Jack Welch: Just 3 Serious GOP Presidential Contenders

Jack Welch: Just 3 Serious GOP Presidential Contenders
Published: Friday, 24 Jun 2011 | 11:52 AM ET Text Size By: Michelle Fox

There are three real contenders in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to former General Electric chairman Jack Welch.

He thinks Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman will top the GOP ticket in November 2012.

“Each of them has their pluses and minuses,” Welch said. “Only time will tell over the next six months of grueling campaigning” who will emerge as the better leader.

All are former governors. Pawlenty spent two terms in the Minnesota statehouse, where he was credited with tackling a $4.3 billion deficit. He has set an ambitious goal of boosting the US economy by 5 percent annually. His economic plan includes generous tax cuts for individuals and corporations and slashing government spending.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has pushed his business experience when attacking President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy. During his one term as governor, Romney says he eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes. He has promised to cut taxes, reduce government bureaucracy and create jobs, as well as cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product.

Huntsman, the last of the three to throw his hat into the ring, is the former governor or Utah and a former U.S. Ambassador to China. While he was the state’s chief executive, Utah was named by the Pew Center as the Best Managed State in America. The millionaire businessman has vowed to create jobs, streamline the tax code and work to keep the federal budget from being swallowed by entitlement programs and interest payments on national dept.

If Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, enters the race, Welch would also count him as a viable candidate.

Campaign promises aside, Welch said the most important thing the person occupying the White House needs to do is articulate a vision for the economy.

“Show the country why the vision is worth it,” Welch said, “and equally important, what’s in it for everybody to do it.”

That’s the bottom line of any business, and he thinks it applies to leading the country.

“People need to know where they are going, why they are going there and what’s in it for them to go there,” he said.

Right now, he doesn’t think the Obama Administration has shown the right leadership because it hasn’t clearly expressed where it wants to take the country. Instead, he thinks the administration has created a series of “piecemeal” initiatives that have created too much uncertainty.

For one, he believes financial regulation is a good idea, but he doesn’t think the Dodd-Frank law or other laws that were written “in the back room somewhere” are the answer.

He also thinks that for green energy to work, leaders need to invest in research and development while allowing drilling and power plant operations to continue.

Two other “piecemeal” initiatives on Welch’s radar are multilateralism, which he said hasn’t helped the situation in Libya, and the health care law. He questioned how millions of people will be added to the government health care rolls without a tremendous cost to taxpayers.

Welch was more sympathetic towards Ben Bernanke. He called the Federal Reserve chairman’s job “brutally tough.” Bernanke was a hero during the crisis, he said, and now he’s just trying to do what he can with the Fed to “keep things going.” But Welch does have his concerns.

“The question is, is money too cheap for too long and what will be the downstream implications of this easy money policy…going forward?” he asked.

As things stand now, we’re in the early stages of what would be a normal recovery, Welch said. But he emphasized the country has to have policies that “don’t scare us.”

“We want to be the most innovative, competitive country in the world—creating jobs and better lives for everyone,” he said.

I know I am going to take fire for this here but I think Welch is right. Look at who is running in 2012:

Michele Bachmann- I have nothing against her but she’s only a Congresswoman. Throughout history Americans have shown they do not wish to elect people president after only experience in the US House. Ford was VP before he was president. Lincoln ran for Senate twice (unsuccessfully) and famously did the Lincoln- Douglas debates and was elected only because the country was about ten seconds from exploding (I don’t think we are quite there yet- things are awful, perhaps the worst in a century even but not as bad as the late 1850s) and a fractured primary. Lincoln was also not running against an incumbent which, despite Obamarxssiah’s huge disapproval ratings, still poses a hurdle to any candidate. The only other congressman to go straight from the House to the White House, to my knowledge, was Garfield but even he was technically elected Senator before he became president. The point is that, for various reasons we can speculate on, the American voter opposes sending a congressperson straight to the presidency.

Herman Cain- I like Cain a lot but can someone please tell me the last time someone with NO elected political experience WHATSOEVER became president? The only cases I know of are generals- Eisenhower, Grant, etc. but it is a huge difference between being the CEO of a company and being the general during wartime.

Newt Gingrich- He probably is the brightest and has the best ideas of all the candidates. However, see my comments re: Bachmann plus the fact he is a scumbag in his personal life. I just can’t see the American people supporting a politician who cheated and asked for divorce from his wife while she was dying of cancer.

Gary Johnson- Interesting guy but so little support he couldn’t even make it to the GOP debates

Ron Paul- See my comments about Bachmann

Rick Santorum- Santorum has always seemed like a good guy. However, look at his elective history. He came in as part of the 1994 revolution, where it would not be too hard for a GOP to be elected. He was then re-elected by only a 5% margin against a questionably weak candidate. By the time his second campaign for re-election came along, the people of Pennsylvania decided he wasn’t worth their time(and it was 59%-41%, not even terribly close). So let’s see just electorally speaking- elected in part because he was at the right place at the right time, barely re-elected despite weak opposition, removed from office by a significant margin. And this is really who we want to put up for president?

Roy Moore- I can’t see the American people electing a random state judge (yes, we all know who he is- 10 commandments and all that but John Q. Voter would have no clue) directly to president. It’s never happened before and I highly doubt it will ever happen.

Buddy Roemer- Announced the formation of an exploratory committee on March 3, 2011. Nothing seems to have happened since then. It seems insignificant enough to comment on.

Rick Perry- For better or worse, I don’t think Perry can be elected in 2012. Whether valid or not (or as I like to think, a little of both), Bush has been ingrained into the minds of the voters as part of the reason our country is in such a bad place right now. I just can’t see the average voter voting for the guy who took over as governor of TX after Bush left, even if TX seems to be the only state that has its act together right now.

Sarah Palin- People know her but the name recognition is mostly negative. I think the media completely trashed her and its to the point that John Q. Voter wouldn’t support her. Her own decision to randomly leave the governorship and the trashing by the Mccain camp certainly didn’t help. I just don’t see how she could win the presidency given her high negative perception among most voters.

Rudy Giuliani- He is too socially liberal to win a GOP primary.

Thad McCotter- See Bachmann comments

John R. Bolton- Similar to my comments re: Perry, he is too closely tied to Bush.

George Pataki: See comments re: Giuliani

Fred Karger- Joke candidacy with no name appeal

Andy Martin - Joke candidacy with no name appeal

Jimmy McMillan - Joke candidacy with no name appeal

Jonathon Sharkey- Joke candidacy with no name appeal

So who does that leave? Huntsman, Pawlenty and Romney.

I pray it’s not Huntsman.

I could live with Pawlenty. He’s more moderate than most of the people running for president but not as bad as say Huntsman or Romney. He also makes a lot of sense given Obama’s 2012 electoral strategy- he is heavily depending on winning parts of the midwest, the southwest (largely based on the growing Hispanic population)and florida. If you pick Pawlenty he would carry parts of the midwest thereby cutting into any Obama lead. If he picks someone like Marco Rubio for VP he’d be able to cut into the hispanic vote, and carry Florida.

As far as Romney, I don’t think he’d even carry his home state (and he was a far better governor than we are currently forced to endure) but again given the crappy state of the economy may have a viable shot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.