Skip to main content
My Thoughts on the 2012 GOP Presidential Field
First, the list: Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Barbour, Huckabee. I think only Huckabee has no shot, sorry to say. He's hated by vast portions of the electorate, and even the GOP primary electorate. No way he gets the fiscal wing or the "South Park Republicans." Bobby Jindal: Has a great shot, because he's positioned himself well against both the Democrats and the Bush Republicans. Weaknesses: He's Southern. The danger that we will become, or are a regional party is a real one. Obama will play on this for all it's worth. Ethnic bonus: Take the 'racist' card from Obama and the Dems. 'Historic' bonus as well. Palin: Beloved by the base, able to get moderate women/Clintonites, credible independent stance. It's hard for me to say a bad word about her. The legacy media's ability to slime her will further diminish, and the fact that they will try will only help her. Weaknesses: She needs to downplay the anti-intellectual air about her, and be far more prepared for the big stage. Pawlenty: Almost unknown to the general public, Pawlenty is a likable, able speaker who held his own against the Democrats in the People's Republic of Minnesota as governor. Strategically, he makes the most sense to A) avoid the Southernist charge and B) put the upper midwest back in play. His only weakness, his anonymity, is also a strength. Pawlenty-Jindal or Jindal-Pawlenty (or any Palin combination) just makes a frightening amount of sense. Barbour: Respected governor with executive and fundraising experience. Weakness: Southern and unknown to the wider public.One other comment: Jindal and Palin would be a superstar ticket, but the celebrity factor would be a minus here: no one here to be the understated one when one gets annoying/overexposed.Palin-Jindal Pawlenty, with maybe someone random like Frist or Romney thrown in. (I'll do the Dems later.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un