While none of the GOP presidential candidates are far-and-away
winners, what distinguishes McCain/Romney/Giuliani from the other
three is the difference between Bs and Cs. McCain, Romney, and
Giuliani have substantial resumes with notable successes. McCain
and Giuliani have, or have had, some measure of national prominence
or popularity. Romney's business record and successful campaign in
a tough state for a Republican recommend him to those who write
checks.
Gilmore, Huckabee, and Brownback are virtual unknowns who look
good in small groups in D.C. But they are all career pols having
difficulty distinguishing themselves. Why? Gilmore doesn't stir
much more enthusiasm in Virginia than George Allen does. Huckabee's
prime virtue, even in light of his gubernatorial record, is that he
lost lots of weight. These two have long toyed with campaigns, but
were late to the game. I like Brownback, but I don't think social
conservatives' national stock is on the rise.
The latter three are not altogether awful candidates, and the
former three are not spectacular. But it is clear that Gilmore and
Huckabee, at least, are pretenders. Brownback is a longshot issue
candidate who will hopefully "change the discussion," as they say.
Apologies to their fans, but the guys are trading on personality
and not much in the way of records.
topics:
Business, NATO
