Home › Blogs › Chris Palko's blog ›

Republicans' Short Bench Problem

Submitted by Chris Palko on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 13:10
in

One of the overlooked downsides to the electoral wipeout the Republican Party has endured in the past two election cycles is how those elections have drastically shrunk the amount of Republicans who are nationally prominent.  Without the Presidency, and the loss of Governors, Senators, and Representatives, there aren't very many potential leaders left among Republicans.  Also, even the most loyal party man surely isn't enamored with every Republican elected official.  What you hear these days is a cry wondering where Republican leadership is.  Debates about who is the "leader" of the Republican Party are distracting at this point, but there seems to be a paucity of those who could even be in the discussion.  Republicans have a short bench problem, which hurts their ability to have national leadership in Congress, in the states, and in the future, in the White House.

Governors

In the 1990s, Republican Governors (along with some big city mayors) were instrumental in making public policy changes that would eventually be successful at the national level.  Part of the reason why Bush's 2000 campaign was successful was because he made himself the custodian of the achievements that Tommy Thompson, John Engler, Rudy Giuliani, and even Bush as Governor achieved.

There are 22 Republican Governors at the moment.  What is more distressing is how few innovative leaders there are among Republican Governors.  Many Republican Governors are governors of small Plains or Rocky Mountain States that are invisible on a national stage.  There is surprising vitality in New England with three GOP governors, but they are generally too moderate for the national Republican Party.  Two standouts who deserve some national attention are John Hoeven from North Dakota and Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island.  Hoeven was reelected last year with 74 percent of the vote when McCain only received 53 percent.  National Republicans have begged him to challenge the state's two Democratic Senators.  Carcieri somehow managed to be elected twice as an actual conservative in one of the most liberal states in the country.  Neither is of Presidential timber, but they could be excellent future Senatorial candidates or national Republican voices.

Some Governors have been failures (Schwarzenegger), some are good for their state but too moderate nationally (other New England governors, perhaps Crist), some have just been installed in the past year, and at least one is too busy in Argentina to be taken seriously.  I would say there is a handful of top tier Republican Governors at this point.  Bobby Jindal, by his own acknowledgment, is too green to make any moves yet.  John Huntsman is certainly a formidable figure, but he also is a more long-term hope considering he will be Ambassador to China for the next few years.  Haley Barbour has generally been a successful Governor of Mississippi and could fill the Southern slot in a primary.  Tim Pawlenty has been a rare blue state Republican in recent years.  I think he is likely to be a 2012 candidate and would be considered a top contender if he ran.  The crown jewel, in my opinion, is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana.  He's probably the best Republican politican in America right now.  Earning nearly 60 percent of the vote last year when Obama won Indiana indicates he has some crossover appeal.  He claims that he is not interested in seeking higher office, which is a real shame.

Senators

Republicans have lost 15 Senate seats in the past three years.  This attrition clears out opportunites for Republicans to come up with national leaders.  The 40 Republicans left are bereft of national figures.  McConnell is a master floor manager but no national spokesman.  McCain is a real leader, but his national campaign days are over.  The GOP caucus is dominated by Southern good ol' boys and small state senators.  Guys from Wyoming or Idaho won't find national traction and the good ol' boys are better vote jockeys than communicators.

I would say the following Senators are, or could be, good national leaders for Republicans: John Kyl, Judd Gregg, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John Thune, and Bob Corker.  Coburn and DeMint already are good conservative voices in the Senate, but would never be Presidential material.  Kyl does a good job on Judiciary, but is somewhat in the shadow of McCain.  To my mind Gregg has been the most articulate Senator in the past year, but he always indicates that he wants to retire.  Corker is still a freshman, but was the point man for GOP efforts on the car bailouts.  Thune is also a freshman, but is the youngest Republican Senator by a mile.  There are virtually no 2012 Presidential candidates in the Senate.  I believe this is why Ensign was trying to run for President before his affair was disclosed.  Of the entire Republican Senatorial membership, I could only see Thune having a serious campaign in 2012.

Others

Members of the House of Representatives are not national leaders (Speaker of the House exempted).  Impressive Representatives like Paul Ryan and Mike Pence would need to become Senators or Governors to have a real shot at the Presidency.  If Jack Kemp couldn't win the nomination from the House, then I don't think any non-Speaker would be able to.

