Last week, Pulitzer award-winning journalist and conservative columnist, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, laid out his early lines for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. As you can tell from the title of this post, I did not agree with them at all.
Where do I even begin? For starters, he lists Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann at 20-1. Granted, I am a big fan of hers and her views are completely in line with everything I hold dear. But the fact is that Ms. Bachmann, much like President Obama, has absolutely no executive experience on her resume. To borrow the phrase from U.S. Congressman Colonel Allen West (R-Florida), she has never even run a lemonade stand.
She served as a state senator for six years and has been a member of the U.S. House of Representives for four years. How can anyone argue that she is ready for the presidency? Given the way Republicans have bashed Obama for his lack of executive experience and leadership skills, they'd be foolish to even consider nominating her in 2012. She may be raising a lot of money and will certainly get a lot of support from the Tea Party, but I'm putting her odds of winning the nomination at 100-1 at best. Yes, that's just a tad longer than those laid out by Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer lists two former U.S. governors, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, as his favorites at 5-1. He rightly points out that Romney has tons of public and private sector executive experience, and uses a brilliant analogy to describe the major liability of Romneycare. Krauthammer calls Romney "Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats."
As for Pawlenty, he is described as the "mouse that roars" who "could be the last man standing." But it is my view that neither Romney nor Pawlenty have the charisma necessary to win the nomination. Whether you like Obama or not, disagree with his views or not, you have to admit that he is a charismatic politician. The GOP can't afford to nominate someone who pales in comparison in this category, and that is why I see Romney and Pawlenty as having much longer odds, say 20-1.
What really shocked me though about Krauthammer's column is the way in which he lambasted Donald Trump. He said that he was more of a spectacle than a serious candidate. He even went so far as to call him "a provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton." Krauthammer finished his thought by saying that the Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than Trump does of winning the GOP nomination.
I really don't get the comparison to Al Sharpton. First of all, Sharpton, to use the phrase yet again, never even ran a lemonade stand. His executive experience is infinitesimal compared to that of Trump, making the Donald a far superior candidate for the presidency. Moreover, when did Sharpton ever finish atop the polls when he ran for president? Never. Meanwhile, Trump's views and candid comments are resonating with voters, enabling him to finish tied in the top spot with Mike Huckabee in a recent poll. Krauthammer doesn't even give a line on Trump, but I'll list him as one of the favorites at 10-1.
The rest of the field was handicapped as such: Mitch Daniels at 6-1, Haley Barbour at 7-1, and Newt Gingrich at 12-1. Krauthammer does not believe that either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee will run, so he did not list odds for either one. Although I agree with Gingrich at 12-1, I think Daniels and Barbour should be listed down there with Romney and Pawlenty at 20-1. If Huckabee decides to run, I'd have him as the overall favorite in this race at 5-1, and I'd list Governor Palin at 15-1.
Only time will tell which one of us is more accurate, and come August of next year, I'll be sure to take a look back and see whose odds were more on target. In the meantime, anyone care to place a bet?
No comments:
Post a Comment