mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
The GOP's Red Dawn
Watch Out for Scott Walker
Features Icon
show comments
  • JR

    Last sentence of this post is (one of) the reason(s) I pay $2.99/month for this site.

  • Anthony

    Brings to mind the ever elusive synthesis of pleasing the party base while also attracting a general election audience; the context of political horse racing: leave little time to real issues but focus on the contest per se – who will run? who has appeal (real or manufactured)? Perhaps, a new generation will tire of the show (quality of the candidates, lack of real choice, absence of real issues, etc.) and contest for more. Still, money is lifeblood of electoral politics and Scott Walker…

  • Fred

    As much as I’d like to have hope that someone can rescue us from the Democrats, I have a hard time believing that any Republican who stands a snowball’s chance in a general election can get the Tea Party nuts to stop cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

    • PaulS47

      This Tea Party conservative is a results-oriented pragmatist. Scott Walker has produced results the Left can ignore but cannot refute. If campaign funding won elections $teyer-backed candidates would have won by wide margins on November 4th.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Golly, Fred, if you think Tea Party people are nuts, why are you supporting them from pillar to post? Do you not know what side they are on? If you disapprove of those patriots, are you sure you know what side you’re on?

      • Fred

        Golly FG, if you think I support the Tea Party from pillar to post, you are, to put it charitably, a creative reader. Some of us value ideological purity less than others, but I know exactly what “side” I’m on. I am a conservative who is somewhat more moderate on immigration and economic issues, less libertarian on social issues, and vastly less conspiracy-minded than the Tea Party. I believe Obama is an incompetent liberal who truly believes in his disastrous policies, not an evil communist or Muslim who is out to destroy the nation. What bothers me most of all about the Tea Party, though, and the reason I called them nuts, is that they are so ideologically purist that they would rather lose winnable elections by nominating head cases or staying home on election day than vote for a candidate who doesn’t toe their line in every particular. I adhere to William F. Buckley’s dictum to vote for the most conservative electable candidate available. Believe me, if the Republican party could nominate and the American public would elect a more conservative candidate than the last few we’ve nominated, I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat. But I live in the real world, a world in which a Republican candidate who is to the left of what I’d like to see is still infinitely better than any Democrat. My advice to the Tea Party would mirror yours to wigwag: We only have two parties. Their nominees, like it or not, are what we have to choose from. To coin a phrase, you vote for the candidate you have, not the candidate you might like to have.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I guess I just noticed that the party you somewhat favor is the same party that the Tea people somewhat favor. I was glad you called them nuts and hoping that the interim of days since we last spoke had given you opportunity to become a sensible liberal. Alas, I guess not, huh?

          • LA_Bob

            “…a sensible liberal.”

            Almost a contradiction in terms. There are sensible liberals though. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one. Walter Russell Mead is another (maybe it take three names to be one).

            I think of a sensible liberal as someone who has a well-articulated and argued faith that government can make a better society — though too much faith in my opinion — and the good sense to know when the government has overplayed its hand.

    • Boritz

      Your dream candidate will work with the Democrats (give them most of what they want) or be buried by them. Either way rescue is not on the horizon.

      • Fred

        See, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. You really, honestly believe that a McCain or Romney presidency would have been as disastrous domestically or in foreign policy as Obama’s? You actually believe that their SCOTUS nominees would be no different from Obama’s or Hillary’s? Were McCain or Romney ideal candidates from a conservative point of view? Hell no. Were they infinitely better than what we ended up with? As one of the Tea Party’s heroines likes to say “You betcha.”

        • FriendlyGoat

          Rational people would think that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are ENOUGH of the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy—–but not Republicans. That’s why your group is sometimes called the double-meaning term, “wing nuts”. Tighten, tighten, tighten on everyone else.

  • wigwag

    Walker’s chances of being elected as President of the United States are approximately equivalent to Professor Mead being hired as the next head coach of the New England Patriots.

    The candidate who raises the most money is almost always the nominee of his Party and practically always the victor in the Presidential race. Bush, Romney and Christie will outraise Walker ten to one. If by some miracle Walker was nominated by the GOP, Hillary Clinton would outraise him fifty to one.

