Tuesday, February 15, 2011

CPAC Winners and Losers

CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) is where Republican contenders strut their stuff. Some candidates get made at CPAC, some get broken. And CPAC is a good way to give the rest of us a sense about where the conservative movement is going. Why is CPAC so influential? Because CPAC is a gathering of the people who “make it happen” for conservatives on the ground, in the media, and with fund raisers. Let’s talk about CPAC's winners and losers.

CPAC: CPAC has made itself into the gatekeeper of the Republican primaries. Despite being incredibly unscientific, its straw polls can literally infuse a candidacy with life, or kill one off. Here are this year’s results:
31%Ron Paul
22%Mitt Romney
7%Sarah Palin
6%Tim Pawlenty
4%Newt Gingrich
4%Mike Huckabee
5%Mike Pence
2%John Thune
2%Mitch Daniels
2%Rick Santorum
1%Hailey Barbour
Chris Christie: Christie didn’t even speak at CPAC, but he came in third in the straw poll, and he seems to be the candidate everyone mentions they most want to see run.

Congressional Freshmen: The biggest winners at CPAC were the new generation of stars among the Congressional freshmen class. As a group, they were treated like rock stars and they lived up to the billing. Rep. Allen West (Fla.) brought down the house and Rep. Kristi Noem (S.D.) delivered this great quote: “A lot of us freshman don’t really have a lot of knowledge about the ways of Washington – and frankly, we don’t really care.” Others made an equally strong impression. Look for some of these people to be on the Republican ticket, possibly as early as 2012.

Obama: Despite the primaries beginning in earnest soon and a plethora (yes El Guapo, a plethora) of candidates, there is no real GOP leader to take on Obama. That makes it hard for the GOP to present unified criticism.

Conservatism: GOPproud is a conservative gay rights group. This was the second year they were in attendance, and as before, several evangelical groups protested or boycotted CPAC because of it. Despite the disagreement, the expansion of “official conservatism” to new groups is a good thing as it will broaden the appeal of conservatism, bring new ideas, and soften the caricature of conservatism as a white, evangelical movement.

Donald Trump: Trump is beyond unelectable and everybody knows it, including Trump. What he wants is publicity, and he got it.
To Be Determined
Mitch Daniels: By all accounts, Daniels gave a well-received speech, though his “sobering” style has never worked in the past. Yet, he drew only 2% support in a weak field. That’s pretty bad for the guy who may be the most qualified in the bunch. But it's also clear Daniels is THE media darling. The press corps, left and right, love this guy and they intend to drive his candidacy. He is the only candidate The Economist has profiled and The Washington Post has slobbered all over him. One liberal even described his CPAC speech as "intellectually compelling" and "eloquently crafted." That may be enough to eventually make him the front runner, just like with McCain in 2008.

Tim Pawlenty: The party began pushing Pawlenty the moment he won in a liberal state, a line Pawlenty continues to use -- unlike Romney, who pretends he’s never heard of Taxachussettes. But Pawlenty went into this election cycle with a lot of conservatives calling him a RINO. His speech did little to change that perception. In a weak field, 6% might be enough to keep him alive long enough for others to drop out.
Mitt Romney: Romney pulled a second place finish, but he did nothing to squelch the problems conservatives have with him. He lacks fire, conviction, and he lacks conservative street cred. And his failure to address his support for RomneyCare continue to rankle. In fact, despite a generally good speech, most of the activists continued to mention RomneyCare first and foremost when asked about him. His support is derisively described as "a mile wide and an inch deep."

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich has been thriving for years on the facade that conservative activists are just waiting to draft him. His 4% showing in a truly weak field may finally be enough to knock down that facade.

Ron Paul: Paul continues to show that he has hard-core supporters who, like Steelers fans and Deadheads, will travel anywhere to support him. But his defense policy disgusts conservatives -- he was even kicked out of a college conservative organization (Young Americans for Freedom “YAF”) in response to it. My sense with Paul is he’s marginalized because everyone knows he’s peaked in terms of support and he’s not political enough to leverage his support with another candidate. That makes him someone everyone else can overlook.

The Democrats: The Democrats still have no one they can target as the main opposition leader, and as they are discovering, attacks against little know congressional figures just don’t light the public’s imagination. So they are still stuck defending Obama.

