Pundits everywhere have theories on who to support and why. Many of these theories can be improved by applying the Asplund Chart. Here's my take on each candidate.
Mitt Romney: The Triangulator's Candidate
Upside: He's the guy who can keep the RINOs in line and bring the Republican caucus together during the legislative battles that will occur starting in 2013. His combination of business skills and blue state credentials will let him pry concession after concession out of Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership.
Downside: He's not a limited government conservative nor is he supportive of capitalism (Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, G...: RomneyCare). No grand compromises he hammers out would strip power from the regulatory state/crony capitalist establishment. With Mitt, it's the glide path to civilizational decline.
Newt Gingrich: The Outsider's Insider
Upside: He's the ideas guy, the best debater, the most politically aware candidate. He has an actual history of leading a conservative revolution. His combination of insider knowledge and outsider appeal will let him tap into some of the Tea Party fervor without putting off the moderates and independents.
Downside: He's a loose cannon. He's willing to sit down on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to promote the green agenda. He's nutty and overly technical and many of his ideas reflect confidence in bureaucratic problem-solving instead of individual liberty.
Rick Perry: The Republican Candidate
Upside: He's the Republican's Republican. His combination of executive experience as governor and social conservative credentials make him the clear stand-out from a mainstream Republican's point of view. He's not a limited government conservative at the state level, but he might be open to returning some autonomy back to the states and ending the Fed.
Downside: Without pretty big Republican majorities in both houses of congress, he'll be tempted to make an accommodation with centrist Democrats that leaves Washington mostly status quo. He'd also go along with the kind of big-government, compassionate conservatism that led to the GOP's ouster in 2006 and 2008.
Michele Bachmann: The Populist Republican
Upside: She's been leading the congressional battles against Democratic Party overreach since day 1. She's taken the most appealing big-tent conservative populist positions on most issues. Tea Partiers would vote for her. Social conservatives would vote for her. Republicans would vote for her.
Downside: Anti-Obama independents might not vote for her. She's trying to take up the Reagan mantle, but she's doesn't come across as personally likable enough to have the same sort of appeal. She's willing to engage in the politics of personal destruction if she thinks it'll help her cause (Exhibit A: her campaign manager is Ed Rollins).
Rick Santorum: The Conservative Republican
Upside: He's a true conservative, and he's proud of it. He won't compromise his principles when push comes to shove. He'll stand up for conservative values and traditional governance.
Downside: Anti-Obama independents might not vote for him. Compromise-loving moderates might not vote for him. He'll be marginalized by his own party leadership because he won't play the Washington game the way they want it played.
Jon Huntsman: Just-Barely-A-Republican
Upside: He may be socially conservative in his personal life, but he won't put off independents by governing that way. He's got some bold plans to reign in out of control federal agencies. He got his executive experience in a red state. He's got serious centrist appeal.
Downside: He accepted a post in the Obama administration. He wouldn't excite Republicans, Tea Partiers or conservatives because he seems ashamed to be associated with any of them. As a centrist/swing voter type he has no ideological base to support him, so when things get tough nobody would have his back.
Dr. Ron Paul: The Only Man Who Can Save the Nation
Upside: He correctly identifies the danger associated with the Fed, fiat money and regulatory overreach. He has strong support from independents and libertarians (even some left-leaing ones) and his core message resonates with Tea Party voters and some parts of the Occupy Movement. He's the only candidate who would unflinchingly pare back the administrative state.
Downside: He comes across as angry and bitter, which is what you'd expect from someone who has been on the losing side of every legislative battle for decades. He was willing to court votes from reactionary separatist groups during the 80s and 90s. Despite knowing what the problems facing the country are, he has a long record of political failure in building a legislative coalition to reverse them. His non-interventionist foreign policy positions weaken his appeal for mainstream Republicans.
Gary Johnson: The Also Ran
Upside: He's like Ron Paul, but less extreme. He's the only candidate with a record of reducing overall government expenditures under his watch. He's socially liberal and fiscally conservative, just like libertarians, independents, centrists and moderates across the country claim to be.
Downside: Gary who? Frozen out of the debates. No name recognition. Plus, he must be a pot-head, 'cause he wants to end the War on Drugs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment