Evaluating the Four Remaining GOP Candidates

In my last blog I graded President Barack Obama’s leadership over the past years. Some people thought I was too easy, and others thought I was too hard. This week I will qualitatively grade the campaigns of the Republican candidates. While I will attempt to be fair and balanced (like Fox News), I am biased in my own personal history. 

Part of that history includes running for the U.S. Congress as a Democrat. I am proud that Congressman Rob Woodall and I ran a “civil” campaign. Last week, a Gwinnett County Commissioner told me that “we ran the most civil campaign she had ever seen.” In fact, Rob and I keep in periodic touch and trade ideas (mostly in the military realm). It is too bad that most campaigns, and certainly the GOP primary, choose not to follow the template of contrasting
ideas versus personal attacks.

Newt Gingrich

He casts himself as Georgia’s “Native Son.” Of course, he hasn’t lived in Georgia in many years.  I do think he is a man of many big ideas -- and our Country needs more big ideas.  He is an excellent debater and is the only candidate that could go toe to toe with the President.

The problem with Newt is that he has two very bad “pieces of baggage.” The first is that he was the person that initiated the very partisan political environment that we have to this day. When he was Speaker, he had a “scorched earth policy” and “if you weren’t with him, you were against him.” That is a bad way to legislate and an even worse way to lead.  Additionally, he has a sordid personal past.  I won’t recount it except to say that “who am I to judge?” In the same breath I say that personal conduct of a President must be beyond reproach.

Ron Paul

I trust him to do what he says he will do. He and Senator Santorum are the only
candidates that rarely “flip flop” and are viewed as very honest. This is a quality that I seek in a President. We must cut spending and he espouses the deepest cuts  -- $1 trillion the first year. While this is appealing, it would lead to economic chaos. Those that like him say that “it is a pay now or pay later decision.” While I don’t necessarily agree, the argument is a good one.

Mr. Paul's positions on foreign policy (to include the use of the military) and the Federal Reserve are viewed as radical and very far outside the norm. These positions alone will disqualify him.

Rick Santorum

Mr. Santorum is a career politician having served in the House and Senate for many years. He has an extensive voting record that is being examined as we speak. He is the most socially conservative of the candidates and has been consistent on that front. I believe that Santorum has become the candidate of choice as Paul is viewed as unconventional and Romney/Gingrich are viewed with somewhat moderate backgrounds.

If the GOP wants to lose the general election, they will nominate Mr. Santorum.  He is so conservative that many moderate/independents would be driven to President Obama.

Mitt Romney

Governor Romney has the best resume for the Presidency in quite a while. He has executive experience in government, business, and the non-profit world.  This resume gave him the early lead and momentum in fundraising and the delegate count.

His problems are several-fold. First, his record of supporting and now opposing issues is long.  t includes: abortion, global warming, government involvement in health care, immigration reform, and several others. Voters don’t feel he can be trusted with the “conservative” moniker. Second, he has made the choice to use his vast monetary resources to go “negative.” It works in the short term i.e. the Florida primary, but turns voters off in the longer term. He has time to stop this form of campaigning, but he may be addicted.

Bottom Line

This is a tug of war between Tea Party conservatives and Washington conventional conservatives. The nomination process will go until the Convention in Tampa.  While you may not agree with me, I value your comments and opinions on the candidates.