The No-Shows: Palin, Huckabee, and Huntsman failed to show up. Palin and Huckabee have their own support networks, but if they ever want to be anything more than evangelical Ron Pauls, they need to start building bridges. Skipping the Super Bowl of conservatism is not a good idea, as evidenced by their poor 7% and 4% showing among people who should be their fan base. Huntsman failed for a different reason. By not showing up, he confirmed what conservatives already knew, he bleeds RINO blue.

Rick Santorum: Santorum proved that when your only issue is abortion, you aren’t relevant. Apparently, the hall was barely 2/3 full when he spoke.

Haley Barbour: Barbour always struck me as a corrupt Washington insider, but I could never remember why. Then he said this. . .
“I'm a lobbyist. The guy who gets elected or the lady who gets elected will immediately be lobbying. They'll be advocating to the Congress, they'll be lobbying our allies and our adversaries overseas, they'll be asking the business community, the labor unions. You just -- that's just what presidents do for a living.”
Good point! Maybe we should hire Charlie Manson to write our criminal laws or Satan to create a new religion. . . they knew how to deal with bad people. No thanks. Put a (pitch)fork in Barbour, he’s done.

The Johns: John Thune. . . John Bolton. . . Gary Johnson. . . Jon Huntsman. . . who are these people?

Conservatives:> It is deeply troubling that all our candidates are known more for their flaws than their virtues. Some are de-inspirational or unprincipled. Some are idiots or flakes. Some aren’t even conservatives. Nobody’s perfect, but is this the best we can do? It feels like we’re looking for a babysitter and our only choices are a stoned teenager, an ex-con, and a creepy clown who’s got pedophilia written all over him.

This is the moment leader emerge, when no one else is holding the reins. It's time someone stood up and made the sale. We're waiting.


patti said...

if all else fails, we should draft my fantasy picks: ted nugent and chuck norris.

i'd sleep better at night knowing those two had my back.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I love that pick! Nugget/Norris 2012!


Ed said...

Excellent breakdown! I'll be back with more comments soon.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed. Feel free to comment any time.

CrispyRice said...

Great run down, Andrew!

I'm still not sure if I like any of the "biggies" on the list, though. >:/

Tam said...

Allen West, Pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease!

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Thanks! That's the problem that everyone at CPAC repeated -- nobody is thrilled with the any of the big choices.

I think, for that reason, this is a really weak field, and there really isn't a front runner. I think this is the kind of field where the first candidate to jump up and truly impress people will suddenly surge to the front.

Who that is? I don't know. But I suspect that many of the "new" names (a Rubio, a Christie, a West) could give the existing contenders a real run for their money.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, There is a LOT of love for Allen West right now, and it's well deserved. He is clearly smart, principled and exciting. If he had a slightly longer track record, he could easily be the front runner.

As it is, I put him on my short list of likely VP nominees.

Unknown said...

I truly think that we won't have an early front-runner who will end up going the distance. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I'll never be able to dismiss the anointed status of Rudy Giuliani from my mind. And this time, I don't think the establishment will be able to push a John McCain type to the fore (thank God for the Tea Party). I'm hoping we'll get a good solid sampling from each of the states through their caucuses and primaries and then choose the best candidate, not the earliest winner. Also, I'm old enough to remember the excitement and drama of a genuine convention fight, and I really miss it.

Tam said...

Allen West's track record is better/longer/more substantial than Obama's was 2 years ago. And, Obama would wilt in a debate with West. But, I would also like to see Rubio/Jindal (or Jindal/Rubio). If none of those work out, I'll take Patti's fantasy Nugent/Norris ticket. Mostly I just want an overwhelming rejection of anyone who was in the mix in the last election.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, This one is going to be interesting because there really is no obvious front runner. Even Romney, who has the biggest chunk of support, doesn't seem to have any depth to his support. So if someone better comes along, I see a lot of people abandoning the other candidates and pretty suddenly coalescing around whoever it is.

The best advice I can give all the candidates though, is that now is not the time for cowardice or hedging. The public has spoken that they aren't impressed and they are ready to support whoever is the first to really capture their imaginations.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, a pretty good breakdown--although I'm not sure how far CPAC was a winner here. Look at that poll. For Ron Paul (!) to win the straw poll and Mitt Romney to come in second means that either conservatism is as internally divided and contradictory as the media would like everyone to believe, or CPAC is virtually useless when it comes to gauging grassroots support. I'm thinking the latter.

Nonetheless, this convention did do one positive thing as far as I'm concerned: it proved beyond all doubt why Ron Paul is the worst possible idea for the GOP nomination.

Unknown said...

Tam: We try to remain neutral through the early stages, and certainly not to endorse until the bitter end. That said, I've mentioned before just how exciting I would find a Jindal/Rubio ticket to be. Sadly, it is extremely unlikely to occur in this election cycle. But they're both young and have plenty of time to build their resumes beyond even their current track records.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, That's very true. When I say track record, I tend to think more along the lines of someone like Reagan who held several political jobs and showed that he was very good at it. West doesn't have a record like that yet -- almost no one does. But he certainly has a VASTLY more impressive track record than Obama!!

And you're right, I would LOVE to see him debate Obama! He would wipe the floor with Obama. We'd have to let Obama have a couple lifelines (phone an advisor) just to keep it interesting! LOL!

I agree with you about rejecting the last crop. They really weren't very impressive then and they aren't any more impressive this time.

I have to say that I would pretty happily vote for a Rubio, a Jindal, a Ryan, a Christie, or a West.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Thanks! I disagree about CPAC though. I think the poll reflects the poor choices on offer, not any inherent flaw in CPAC, and I would bet that a nationwide primary right now would turn out fairly similar confusion.

In terms of being a winner though, CPAC and conservatism are not necessarily the same thing. CPAC is a winner because they not only have retained their influential status, but because they keep growing despite various factions trying to break off. They've truly become THE super bowl of conservative opinion makers, and that's a pretty big achievement, which has to count as a victory.

In terms of conservatism being fragmented, I think there is a good deal of that because you still have a huge schism between religious conservatives and libertarian conservatives -- a schism which remains fairly nasty. Also, now you have a new group who are more of a "I only want to talk about the budget" type of conservative, and they don't even want to hear about the agendas of the religious conservatives or the libertarian conservatives. Those are the new Tea Party people, who are far less "ideological" than they are just practical.

That said, however, we do all have broadly similar goals at the moment -- stop Obama, shrink the government, cut the deficit. Beyond that is where it gets a bit tricky.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, As you say, we try to stay neutral at this stage because we don't want people thinking we're shading for one side or the other -- we are here to be honest, not to advocate for particular people.

But that said, I think we can definitely say that we're disappointed in most of the current crop, and that some of the up-and-comers are definitely more exciting. The only question is whether they are ready?

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew said "I have to say that I would pretty happily vote for a Rubio, a Jindal, a Ryan, a Christie, or a West."

I would vote for them too, however none are seasoned enough to run for President yet.

Rubio is too young and has no more experience than Obama. He has time if he can hold onto his senate seat to run in 2016 or 2020.

Jindal - Maybe for VP. He's getting better and better each day as Gov, but LA needs him for as long as he will stay. And he's not exactly oozing with personality.

Christie - He may have the experience, the peronality, and toughness. However, if he were to leave NJ mid-term, he would suffer.

West - Really like him, but he need more legislative experience. He's certainly has the leadership experience, but he needs more exposure on the national stage.

Ryan - Possibly, but still needs more exposure on the national stage.

I'm not confortable with anyone yet. And I know I go against conventional thought, but please can someone stop Palin...

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Let me clarify...

First, you're right. I also think these people aren't seasoned enough yet. I'd like to see them all spend another 3-5 years getting good at what they do, getting national exposure, and showing that they are consistently good. One of the easiest mistakes to make in politics is to jump on the flashy candidate before you really know if they're any good. I would like to see these people in action more, and I'd like to see their profiles rise first. I also think several of them might make good VP candidates.

That said, if any of these people ended up on the ticket, I could very happily cast a vote for them. By comparison, I would be very hesitant to vote for a Ron Paul or a Palin, and I would be holding my nose big time to vote for a Huckabee or a Romney.

