Better late than never, I just listed to last week's free podcast, which included a fair amount of spitballing and prognosticating about the 2012 GOP Presidential primary. I know we all wonder if there's a worthwhile candidate in the bushel. Someone, perhaps, who:
1) Can attract Tea Party support without alienating independents.
2) Is experienced in public policy.
3) Has proven he or she can build a national election infrastructure.
4) Knows how to raise bucketloads of cash.
5) Is in tune with the economics issues around which the 2012 presidential election will center.
6) Is a strong, consistent Constitutionalist.
Well, there is such a candidate. But even though this race is as wide open as as the sky in Nebraska, his candidacy is summarily rejected out of hand on a podcast filled with personalities who's opinions I otherwise rank so highly.
Why do you all think Ron Paul's candidacy is rejected so summarily? Please, I am not necessarily inviting a debate regarding his merits as a candidate or his positions.
My question is different: Why, given all of the above points, is his candidacy treated with such casual contempt while, simultaneously, the candidacy of Mitch Daniels is considered to be so obviously with merit? What has Daniels done outside of Indiana? What is his name recognition? What money has he raised? Do the grassroots activists give one hoot about him at all?
Don't get me wrong. I understand what Daniels brings to the table. I also understand Paul's political faults. But, for now, Ron Paul polls just as well as anyone else in an open field, and has a great infrastructure. Why isn't Ron Paul even invited to the same dinner as a complete non-entity as, say, Hunstman?