Friday, January 18, 2008
The Republican Primaries
In my view, the Republican Party is far from disarray. The current competitive primaries simply reflect some pretty unique things: 1) no incumbency; 2) 3 heavyweight candidates executing on their unique campaign strategies or adapting to competition; and 3) 1 successful underdog campaign focused on evangelicals. I can't help but be impressed by the diversity and strength and value of the primary process. Frankly, it's the first time I can remember a genuinely compelling primary season.
What I find most important is that the Republicans have offered up 3 genuine "heavyweights." You can like or dislike them, agree or disagree, but each of McCain, Giuliani and Romney are serious, capable people in their respective histories and careers. They all have records of significant accomplishment. Their resumes are not phony or manufactured. I can envision any of them as President of the United States -- something I cannot say of any of the balance of the candidates from either party.
On to Florida, and then SuperduperTuesday. Let's enjoy the competition. Maybe Brett Favre will get another Super Bowl by then.
14 Comments:
By 
Bob's Blog, at
Fri Jan 18, 04:43:00 PM:
What, Thompson is a lightweight? I don't think so.
By 
, at
Fri Jan 18, 04:46:00 PM:
CP,
you must've read Howard Kurz' column in the Washington Post.
The problem is the media, not the Republican Party. The media is having a problem with the narrative, in that this year doesn't fit one of the previous templates for primaries. Boy, are they troubled!
Likewise, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Democrat Primary campaign is also out of the norm for the conventional 'narrative'. Hillary and Barack are going to slug it out until one is a clear winner. Nobody is going to fold their tent now. Even though Edwards doesn't really have a chance at the nomination, he might be campaigning for the VP slot for either front-runner.
And Kucinich is running for Ambassador to Mars.
-David
By Diane Wilson, at
Fri Jan 18, 05:17:00 PM:
Show me Thompson's track record as a senior executive, complete with accountability for his decisions, and I'll consider him a heavyweight.
By , at
Fri Jan 18, 05:41:00 PM:
"On to Florida, and then-"
On to South Carolina, actually. Then, in a week and a half, my own latest home state of "Floh-dah" (please show some respect by pronouncing it correctly), and I'm hoping exactly zero Democrats vote, sending a strong message to the Florida Dem Party which moved up the date of the primary. Bastards took all the fun out of it. Like Michigan, Obama won't be on the ballot. You'd think after the debacle in 2000, Floh-dah would be wanting to keep its nose clean. Tainting another election isn't quite doing that.
"You can like or dislike them, agree or disagree, but each of McCain, Giuliani and Romney are serious, capable people in their respective histories and careers."
That was a nice take on it, CP, and nice to see you around. I'm worried about people feeling disenfranchised from the whole thing if Fred tanks tomorrow, feeling like it's just 'lessers of evil' after that, but yours is really the healthier viewpoint. Despite our differences with them, they're all certainly qualified for the job, and as long as major topics are checked off, like national security, the social stuff can take care of itself.
So, it appears you purposefully left Fred off your list of qualified candidates.
Did you also purposefully avoid looking at the Pajamas Media poll?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 18, 05:53:00 PM:
"Show me Thompson's track record as a senior executive, complete with accountability for his decisions, and I'll consider him a heavyweight."
A valid point, nowhere girl. But that would leave McCain off the list, too, wouldn't it? Basically McCain was a pilot, a prisoner, and a legislator. His last Navy duty assignment was to serve as the naval liaison to the United States Senate.
At the same time, if you want a President with extensive defense and foreign-policy expertise, you probably won't find him/her in a governor's mansion.
By Diane Wilson, at
Fri Jan 18, 06:15:00 PM:
I believe that McCain also commanded the Navy's largest flight wing? That's not quite the executive level of a governor, but it's not peanuts, either. And it carries a lot more defense experience than "just" being a pilot or a POW.
I remember what Marion Barry once said about Jesse Jackson: "Jesse's never run anything bigger than his mouth." Unfortunately, that is also the case with too many presidential candidates.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 18, 06:23:00 PM:
Nowhere girl,
It's also not a "senior executive"--your words, not mine.
McCain retired as a Navy captain. That says it all.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Jan 18, 06:24:00 PM:
I've reached the "Any" stage of this campaign, that is Any of the Republican candidates appear to be better in a large number of catagories that Any of the Democrat candidates. (Except Kucinich who places first in the "Funny-ha-ha" catagory)
If the tables were turned, the Press would waste no time pointing out that one side has three one-term Senators, and the other has Governor/Mayor/Business/Military experience out the ying-yang.
By , at
Fri Jan 18, 08:38:00 PM:
I think nowhere girl and possibly Cardinalpark are underweighting such Thompson traits as temperament, principles, and judgment. After the intense partisanship of the last fifteen years it might be nice to have a President who does not drive his political opponents completely bonkers.
Yes, he lacks experience managing a large and diverse enterprise, but so do McCain and arguably Romney. Face it, consultancy and VC/PE duties are smaller in scale than, say, being Mayor of NY.
It is sad that our political processes have become such a piece of the sporting and entertainment sphere that campaigning tactics and horserace considerations have shifted voters' focus away from considering what characteristics are desirable in a successful President, and how the individuals on offer compare to the job's requirements.
Too many make a fetish of being "inspired" or having candidates who say they favor this or that policy or hot-button cultural identification issue.
Heck, when hiring for an executive only character, judgment, and ability count. You have to figure that an executive will be faced with unexpected challenges, and past positions do not always predict how the candidate would evaluate and act on the new situation.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 18, 10:03:00 PM:
Nice comment, Collins.
I'll settle for a President with good instincts and solid marketing skills. The President can always hire experts in the other areas.
However, if aliens invade the planet like they did in the movie "Independence Day," a former pilot in the White House might be useful.
By OldSarg, at
Fri Jan 18, 10:56:00 PM:
When you get down to it, Thompson is just a more likable trustworthy guy. He doesn't have to be the most experienced or the greatest manager. As an average american veteran I just think he seems more honest.
By , at
Sat Jan 19, 01:10:00 AM:
the uncertainty of the GOP process makes it harder for the dem's to figure out how and who to go after.
i would take thompson over the others in a heartbeat
By , at
Sat Jan 19, 05:36:00 AM:
Fred Thompson will do better than expected today. It may end up being as big a surprise as New Hampshire was.
Want to know why? Read his position papers on fred08.com. Read the message board on fredheads.com
Look at the money he's raised since the South Carolina debate a week ago.
By , at
Sat Jan 19, 08:58:00 AM:
The "no incumbent" factor has made this race one for the ages, on both sides of the aisle. It's just fantastic! I do wish, though, that the super-Tuesday grouping weren't coming up so soon. Even though many people probably just want the whole thing to be over I take a different perspective: the primary process so far has told us a lot about the candidates personalities and endurance. Another month of vetting before the race is over would have been OK with me.