Of course, there are still the retired political figures and those who were candidates last time.  Romney seems a near lock to run again and would have to be considered the frontrunner.  Huckabee will never be President, but he may run, especially if no Southerner is in the race.  I think Palin's resignation indicates she won't run in 2012, but she still is young and already has a big national following.  I don't think we'll see another Wesley Clark/Fred Thompson fantasy candidate next time.

Conclusion

The Republican bench is very thin at this point.  If you are looking towards 2012, I would predict right now the only serious candidates who will run are Romney, Pawlenty, and Barbour.  Daniels would certainly be in that grouping if he decided to run.  Sure, you would get the Tom Tancredos of the world running no shot campaigns, but those candidacies are irrelevant.  I think beyond 2012 Jindal, Huntsman, Thune, and perhaps Palin 2.0 would be serious Presidential candidates.  There really is a leadership vacuum in the Republican Party right now.  A smart, ambitious Republican could certainly find an easy path to the top.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

"Too Moderate" governors

Submitted by tdawg11870 on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 14:19.

Maybe there is something to be learned from your statement that some Republican governors are "too moderate" for a national audience. 

Namely, RINO-hunts, "cap and tr8tor" talk and the rest have made a large group of potentially winning candidates with records of success and ethics unable to advance within the party.  Our bench is decimated by a vocal minority of the party who would rather field losing checklist conservative candidates who will lose swing state/districts than field proven winners whose views are more in line with regional attitudes than national ones. 

Essentially, they would rather see the conservative position lose every time and carp from the sidelines than win more often than not and put up with the occasional apostasy.

Our shallow bench is caused by the inability to accept an ally on 80% of the things you care about. What a pathetic way see politics. What a pathetic way to relate to other human biengs.

I'm no RINO hunter

Submitted by Chris Palko on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 20:43.

I'm not obsessed with conservative purity tests.  I'm all for getting the most conservative candidate possible elected, with an emphasis on possible.

Like with Cap and Trade, I sure hope Mark Kirk and Michael Castle, two of the "tr8tors" (that really felt silly to type) run for Senate in 2010, because they could win and would be much, much better than the alternative.  I excuse someone like Dave Reichert because if he votes against a key environmentalist piece of legislation, he loses his job and we lose all of his good votes.  But I do wonder why guys from New Jersey went along with it.

I would blame our shallow bench on losing elections, in all sorts of political environments, than on a suicidal quest for ideological purity.

Losing elections is part of the problem...

Submitted by tdawg11870 on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 09:29.

First of all, this isn't an attack on your post - just 2 cents on the bigger picture.

But in the last sentence of your comment, you're putting the cart before the horse.  We lose elections in large part because candidates who can win in their districts or even nationally are run out of town in the primaries because they do not satisfy the Club For Growth/RINO Hunter crowd, head-to-head polls be damned.  It's one thing to lose a general election and get called all kinds of names by the opposing party, but to find you have no political home because of some selected unorthodoxy is what makes running for office so unappealing to pragmatic mayors and businessmen.  We must learn to be at least a little more heterodox or we die.

Normal 0 That article is

Submitted by ShakiraX on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 06:08.

Normal
0

That article is so great! Thanks for sharing it into us. I’ve learned  something new. But aside from that breaking report let me share something new concern to you, nowadays. One of the most complex problems from antiquity is the Gordian Knot.  There has never been a proven place or existence of the actual Gordian Knot, and it was supposedly absolutely impossible to undo, until Alexander the Great found the solution (according to legend) – which was to hack it in two.  Since the emergence of the legend of the knot, it has become a term for a situation in which the solution is terrifically complex and seemingly impossible.  The term could be applied to North Korea, Iran, or Sarah Palin's resignation, health care reform, or a whole host of issues.  A lot of people would give a cash advance to figure out the solution to their own Gordian knot.

 

 

 

 

re: Republicans' Short Bench Problem

Submitted by ZanderH on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 03:50.

Look into the 2010 crystal ball, and you will see living proof of the disparity between the two parties. If there was no party primary next year, the Democrats would have Paterson, Cuomo, Schumer, DiNapoli and Gillibrand at the top of their statewide ticket.Now take a look at the Republicans rumored to be possible statewide candidates. The field could include Pataki, Giuliani, Faso, King and Lazio. All very well-known names, but what if only one of them decides to take the plunge? Who else is available to be at the top of the GOP ticket?It's too early to project, but let's take a look at the race for the U.S. Senate seat held by Kirsten Gillibrand. There are lots of names surfacing even at this early stage. A boatload of Congress members are toying with a primary contest against Mrs. Gillibrand. They include Steve Israel, Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn Maloney. Add Suffolk County Legislative Majority Leader Jon Cooper and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, and you have a pretty long list of challengers.Now take a look at possible Republican challengers for the Gillibrand seat, and the only names to date are former Gov. George Pataki and Congressman Peter King. Gov. Pataki may be flattered by being mentioned for the spot, but after 12 years as governor, the state isn't yearning for his return.Well, we just see what will happen. I just hope that it wont be difficult like a hard money loans.

Republicans' Short Bench Problem

Submitted by Steves1 on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 08:48.

Chris,

Would you care to elaborate on your statement..."Huckabee will never be President, but he may run, especially if no Southerner is in the race."   Looking back at the race in '08, a pretty strong argument can be made that the Governor was a mere 3% short of a victory in SC which most likely would have propelled him to the nomination. Every winner of the Republican primary in South Carolina since 1980 has gone on to win the nomination of his party. In a number of these instances, the South Carolina win played a direct role in the nomination victory.  I think it's pretty clear that Fred Thompson remained in this race (having no shot at the nomination) to torpedo Governor Huckabee and help his friend and colleague John McCain eek out a victory.  Given his success in '08, I can't understand why he wouldn't be considered a frontrunner in 2012 (especially with his vastly improved name recognition....e.g. successful PAC, best selling book, highly rated TV show on FOX News, access to 4400 ABC radio affiliates, etc.)

Regards,

Steve

He can never be President

Submitted by Chris Palko on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 09:35.

because he is a Baptist minister.  I don't think a man of the cloth could be elected President.  Notice how I said never be President.  I don't rule out a chance he could win a Republican nomination.

I don't think Huck winnning SC propels him to the nomination.  There would've been a huge rally around the most viable challenger sentiment among all non-evangelical primary voters.  Huck never did well except with evangelicals.  That is a nice base to have in a GOP primary, but you have to add more voters to your coalition, and he failed to do so.

Huckabee

Submitted by colinashley on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 11:53.

Chris - you've written a comprehensive summary outlining possible contenders for 2012 but I too am perplexed with your casual dismissal of Gov. Huckabee for all the reasons outlined by Steves1. One of Huckabee's most significant challenges in winning votes and fundraising in 2008 was the widely held belief that he couldn't win. This also played out in the lack of airtime in debates and his struggle to gain endorsements. 2012 will certainly prove very different. 

Also, further to Steves1's point about South Carolina, in every single instance the candidate endorsed by the sitting South Carolina Governor went on to win South Carolina. Should Andre Bauer be the Governor in 2012 (very possible) and should he endorse Huckabee again (also very possible), history would be on Huckabee's side to win the nomination.

 

Huckabee...

Submitted by Steves1 on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 11:48.

"When I was first sworn in, with my background, there were people scared to death that I was going to replace the capitol dome with a steeple, obviously, that didn't happen ... " - Mike Huckabee. Having been a Baptist Minister prior to his political career did not prevent him from being elected (twice) and serving 10 1/2 years as a successful Republican Governor in a state with a heavily Democratic legislature (including Chairmanship of the National Governors Association - 2005).  That being said, we are in agreement.  If the media continues to focus on his ministry instead of his policy, he will not win the nomination.   As I pointed out above, his multimedia platform should help remedy that (e.g. his ability to convey a message of strong opposition on Stimulus package, Auto bailout, Cap and Trade, Universal Healthcare, etc.)

 

because he is a Baptist

Submitted by miloor on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 00:38.

because he is a Baptist minister. I don't think a man of the cloth could be elected President. Notice how I said never be President. I don't rule out a chance he could win a Republican nomination. Air Jordans nike Air max Nike air max 97 nike shox Nike Dunk SB Shoes

Umm....

