See How They Run: Sizing up the Three Tiers of Republican Candidates

The current discussion of two groups -- the "Big three" (or is it four now?) and everyone else doesn't accurately size up the break down of the Republican Presidential hopefuls, in my opinion. The following is my spin on the eleven candidates for President, what tier they are in, and what chances they have (if any). Again, this is my perspective, I look forward to the comments of others.

Tier I (in alphabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's strengths are that he is attractive to libertarians who favor the war and traditional conservatives who are willing to over look his positions on social issues "for a time such as this." He would be unacceptable in 2000, but must be taken seriously today. His negatives are that he is untested on national issues, people will have reluctance about choosing a former mayor, and NYC mayor has a history of being a "dead end job."

My view: He has access to deep financial pockets. He goes in deep in the election and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ticket, some where.

John McCain. On the up side, he had a strong organization and high name identification. Furthermore, his strong position on the war is attractive to traditional conservatives who might other wise dislike him. On the negative side, he's old and sounds old. His total lack of understanding on tax policy is unacceptable.

My view: He is sinking fast, many supporters or going to be bailing out in the days to come. Check back next week, the "Big Four" could be a "Big Three" again, minus him.

Mitt Romney. Romney is attractive (maybe too much so?), was able to get elected in the most liberal state in the country as a Republican (can you say Reagan Democrats?), he is a former governor (historically one of the strongest positions to run for President), and has virtual unlimited access to money (like his own pockets). On the down side, he "matured" on issues too late in life to make most Conservatives comfortable, his religion makes many traditional Conservatives nervous, and he's from Massachusetts.

My view: His money will have him last quite a while in this race, but I don't see him ever "catching on" to the Party in general. However, if a Giuliani gets the nomination, he might be seen as a good balance on the ticket. He won't be, however, because Republicans will have a very difficult time winning without a Southerner on the ticket. This, of course, leads to...

Fred Thompson. Thompson (photo) has access to significant amounts of money, is a very solid Conservative, is from the South (crucial for anyone to win the Presidency these days), is a former Senator (meaning he has proven ability to win bigger races), and knows how to act like a leader. His negatives are less obvious, but I'm concerned about how he will do on the campaign trail. Also, the Senate is not nearly as strong as the governorship for getting elected President (the chief executive role seems to be very important).

My view; Fred Thompson is the guy to beat. Period. His numbers are stronger than people who have spent millions and he simply comes across as more Presidential.

Tier II


This is were I am sure I will get some arguments. All those who believe there guy should have been in "Tier II" will be upset. However, it should be of comfort to all of you, that "Tier II" dwellers won't likely get the nomination, unless something seriously wrong happens to the group above. Again, this list is in alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. The Kansas Senator is, in my opinion, on the bottom part of the Tier II list. He is a fine as US Senator and should really do us a favor by staying there. We can use quality people in that body. He lacks the maturity and ability to relate to be a serious candidate. Furthermore, he seriously lacks access to money.

Jim Gilmore. The former Virginia Governor comes from the South (a big plus) and had that crucial chief executive role. These are two major pluses. Beyond these two big positives, Gilmore simply doesn't cut it. I think he may be running for an appointment in a new administration. He also seriously lacks money.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a relatively young Southern (recently) former Governor, who comes from a state that has strong, Democrat roots. If you keep your observations to this brief overview, he looks excellent, but his chances are really quite poor. He has a mixed fiscal record as Governor, very limited access to money, and doesn't come across as particularly Presidential. He's on the high end of the Tier II and could pull off a miracle if the top Tier implodes, but don't hold your breath.

Tommy Thompson. I like Thompson, personally, although he is not Conservative enough and he fails to come from a region that has produced a popularly elected President in decades. Thompson is innovative (his views on Iraq are very interesting, in my opinion) and he is a former Governor, which is very important in politics today. His down sides include limited access to money and a weak connection to voters (he's something of a technocrat). In many respects, running for President of the US is more like running for "class president" than virtually any other political office. He simply doesn't get the popularity factor.

Tier III

This is the group that would do us a collective favor by getting out tomorrow. These three candidates are two traditional right wingers (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) and a libertarian (Ron Paul) and they are only diluting the support of the real Conservatives in the upper tiers. I wish there were a couple liberal or moderate Republicans in this group.

I could easily dismiss these three for one simple reason -- they are members of the US House of Representatives. We haven't elected a US House member since 1880 (James Garfield who was assassinated just a few months in his office) and I honestly think we are less likely to elect someone from that spot now than then. The office doesn't give potential supporters much hope that he can muster the national support essential to win. They have extremely limited access to money, poor organization, and simply don't look serious.

Duncan Hunter. The California Congressman is actually an old friend of mine (I mentioned that to a campaign member and they now count me as one of his supporters). When I was involved with a think tank I helped to start in DC, he served on the Advisory Board and had a study I wrote with Dr. Larry Adams (who is now with the University of Virginia) published in the Congressional Record. I like him, but I can't support him. He doesn't have a prayer and I believe he is too pessimistic on economic policy to be a successful President.

Ron Paul. I was an early member of Young Conservatives of Texas (back when I made my first vote for Ronald Reagan) and Ron Paul was a very good friend to that organization. I believe he has a great deal of personal integrity and I have liked his position on many domestic policy issues. However, his "blame the US" views on foreign policy are a disaster that discredits many of his positions on the economy. I wish he would get out, but I'm afraid we might see him running as a Libertarian again. He's a sad story, in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo. Tom seems to me to be a single issue candidate -- immigration -- in a party that is still divided on the best approach to that issue. In many ways, he is just like Duncan Hunter, but if you put the two together you still wouldn't have a dime. He's a fine Congressman, I wish he would stay there.

