.
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.
Remember I am not a professional at this, just an interested citizen.
DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.
REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30-33-35) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare. I think not and I now think he can make the case.
Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-06-22-25-30)[[ 9/1/11 9:30 PM CST. Sorry I let the date slip up on me and this was presented without last minute editing. I would just change it but there have been comments so I need to keep the old version which is struck out and new version is in italics.]]
He may be a strong candidate. There is a chance he will implode. The main questions are: Does he pass the YAMSLT test? Is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? If he holds up it is a two person race: Romney-Perry.
Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13-20) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT
Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-05-8)
Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-01) As I know him more, I like him more. I would consider him. Seems like serious people take him seriously. I don't see how he wins the nomination though.
Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01-1) Has a long way to go to be a serious cand.
Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01-1) - I would have considered him but he abandoned the 1st amendment. ……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01-1) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3-01-1) - She is playjng games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15-1) - I would consider him. A serious person. Apparently did not pick up Daniels's support.
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01-01) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.
.
On the GOP field:
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed that Tim Pawlenty didn't make the cut. I'm also disappointed that Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Scott Walker aren't interested. Among those who aren't necessarily out, here's what I think.
People I'll consider:
* Jon Huntsman -- appreciate the executive experience, foreign policy experience, and crossing-the-aisle experience. Too bad he's not getting any traction.
* Mitt Romney -- seems like a strong primary argument for him is: "Look folks, I was elected to the highest office in Massachusetts and governed the most liberal state in the union as a Republican. I can bring the country together, and I can bring them our direction."
* Newt Gingrich -- I'm with YA, Gingrich's Park 51 (I almost wrote Area 51) stance disturbs me. Still, I think he's strong as an idea guy and can work with the other side. Also, he spoke at my college commencement ceremony in 1991. :-)
I'm unlikely to vote for the following but I'm glad they're in:
* Herman Cain -- has a compelling bio (lots of big time business experience AND a college math major!), and amongst the career pols he can be a strong voice for the private sector; seems too green on some serious foreign policy issues but maybe he'll surprise me.
* Gary Johnson -- a possibly electable version of Ron Paul with actual executive experience.
* Rick Parry -- I prefer the Colbert spelling. :-) His "make Washington inconsequential" schtick is VERY off-putting to me, see my comment below. But he does offer a lot of experience, and whoever beats him will have earned it.
* Ron Paul -- gives great voice to libertarianism, a perspective that I disagree with by and large but that has an important influence on our politics.
I have no interest in the following:
* Michelle Bachman -- too inexperienced, a "lightweight" as YA says.
* Sarah Palin -- a celebrity, but there's not much to make me believe she'd be an astute or effective chief executive of the country.
* Rick Santorum -- too reflexively and ideologically conservative for me, too wed (shall we say) to social issues.
On Grover Norquist and Rick Parry (OK, Perry)
ReplyDeleteGrover Norquist has been a sort-of gray eminence guru of the Republican Party, particularly the extremely minimal government and low/no taxes wing of the party. He and his Americans for Tax Reform seek out "no new taxes" pledges from people running for state and national offices. (Recall that this is the kind of pledge that helped sink Bush 41 in 1992.)
He's also known for his remark that "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Personally, I hear small echoes of this in Rick Perry's statement, when he announced his candidacy for President, that he wants to make Washington DC "as inconsequential in your life as I can."
To me, neither of these statements seems to square with the vision of the father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, who was willing to wage a bloody civil war so that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Sorry I let this slip in without last minute editing. That has been done now in the Perry entry. Before and after has been included since 2 comments were added before the correction.
ReplyDelete