Republican Presidential Candidates: Surveying the Field

    For the next decade at least 100 Republicans will be introduced at Lincoln Day dinners and 4th of July parades as "Former Presidential Candidate .....".  Armies of them are sidling up to newbies Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, hoping for an influential friend in an early caucus or primary state. Within the next several months the reality of recruiting top campaign staff and donors will start to thin the herd, but like in baseball, January is the season of unchallenged optimism.  Some thoughts on who will survive when the grim reaper starts his work.

    1. Republicans, favoring order, have usually had an established "candidate in waiting" who was owed their turn - Nixon, Bob Dole, The Gipper, George H.W., John McCain.  The closest this cycle are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. More on them later.   

    2. The election of 2010 was a rout, with the victors being the focused advocates of fiscal responsibility and small government. While new factors may rise in national importance, this will remain Barack Obama's greatest weakness and the greatest attraction for the middle class.  Financial management credibility is the sine qua non. Nice guy, social issue folks like Mike Huckabee are at a disadvantage. Governors with business experience need apply.  

   3. Obama's flaccid foreign policy could become a factor by the fall of 2012, but he is positioned to keep it off of the table: war without end in Afghanistan; Bush policies on Gitmo; accommodation with Russia; maybe approval of Bush's free trade agreements; a back-bench position in South America and the crumbling Middle East.  One dark horse - the relationship with China could deteriorate to the point where the country saw a need for some expertise and strength. Enter Jon Huntsman, son of a billionaire, former governor of Utah and current ambassador to Beijing.  

   4.  Any successful candidate must be acceptable to both the Establishment wing and the energized Populist wing of the party.  Not a favorite of, just acceptable. Palin probably misses the Establishment.

    5. Diversity would be a plus, but there won't be any at the head of the ticket.  In his day Colin Powell would have had a good chance and Condi Rice might have as well. Candidates like Herman Cain do not have the resume and Marco Rubio does not have the whiskers.  While there are many young women future potentials, the divisive Michele Bachmann is perhaps the best known.  Republicans will not elevate an inexperienced junior legislator - even if he/she did have the most conservative voting record in the House or Senate.  (The opposition did make that mistake not too long ago.) Look to another VP or 2016.

    6. Some people are out because they would not be able to survive the liberal mainstream media onslaught: Haley Barbour; perhaps Rick Perry.   With a chance to win why re-fight the Civil War.  Likewise one would imagine the NY Times fulminations if the GOP decided to forgive and forget the opportunity that Newt Gingerich blew nearly two decades ago - smart he is, but so are others.  

    7. As for picking somebody who could carry a big, important state - California; New York; Ohio; Illinois; Florida; Texas - forget it. The Red State/Blue State division is really about regions.  

     The nomination is Mitt Romney's to lose, assuming that Round Two of health care finds an accommodation by the end of the year, soothing his biggest negative.  Premise: Obama probably wants a compromise which keeps expanded coverage and avoids the inevitable Supreme Court decision on mandatory individual purchase; the Republican House led by Paul Ryan (do watch this video) is smart enought to find it. If Romney and Huntsman split the always-influential Mormon vote, Plan B is a Hoosier, Congressman Mike Pence or Governor Mitch Daniels.   Plan C?  Draft Chris Cristie. You heard it here.

    Update 1/22/11:  Readers have noted the absence of Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and John Thune from the above discussion. All have a following and a story line about why they deserve a shot. To me, the test is who can beat Obama if the economy continues to mend. That answer requires financial vision which I do not see in these three. IMHO.

                                                            -----

       This week's video is President Obama's introduction of Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China. 

Bill Bowen - 1/21/11

Comments

[Bill McCormick]

A Gamble Lost:

In 2010 with the nation arguing over expensive wars abroad and slammed with a recession caused by incompetant oversite of a housing financing scheme initiated by noble but misguided dreams of home ownership for all, the nation turned blindly to a mixed race, young, inexperienced, Senator with great oratorical skills and a seemingly brilliant mind. Despite detailed descriptions of ties to liberal, socialistic economic views, unions and radical associates the voters gambled that the refreshing, young, intelligent man would bring Americans together and address the problems addressing the nation. Unfortunately, the gamble failed. One of the advantages of experience is that experienced managers know what works, what doesn't and how to get the advice they need to avoid major pitfalls. The disadvantages of youth is that they do not anticipate being wrong and have not yet reached the point where they can admit it and reverse themselves. They fail to seek advice until they have driven the car into the ditch.

