I don't really get the sentiment that there are too many Republican presidential candidates. At this point, what's the harm having lots of contenders? It's not as if more than one will win the nomination and split the vote. The more the merrier, I say.
At least, the more quality candidates the merrier. Do the three joining the race this week add that? You tell me. Actually, first I'll tell you, after you find out via The Hill who's jumping in:
On Monday morning, Dr. Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina have near-simultaneous announcements planned -- the black neurosurgeon will launch from his hometown of Detroit, while Fiorina plans a lower-key start with a press call and an online townhall later that afternoon.
The next day, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is expected to launch his second bid for president from his storied hometown of Hope, Ark.
Republican observers are especially enthused by the entrance of Carson, the only African-American in the field, and Fiorina, who’s likely to be the only female GOP candidate, to bring added diversity to a field that already includes two Cuban Americans in Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas).
“The diversity is great,” said GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak. “It shows we’re a much broader party than the caricature some try to put on us.”
But Carson and Fiorina have almost no political experience between them, leading many Republicans to view Huckabee as the most formidable of the new trio.
Quick thoughts on each:
What's with The Hill making a point of telling us that Ben Carson is black? It's not like you didn't know that, but why is his skin color part of the story? Do they think it's a novelty that a black man would run for president? Or are they just demonstrated a thinly veiled racist elitism? It seems to me that Dr. Carson is impossible not to respect for what he's accomplished professionally, but I've never understood the idea that an accomplished person who gives one compelling speech needs to run for president. I'm in the minority in Cainland on this issue, but I think a guy who has never run anything at an executive level is going to be at a huge disadvantage trying to lead the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Can I think highly of the man but not think he's a plausible candidate for the presidency?
Because I do, and I don't.
Carly Fiorina, I find intruging. As someone who thought a certain accomplished businessman (hint . . . what web site is this?) might have made a very good president four years ago, I like governing experience too, but in my book business experience is worth a lot if it's at the executive level. Fiorina did get ousted eventually at Hewlett Packard, but not before accomplishing a lot and demonstrating that she is both capable and unafraid of making decisions. I need to hear from policy ideas from her, but I don't write her off just because she's not a traditional candidate. In 2010, Republican primary voters in Michigan rejected four pretty typical politicians and nominated former Gateway Computers CEO Rick Snyder for governor. He was elected, and then re-elected in 2014, and he has accomplished a lot of good (along with some not-so-good decisions). Business exerience can indeed provide the necessary background for a person to govern well at a very high level.
Mike Huckabee gave it a shot in 2008, and I guess there's no rule that says you can't try it again. But I've been pretty consistent since his first campaign about why I don't want him as president. Huckabee's views on social issues I mostly share, and I think he can do a lot more to advances those ideas outside the White House. In the White House, his lack of economic understanding and poor instincts on matters like national security and criminal justice would quickly be exposed.
But that's for the voters to decide, I guess. The crowd is about to get a little larger. What do you think of the new entrants?