On Jindal, he strikes me as a guy who would make an excellent president, but you're right, he lacks the personality to get elected. I think he would need to go the VP route first to get people comfortable with him.

On Ryan, Ryan is another guy who should be President. I am just so impressed with him. BUT.... he's got a Droopy Dog persona going that probably will disqualify him with the electorate.

BevfromNYC said...

The problem is we all know that Obama is going to pull out all the personality stops. You think his oratory was soaring in 2008, just wait - he may actually try to walk on water or part the seas.

Christie is about the only one who is tolerable that may also have the peronality to go one on one with Obama. Well, right now anyway.

There's someone out there...

T_Rav said...

I would really like Jindal to run. I don't think he lacks that much personality, and he seems to strike a better balance between social and fiscal conservatism than folks like Christie. I'd certainly vote for Christie, too, if it came to that, but he wouldn't be my first choice.

By the way, in regard to what Bev said about Palin...I kinda feel like this nomination race is hers to lose. This isn't to say that she's necessarily the best candidate out there, but I sense this feeling among a lot of grassroots conservatives of, "If not her, then who?" The way Palin's been polarized is her greatest strength and her greatest liability. There's very little middle ground out there--generally, either you really like her or you can barely stand her. And I don't see other candidates getting that intensity of feeling among their supporters that she has (well, maybe Paul, but c'mon.) For her to win the nomination might well sink the party--I don't know--but if she does run, I think she's got the momentum to win it. Make of that what you will.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'm honestly not sure how the next election will play out. For example, will it be a referendum on Obama and anyone we run who doesn't appear insane will win? Or will it become a battle of personalities? Or will it be an ideological war? I'm just not sure. So it's hard to say at this point who would do best.

The major problem with Christie from my perspective, is that he can come across as very abrasive, and he might not sell well outside of New Jersey. I don't know as I haven't seen him enough to know how he would come across in a place like Wisconsin or Ohio?

In terms of an alternative, I've been racking my brains trying to come up with an alternative and I just can't think of one -- even beyond politics, there just isn't anyone right now that makes me think, "wow that person should be running this country!"

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, On Christie, I'm honestly not sure what his balance is, and that's one of the issues with not having a long track record. It's very easy to say the right things, but acting on it is something different again, and since he really only has half a term at this point, I don't know how he would respond. I like most of what I've seen, but I am not comfortable saying that I know what he believes. Still, if he ended up on the ticket, I would have no problems voting for him.

Sadly, my first choice is currently "none of the above" followed closely be "somebody else".

On Palin, I was under a similar impression for a while, except that (1) I'm honestly not convinced that she wants to run -- I think she wants to be the new Gingrich, a guru who pushes the party from the sidelines. And (2) recent polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have shown a LOT of resistance to her among conservatives -- enough resistance that she doesn't do better than third in any of the three states and she's actually dead last in NH.

It appears that while a lot of conservatives like her personally, they aren't willing to vote for her. And the reason is "electability," which is the big watch word in all the polls this time.

Ed said...

Here are my thoughts.

I kind of like several of these people and I really dislike several others. I don't want Romney.

I don't know about Pawlenty or Daniels either. Any thoughts on them? I saw today that Daniels is on the wrong side of the immigration debate. And I've heard Pawlenty was pro-union and pro-tax hikes.

I loved Palin until she decided to become a celebrity instead of a serious politician.

I don't trust Huckabee.

I don't know the "Johns."

I am in love with Allen West.

I would have liked Scott Brown, but he disappointed me.

I don't know enough about Christie.

I DO NOT WANT A RINO -- no Giuliani, no Pataki, no Huntsman, or anybody else who views being a politician as just another job.

Ed said...

Almost forgot, I also like Patti's fantasy pick! Lol!

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I think a lot of people agree with you.

Ann Coulter is saying to draft Christie to prevent Romney. Pawlenty and Daniels haven't caught on with the public -- and you're right, Daniels put himself on the wrong side of the immigration debate recently. And I think no one wants a RINO at this point. That's what makes me wonder about a guy like Huntsman, why he thinks he has a chance?

All in all, the consensus seems to be genuine unhappiness with the available choices.