That's how I size up the candidates, I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

See How They Run: Observations on the 08 Race

The 2008 election dominates the news, but some of the biggest stories in that race (in my opinion) are quite neglected. There are some developing themes that which could play a major role in the election results.

* Social activists will be motivated. The partial-birth abortion decision by the Supreme Court is the first decision in years that put any restrictions on the practice. This proved the importance to both sides that elections for President matter, because they lead to the appointment of Justices. I believe this will be a major theme through out the campaign.

* How a moderate could win the Republican nod. Frankly, I am no fan of John McCain and have written on such in this blog. The most important fiscal policy issue is, in my opinion, to understand the importance of tax cuts in keeping an economy rolling. Tax cuts and the changing of the debate on that issue has made the Republican Party a majority party for much of the last 25 years. McCain doesn't get it, he isn't pro-life either, his views on campaign finance undermine the First Amendment, but his stock is still going up as a candidate in my opinion. The trump card of all issues for many Conservatives is the war and McCain and Giuliani get it more than most of the other Republican candidates. I never believed I could ever be interested in a candidate like McCain, but the war is that important. Winning the nomination doesn't mean they win the general election, but I thought it was impossible for a moderate to win that just a few months ago.

* How Hillary Clinton could win the nomination and loose the election. Hillary is extremely polarizing as a candidate and I can't recall any in recent history who is both most beloved and entirely disliked. Furthermore, who old style of campaigning -- acting like a Southerner in the South, a Yankee in the north, and a what ever where ever she is at -- is only irritating voters, and it is captured on the news every day. She acts like we live in the old days where candidates could largely say and do what they want without fear of being caught. In the YouTube world we live in today, good luck. She is by far the most organized, has the best access to money (in spite recent fundraising reports), and is the most experienced at handling the pressure. Because of this she could win the nomination. But her personality and controversial stances will haunt her in November of 2008.

These are a few of my thoughts on the campaign, I will discuss some more growing themes as the race progresses.

See How They Run: Why Are They Running So Early?

This is the earliest time in US history for candidates to declare they are running for President. The question many are asking, is why? I think this can be attributed to several reasons:

* Some candidates have never stopped running. John McCain (R-AZ) has been running since 2000 when he challenged George Bush. He has continuously raised money and organized and has been biting at the bit for years. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been running for President since 1992 and many argue that she served many of the years her husband was in office. In order to appease their supporters and to try to deter potential competitors (this obviously didn't work), these candidates had to jump in early. Them jumping in early forced others to do the exact same thing.

* Others on the lower end of the electability scale jumped in early to build support and even an identity. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) (see photo, above), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Mike Gravel (D-AK), and Ron Paul (R-TX), are just a few of the candidates that fill that bill. This group has different objectives. I'm sure all would love to be President, but they are also interested in merely seeing their perspectives out there, to push their opponents in their ideological direction, or to even run for a high level post once the election is over. For example, many believe Joe Biden (D-DE) is actually running for Secretary of State in a new administration or even the US Supreme Court. Others honestly believe that the big name people will actually fall on their face, creating opportunities for these lessor known candidates.

* Some have major name ID, but lack national experience. This includes Rudy Guiliani (R-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom are major players, neither of whom have been tested on the national scene. Many are arguing that Obama is actually running for 2012 and is building momentum and working through his mistakes now. If he is lucky, he will have the same success as Bill Clinton who many said he was doing the same thing in 1992.

* Speaking of working out mistakes, all of the candidates would like to have as much time as possible, in order to be judged in the most favorable way.

The question I have is, will all this early running help improve or hurt the electoral process? Will it excite more people or bore them to tears? My guess is that most Americans are going to be so sick of the elections, they will simply want them over with by November 2008. On the other hand, I believe candidates will increasingly early in elections to come. In fact, don't be surprised if someone announces for 2012 (keep your eye on YouTube) any day now.

See How They Run: The Truth Behind Giuliani and McCain as Front Runners

The front runners for the GOP nomination for President are former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani (see photo) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Giuliani has the lead, which seems to be widening daily. The truth is, neither one of these gentlemen will likely be on the top of the ticket by November 2008 and if they are, Republicans will probably lose.

The GOP has always treated the conservative wing of its party as a loud and obnoxious group that tries to wield too much influence. The truth of the matter is, the conservatives are the tail that wag the dog. Every candidate that has successfully obtained the GOP nomination since Ronald Reagan has run as a strong conservative. Bob Dole was the only one the conservatives seriously doubted and he lost when it mattered in November of 1996. The only other Republican to lose since than was George H.W. Bush for reelection. He convinced Republicans that Reagan had converted him to a true believer by 1988 , but supported a tax increase that was philosophical anathema to conservatives and poison to the economy. Republicans can't get away with statements such as "read my lips, no new taxes" and pass a significant tax increase once in power, just ask the first Bush.

So how does one explain the surveys that have Giuliani and McCain winning by a huge margin among GOP voters? There are several reasons for this:

* Many people vote in the primary, but do nothing in the Fall. Only the conservatives activists, as a whole, get people to the polls for the GOP in November.

* It is really early in the race and both of these candidates carry messages and histories that resonate with conservative voters. McCain is, in spite of how much I disagree with him on many of his views, a war hero and he is largely right when it comes to Iraq. Meanwhile, Giuliani was amazing during 9/11 2001 and won every one's heart as the nation's mayor. But mayor and President are two different things and he doesn't hold positions on social or even economic issues that lines up with the party faithful. However, Americans as a whole are solidly behind winning the war in Iraq and both of these candidates have taken the most hard line positions on that issue.

In the end these candidates positions on social issues and taxes will likely come back to haunt them. I am just hoping that happens before Republicans nominate one of them.