Submitted by Cahnman on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 16:13.

Why didn't you mention Governor Perry?!?

ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing,

Submitted by tengfei on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 23:57.

ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing, Shoes, Shirts, Swimwear, Belts, Sunglasses, Perfume, Dresses By Christian Audigier. cheap Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Children's T-shirts. Ed Hardy Men's Beach Shorts. Ed Hardy Men's Jeans Ed Hardy Women's Dresses. Ed Hardy Women's Hoodies. Ed Hardy Women's Jeans UK Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Sale links of london Jewellery Sale

12 is a wash anyway.

Submitted by A.J.Nolte on Fri, 07/17/2009 - 12:31.

Look, the only way the GOP wins in 12 is if Obama screws up really badly. Really really badly. In this regard, Obama would actually be helped by losing both houses in 10; it'd pull him to the center, curb the excesses of the Pelosi congress and give him the ability to run on preserving "balance in government".

10 isn't going to be a good year for Dems across the board.

Governors: I suspect Dem losses in Pennsylvania and Michigan are almost a foregone conclusion. Tom Corbett is a really solid candidate in PA (overwhelmingly elected and reelected AG in years where the GOP lost the presidential election). There will be a crop of Dems running, but PA has an eight year itch vis-a-vis one party in the governorship and Corbett has pretty high name recognition. I don't know how recruitment is shaping in Michigan, but I'd rather run with an "R" in front of my name there than a "D". Ohio and Wisconsin look like good pick-up opportunities as well. I feel pretty confident predicting we pick up New Jersey and our chances in Virginia are better than even.

Senate:

The known--and I repeat known--tough races for the Dems the next go-round are Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, New York and I think we have to include Nevada and Colorado in this regard as well. Pennsylvania is anybody's guess at this point, but I'd say Toomey Sestak would be a pure toss-up. Democrats have potential pick-up opportunities in New Hampshire, Ohio and Louisiana (Bur has low numbers but still leads in most hypothetical match-ups, so I'd put North Carolina as a likely GOP retension). Bottom line: I think the road to a Republican senate majority is damned difficult in ten, but the Dems can definitely kiss that filibuster good-bye, and if things look really bad they'll be down to 51 or 52.

House:

There's a fair amount of democratic low-hanging fruit here, and I think it's the congress which will bear the brunt of voter wrath. It's hard to go race-by-race when you've got 435 of them, but the GOP has enjoyed very strong recruitment here from New Hampshire to Oregon to Alabama. Key will be bringing in good challengers in bluish purple states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota as well as swingy places like Ohio. The other reason the house is key in 10 is that this is the area where many young and successful stars are born, before moving on to go to governorships and senatorships. A cautionary note: former congressmen don't do well running for President; I think Bush 41 was the last person with an actual stint in the house to be elected President. Of course, the last senator with no higher experience to be elected President before Obama was Kenedy.

State legislatures

You didn't mention this but it's key long-term with redistricting and all. Getting state legislatures to flip in 10 is going to be key for 12, 14 and 16, and that's probably conservative estimate. Dissatisfaction with Democrats up-ticket might trickle down to legislative races, but recruitment here is going to be key.

Bottom line: a thin bench for 12 isn't the worst thing in the world, and having somebody like Jindal or even Mitch Daniels jousting at the windmill of Obama in that year's presidential race shouldn't thrill anyone. Let Romney or Pawlenty have a go, or even somebody like Judd Greg. If Obama's numbers go below 40 percent, maybe the game changes. If not, let's remember that 06 was a great year for the election of lackluster Democratic senators. I'm less concerned about Obama than Jim Web, John Tester, Maria Cantwell, Debbie Stabenow, Bob the great American Empty Suit Casey and Sherod Brown, just for starters. All of which, and more, should be winnable with good recruitment, funding and a not too terrible election cycle.

tiffany jewellery is the best

Submitted by submit102 on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 03:18.

tiffany jewellery is the best online links of london charms stores where you can buy the cheapest tiffany jewelry and Links of London. Our huge selection of Tiffany Jewelry.