    Walkers chance of being elected President is remarkably small.

    • f1b0nacc1

      I don’t suppose you are taking wagers at 50-1, are you?

    • FriendlyGoat

      I have never stopped believing that the Republican VP slot will go to a woman if the GOP is running against Hillary Clinton. Once upon a time, Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, seemed to have this sewed up, but now they may like Senator Joni Ernst better.

      • wigwag

        Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat) has a lock on New York and California in 2016; the GOP candidate has a lock on Texas. The Republicans must, I repeat MUST, win Florida to have a realistic shot at the White House. Hillary Clinton is extremely popular in Florida (she beat
        Obama in the 2008 primary) and Obama beat McCain and Romney in Florida. Jeb Bush or, to a lesser extent, Marco Rubio at the top of the ticket would give the GOP chance of winning the State. If Bush wins the nomination, there’s no need for Rubio. If neither Bush nor Rubio is the nominee, offering the Vice Presidential slot to Rubio is almost a must (Bush would never accept a nomination as Veep.)

        The second most important swing state is Ohio. Obama won it two times in a row. Ohio is the classic swing state. If Clinton wins New York, California and Florida (a possibility that is easy to contemplate) Ohio becomes irreplaceable for the GOP; if they lose it, their chances of winning the Presidency are near zero. Governor Kasich is very popular in Ohio. He was just reelected by a substantial majority. Unlike Rubio (who looks and acts like an adolescent), Kasich looks Presidential. If he’s on the ticket he gives the GOP a great chance in Ohio.

        Hillary Clinton will be very, very hard to beat; her candidacy will insure the biggest gender gap in history and she will win a not insubstantial portion of Republican women. She will raise $1 billion and lots of the Wall Street types who often support Republicans will fill her campaign coffers. She is beatable but it will be a very daunting hall engle. The GOP will need to be clicking on all cylinders. A Jeb Bush/John Kasich ticket is probably the most competitive ticket the GOP can run. Bush can raise big bucks (not as much as Clinton, but a lot). If the GOP can start by winning Texas, Florida and Ohio they are still in the electoral ballpark with the Democrats assurred of victory in New York, California and Pennsylvania.

        The GOP desperately needs a Floridian and an Ohioan on the ticket. The logical Floridians are Bush or Rubio; the logical Ohioan is Kasich. To maximize their chances, the GOP should have a politician from both Florida and Ohio as their presidential and vice presidential nominees.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I hope we agree that a GOP presidency in 2016 would be a compounding disaster for the lower end of what we call the “middle class”, even though the GOP voters in that range do not seem to understand how deep in the soup they already are. High-end tax cuts have already marginalized most people more than is generally realized and some more tax cuts could bury them completely. Then there is The Supreme Court, a thing of gargantuan importance, by itself.

          I hope we also agree that women who vote for the GOP will put it over the top in key states—-IF, IN FACT, they actually do get over the top. This is the reason I have suspected the GOP would counter Hillary with a female “attack dog” in the VP role. Palin tanked at that in 2008, of course. But Hillary was not the target then as she will be next time.

          Whomever the GOP anoints in both slots, the key is getting women to actually understand the issues over the noise of the personal battle which will be waged on Mrs. Clinton. I’d like to tell you I have a lot of confidence, but I really don’t unless Dems can learn to message correctly about what is at stake. We are getting dumber, cycle by cycle and the horrible outcomes in Congress and legislatures seems to be signaling this problem to us.

          • wigwag

            Raising marginal tax rates as an important solution to middle class malaise is as much of a charade as imposing fiscal austerity is; the only difference is that one policy is a Democratic charade while the other is a Republican charade. Might marginally higher marginal rates be desirable; probably. Might a little more fiscal probity be an improvement; perhaps. But neither policy is nearly as important as their partisan advocates suggest. Neither policy will fix what’s wrong with the middle class.

            Middle class Americans face many obstacles not the least of which is global competition. But the two biggest drains on middle class prosperity are the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and the escalating costs of higher education. Middle class Americans don’t get raises any more because the dollars that used to be available to finance those raises are flowing at light speed into the black hole known as American medicine. Middle class parents are watching the money that should be available to finance a comfortable retirement being sucked up by grotesquely bloated colleges and universities. One of the reasons it’s so hard for their kids to break into the middle class is because they graduate obscenely in debt.