This President came to office exactly as he was depicted by his opponents: inexperienced, socially motivated, determined to level the playing field, motivated by what he heard growing up and his union bosses told him was wrong with America. He denied it all during his campaign. Instead he promised to bring us together, to cross the aisle, to make things better for all Americans. Once elected he ignored all his promises and immediately embarked on a mission to change America into a place that "takes care of those who won't take care of themselves at the expense of those who he sees as exploiters" the top 2% of America's wealthy. Namly the wealth creators. In China or Russia they would be the communist(former KGB) rulers. In Venezuela they would be the dictator's buddies who run the nationalized industries. In the middle east they would be the Royal Families. In Europe they are the managers of the socialistic industries. But, here in America they are for the most part the "creative individuals" who employ our people. The people who the President always likes to use in his speeches who started with an idea and built a company. There are about 8 Million of them in America. And, more begin the journey every day. there is little difference between the man who hires college students in the summer to mow grass and trim bushes and Steve Jobs who's latest creation the I-Pad is making billions. Both employ people. And that is what it is all about for those kind of people. For all his desire to do something for his people, Obama could do more if he would just understand that America is best served by working to make the environment for entraprenuers to emerge, create and flurish. We do not need the government to invent problems for us to solve or tell us what markets we should sell to. In my last 50 years I have known more markets to serve and more products and services to create than I could ever have initiated. And, most entraprenuers are the same. After 5 or 6 companies I have done my part and out there in America are hundreds of employees who are engaged in building similar companies or employed in the companies we created. The governemnt had nothing to do with it except to get in the way with occassional stupid laws , regulations or depressing taxes.

Last night in just a few sentences the President showed once again the he does not "get it". Here are a few:

We cannot let the tax on the top 2% remain at this level.

We will invest in clean energy and alternative energy companies. In the stilmulus package he funded Solynera to the tune of $500,000,000. A year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs. ... If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise succeeds only when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost.

He couldn’t help contradicting himself in a matter of mere seconds. Early on last night the President said: “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from.” But then just three paragraphs later he said: “We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology … and create countless new jobs for our people.” Solyndra was a great example of reckless use of tax dollars.

Finally, he points to some small business man in the stands and says " I couldn't let this guy pay $5000 more for healthcare this year" as if he knows the guy and personally passed the bill for all us small businesss guys. Just this year based on the changes that went into effect so far our SMALL business premiums went up $9000/year per employee. And I can site many similar cases in my friends and clients.

After last night 13 Democrats who supported Obama were asked if they would support him again in 2012. Only 7 said yes. Asked why not, a black man said "he doesn't do what he says he will". I think the smoke is clearing for a lot of Americans.

This Gamble is looking like high odds now for Americans.

[Bill McCormick]

Bo---You have plenty of material for this week. That was the weakest attempt at leadership I have ever subjected myself to listen to. Even his wife couldn't smile.

[Bill McCormick]

Harrycat

Education is free in America through K12. And most who attain k12 can find a way to get into a training program or get employed if they want to bar disability, injury or illness. Even college. I have a son who is a fire fighter and a plumber. Neither of those required any outlay of capital--just determination and hard work.
the military is a good job for the brave,dedicated people to start out. There are ways.

Those who squander the opportunity to go to school and/or learn a trade do so at their peril. What exactly is it that you want us to have them manufacture that pays more than the pennies an hour they pay in China? Once again I'll point out: look at the construction crews on the roads who work for or under contract to your county. Most are likely mexicans who came here illegally. Who's fault is it that they have the $20/hour jobs? When housing comes back they'll have those as well. And, the landscaping jobs. Liberals want it both ways: let the immigrants in and fund the unemplyed with the taxes of the employed. Do you think that HS droputs will get the jobs at nuclear plants, building windmills or solar batteries?

[Harrycat]

A cynic might say that if you dropped out of HS and are unemployed it is your own damn fault and you should get no government benefits except education or job training.

There just aren't enough jobs for all the undereducated, and those that remain are going away. We don't have a jobs problem, we have an education problem.

[Bill McCormick]

Harrycat

HERE ARE SOME STATS:

5% OF COLLEGE GRADS ARE UNEMPLOYED
8% OF PEOPLE WITH SOME COLLEGE ARE UNEMPLOYED
10% OF HS GRADS ARE UNEMPLOYED
15% OF HS DROPOUTS ARE UNEMPLOYED

It can be argued that motivation and parental guidance have more to do with education and unemployment than job training programs,teachers or facilities. Education does not guarantee employment but it gives one better opportunity to be employed.

It is true that some of the 15% of High School dropouts are actually employed in criminal activities ranging from drugs,prostitution to theft. Now we pay for their healthcare.

