GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
A decade ago the GOP had a deep bench from which to select our presidential timber. We held the governors’ mansions in the 5 largest states. Meanwhile, our congressional majorities were robust and teeming with new talent and ideas.
After the spanking of ‘06, our gubernatorial talent is anemic. Even our best and brightest leave movement conservatives wanting more. Our congressional leadership does not inspire.
Then there is Bobby Jindal. His appearance on Leno last night was spectacular. When Leno asked Governor Jindal whether he would like to be McCain’s running mate, he did not rule it out but said he already has the job he wants.
Like most Republicans, I am loathe to think about dabbling in identity politics. But while Bobby Jindal would be the first Indian-American for national office, it would in no way be because of his racial identity. It would be because he is a charming, engaging, conservative brainiac. Imagine the message a President McCain would send to that rising Elephant in Asia if he selected this boy wonder as his running-mate and the presumptive future of the GOP.
I will concede that Governor Jindal is young and inexperienced on the national stage. It would be problematic that he has only been on the job for several months — although he does have congressional and state executive branch experience. But even if he is not selected this go-around, I can’t help but feel excited about the prospects of Bobby Jindal in the years ahead.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
This is just a detail, but I think Sen. McCain’s daughter comes from Bangladesh.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Oops. I made the presumption that because it was one of Mother Teresa’s orphanages it was in India. I see that you are correct. I shall amend my post.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Actually, the real difficulty in picking Jindal this year is that it turns Louisiana over to Mitch Landrieu as governor. And if the party thinks that’s OK, then it gets hard to argue that his sister shouldn’t be a U.S. Senator anymore. So the GOP would pay a high price for picking Jindal — a governorship and possibly a senate seat.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
If a guy who has been a governor a few months is the best that the Republicans can do for vice-president to make up for the enormous amount of failings of the presidential candiates, the Republicans should just fold up shop now.
Is there no one with a long history of competence, efficiency, and fiscal conservatism out there? Is there no one out there who realizes that open borders and unlimited immigration will destroy the Republican Party and any hope for conservatives? Is there anyone who has a long history of actually managing a bureaucracy while being on time, on budget, and inside the laws of the land?
April 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
If Jindal is the future of the GOP, the party’s prospects are very bleak. Nobody who’s against abortion without exception for health, rape, or incest, will be elected to a national office. Sorry.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Jindal will be the a future GOP Presidential nominee. That much is certain. The great thing about him is that at only 36 years of age, he has the next 45 years to run for President.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Our future prospects are actually not that bleak. If, God forbid, McCain loses, just think of all of the candidates that will likely at least consider throwing their hats in the ring in 2012:
Jeb Bush
Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Newt Gingrich
Mark Sanford
Sarah Palin
David Petraeus
That’s actually not a bad bullpen.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
#7
I’ll take this list one at a time. First, though, I’ll say that most of them have a better chance than Jindal at winning a national election.
1.) Nobody named Bush will be elected for at least a generation.
2.) Romney is only popular among the furthest right wing of the Republican party, and pretty much everyone else can’t stand him, for reasons both good and bad.
3.) Pawlenty - maybe, but there’s been no indication of his national stature other than his friendship with McCain.
4.) Huckabee could win the nomination, but is way too churchy for the general. He’s lose by a mile.
5.) Jindal - see mu comment above. Too much of a right wing nutcase.
6.) Newt might as well be named “Bush”
7.) Sanford - maybe, probably one of the top two on this list.
8.) Palin - it’s silly to have her name on the list this soon. Also, she’s from Alaska.
9.) Petraeus has said again and again that he doen’t want the job. Also, what makes you think he’s a Republican?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Big S,
I disagree on the Jindal point. First of all, as best as I can tell, Jindal defines abortion differently then most pro-lifers. It sounds as though, for him, an “abortion” is a surgical procedure designed specifically to kill the fetus. He doesn’t oppose RU-486 or other chemical abortifacients, and would seemingly be fine with a late term procedure which only has the incidental effect of aborting the baby. It seems to me that, in many respects, this is a position which is much more liberal then the traditional pro-life position, exceptions or no. Admittedly I’m a pro-lifer so perhaps I’m biased here, but I’d consider Jindal’s position much less conservative (and less acceptable) then the traditional Republican position.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Jindal’s inexperience probably rules him out as VP if Obama gets the nod, since nominating Jindal would undercut a key component of McCain’s message against him. However, in the unlikely event Hillary pulls this thing off, McCain’s pitch will be more towards being the fresh start/ clean slate candidate, in which case Jindal’s inexperience won’t be as big a liability.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Although I think he would be best served 4 years down the road at the top of the ticket, I’m all for Jindal now.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I think politics is a bit like baseball. If you rush your prospects, they might blow out an arm and fade into obscurity. I think Jindal will be president someday. But, leave him where he is for now. The Democrats are now on the verge of sending their best “prospect”, politically, to electoral disaster, because they decided to rush him.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I don’t know. If you look at it from one side, Jindal would really only have to resign his office if McCain won the general. If McCain lost, he’d still be governor of LA, and would have the national recognition as being the bottom of the ticket, and this would catapult him to the leader of the GOP. It’s a win/win situation.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Guys,
I like Jindal, I really do, but let’s not pull an Obama here. Barak Obama was rushed forward into national prominence by a bunch of over-zealous supporters eager for the next greatest thing. It is their impatience more than anything else that is the reason behind Obama’s current difficulties. They should have let him mature and get some seasoning in the Senate before rushing him onto the national stage. They are now living the consequences of their impulsiveness.
