While many of us our focused almost exclusively on the 2010 elections, and with good reason, the 2012 Presidential election has gotten almost no coverage. Without trying to deny the significance and importance of the mid-term elections, the 2012 Presidential election will be the most important election since 1980. Quite simply, if we do not have the executive it matters not that we have the congress. Of course, the opposite is true as well. It is just that in congress we have more room for error.
First, we must ask what is the significance of the 2010 and 2012 elections. There will be three main purposes, (1) a repeal of the Health Care bill (2) ending the huge budget deficits and (3) stopping the tide of illegal aliens. 2010 is looking up, and I think that we will take back the house- but the senate is far more important. After all, what really matters is what congress looks like in 2013, not 2011. Therefore there are a few races that I am concerned with. One, is the Florida race. We should not take a Rubio victory for granted. In fact, at this point I’d say he has slightly better than 50-50 odds. Two, is the Colorado race. I know many here on Redstate are supporting Ken Buck. So am I. But if Norton looks to be a much better general election candidate we must support her. She is a solid candidate and Colorado is the type of state where we must have the seat in order to win back the senate. Period. Three, is Nevada. Right now, I see no reason why we can not win. But I am worried, very worried about a devastating primary. There are three strong candidates. Tarkanian is probably the best, but the establishment is supporting a candidate who really can’t hit Reid very hard.
Let us assume that by 2012 we have 52-55 seats in the senate and over 225 seats in the house. I think that both of these scenarios are probable, if not very likely. The big question then becomes can we nominate someone (1) who will be a strong general election candidate and defeat Obama and (2) who is a strong lower case g governor with the guts to repeal Obamacare and take on the flood of left-wing legislation that we have seen in recent years. Unfortunately, while there are many candidates who might meet requirement 1 OR requirement 2, there are much less who meet BOTH requirements. I know that many people here like Mitch Daniels- I think he would be a disaster. Why you ask? Well, (1) he was a go to guy for the Bush budgets (2) he is uncharismatic and ugly which will hurt us with the boob vote in the general election (3) he is questionable at best in areas like immigration, education, various “initiatives” and the like. We do not want another Bush. That includes Jeb Bush, who has shown his true colors in recent times. A vote for Jeb is a vote for subsidizing the invasion of America, and for further foreign follies. Mitt Romney has problems in both categories 1 and 2, although he has some unique qualities. He is a go-to guy on the economy, he is very intelligent and no one can paint him as a so-called wing nut. The downsides are obviously, (1) do we really know where he stands (2) flip-floppers seldom do well and (3) is he committed to repealing Obamacare? These questions can not be ignored. I think Tim Pawlenty would be a bad nominee, and I don’t think he will even finish second in any primaries. Maybe a V.P. pick for him. One guy I like, who I think that we could generally count on to meet both requirements is John Thune. Basically, his problem at this point is that nobody knows who he is. He has a pretty good voting record and is intelligent and can appeal to the swing voters. However, it is questionable if he will run. Still, as for me, Thune is the #1 choice for 2012 as of right now. What do you think?