The GOP debate lineup, and what it should’ve been…

Here’s the line up.

Fox News has announced the line-up for the prime-time Republican debate this Thursday, and here’s who qualified:

Posted by The Kelly File on Tuesday, August 4, 2015

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Silence is Consent updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Video and screenshot on homepage via The Kelly File’s Facebook page

While it looks like what was to be expected based on how they’ve all been pollling, it is a little disappointing to see Kasich and Huckabee on there at the expense of candidates that have something more to contribute to the party’s efforts this time around, such as Carly Fiorina and George Pataki Zombie Reagan.

That said, here’s my take on what the lineup should be and why, including why what I dub the “No Thanks” division is what it should be.

Clearly Donald Trump belongs up there. Even if he was polling as poorly as his chances of winning actually are (NOT anti-Donald, just being honest) he should be there because he would attract viewers for the candidates people should see.

The numbers dictate Jeb Bush should be on the stage. *grumble* The whole thing with this guy is like the ten-year old licking a frozen pole. They KNOW they shouldn’t do it, but they still want to try. I’ll need an extra tight nose clamp and some Novocaine for my brain until GOP primary voters figure this one out…IF they figure it out. If they don’t and this guy gets the nomination it’s going to be a very painful year for me, or a cryogenic freeze until the idiocracy metastasizes and I become the worlds smartest man.

Scott Walker and Ted Cruz: Duh and Duh-more…OF COURSE they should be up there! Hell, in a just world it would be just those two with maybe Rubio. Moving along…

Marco Rubio, despite stepping in it over immigration, is a really strong offering for the GOP, because he more than anyone else (at least rhetorically) seems to get the big American picture that Reagan had. If he gets a chance to really let that shine people might forget that burning sensation they felt when he rubbed Amnesty cream on their nipples. (sorry for that visual, but it’s not entirely inaccurate)

At the risk of sounding like I’m pandering, Carly Fiorina provides a unique voice to the stage. Not only because she’s a woman, but unlike Hillary Clinton she has actual leadership experience. Her chances of getting nominated are less than some of the people in the “No Thanks” division, but if nothing else it provides the kind of optics the GOP desperately needs to combat the old boys club and war on women rhetoric liberals absolutely have waiting in the wings.

I’m no Rand Paul fan, but his perspective should be part of the discussion if the GOP doesn’t want it’s cultural relevance to continue to fade. It would be wise to ally with, if not co-opt much of the Libertarian message. A lot of would be Republican voters are in that tent. Rand Paul, warts and all, is a much better bridge to the GOP than his father ever was.

Ben Carson is a tough one. In all honesty he’s in over his head, but maybe the campaign might focus him??? Probably not. The strongest thing he has going for him are that his is BRILLIANT. However, he has no political experience, and like Trump, that makes his chances almost nil. However, I would be interested in hearing what he has to say in at least one or two of the debates.

From the “No Thanks” division:

Timing is everything and Bobby Jindal is an example of it going wrong. There’s nothing wrong with the guy, it’s just his moment has passed and he’s not going to be able to compete with candidates with more impressive resumes and better face-time with the media.

I loved the man when he was first elected in 2009, but Chris Christie is the right man for New Jersey, and I’ll just leave it at that.

The Ricks, Perry and Santorum, had their shot in 2012. The same could’ve been said about Reagan in 1980, except in ’76 he was challenging an incumbent from his own party for the nomination. Even with an incumbent like Gerald Ford that first campaign was more or less a suicide mission. 1980 was his first real shot, frankly. With the Ricks it’ll be more of the same from four years ago, and unlike Reagan they have no excuses.

Same with Mike Huckabee‘s attempt to relive his ’08 glory days. The runner-up to John McCain has no business taking on this crop of candidates.

What can be said about Lindsey Graham‘s chances of being president that hasn’t already been said about Kanye West’s talent?

I’m sure George Pataki is a good man, but hearing “who” after your name must be a hobby for him, I don’t know why else he’s running.

Same is true with John Kasich, only after “who” and the answer to that you’ll hear “groan,” or “seriously?”

Zombie Reagan: When I said I wanted him there over Pataki, I didn’t really mean it. Zombie Reagan is gross and morbid, and the other serious candidates definitely can’t afford to be embarrassed by him.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.