Also some of the unemployed in all segments are in the underground economy making a living in cash businesses or on the internet.

America is a huge manufacturing country. Unemployment is significant in many segments especially the housing market not just manufacturing. The problem will be reduced when the economy comes back. That will happen when managers and consumers regain confidence. Until we see leadership to solve our financial problems and reduce the restraints and penalties on Americas' businesses and resources it will struggle to return.

In some strange ways the stock market represents the opposite of the state of the economy. Why? Because the market likes low interest rates and interest rates remain low while the economy is sruggling and the Fed tries to stimulate it. Rising interest rates signal fears of inflaation and the Fed tryng to restrain it. The market falls as interest rates rise most of the time. So, don't be surprised to see a market downturn when the economy starts to rebound.

The good news is that we are seeing interviews rising and that indicates the manager confidence is increasing. If politicians don't drive it back down we should see hiring begin this spring. Let's all hope it does.

[Harrycat]

Bill M. - I wish it were that simple. Just who is it that doesn't have a job? It is the relatively uneducated, the former factory workers. There are plenty of jobs with good pay for those with college degrees. They are not concerned for their futures. The unemployment problem is a systemic problem. The jobs for the less educated have gone and won't be coming back.

I hope Obama says something out this and proposes a job training corps (or something else) to get our unemployed trained to do what the 21st century is calling for. Hoping for factory jobs will always be a losing fight.

[Bill McCormick]

What does it take to deliver a message?

What do the American people have to do to get their message across? The polls clearly state that by 45% to 17% JOBS dominates the issues facing America today over the second place deficit/debt reduction with Healthcare a distant 3rd at 11%. Being the clever smoke and Mirrors man that he is Obama understands that and tomorrow night he will point out that HE is focused on JOBS while the Republicans are focused on Healthcare. (He'll likely ignore Republican fixation on deficit reduction perhaps going for a tie with some mention of modest cuts.) Mitch McConnell, Republican leader of the Senate yesterday played right into that strategy by stating that Americans are focused on debt reduction and spending cuts. That is flat out not true--the Tea Party is focused on debt reduction and healthcare. The nation is still focused on the economy and JOBS. Republicans, while they are correct in their mission to cut deficits and debt are not focused on the Jobs issue and their new found power base may quickly erode if Obama succeeds in making people believe that only HE is focused on jobs.

In his first two years Obama focused everything he had on social and environmental issues and regulating businesses. Even unions for all he did for them lost members in his first two years and now under the onslaught of new governors looking to balance budgets public unions are being scrutinized for excessive benefits. If California, Illinois and New York acted like New Jersey then public unions would really be under pressure to reform. But, alas, the strategy seems to be in the big, broke Democratic states to file for bankruptcy and let the bond holders take it in the shorts. We shall see if Obama, the bailoutee, will let that strategy go through or simply send another check. It is unlikely now that Obama has any idea or desire to really stimulate jobs. It is more likely that he is content to let the 18% of Americans un/under employed stay that way while he implements his social agenda. Tomorrow night Obama will likely play the game of "I saved us from the Depression" and Now "I'm working on the future jobs (green jobs, clean jobs,government jobs and teaching jobs) that will be "created" by the "Investments" he is proposing. Then he will point out that Republicans are focusing on spending cuts and healthcare repeal. If he is successful then Republicans will lose the opportunity they have been given once again to lead the nation to a competative economic future. And, right now Republicans appear to be deaf. The fundamental rule of politics: "It's the economy--stupid" Instead Republicans will present Paul Ryan and his message to make huge spending cuts will have Tea Party members smiling while Americans ask "what about JOBS?" Can Paul Ryan amd Michelle Bauchman (reponding for the Tea Party)tie their cuts to JOBS? That will be a huge challenge. Anyone wonder why Obama is rising in the polls once again? Smoke and Mirrors is selling at the moment. And, of course, the Democrats havn't voted anything down yet.

[Bill McCormick]

harrycat--you may not like Palin just like the left. But to deny her power and influence is wishful thinking. She represents the conservative values that are deep rooted in about 65% of Americans even if they do not like her bold style. Her 36% block of supporters are the second largest block of voters in the game. And, when combined with Republican votes can defeat Democrats in most districts. Perhaps even Obama nationwide if the Republicans nominate the right candidate and the economy stays weak. That is why the left fear her.

you may not like her

[Harrycat]

Follow up: I think you misunderstand the Left's reaction to Palin. They don't fear her - she is unelectable for President. They fear her divisiveness and the negative effects that she brings to civil conversations. Her presence in "the room" causes many (me included) to fear for the possibility of real conversation and solutions to our country's great problems.