An odd recommendation to Republicans

Bill Kristol is the kind of political observer who by turns impresses me, confounds me and frustrates me. Today at the Weekly Standard he does the latter two.

First, there's his invitation to us to consider the possibility that the Pubs once again have a lackluster field. Excuse me while I scratch my head. Who else sees it that way?

Are we sure the GOP isn't on course to nominating their very own Dukakis? Are we confident one of the current field is up to the job of winning—and governing?

Perhaps one of the current candidates will prove to be just fine. Perhaps we're getting a distorted view of the quality of the field because of the tidal wave that is Donald Trump. Perhaps the other candidates haven't therefore been able to emerge as clearly and impressively as might otherwise have been the case. Perhaps over the next couple of months Marco Rubio or Scott Walker or Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, or someone else currently in the field, will turn out to fit the bill. 

On the other hand, it may be that the lesson of the Trump surge—like that of the shorter-lived Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann boomlets in 2011—is that the rest of the field isn't what it should be. We'll have a better sense of that in a couple of months. But what if come October all we have is Bushies lacking all conviction, Trumpers full of passionate intensity, and a bunch of uninspiring also-rans? I devoutly hope this isn't the case. But what if it is?

On what basis is he even seeing this scenario as a possibility?

This weekend, at the Defending the American Dream Summit, I heard two of the best presidential candidates the Pubs have fielded in decades: Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal. I heard two others that are almost of that caliber: Rick Perry and Marco Rubio. These are all principled devotees of freedom and American greatness. Forthright Christians. Men of accomplishment. The current field also includes Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, who have surprised all with their ability to surmount the inherent challenges of the complete-outsider status.

Kristol offers for consideration some possible additional entries into the race:

Shouldn't Republicans be open to doing what Democrats are now considering? That is: Welcoming into the race, even drafting into the race if need be, one or two new and potentially superior candidates? After all, if a new candidate or new candidates didn't take off, the party would be no worse off, and someone from the current field would prevail. If the October surprise candidate caught fire, it would be all the better for the GOP--whether he ultimately prevailed or forced one of the existing candidates to up his game. 

Who could such a mysterious dark horse be? Well, it's not as if every well-qualified contender is already on the field. Mitch Daniels was probably the most successful Republican governor of recent times, with federal executive experience to boot. Paul Ryan is the intellectual leader of Republicans in the House of Representatives, with national campaign experience. The House also features young but tested leaders like Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy and Mike Pompeo. There is the leading elected representative of the 9/11 generation who has also been a very impressive freshman senator, Tom Cotton. There could be a saner and sounder version of Trump—another businessman who hasn't held electoral office. And there are distinguished conservative leaders from outside politics; Justice Samuel Alito and General (ret.) Jack Keane come to mind. 

None of them now plans to run. None of them wants to run. None of them may be required to run for the sake of the country. But isn't it worth at this point pushing the door a bit ajar?

It may seem odd to suggest that the solution to an already unprecedentedly large field is to expand it further. But politics is full of oddities. And what would be truly odd would be to go into battle in 2016 with a candidate we settle on rather than a nominee the country can rally behind. The presidency would be a terrible thing to waste.      

All of these are interesting ideas (except one; more on that in a moment). Compelling arguments can be made for each.

But what is his problem with the six candidates I mentioned above?

I'd answer Kristol's question by saying, no, this is not the time to push the door ajar. I said we had six great candidates. Six. That's plenty to be consuming the oxygen left over after the unfortunate Trump mania. Let's focus on them, give their policy specifics a proper airing, track their polling trends for several more weeks.

Not sure what got into Bill to compel him to pose such a question. And, Bill, Paul Ryan's prez-candidate shelf life is over.