I repeat, let’s not make the same mistake with Jindal.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
mark,
True, but being on the bottom of the ticket is a lot different than being the top guy, like Obama is for the democrats.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I actually wasn’t all that impressed with Jindal on the Tonight Show. Seemed like every other politician that goes on there, just a bit younger. But maybe his resume will outshine his comedic ability.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Admittedly I’m a pro-lifer so perhaps I’m biased here, but I’d consider Jindal’s position much less conservative (and less acceptable) then the traditional Republican position.
From a (reluctantly) pro-choice point of view, Jindal’s redefinitions of abortion make him sound crazy, not justified. The pro-choice position really is about the choice, which most Americans feel may be necessary in cases where the mother is threatened, or the pregnancy came about as a result of rape or incest. Unless he changes to a coventional pro-life-with-exceptions position, he stands no chance. Even then, he will have a tough time overcoming it.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
#9, Bobby probably opposes RU-486, which is considered an abortion. I think he allows an exception for emergency contraception, which is much, much different than RU. RU can be used all the way until the 7-8 week of pregnancy. He has a conservative position on abortion, but as even Matt Yglasias said sometime, cultural conservatism is either a neutral or a net benefit for the GOP. Starting wars of convenience (and fighting them incompetently) and engendering massive deficits are the biggest GOP problems. (I can also argue about environmentalism, but another day).
April 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Matthew,
The baseball analogy is spot on. Let’s give Jindal time to reform and improve Louisana. As noted before, adding him to the ticket would leave his state open to a Democratic takeover. 2012 may even be too early; think of it, Jindal running in 2016, 44 years of age and younger than Obama, yet with 8 years of executive experience under his belt.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Problem is McCain would be at the top of that ticket, and he needs a serious power hitting conservative to prop him up. Not a new guy with zero name recognition. Depressing year for conservatives, huge vacuum to be filled this cycle. I believe in miracles.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I love Jindal a lot — and if McCain should somehow lose in November, my dream ticket in 2012 would be Romney/Jindal to take down the horrendous Obama administration.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Compared to the Dems, the GOP bench is remarkably light currently.
Consider: the Dems have Ritter, Blagojevich (who many thought would run this year if Obama didn’t), Culver, Sebelius, Schweitzer, Easley, Rendell, Bredesen, and Kaine just as their top prospects from their Governorships.
Of course, in 2000-2004, folks were predicting the end of the Democratic Party, so we see how quickly fortunes change in politics. The GOP can make a comeback, if we get someone decent to head the party and clean up our mistakes and our image.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Jindal actually has more experience than some people give him credit for. After Harvard and a stint as a Rhodes scholar, he was tapped at the age of 24 to lead LA health care system, and he cut hundreds of millions of dollars while improving care. He then led the University of Louisiana system (8 universities). He served as Tommy Thompson’s Assistant Secretary of DHH. After his unsuccessful gubernatorial run in 2003, he was elected to Congress, where he served as the head of the freshman class. He’s had an enormously successful first few months in office as governor.
There is just no way to say that that Jindal is inexperienced. He most certainly has a great deal more experience than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Matt C.,
By 2012, Jindal will have twice as much experience as Mitt in office, plus time heading up the LA health care. No way it would be Romney/Jindal. Why would he be Mitt’s VP?
I’m open to Jindal this year as VP. I’m not openly pushing it, but I think he’d be as good a choice as any.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Matt, your point is certainly true, yet I do not see Ed Rendell running for the White House. As a native of PA, he is truely a politician’s politician, but has repeatedly refused any suggestions to run.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Tommy,
Because if McCain loses this year, Romney has laid the groundwork to be the GOP heir apparent in 2012. He has more executive experience than Jindal, is older than Jindal, has experience running a national campaign unlike Jindal, has the fundraising structure in place unlike Jindal, has the love and backing of the conservative establishment, and the American people know him unlike Jindal.
For a 40-year old man, a Veep slot ought to be an exciting prospect. No way we put a 40-year-old on the top of the ticket and get blasted just like we’re doing with Obama now.
