Romney, Giuliani, McCain—even Gingrich or Huckabee—can win; Thompson probably cannot
In political journalism, few things are more common, or more tiresome, than the journalist who asks the candidate, “You don’t really think that you can win, do you?” Such questions are rude, unilluminating, unclever, small-hearted and all too typical among today’s unworthy press establishment.
This blog for the most part shuns speculation on who can and who cannot win, which is for the voters to decide, and focuses instead on who should and should not win, and why. There remains nonetheless a certain practical aspect to the issue. If a candidate truly cannot win, then it behooves his supporters to consider also the candidates who can. To do so demands a generous but sober evaluation of the candidates’ chances.
The Economic Nationalist has not yet endorsed any Republican candidate for the presidency (not that the candidates exactly tremble in anticipation! this blog is small fry). However, at the present writing for various reasons the blog does tend to prefer the candidates in approximately the order listed.
- Duncan Hunter
- Mitt Romney
- Tom Tancredo
- Mike Huckabee
- Tommy Thompson
- Fred Thompson
- Sam Brownback
- Newt Gingrich
- Ron Paul
- Rudy Giuliani
- Jim Gilmore
- John McCain
Here is where the calculation of viability enters in. Three of the candidates are clearly viable: (in no particular order) Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Three more are marginally viable in my view: Gingrich, Huckabee and—it goes against polls and conventional wisdom but the writer will support the claim presently—Fred Thompson. Of the remaining six, all but the tiresome Mr. Gilmore are fine candidates who could make good presidents, but for various reasons, realistically, are probably outclassed by the 2008 competition.
Tommy Thompson is a good man and a distinguished governor who might perform well in another election cycle, but the issues at stake this cycle regrettably disfavor his candidacy.
Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson’s true political heir, is the Republican Don Quixote; one respects and loves the man despite Mr. Giuliani’s cruel taunts, but the presidency is too serious an office to entrust to an ideologue, even one as noble-hearted as Dr. Paul (besides, if Dr. Paul really had the right stuff for the presidency, he would have flung Mr. Giuliani’s South Carolina taunts artfully back in Mr. Giuliani’s face). I wish that Texas would promote Dr. Paul to the Senate, but the White House is not that loyal patriot’s right post.
Sam Brownback is an ideologue of another sort, who recalls Steve Forbes from 1996. He is a compelling candidate in certain respects, and unquestionably an improvement on the proud Mr. Forbes. The problem with Mr. Brownback lies not in his good principles, but in his dispositional resemblance to Mr. Forbes. Like Mr. Forbes, Mr. Brownback seems much too sure that he already knows everything he needs to know to serve as president. His mind is too inflexible. He does not seem to understand when to stand on principle and when prudently to bend a little. This is a fatal flaw.
It is sad that Tom Tancredo and, especially, the true-blue economic nationalist Duncan Hunter are not quite realistic top-tier candidates this year, but Mr. Tancredo is too cerebral and Mr. Hunter, though easily charismatic enough for Congressional service, lacks the exceptional charisma needed to break through at the top level. Mr. Hunter follows the trail blazed by Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, but 2008 is probably not Mr. Hunter’s year. Maybe 2012.
Mike Huckabee is a dark horse. His chances seem small, but unlike the other minor candidates, nothing but name recognition and cash obviously keeps Mr. Huckabee from the top tier. He has the background, the instincts, the intellect, the personality and the rhetorical skills to compete strongly at the top level. His candidacy could yet catch fire. His politics, principles, resume and persona all comfortably fit the presidential profile. One does not confidently predict a Huckabee-led upset, but if it happened, it would not be so surprising.
Mr. Gingrich is a fascinating figure. I don’t trust him and neither should you, but the man is indeed conservative and he is brilliant. And, he may be the most effectively persistent national Republican politician since Richard M. Nixon.
Mr. Giuliani is a strong leader and, if I read him right, a cruel man. If he disciplined Washington as he did New York, if in a crisis he led the nation as he led the city, then his presidency could be positive for the country. However, I still remember how ruthlessly the ambitious Mr. Giuliani railroaded the nondangerous, nonviolent noncriminal Michael Milken into federal prison in 1989, an unprincipled act without which Mr. Giuliani would not be a candidate for the presidency today. The leopard does not soon change his spots. Mr. Giuliani’s taunting of Ron Paul at the recent South Carolina debate reveals the same old mean, opportunistic streak, no less mean now than then. Are Mr. Giuliani’s two divorces a mere coincidence, or do his two ex-wives know something about the man’s character we do know know? Your guess is as good as mine; I know what my guess is. Some Republicans may prefer a viscerally mean president; I do not. But, clearly, Mr. Giuliani, who gave a wonderful speech at the last Republican National Convention, remains a strong, leading candidate for the presidency in 2008, whether you and I will or nill.
Mr. McCain seems slightly mad, but he is also easily the most charismatic Republican to appear on the national scene since Ronald Reagan. The combination is explosive. I hope that it never comes to a choice between Hillary Clinton, who though Machiavellian is not mad, and John McCain, who though not Machiavellian is mad, because I cannot honestly tell you which way I would vote (my wife, half seriously, asserts that she would not vote in this case; maybe she is right). The best thing about Mr. McCain as a national politician is his evident honesty, which is doubly an asset, both for its own sake and also because it reveals his madness more openly for the public to judge. This blog has always suspected that Mr. McCain might self-destruct, preferably before winning the presidency. Maybe he is doing it right now with his mad immigration bill. A strong fate guides Mr. McCain, however. It might lie beyond your power or mine to keep him from the presidency. We shall see.
I like Mr. Romney a lot. The man is unbelievably sharp, tremendously accomplished, of excellent family pedigree yet a huge success in his own right—in private business, in managing the Olympics, in raising his own family, in governing Massachusetts—a winner from first to last. You don’t want this man leading the other guy’s team, because if he did, you’d be sure to lose. Fortunately, Mr. Romney stands firmly with our team in any case.
Mr. Romney does of course retain a few weaknesses as a candidate. Firstly as we all know he is a Mormon. It is not my role to advise fellow Republicans as to whether they should approve of Mr. Romney’s religion or not (I personally do not especially mind his religion, which I feel in net is a positive force in America, but I certainly understand and respect the views of those who find Mormon theology deeply troubling). In any case, however, the fact is that Mr. Romney’s Mormonism as such probably is not a political asset for him.
An issue of another kind is that of Mr. Romney’s candor. The matter is not simple to judge, because Massachusetts is not a simple place to be a conservative Republican. My instincts tell me that Mr. Romney has been judged too harshly by some. Conservatives can disagree as to whether Mr. Romney should have run a symbolic, futile pro-life campaign for the Massachusetts governorship, but Mr. Romney does not really resemble left-wing Republicans like Lincoln Chafee or Arlen Specter in any meaningful way. Republicans should consider: Thomas Jefferson unconstitutionally looted the U.S. Treasury to pay Napoleon for the Louisiana Territory; Abraham Lincoln illegally arrested Maryland state legislators to prevent them from voting on secession; Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill decriminalizing abortion in California. None of the three men was venal. History judges them generously. In light of the circumstance, of the overall evidence of Mr. Romney’s character, of the relative magnitude of the supposed sin, does Mr. Romney not merit a little of the same consideration?
That leaves Fred Thompson, who I doubt can win the nomination.
* * *
If one believes what one reads—and, indeed, this writer believes it—the emerging presidential candidacy of former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee intrigues a rapidly growing number of Republicans. It is easy to see why. The man is an instinctive conservative with a touch of that old John Wayne magic. He makes a formidable candidate.
I do not believe that Mr. Thompson can win the Republican nomination in 2008, however. His problem is Mitt Romney.
As far as I know, there is no reason why Mr. Thompson should not best any Republican contender other than Mr. Romney. Nor is Mr. Romney himself unbeatable; any of Giuliani, McCain and Gingrich might beat Romney. To understand why Fred Thompson probably cannot beat Mr. Romney, one borrows an insight from the field of economics (this is The Economic Nationalist, after all). In the economic theory of efficient markets, a producer need not excel each competitor in every relevant aspect, but he must excel each competitor in at least one relevant aspect. K-Mart is a fine store, but basically just like Wal-Mart, only not quite as good. On the other hand, Target, more expensive than Wal-Mart and lacking groceries, purposely caters to a demographic segment Wal-Mart does not reach. In several ways K-Mart is a better store than Target, and in a least a few ways Target is a better store than Wal-Mart, but in no significant way is K-Mart a better store than Wal-Mart. Thus the market squeezes K-Mart out.
Mr. Thompson will be the firm second choice of millions of Romney voters, but only first choices get actual primary votes. It is true that Mr. Thompson excels Mr. Romney politically in a handful of particulars: Thompson is a protestant not a Mormon; Thompson’s persona resembles John Wayne’s; Thompson is taller; Romney remains vulnerable to charges of political opportunism. The last point, of Romney’s suspected political opportunism, is the most important, but if indeed the charges are overblown as I think, then Romney has the resources and the stamina to vanquish them. Mr. Thompson’s remaining advantages then simply are not enough to beat Mr. Romney in any likely electoral scenario.
Mr. Thompson has convincingly won two elections to the U.S. Senate and has (I am told; I happen not to watch television) built a prosperous acting career. These are not insignificant achievements. However, Mr. Romney has succeeded mightily in business and in running the Olympics; and—I think that Republican primary and caucus voters will ultimately conclude—has governed Massachusetts with skill, distinction, decency and flair. Mr. Thompson has done nothing to match such achievements. It is no shame to Mr. Thompson that Mr. Romney is smarter and sharper—Mr. Romney is smarter and sharper than you, me and almost everyone else—but smarter and sharper than Mr. Thompson he clearly seems to be. Tancredo, Giuliani and even Brownback might possibly match Romney’s big brain, and Gingrich very probably would, but not Thompson.
None of these factors alone is fatal to a presidential candidacy, but the problem is that, head to head, Mr. Romney eclipses Mr. Thompson pretty neatly, across the board. Even so, Thompson might edge Romney on the strength of his non-Mormon and John Wayne assets, except for one thing: Mr. Thompson’s married life. His current wife is a sultry-looking blonde twenty-four years younger than he, even younger than Thompson’s own eldest child. Judging by what little I have read of Mrs. Thompson, she seems an intelligent, mature, capable, decent, accomplished person; but, my friends, this marriage will not (and naturally should not) work to Mr. Thompson’s advantage. Not among Republican voters. Those candidates who think that Ronald Reagan set an enduring precedent for divorcees in high office are going to be surprised in 2008. Mr. Thompson is not Mr. Reagan, and 2008 is not 1980. Republican voters facing a close decision between Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson in 2008, unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, are going to vote the delightful Mrs. Romney over the unfortunate Mrs. Thompson. If I am right, all factors considered, Mr. Thompson probably cannot win unless Mr. Romney quits, dies (God forbid), or self-destructs.
Since Republican vice-presidential candidates are usually effectively chosen privately by Republican presidential candidates, I cannot gauge Mr. Thompson’s chances at the vice-presidential nomination. Maybe you have some insight here which I lack. From where I sit, the chances look excellent if the presidential nominee is Giuliani, McCain or Romney. My only prediction however is that Fred Thompson will fail to win the presidential nomination as long as Mitt Romney is in the race.
HJH
June 1st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
So people like the Founding Fathers — definite idealogues…. weren’t fit for the presidency?
Are you out of your mind?
You’re saying that to have the right stuff for presidency, you have to be a scumbag? Anyways, Ron Paul did throw it back after the debate; he challenged Rudy to a debate on foreign policy and then later held a press conference entitled “Educating Rudy.”
June 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
You overestimate Romney’s chances, and underestimate the consequence of his demonstrated mendacity. Fred Thompson can obliterate Hillary Clinton. McCain is sinking in the polls. Thompson or Giuliani will be the nominee.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Presidential qualities are courage, principles, consistency, honesty, and integrity. Presidential qualities do not include ‘artful responses to taunts’ or even the less specific ’sharp wit’ at all. They do include some level of oratory skill, but I figure you can’t have everything. We need a True Conservative ideologue in power. No other can be trusted. That’s why I personally support Ron Paul. He is what every member of the Republican Party claims to be. Small government, family values, concerned with the people, and opposed to special interests.
As for Mitt Romney, just look at Romneycare. Our medical industry needs more capitalism, not less, and that man is entirely the wrong person to do it. For an explanation of what more capitalism would mean, there’ve been a rare few books written from the perspective that the nanny state shouldn’t provide healthcare. Here’s an example:
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=19256&parentid=4&stocknumber=CU9116&page=1&itemsperpage=24
Romney didn’t have the guts to make the politically hard decisions involving deregulation that would have really helped the healthcare problems his state was experiencing. Instead he promoted a program that had the state take over the burdens instead. It was politically easy, but it didn’t work.
(Full Disclosure: I’m a health care one-issue voter. I don’t know much of anything about Mitt Romney except that his stance on drugs and health care is distinctly opposed to mine.)
June 1st, 2007 at 8:48 pm
ROMNEY, is - WITHOUT A DOUBT - the best qualfied and most competent candidate for President! If we strip all bipartisan preferences and biases, Romney would be the only candidate left standing who will turn around America! And that’s the TRUTH!
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
This is very fascinating because this is the most insightful article I’ve seen so far about the GOP presidential candidates. The writer’s analysis on Mitt Romney is particularly astute.
Quote: “If I am right, all factors considered, Mr. Thompson probably cannot win unless Mr. Romney quits, dies (God forbid), or self-destructs.”
The previous quote best states what in all likelihood will be the scenario in the GOP primaries at the beginning of next year. The vast majority, thus far, severely underestimate Mitt Romney only because they do not know him. His influence slowly, surely and steadily gains from out of obscurity and he will be the next President of the United States of America.
It is intriguing when one such as this author is able to perceive into the future, from careful deliberation, a little farther than so many Americans who cannot see past the end of their own nose.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Have you good people forgotten the election of 2006? Many of us who chose to vote for “None Of The Above” still do not see any strong candidate other than Mr. Fred Thompson. We Conservatives stayed home in 2006, and unless the Republican Party fields a truly Conservative candidate - we will stay home again. You may criticize us and call us vile names, but this nation cannot survive much longer with the current crop or candidates in both parties. NEED I SAY MORE? The choice is yours, and I hope you make a good selection. As for me, it looks like I will stay home and vote for “None of the Above.”
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I like Mitt Romney, and I wished that he ran instead for re-election for Massachusetts Governor in ‘06 instead of Mitt Romney still running for the ‘08 Presidency. Be that as it may, Mitt Romney also has a lot of “Massachusetts problems” that are not well known at the national level, and it would take too long to list each and every “Massachusetts problem” here. Also, any future Big Dig Project problems in Massachusetts could be blamed upon the prior Romney administration as well as on all of the past Republican Governor administrations. Also, Mitt Romney spent too much of his last two years as Massachusetts Governor campaigning outside of Massachusetts either for his ongoing Presidential run, for somebody else who was also running for some political office, or both. While campaigning for others and himself outside of Massachusetts, Mitt would almost always make fun of Massachusetts politics, and this made a lot of voters in Massachusetts very unhappy with Mitt. Such voters wanted Mitt to just do the job that he was elected to do in Massachusetts: be its Governor full-time! Mitt also practiced political favoritism in order to give the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, Republican Kerry Murphy Healey, a “free pass” with no Republican Primary competition for the Governor’s seat. Mitt did all that he could truly do to block the possible candidacy of Republican Charlie Baker from ever running for Massachusetts Governor. Kerry Murphy Healey was not liked by many voters throughout Massachusetts, especially woman voters, and this is only one of the reasons why she ended up losing her run for Governor to Democrat Deval Patrick. Kerry Murphy Healey is part of a very wealthy family, and she lived most of her live very much “cocooned” away from most of the average general public. Her personality repeatedly showed her “out of touch with the average person”. She once talked about senior citizens who should be forced out of their homes and forced into nursing homes if they can no longer be independent, and this wasn’t received very well by the general public. Mitt Romney was chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2006, and Republicans ended up losing a lot of Governor seats in 2006 (not a Republican year at any political level on November ‘06). Mitt still has trouble with the general public on gun issues: Is Mitt for gun control? Has he flip-flopped on the issue of gun control and on being pro-Second Amendment? Exactly how many times has Mitt ever hunted for something anyways? Also, was Mitt for gay marriage before he was against it? Was Mitt for government funding of stem cell research before he was against it? Where does Mitt officially live since he has a lot of houses in a lot of states all at the same time? How is Mitt ever going to succeed in getting a majority of voters from the Bible Belt states to be more than willing to vote for Mitt with him being a Mormon? Is the mainstream media hiding some very negative things about Mitt that most of the general public don’t even know about yet? These things and more are things about Mitt Romney that need to be seriously discussed.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:06 am
The post above has experienced a remarkable response for so relatively inconsequential a journal as this. Plainly, Republicans care about the topic.
One respondent above has written that “Presidential qualities do not include `artful responses to taunts’ or even the less specific `sharp wit’ at all.” He is right in my view. Glibness is much overrated as a leadership quality, which in part, for example, is why the blog rates the non-glib Tommy Thompson relatively so highly. The point is well taken.
Another respondent, Jerry L. Williams, points out that Republicans who have learned nothing from the 2006 debacle deserve to lose again in 2008. Naturally he is right.
Korey Kaczynski supports Ron Paul. So in some ways do I. I still remember when Dr. Paul headed the Libertarian presidential ticket in 1988. He was a good man then, a loyal American patriot—and he still is. Dr. Paul reminds us all that the Constitution, on which our liberties so greatly rely, is nothing but a venerable scrap of paper unless we choose to take it seriously. Dr. Paul is right in this. I hope that his age and health permit him to remain active in Congress for many years to come, reminding you and me over and over of the importance of proper loyalty to our unmatched Constitution. (Regarding the well-known recent exchange in South Carolina between Dr. Paul and Rudy Giuliani, one must admit that Mr. Giuliani slammed Dr. Paul with remarkable gravity and style. However, the Big Slam distracted attention from the otherwise evident stupidity of the nonreason Mr. Giuliani advanced for supporting the war in Iraq. I also happen to support the war in Iraq, but for Duncan Hunter’s reasons, not for Rudy Giuliani’s. Among the various other Republican candidates, only Jim Gilmore debated at such a low, grade-school-recess level as did Mr. Giuliani in South Carolina.)
Korey also observes that the Founders were ideologues. My view is that this was true of some of the Founders: most notably Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, plus their honorary associate Tom Paine. However, I believe that it was not true of James Madison, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry or, most importantly, George Washington. The historical question involved is fascinating, worth further discussion in this blog either now or at some future date.
One respondent expresses unequivocal support for Mr. Romney. While my support is admittedly slightly more equivocal, it is hardly less enthusiastic. I like Romney.
Another respondent kindly writes, “It is intriguing when one such as this author is able to perceive into the future, from careful deliberation, a little farther than so many Americans who cannot see past the end of their own nose.” I don’t have much to add to what he wrote, but of course I feel that the other views he expresses are entirely correct, and I appreciate his warm words of encouragement.
John M. Moore’s reply is worth serious consideration. Quite rightly, most of us are suspicious of being dealt or sold, yet Mr. Romney is indeed a dealer, a salesman. I had not known much about Charlie Baker. Surely Mr. Romney had his own reasons for treating Mr. Baker as John points out that he did. Good reasons? I don’t know. Such questions are entirely fair and are up to Mr. Romney to answer. Mr. Romney does admittedly sometimes leave an impression of too much cleverness for his own good: that’s just the man’s personality; he probably cannot change it. Regarding John’s several other questions, my answer is that they are all good questions, every one of them. I certainly do not have the answers. Any reader who has not yet read John’s reply above, should. It merits careful consideration in all its parts.
My instinct nevertheless tells me that the doubts about Mr. Romney, though valid doubts, nonetheless regard relatively insignificant blemishes on an extraordinarily full life; and that, in the end, the doubts will serve to illuminate the strength and depth of Mr. Romney’s character rather than to question its integrity at the core. Mr. Romney naturally must answer such questions to the satisfaction of Republicans like you and me. I believe that he can and suppose that he will, but surely I could be wrong in this. We shall see.
If it is the same John Moore, as I think, one might also read his insightful words here.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
Howard
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
I wish to add one more thought to the discussion above of the ideology of the Founders. One of the principal theses of the late Russell Kirk in his famed book The Conservative Mind was that John Adams, second president, was and remains America’s premier example of the anti-ideological conservative. Mr. Kirk argued persuasively that conservatism, properly construed, is the very antithesis of ideology. I believe that Mr. Kirk was right.
Much confusion persists among today’s Republicans, particularly among the younger set, as to the nature of Ronald Reagan’s supposed ideology. Those of us old enough to remember 1976 clearly remember how persistently, how hard, the left-wing, pinko national news media then hammered the boilerplate “RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGUE” figuratively onto the innocent Mr. Reagan’s noble forehead. The irony is that so many Republicans—including Rudy Giuliani who is old enough to know better, including also many younger Republicans now in the House of Representatives—have absorbed the myth.
Mr. Reagan was no ideologue. He was a courageous man of strong principle who led the country with consummate skill and great valor as a bedrock American conservative. Younger readers who feel sure that I am wrong about this might carefully research two specific acts of Mr. Reagan’s as president: his bailout of Harley-Davidson in 1983 and his order to the U.S. Marines to withdraw from Lebanon in 1984. Both of these actions cut against the general grain of the Reagan presidency. Why did he take them? I think that it was because he was a conservative, not an ideologue. Traditional conservatives balance many factors subjectively before reaching a decision; no one factor dominates, nor is the right decision at one time and place always the right decision at another. It is wonderful that Ronald Reagan is so widely revered today, but it is ironic that he is almost as widely misunderstood in his own party.
Admittedly, the respondent above did not bring Mr. Reagan’s name into the discussion; I did that. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the matter of Reagan’s supposed ideology merits some consideration in the present light.
Howard