My thoughts on the 2012 GOP Presidential Field. by Jay Wendt
(centrist)
Thursday, March 25, 2010
To be honest, I do not like the options America has in 2012. True, it is only 2010 right now, but the possible Presidential choices that are presented by the media and by politicos are so underwhelming. Obama's recent victory will certainly help the GOP in 2010, unfortunately it won't help in the long term. The long term solution is having a Presidential nominee that will inspire people and take advantage of the tainted image of Obama. But, from the looks of it, I doubt that will happen. Let me just review the reasons, candidate by candidate.
Mitt Romney: Successful businessman with political experience and looks pretty good on TV. Unfortunately, he is a Mormon and not a lot of people like Mormons; they are a tad creepy and they do annoy people when they go door to door. Beyond the Mormon factor, there are a few other reasons why Romney would not be a good nominee. His business experience would hurt him more than anything else, giving the fact he ran an investment firm (Bain Capital). I honestly believe that since the Wall Street meltdown was created by investment firms, it probably would not be a good idea for the GOP to nominate someone with any connection to an investment firm.
Gary Johnson: Two term Governor of New Mexico with business experience. He seems to be honest and extremely opinionated. Unfortunately, he is a libertarian. Don't get me wrong, libertarians have a few good ideas, it's just he would not make a good GOP nominee because he does not represent the base. Johnson is pro-choice, so I highly doubt he would have a realistic chance of being nominated. If he were, he could actually drive away the base of the Republican Party (which is largely pro-life). The same could be said for his stances on drugs and homosexuality. So, a Gary Johnson nomination would either be highly unlikely or highly destructive, take your pick.
Newt Gingrich: Former Speaker of the House, a great speaker, and a strong ideologue. Now, if he had been elected Governor or to the US Senate after his service in the House, I would say that he is the strongest and best candidate the GOP has, unfortunately he doesn't have that experience. Gingrich, for the most part, is untested in statewide campaigning, which is essential in both the primaries and the general election. Now, if there was no incumbent President, that would not be a factor, unfortunately there is, making this the wrong election for Gingrich.
Ron Paul: Congressman and Doctor. First off, he is too old, in fact older the McCain. I do believe that 2008 was a good indicator that the average voter does not want a 70-something year old President running the country. Now, beyond his age, like Gingrich, Ron Paul hasn't proven his ability to win statewide. In fact, the 2008 primaries show he can't win statewide. Granted he can raise huge sums of money which could help in, but when you get down to it if you can't connect with the average voter on a statewide basis, then you are not going to win.
Sarah Palin: Former Governor and conservative pin-up. Personally, I think she got a bad rap in 2008 due to media bias. However, if she had ran for re-election or ran for the US Senate in 2010 and actually distinguished herself from her 2008 VP candidacy as a political leader, then she would be a strong and viable candidate. Unfortunately, by resigning her Governorship, she has shot herself in the foot and completely ruined her Presidential chances. Not only that, but it has also reaffirmed the image the media has given her, as a ditzy, right-wing, religious-fundamentalist female who makes really dumb comments.
Mike Huckabee: Pastor, Governor, and TV show host. He is probably the most electable candidate in the field. However, since he has signed a contract to host a fairly popular TV show, and his making boat loads of money doing it, I highly doubt he would take a pay cut to be President.
Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty: No one has a single idea of who these people are. They are in the same category of Presidential contention as Jim Gilmore, Harold Stassen, and Ben Fernandez. Uninspiring, boring, and lacking any quality that could make them likeable or stand out in a Presidential field. I will admit, this is my opinion on these three men and they could actually be really great candidates for President, but I have a fairly strong feeling that they are not.
Scott Brown: Conqueror of the Kennedy Senate Seat. I'm just not sure about him. He could a true principled conservative or another McCain-like moderate. It's too early to tell and more than likely too early for him to run for President.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jay Wendt only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jay Wendt is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
However, on the last one: Scott Brown you said that "more than likely too early for him to run for President". Well Obama ran for President with only two years in his senate seat and no other political experience and won. So why can't Scott Brown do the same?
\"[i]f you can\'t connect with the average voter on a statewide basis, then you are not going to win.\"
Ron Paul connected with millions nationwide in 2007/8, with the absolute minimum MSM coverage and shut-outs from many GOP primary debates. Where he was invited, he was given minimum attention and time. Still his message resonates with average voters. How else do you raise millions of dollars without corporate support?
My thoughts on two of the mainstream candidates mentioned.
Mitt Romney- If you don't like Obamacare why would you vote for the guy who invented it and inflicted it on Massachusetts?
Sarah Palin- Palin has been campaigning for John McCain in his senate race. Associating with McCain is no way to impress freedom lovers. McCain has no respect for the constitution. His Campaign Finance Reform Act was partially struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, as most of us already knew. His latest bill S-3081 would virtually dismantle the constitution. It would destroy habeas corpus, the due process requirements of the 5th amendment, and the right to a jury trial and legal counsel guaranteed by the 6th amendment. It would turn America into something akin to NAZI Germany. Under S-3081 American citizens could be hauled out of their homes, thrown in prison, and left there until they rot with no trial and not even any charges. If she supports McCain does she support his bill? In my opinion Sarah is just another neo-con.
If Ron Paul connected with millions of voters, then why did he NOT win a single primary or caucus? The answer, he doesn't have millions of followers. I would say that no more then 1/2 million Ron Paul supporters exist nationwide, and that would be streching it. As for your arguement about his debate participation, I say the debates on TV and he was given the same amount of time as everyone else.
Regarding Paul's performance in 2008, sure it could have been a lot better. His campaign squandered the resources the grassroots gave him, the ads they put out demonstrated they were clearly inept novices. Ron Paul is, plain and simple, not a very good judge of character. And besides, as Jay mentioned, in 2012 he would be 76 years old.
Sure he keeps himself in much better shape than McCain has for probably the last 20 years, but will any of that register with the voters even if he did make it out of the primary?
On whether Ron Paul got fair coverage during the primary cycle, however, I don't know what vacuum Mr. Wendt is living in. Not only was Paul not invited to various debates, (even after finishing ahead of Giuliani and Thompson), every time he was mentioned on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, he was mocked; debate analysts clocked most of his performances at the 5 minute mark, even when there were only 3 other candidates (Romney, Huckabee, McCain); his delegates fought aggressive attempts of disenfranchisement at the state conventions, I could go on and on and on...
It didn't help that some of his supporters went out and did stupid things and thus made his already-underexposed image kookier. So in conclusion, Paul's campaign and people like Jesse Benton do need to accept some of the blame, but despite this, there is no question regarding the media blackout of Paul that year.
