Given the many recent developments in the GOP primary race, I think the time has come for a review of the candidates and the race in general. So without further ado, here is my take on the candidates (in no particular order).
Herman Cain: The former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and the National Restaurant Association has found himself in plenty of hot water lately over a series of sexual harassment allegations. As it happens in almost every case like this, someone is not telling the truth. Given the details about his most recent and prominent accuser that are beginning to emerge, I’m tempted to side with Cain. The whole affair smacks of a political assassination attempt a la Clarence Thomas. The idea of a black conservative is anathema to the Left; therefore, to them, candidates like Cain must be eliminated.
Policy-wise, I’m not sure Cain is sufficiently well-versed. To be sure, his ability to fire up a crowd and generate support is spectacular. However, after listening to him speak in-person at the Defending the American Dream Summit here last week, I don’t really hear all that much substance behind his rhetoric. He is lacking specific policy ideas. His signature plan/reform, the 9-9-9 Plan, has generated a lot of controversy and debate over tax reform – a good thing. Other than that, Cain always seems to fall back on his standard reply that he would “surround [him]self with the right people” in order to make decisions. That model might work in business, but when you’re campaigning for the highest office in the land, it gives the impression that you don’t have solutions.
Ron Paul: Paul is the daffy old grandfather who is outwardly crazy but secretly brilliant. The man knows what he is talking about when it comes to the Fed and monetary policy, although you may not be able to tell through all of the rambling. However, fanatical (practically cultish) supporters notwithstanding, Paul has about as much of a chance of winning the nomination as my German Shepherd. His foreign policy views are too radical and a turn-off for the general GOP electorate.
Rick Santorum: Santorum has effectively been pigeonholed as “the social issues candidate.” His strong stances against abortion and gay marriage win him the support of social conservatives, but in an election that will be 99% a referendum on the economy and the direction of the country, that doesn’t help. Santorum has also developed a reputation as a whiner for consistently pointing out the lack of attention he was receiving in debates, amongst other things.
Michele Bachmann: The Minnesota congresswoman and leader of the House Tea Party Caucus has floundered since her meaningless win in the Ames, IA straw poll. That was in August, and a lot has happened since then. She is no longer anywhere near the top in polls in that state. Also since that time, she has probably repeated the assertion that President Obama will be a “ONE! TERM! PRESIDENT!!!!” about one billion times, and each time it has gotten more annoying. Add to that all the other crazy and dumb stuff she has said in the past, and the image of the conservative woman deteriorates further. As far as her election chances, she does not have history on her side. No one has made the jump from the House of Representatives to the presidency since James Garfield. Incidentally, there’s also never been a woman president, and while I’m confident that will change eventually, she will not be the instrument of change in that regard.
Newt Gingrich: I am not surprised by the former Speaker of the House’s recent rise in the polls (in some polls, he’s now #2). Unlike some of his competitors, Gingrich is full of ideas and has been known as “the idea man” in the party. His campaign has shown remarkable resilience after what many thought would be a death blow to his campaign in early June. Lately, he has been translating his experience and wealth of ideas into strong debate performances and improving polling. After watching many of his debate performances, I am convinced that Newt is the smartest man in the room. I’ll be very interested to see where his polling goes. If it continues on its upward trend, look for the mainstream media to really start pounding him. Unfortunately, he may have some nasty skeletons in his closet.
Jon Huntsman: The media’s pick for GOP nominee. They continue to cling to the hope that he could win the nomination. I already detailed Huntsman in a separate piece. See that article for my take on Huntsman.
Rick Perry: The Texas governor was definitely the most hyped candidate to actually enter the race. He did little more than enter the race, and he became an instant front-runner. Simply put, he hasn’t lived up to the hype. The governor is admittedly not a good debater, which is a problem when debates are where candidates are arguably the most visible. It remains to be seen if his campaign will survive what is sure to be known in future documentaries as “The 53 Seconds.” If he is going to be remotely successful as the campaign moves on, he is going to have to turn in a series of very strong debate performances (unlikely) and really sell his record of job creation in Texas.
Mitt Romney: Romney remains the race’s front-runner, a position he has held since the race began. That fact has led many to adopt the cynical view that he is “the inevitable nominee.” However, the Republican Party base remains thoroughly unenthusiastic about his candidacy. Romney is struggling to connect with conservatives of every stripe, social to fiscal, who distrust his less-than-conservative record. Never mind the fact that he was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, a paragon of conservatism if there ever was one. Thus, the view that Romney is a weathervane persists. Despite that view, one can be sure that he would be a stark contrast to Obama once he got into the White House. Also, the former governor has a number of factors going for him which should not be discounted:
1) He sounds presidential. Romney is incredibly polished, rarely makes any mistakes and is a good public speaker. He will prove a capable counter to Obama in that regard, should he be the nominee.
2) He’s done this before. Mitt has essentially been running for president since he was upset by John McCain in 2008. His experience campaigning for president on the national level gives him a leg up on many of the other candidates.
3) The man’s hair is immaculate and undeniably presidential.
Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer: Whom?
Great analysis. I think that God is giving chance to Americans to have republican president next time, in other words to Romney./http://www.gallup.com/poll/150659/Republicans-Believe-Romney-Likely-Win-Nomination.aspx/ It will depend on his campaign for republican primary voters whether if he can use this chance or not, especially in current states. http://chuluunbileg-orosoo.blogspot.com/2011/11/if-i-were-mitt-romneys-campaign-pr.html
I think the problem with the Republican presidential race is that the people who would really electrify all voters of whatever political hue such as Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio are not running. All the candidates seem to have incomplete economic plans, poor debating skills and are not particularly effective at channelling the American dream message. They should be doing this considering the utter failure of the Obama presidency in all areas and his unpopularity.
That said just due to the fact that he has had the least failures and he sounds the most Presidential, I would probably choose Romney. My heart says Gingrich, but I just don’t think his personal life would stand up to media scrutiny. It is a shame that this matters, as for me ideas and policy should count more than image, but in the 24-7 media world that we live in unfortunately it does. Winston Churchill today wouldn’t get a look in considering he was a chain smoking alcoholic, with a penchant for speaking his mind and being totally politically incorrect. I do have a proviso on all of this though, whoever wins the nomination should pick a young, dynamic vice-presidential candidate and this has to be either in my opinion Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio.
I think as a whole the Republicans need to concentrate on the economy a lot more and the social issues a lot less. This is not to say that the social issues do not matter, but right now thanks to years of unrestrained government spending and tax rises the American people are suffering and they need the Republican party to offer them hope. Interestingly an area where social conservatives and fiscal conservatives could meet in the middle is on the issue of the welfare reform. In the UK Iain Duncan Smith who is the Work and Pensions Secretary has done some great working looking at ending the culture of dependency where people are better off on benefits than work. He has also looked into the causes and found that family breakdown, a lack of discipline in schools and a decline in personal responsibility caused by a vacuum of role models -as shown in the riots across the UK are a major cause of this culture of dependency caused by a bloated state. Surely both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives should be talking about this a lot more, because it is a massive issue in the USA too, that is a drain on the economy, is damaging to responsibility and also is a cause of crime.
Great article by the way, a really comprehensive look at all the candidates.