What troubles me most with Daniels (as I mention in the article) is that the media seems to be pushing him. Why? They've never pushed good candidates for our side, they've always pushed corrupt insiders or RINOs. It makes me suspicious.

On Pawlenty, I'm not sure why conservatives really dislike him so much, but I can tell you this has been going on for some time. I first noticed this about a year ago, when his name started appearing in lists of RINOs. That's not a good sign.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, I agree that there's a lot of evidence that Palin may decide not to run; she may be content with an advocacy and "kingmaker" role, which I think would suit her very well. However, should she throw her hat in the ring, she will probably do far better than the polls are predicting. Basically, I think support for, say, Romney, is a mile wide and an inch deep, which is the exact opposite of her situation: there may not be that many committed "Palin for Prez" people out there, but they are very hard-core in their support and won't go over to anyone else unless she gives them the green light. That's important. As for Huckabee, he may be more disliked by the conservative activists than Palin (or maybe I'm projecting), and at this point, I don't see the others generating enough buzz to stay in it. That's why I say that even though a Palin nomination may turn out to be disastrous for the GOP, she'll have a far better chance of winning that nomination if she decides to pursue it.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I agree on several points.

First, I think Huckabee is absolutely disliked by the activists. There was something about his last campaign that turned off a lot of "insiders." I don't know what, but I recall articles about the hatred for his campaign. In terms of voters, he's very likeable, but he's heavy on the religion, which may make a large number of people nervous. I personally have serious problems with the way he thinks -- I did an article about it some time ago. I am troubled that he will put weepy stories above rule of law, and that he buys into black victimization theory.

On Romney, I think the mile wide inch deep (as mentioned in the article) is very true. His support is half-hearted and I know of no one who thinks he's the one they really love, as compared to just being the best of a very weak field. That's why I suspect his support is ready to collapse the second someone else starts to pull ahead. I think he really blew it the last couple years when he should have been out there leading the charge and he instead spent his time hiding and kept saying, "we'll address that after the (2010) election." That's not leadership.

On Palin. Palin's election chances are a real question mark. She and Paul are the only one who keep losing to Obama in the national polls, but elections aren't decided on a national vote. The bigger problem for her is that her negatives are just as deep as her support -- people love her or hate her, nobody's in the middle. That actually gives Obama an advantage because it turns the election into a referendum on her rather than a referendum on him.

Could she win? I have no idea. Does she have a better chance than a Romney in the general election? I kind of doubt it.

My biggest concern with her is that I think she would become our Obama. I honestly don't think she understands conservatism nor do I think she has any follow through. I fear that she would let the Democrats recover from the near-suicide they just inflicted on themselves.

I also think she prefers the current set up. Campaigning sounds positively brutal. By comparison, right now, she gets to live on her own terms, she's getting rich, and she gets to play kingmaker of a sort -- just like Gingrich. So I think she will probably do what he's always done, which is flirt with running, then withdraw before the rubber hits the road so as not to run the risk of exposing a potential lack of support, which would kill the golden goose.

DUQ said...

I agree with Bev and Tam. I want nothing to do with anyone from last time. So I say, anybody but Palin or Romney or Huckabee or Paul or. . . Why don't we have better choices?

Tam said...

I'm going to bring Jed into this thread...in the technical update thread, he said "If economy continues to hurt, we can run a frog and win." It looks like Sarkozy will not win a reelection, and France's elections are the same year as ours. I'd take that frog over most of our current "frontrunner" field.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I don't know. I don't know why we don't have great choices, or how we can stop that from happening again. We need to get a steady stream of good people so that we don't end up with bad choices again.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I don't think Jed meant "French" by "a frog," though he may have. I figured he meant it like "a yellow dog" as they used to say in Texas.

I've liked a lot of what I've seen with Sarkozy (at least at the time he was elected), but I've had a hard time following his career because finding any sort of indepth coverage of foreign politics is difficult.

Still, I suspect there are a number of foreign leaders who would be preferable to most of our front runners.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, I have personally held a grudge against Huckabee ever since the '08 primaries when he acted as McCain's attack dog against Romney. As I was involved with the campaigning most of that year, I heard about some pretty low stuff going on around that time, which really turned me off to him. Even beyond that, he's got too much of a "Social Gospel" tinge to him--suffice to say that I was present when James Carville said Huckabee was the one GOP candidate he would consider supporting. Personally, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's got too much political and personal drawbacks for me to support him, and I think that's the problem for a lot of people.

