Chinese and Indians in the United States.

See here:

http://www.lakeresearch.com/news/AAJC/May7SEIUPresentation%20AsianAmericanSurvey.pdf

Chinese and Indians are currently the largest two groups of registered Asian voters in the country. Republicans do better with Korean, Vietnamese and Filipino voters who are the next three largest groups.

But this is more than offset by how badly Republicans do with Chinese and Indian voters.

In the last decade, the Chinese population increased by a million. The Indian population increased by over a million. The Filipino population increased by 700,000. The Korean populated by 400,00. The Democrats may not have increased their popularity among Asian voters, as much as the proportion of the Asian vote that Democrats are already popular with increased.

So, the problem is NOT LEGAL IMMIGRATION per se. The most glaring problem for Republicans is among Indian voters who identify with Democrats at a rate of 65 percent and with Republicans at a rate of only 9 percent.

Chinese voters came in at 8 percent for Romney and 68 percent for Obama. Indian voters came in at 8 percent for Romney and 76 percent for Obama.

But note this — as with the general population, college played a role. College educated Asians voted for Romney at a higher rate than non-college educated Asians. Also, older Asian voters are more likely to vote Republican than younger voters.

So, when we’re talking LEGAL immigration, let’s ask ourselves what sort of legal immigrants do we want to accept in this country? The highly educated ones, or the not so educated ones?

Australia and Canada both have a POINTS system for assessing what kind of legal immigrants they will accept. This has been in place for over 2 decades. Many immigrate to Australia and Canada via the SKILLED LABOR IMMIGRATION PROGRAM.

It should be noted that Australia had a conservative government for 10 years before the non-conservative Labor party leader, Kevin Rudd ( who speaks Chinese fluently ) defeated John Howard ( the conservative Prime Minister ). Asians in Australia voted heavily for John Howard. between 1996 to 2006. They shifted only slightly to Kevin Rudd recently and it is unclear if Rudd will hold on to the Prime Ministership a few months from now when Australia has her elections.

It should also be noted that Canada has a more conservative government today under Stephen Harper. he had a significant number of Asian votes in the last elections. See here:

http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/canada-conservatives-counting-asians-vote-16346.html

So, it isn’t LEGAL immigration that is the problem. It is the KIND of immigrants we are attracting with our immigration policy.

At any rate, my question to you is this — what do you propose America do regarding LEGAL immigration? Are you proposing a moratorium? If so, how long?


24 posted on 08/19/2013 7:24:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

Thanks Aetius, but he doesn’t ever tell his core beliefs, those have to be inferred from the company he keeps, which is identical to those his father has. Besides being a Democrat in all but name (diabn, too bad about too many consonants), he’s a demagogue.


25 posted on 08/19/2013 3:03:01 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, the Asian vote consists of many different groups. I was not aware of the preferences among the many subgroups, but I was aware that the overall Asian vote has gone Democrat since Clinton. That is the troubling trend, as it has gone hand in hand with the emergence of large scale Asian immigration. And there is no reason to expect it to improve because most of this immigration comes through extended family chain migration. As with Hispanics, mass immigration reinforces the dynamics leading Asians to vote Democrat in the first place.

It’s interesting that Republicans do better with Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese, but does ‘better’ mean those groups still favor the Democrats, but just not by as much as Chinese and Indian immigrants? Kind of like how Hispanics in Texas are reputed to be more conservative because the margin they give Democrats there isn’t as large as the one their counterparts do in California. Keeping with this, do older and more educated Asians actually vote Republican, or do they still favor the Democrats, but just not by as much as younger and less educated Asians? That’d be interesting to look into.

Again, I don’t see any hope of the GOP even breaking even with Asians or Hispanics so long as mass immigration continues.

When you say Legal immigration isn’t the problem, but rather it’s the kind of immigrant we allow to come, I agree for the most part. Except I’d add that the amount of legal immigration we allow is a problem too. I simply don’t believe we can allow over a million legal immigrants per year and it not work out to favor the Democrats. And to increase those levels (as Jindal has called for) will only increase the Democrats advantage, unless the increase was on net made up of immigrants favorable to the Republicans. And that absolutely will not be the case with the huge increases in legal immigration that Schumer-Rubio would unleash.

As to what I propose for our country regarding legal immigration; I favor a large reduction in legal immigration. I’d like to see Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery abolished. I’d like to see chain migration ended. I’d like to reduce the amount of asylum seekers and refugees admitted. If there must be a Guest Worker program for certain fields (of which I’m not convinced), then I’d want it made up of guests, who can’t bring family with them and who must return home.

I’d like to see us move towards the Points systems you reference, with also some allowance for family reunification for spouses and minor children of citizens and permanent legal residents. In the end, I’d like to see total annual legal immigration reduced to 150,000 to 300,000 per year. That would in effect be a moratorium as it would equal the approximate amount of emigration. I’d like to see that remain in place indefinitely, at least for decades as we had from the mid 1920s to the early 1970s. And if levels were ever to be raised, then I’d want it put to the American people honestly, and not have it happen behind a bunch of false promises like Ted Kennedy’s 1965 reform act.

You may not agree with all of that, but I think those are all mainstream positions that could serve the GOP well if they embraced them and responded aggressively and intelligently to the inevitable demagoguery that the Left would greet such an agenda with. We’re already getting called racists and anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian anyway, so we might as well offer something different.

Reading your thoughts on legal immigration, I don’t think we are too far apart. Nothing you said was an argument for increased legal immigration (or even necessarily for maintaining current levels), but rather for using different criteria for selecting legal immigrants, how ever many that may be.

So my problem with Jindal was not that he’s enthusiastic about legal immigration, but rather that he called for increasing legal immigration. There is no reason for it. If we want more skilled and educated immigrants, then we can reallocate visas without increasing the total number of visas. If we need agricultural workers, then we can have a genuine Guest Worker program. There is simply no need to increase legal immigration.

So when Jindal says we should increase legal immigration I have to wonder why? Is it a mindless and futile attempt to establish non-racist bona fides with the media and professional ethic grievance groups? Or is he the type of Republican who really believes in never ending and ever-increasing mass immigration, and is therefore delusional about the appeal of conservatism to most of the immigrants we’d get when the overall numbers are so large.

In the end, I think that either mass immigration will end and therefore the GOP and conservative movement will have a fighting chance demographically speaking, or mass immigration will continue and it will demographically bury Republicans and any hope for conservative government.


26 posted on 08/21/2013 8:27:56 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson