|
| |
REYNOLDS |
|
 |
A Good Republican Presidential Candidate
by John Mark Reynolds [author,
academic] 9/20/07
Warning: Past success is no guarantee of future success.
Bottom Line: In a strong Republican field there are good reasons (apart from ideological ones) to take a hard look at Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani as a cut above the rest.
2008 is going to be a tough year for Republicans.
The good news is the Democrat Party seems determined to nominate the least electable candidate in recent history. The bad news is that the President is unpopular and the country seems ready for change and so even Hillary (!) might get elected.
Is this a hopeless situation? By no means!
Contributor
John Mark Reynolds
John
Mark Reynolds is the founder and director of
the Torrey Honors Institute and Associate Professor
of Philosophy at Biola University.His
personal website can be found at www.johnmarkreynolds.com and
his blog can be found at http://scriptoriumdaily.com.
[go to Reynolds index] |
First, Iraq may quickly turn from a (net) political liability to an asset. However, even if most people (wrongly in my opinion) think the War a mistake, many of those people will be unhappy about losing it. A candidate who can bring “good out of bad” will have many listening ears.
Second, President Bush is not running and all the front runners for the nomination have plenty of room to disagree with him. I think Bush has been a courageous leader, but he has made mistakes. The new leader of the party will be free to say this.
Especially if Iraq is perceived as a victory-in-the-making, the idea that Bush was brave, but sometimes mistaken might take hold in the broader electorate. Outside of the 30% who hate the fact that Bush brushes his teeth, viewing it as part of a conspiracy against dental liberty, most Americans find it hard to hate an ex-president. Look at Jimmy Carter.
Third, Hillary (!) is the ideal opponent.
So here are five non-ideological characteristics of a good Republican candidate.
Good ideas are most important when it comes to governing, but other things matter as well.
Let’s look at some of those “other” things.
Since this is the first name campaign (Hillary!), we will use first names only with the exception of McCain, who is so old school that it is just too hard to imagine “John!” as a sign or slogan.
I have eliminated all Republican candidates who cannot pass the first test from consideration. I have assigned “points” for each candidate after their ranking. In a few places I explain my reasoning where I think it particularly contentious.
1. He can actually win the nomination in a scenario that does not require the Cubs winning the World Series.
He has broad enough support in the party to either pass the money hurdle, have high national poll numbers, or get a core group of voters fired up enough about him to lessen his need for big dollars to stay viable as a candidate.
Why does this matter? Money wasted on fringe candidates is less money to take on Hilary with the real candidates.
(Field In Order: Rudy (5), Fred (4), Mitt (4), McCain (2), Mike (1))
Rudy is the front runner, but a weak one. I think Fred and Mitt are tied. If Fred cannot raise money and organize fast he drops. His poll numbers are all he has right now.
2. He has executive or extraordinary military experience. Leaders not legislators wins.
(Field in Order: Rudy (5), McCain (4), Mitt (3), Mike (2), Fred (1))
New York City was a Rudy miracle. McCain is a war hero washing out his Senate time as a leadership liability. Massachusetts is bigger that Arkansas and Romney has executive business and Olympic experience putting Mitt well over Mike.
3. He will unite the party.
(Chance to split Republicans, with the best being last: Rudy (1), McCain (2), Mitt (3), Mike (4), Fred (5))
Social conservatives in large numbers will stay home with Rudy. McCain infuriates many conservatives, but would they stay home against Hilary? Less clear than with Rudy. Mitt faces residual bigotry over religion. Mike is disliked by some economic conservatives. Fred is best here, but I think Mitt and Mike could bring all but a few actual voters home against Hillary (!).)
4. He is a good communicator in all forms of media (especially unscripted video). Television must be kind to his features.
Call this the Dan Quayle rule. Dan Quayle may have looked good, but he was not fast on his feet in debates.
(In Order of Media Friendliness: Mitt (4), Rudy (4), Fred (3), Mike (2), McCain (1))
This is a good field in this regard. All the candidates have strengths.
Mitt wears well and very smart, if a bit slick. Rudy is funny and smart, but is very New York for the rest of us. Mitt and Rudy both are a cut above in debates.
Fred is tired looking (hasn’t anyone else noticed?), but warm. I am not sure how well he does when not scripted. Mike is very nimble, but pretty Southern for the rest of us. McCain is a temper eruption away from being macaca.)
5. He has massive discipline and desire.
This is the Bob Dole Rule. In a good year, this is less important. I measured this by stories early on in their campaigns from friends who questioned their desire.
(In order: Mitt (4), Mike (4), Rudy (3), McCain (2), Fred (1))
Early on many wondered if Rudy really wanted it . . . I think so, but there were questions about how hard he would campaign. He sometimes looks like he is winging it. McCain really wants it, but is very undisciplined. Fred? I don’t know, but it does not look good. I think both Mitt and Mike are tied here. Both seem like very driven personalities who will do what it takes to win.
Just for fun, I thought this through and only then tallied scores.
Scores: (1 point for a “worst” place finish and up to five for a solo “best place.”)
Mitt: 18
Rudy: 18
Fred: 14
Mike: 13
McCain: 11
Disclaimers:
For ideological reasons, I cannot vote for Rudy in the primaries.
If the California primary were today, I would vote for Mitt. ExileStreet
copyright
2007 John Mark Reynolds
§
|
q