Share This Page

GOP: The more the merrier

| Monday, Dec. 3, 2012, 8:51 p.m.

In a report speculating that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush may run for president in 2016, The New York Times observes, “When Senator Marco Rubio of Florida held a strategy session here to discuss his own political future last week, the question of Mr. Bush, a mentor, hung over the room; a decision by Mr. Bush, 59, to seek the Republican nomination would almost certainly halt any plans by Mr. Rubio, 41, to do so or abruptly set off a new intraparty feud.”

The reporters don't identify a source for that proposition, and Republicans should hope that notion doesn't represent Rubio's thinking. Why should his candidacy hang on what Jeb Bush wants to do any more than on what a dozen other potential candidates decide? This will not be a race for Florida office but a nationwide contest with donors, supporters and voters cast far and wide.

Moreover, these are two very different candidates with different life experiences. Bush has the experience of a chief executive of his state and an education reformer. Rubio represents a new generation, is developing a depth of knowledge in foreign policy and will, by 2016, have been through multiple battles on the budget, taxes and entitlements. Bush brings a wealth of reassuring competence; Rubio brings eloquence and the immigrant life story. There is plenty of room for them should they both decide to run.

Rather than react to what other candidates are doing or not doing, Rubio and other Republicans contemplating a run should figure out what vision they have for the country or their states and what policies they will champion, develop and explain. The field will fall into place in due time, but motivated candidates with something to say should be willing to put themselves out there whatever the competition.

In general, the more candidates the better for the Republicans in 2016. At least initially no one knows who will bomb and who will soar.

It is evident that Rubio, Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would start with ready pools of supporters and donors. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., may be in this batch as well. These high-visibility Republicans have enough name recognition and enthusiastic followers to command attention and potentially win early races.

To create buzz and lure donors, other contenders with less prominent profiles will have to start early — traveling, campaigning for other candidates and accessing free media. We saw Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal start down this route already. A long list of able GOP governors (e.g., Virginia's Bob McDonnell, Ohio's John Kasich, New Mexico's Susana Martinez) and Sens. Bob Portman, R-Ohio, and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., among others, may take that avenue. These candidates by sheer persistence will need to break through the crowd and media din to find their own space in the contest.

For the near future, the more the merrier in the field of potential candidates. It is a very long time until the start of yet another primary season. In the meantime, if smart GOP pols are looking to make a mark, expand the appeal of the Republican Party and offer their own creative solutions, the party and the country as a whole will be the better for it.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.