            Fix health care and higher education and you’ve fixed 50 percent of what ails the middle class. Here’s the problem Democrats won’t admit; health care costs are escalating in large part because government subsidies distort the market. Here’s the problem Republicans won’t admit; they are almost always on the side of the rent seekers taking advantage of the corrupt system.

            There’s is no way to fix health care without dramatically reducing the salaries of doctors and the huge number of bureaucrats that it takes to keep the system afloat. There is no way to reduce higher education costs without dramatically reducing the amount of compensation paid to faculty and the hordes of bureaucrats who sully America’s colleges and universities. Health care costs have escalated so rapidly because the compensation paid to those employed in health care is way too high. The same thing is true for higher education.

            Solutions exist, but Democrats are no more interested in implementing them than Republicans are. Both political parties are more interested in treating their accolytes as Rubes who can be distracted by essentially inconsequential slogans like “raise marginal rates” or “implement a balanced budget amendment.”

            The elites in both political parties are the villains and they are laughing at the rest of us all the way to the bank. But guess what, Friendly Goat, the Tea Party members that you disdain so much have begun to figure this out; that why Jeb Bush is anything but a lock for the GOP nomination. It’s the Democrats who are too dumb to figure this out. That’s why Andrew Cuomo was just reelected in New York and it’s why Hillary has a lock on the Democratic nomination. It’s also why half of the billionaires living on 5th Avenue in Msnhatten will be perfectly happy to cast their votes for Hillary.

            Your deceiving yourself; Democrats don’t care about the middle class any more than Republicans do. If every single Democratic proposal from the entire spectrum of the Party from Eluzabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton were enacted, middle class prospects would not improve one iota.

            You’re right, Republucans are frauds; but guess what? So are Democrats.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Ralph Nader thought several times that we would and could elect him for speaking a markedly different line from that of both of the major parties. I guess you remember how that worked out.

            You’re going to get either a Republican or a Democratic president in 2016. Not something else. I hope you believe that left is better than right.

            As for high cost medicine, if you had the high income tax brackets you once had, you wouldn’t have doctors making seven figures and hospital or insurance CEOs making eight (or even nine)—–and all of them making decisions accordingly. Tax structure matters A LOT and we gave away half or more of the controls over excesses which we once took for granted. It’s very hard to get them back, but we NEED them back.

        • PapayaSF

          I don’t know if Hillary is really going to be so hard to beat. I’m not sure she’s even going to be nominated. She is said to have major health problems, she has a lot of baggage that many people haven’t seen discussed in the media recently, her accomplishments are arguable at best, she’s often stiff and unpleasant on the campaign trail, and she’s married (sort of) to a sexual predator. Plus, Obama has severely tarnished the Democratic brand. I think lots of voters are ready for a change, and not ready for another affirmative action candidate.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Why does an economic wizard like Walker have a two billion dollar budget shortfall?

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Scott Walker was the clear winner in the recent Iowa speech-a-thon.

    • Bruno_Behrend

      Sadly, he had to share a stage with Palin and Trump, making the case that Iowa is best ignored.

  • Fat_Man

    How come nobody ever gets Universities to explain why they are spending so much money. Who is paying for the million dollar a year administrators? The legions of title diversity administrators? The tenured profs with 3 classes a year? The cafeterias with omelet stations? The luxury gyms? and on and on. There is no honest cost accounting in the academic world, and no explanation of how they are spending their money and what they are spending it on. They shouldn’t be getting autonomy, they should be getting colonoscopes.

  • Fat_Man

    Walker has clearly stumbled on an issue that works for Republican Governors who have presidential aspirations.

    “Kasich warns colleges to cut the fat, or else” By Randy Ludlow in The Columbus Dispatch on Wednesday February 11, 2015

    “Gov. John Kasich is threatening to “take an ax” to state funding of Ohio’s public universities and colleges if they fail to cut costs and make tuition more affordable.”

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service