Mark Sanford, William Weld, and Joe Walsh.<\/p>\n
Why three?\u00c2\u00a0 Did Mark Sanford look over at Joe Walsh and groan a “not him”?<\/p>\n
I see in the New York Times coverage that there is “no room on the right”, and I suppose we’re living in a world where Rush Limbaugh responds to a caller complaining about the deficit with a “no one cares about the deficit”, so right is as right does,<\/p>\n
— and in a sense no Republican President cared about the deficit since Eisenhower, who we all consider a moderate — even though Trump took a page from him in proposing immigration policies…<\/p>\n
Sanford and Walsh in particular running, I suppose, to stand athwart history and define the terms of “right”.\u00c2\u00a0 Weld runs against boorishness.\u00c2\u00a0 (Or, all three run against boorishness, though Walsh’s past tweets expose a problem in that arena, and Sanford — well, his extra-marital affair was pretty sober, really.)<\/p>\n
I suppose if Weld’s continuing at all with his Libertarian Party foreign policy, he’d be running to expose Trump’s isolationist as fraudulent, while your Walsh wants to do damage on Trump basic Bush era neo-connism.<\/p>\n
With the rules from the RNC not allowing much room, it’ll be interesting to see who comes in fourth.\u00c2\u00a0 Like, here’s who came in fourth in the Democratic Primary race of 1996<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 Will they do better than Fred Hudson?<\/p>\n