Romney has just as many problems. Besides the shallow support, he is going to be dogged in the primaries, especially in the South, by the Mormon thing, unfair as that is. And the MA health care thing is going to be an albatross around his neck pretty much everywhere. And you're absolutely right; he's failed to provide adequate leadership for conservatives over the past two years.

All of which is to say, I would rather not have any of the 2008 people running this time around--perhaps not even Palin. The rise of the Tea Party has been a watershed moment in a lot of ways; if the GOP knows what's good for it, its face from now on will be that of Christie, Daniels, and DeMint rather than Romney and the Bushes (whom I love, but...you know what I mean).

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I agree.

I think the Tea Party changed politics as we know it and it's time to start weeding out the old and ushering in the new -- at all levels. It's for that reason that the one senate victory that really bothered me was in Indiana where we voted back in a very old Republican with huge ties to big government and lobbying. He really defines business as usual, which is the one thing the public no longer accepts.

With Romney (and Huntsman) The Mormon thing is huge. That's sad, but true. The MA health thing will continue to kill him with conservatives unless he finds some way to become a conservative hero, which will be very hard as he doesn't hold an office right now from which he can show his commitment.

I was bothered too by Huckabee's attacking Romney on McCain's behalf. I didn't care for Romney, but I wanted anyone but McCain, and it felt like Huckabee had cut a deal with him. In fact, I was really surprised when McCain chose Palin because I was pretty sure it would be Huckabee. But even beyond that, he troubles me because many of his decisions seem random -- like he makes decisions based on who told him the best sob story. That's the kind of decision process that leads to bizarre and deeply non-conservative results.

Despite my early pessimism, the thing to remember at this point is that the race is just beginning, and all kinds of weird things can still happen. Someone could surprise us, some people we don't like could quit, and someone new may come along.

Trust me, this is better than 1996, when it was Bob Dole almost from the outset -- talk about a de-inspirational candidate! At least in this open field, someone is going to have to win it rather than just be handed it.

StanH said...

Though CPAC is important, looking for a leader at this point is bit premature IMO. My biggest fear is the Republican habit of picking whose turn it is (Dole, McCain), as opposed to who is the best candidate. If we follow history Romney is the man? If that’s the case which candidate will we get, the man that ran a weak race against McCain, or the rock-ribbed conservative in his withdrawal speech? That speech was awesome, and that’s where we (Tea Party) come in, pulling the candidates to conservatism.

One man that you left out in your analysis was Herman Cain, this is an impressive man, with an impressive resume. His intelligence, and conservative credentials are beyond dispute. Do not buy into, he’s nothing but a talk show host, that’s short sighted, and press spin. When the debates begin, I believe he will excel.

I hope for all comers, as far as the candidates. I want a vigorous debate spelling out the differences between left and right, something Reagan excelled at. Lets not forget the MSM, his opposing candidates, described the great Reagan, as too old, un-electable, voodoo economics, dangerous, stupid, who gathers all those accolades now? Palin…we’ll see. Like I said I want all comers.

Dig the front page...whoa!

Anonymous said...

I was going to ask about your thoughts on Herman Cain as well - Stan just beat me to it.


AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I'm glad you like the front page! It was time for an upgrade!

As I mention in one of the comment above, despite my pessimism about the current crop, the up side is that someone will still have to win this, rather than be anointed like Dole was (and to a large degree McCain). That should hopefully give these people a chance to develop and to win us over.

So while I am pessimistic about what I see, I am hopeful that our choices will improve.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, I wasn't sure where to put Cain.

Unfortunately, I missed his speech so I'm not sure how it went over, but I did hear that it wasn't great -- which was a little disappointing. That said, I have really liked what I've seen and heard from him in the past, and I think his business background is exactly what we need in politics today.

However, I'm not sure he has the political network/supporters at this point to be considered a serious candidate, and I'm not sure he got enough attention by the media to declare him a winner.

So I was kind of torn where to put him. But in terms of the future, he's another one who excites me.

Post a Comment