Jindal serves as Mitt’s VP for 8 years, then runs as President in his own right when he’s 48. Sounds perfect to me.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Matt,
Good points. However, He won’t have more executive experience than Jindal in 2012. Hypothetically, if Jindal were the VP nominee in 2008, he’d be more well known than any of the other possibilities. B. Mitt would have the fundraising advantages, but he had that this year as well. C. whether he has the love and backing of the conservative establishment is debatable, although he does have some. D. Mitt will be in his mid 60s in 2012. For the GOP too change its stale image, what better way to do it than with a forty year old minority with executive experience.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Matt C,
Rezko has ruined Blagojevich. He’s in much deeper then Obama. And, unless Obama is absolutely shellacked this year (40+ states) I can’t see the modern Democratic party turning to anyone as moderate (or oldish) as Bredesen or Easley. I like our bench, although their are kinks that need to be worked out. Mike Pence must become a senator soon, for instance. Paul Ryan must become Governor of Wisconsin in 2010. But, I’m relatively happy going into the future with Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, Pence, and Ryan.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Tommy, Jindal will have more political executive experience than Romney, sure, but Romney has spent most of his life in executive roles. In fact, Romney has been an executive for more than half as long as Jindal has been alive.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Gary, the GOP anemia that has now fully evidenced itself post-2006 as you pointed out actually began back in the later part of the ’90s. Sure, there have been a few sporadic bright spots, but in general the GOP bench has been deteriorating qualitatively for ten years both in Congressional and Gubernatorial arenas. One observation that I would offer, however, is that the quality of this years presidential contenders was superior to those in 2000. At least all of them could speak well, answer questions cogently
April 30th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“Mitt will be in his mid 60s in 2012″
Mitt would be 65, but does he look like he’s 61 now? No he does not he looks probably 10 years younger than what he really is.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Romney/Jindal or Romney/Palin could be devastating to the Dems should they win this year.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Jeb Bush
Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Newt Gingrich
Mark Sanford
Sarah Palin
David Petraeus
Someone on this list will get eliminated should McCain pick one of these people and lose this fall.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
It will be interesting to see whether Jindal can translate his candidacy to a national audience. He was able to overcome bigotry in the South and become Louisiana’s first Indian-American governor. That’s a big deal. It will also be a really big deal for someone who opposes abortion with no exceptions to win a national election. If Jindal can do so without changing his position, he’ll deserve to be president.
As for the other prospects, look, there’s no way in hell that this country is going to elect another Bush for at least a generation. I don’t care how much the Republican base still likes President Bush. Two thirds of the country hates him and that will nix his brother’s prospects. That will also prevent Petraeus and Condi from making presidential bids. Newt is past his prime, even though he seems to be one of the few traditional conservatives who understands the need to change the Republican message to fit a changing world.
As for Romney and Huckabee, no offense to any supporters of any candidates, but if they couldn’t win this time around, they’re not going to win in 2012 or beyond. I mean, come on. This was a year with no heir apparent and no single candidate that satisfied the Republican primary electorate. The fact that Huckabee couldn’t win more than a handful of non-evangelicals in any state speaks volumes about his ability to win a major party nomination now or ever. And Romney was tailor made for a year like this and couldn’t even come close. Neither of these guys will last two months in a conventional Republican primary, with a heavily funded, establishment-backed heir apparent.
Pawlenty, Jindal, Sanford, and Palin are the candidates from the aforementioned list that I can see as viable future contenders. I would add Crist to the list as a young, attractive big state governor with a center-right style of governance that can build, you know, a majority (as opposed to simply exciting the base while losing the general election by 10 points). If McCain loses I’ll probably support Palin initially and then we’ll see. But here’s the thing: whoever leads the GOP next has to be able to bring new voters into the party. Principles are nice, and necessary, but it still takes a majority to win an election.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
DaveG,
I’m highly skeptical about the notion that Petraeus is disqualified by dint of Bush connections. I’d guess that Petraeus has favorables in the high 70’s- it’s a simple fact of history that, unless generals speak out publicly on issues, they’re not tainted by political associations. Eisenhower won the backing of Republicans, despite winning a war for two Democrats. Colin Powell served under both Democrats and Republicans, but is well-liked by members of both parties. Inordinately successful generals transcend politics, and there’s no reason to believe that, if we ultimately succeed in Iraq, this won’t apply to Petraeus. That said, I have no particular reason to believe he’s a Republican. In the military, even Democratic generals tend to be fairly hawkish, and he’s never said anything as partisan as the Franks/Casey set.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
DaveG, you’re forgeting a couple of things
1) McCain was the “next in line” seeing as how he lost to Bush in 2000 and Cheney had said pretty early on that he would never seek the nomination.
2) Mitt could very well be that heavily-funded establishment pick heir apparent canddiate in 2012 that you speak of.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Sean M,
Romney was the heavily funded establishment pick (maybe not the heir) this time. McCain had terrible fundraising numbers and Romney had more endorsements before everyone else dropped out and a lot of those went to McCain.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Tommy,
Romney is dedicated to fighting for conservative principles,just minutes after his speech at CPAC he met with about 50 or conservative leaders to talk with them about fighting for those principles and about being the conservative standard bearer. I see no reason why Romney would not have the ground work in place and even more backing of the movement in 4 years. He’ll be in his mid 60’s but he looks much younger than what he is.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
If any time in the near future the Republican party nominates a pro-choice candidate, they will lose their butts in the general.