Presidential Politics: Pick One

There is a lot of jockeying right now in the nomination for who will become the Republican challenger to Obama.  Perry and Romney have certainly distanced themselves from the pack at this point, but in politics there are extraneous variables that cannot be controlled for and an alternative candidate still has an outside chance of cropping up.  There are still many players involved, but it will not be long before the field is trimmed.  Sometimes it is difficult for voters to sift through the mire of picking the right candidate, and there is the ever-present problem of candidates campaigning one way and governing in a completely different manner.  In order to help the public it is necessary to cut through the talking points and try to discern who a candidate is and what he or she will be like once governing.

There is certainly an array of personalities amongst the candidates, but what are the real substantive issues that separate these candidates?  We know that Michelle Bachmann is for freedom and that Perry and Romney would repeal Obamacare.   Ron Paul is for liberty and Rick Santorum is a “true conservative”.  Newt thinks that Washington is broken (news flash), and Herman McCain thinks that Washington needs someone who has private sector experience.  What does all of this boil down to besides an orgy of agreement?  The citizenry has a hard time deciphering what the real differences are amongst these candidates on major policy and issues that matter, and these formulated talking points do not help citizens decide who is best fit to lead.   Also, more importantly, how will this candidate perform when the real pressure and duty of the Presidency kick in and they are no longer in “campaign mode”?

Although there is no way to certainly tell how an individual will perform when he or she has actually taken office, there are certainly indicators that can help to predict.  One of these is past performance in getting elected.  For example, Rick Perry has benefitted greatly from the natural resources of Texas as well as having no income tax in the state of Texas.  Also, Perry has had a Republican legislature working with him, so he has been able to operate in a red state that is certainly not representative of the rest of the country.  Romney, on the other hand, was elected and governed in Massachusetts, which is historically a blue state.  This is more impressive and indicative of someone who can operate in an environment where everything isn’t stacking up in your favor.  This is not an endorsement of one candidate over another, merely an attempt to predict the political tact and electability of one candidate over another.

However, I believe Romney’s Achilles heel is in fact the overall elitist image he is accused of evoking.  True or not, most will never truly know, but the fact of the matter is that he was born into extreme wealth and privilege, and is a Northeastern elitist only with an R in front of his name instead of a D.  This will certainly be a factor in the Republican primary.  Voters may not openly admit it, and pollsters will have a hard time gauging it, but it will still be there.  I have a hard time seeing your average South Carolinian relating to Romney over Perry.  However, if the Republicans are trying to win over independents and moderate Democrats next November, they would be better off choosing Romney for the job.  There may yet be enough momentum right now nationally for a candidate like Romney, but politics is a fickle business and it would be a large mistake to underestimate the Obama camp.  The way the Obama machine made McCain and company appear Busch League in 08 should be vivid in the minds of everyone who wants to see Obama out in 2012.  Obama has smart political operatives behind him, and he understands how to campaign effectively.