I've had a large number of conversations lately about the GOP field of 2012 Presidential candidates and want to get a few thoughts together on the subject.
First off, it is my opinion that only two of the GOP candidates are electable and those are the two Mormons: Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. I don't think that fact and the endless barrage of Mormon PR during football this year are a coincidence.
Michelle Bachmann promised $2 a gallon gas. There is no need to waste any more time on her.
Ron Paul, who is probably the one candidate that the anti-deficit Tea Party should unite behind, will not be the Republican nominee. His foreign policy is totally unworkable from a Republican perspective and, unlike his extreme Libertarian economic policies, as President he would have the power to implement many of his desired changes in overseas engagement.
Newt Gingrich might think his Presidential ambition-driven stunts to make him look like a pragmatist (e.g. working with Al Sharpton on education) weren't seen as such by the general electorate but I think not. Newt is a smart guy but, when he gets going, it's hard for him to not come off like a complete partisan hack. Indeed, it is arguable that his super-duper-anti-Clinton GOP of the 90s (Clinton Body Count!!!!) really touched off the level of high partisanship we are experiencing now.
Rick Perry is out because he unrepentantly sat on the third rail of US politics with his anti-social security rhetoric and his debate performances have only worked to intensify the shock by loading his underwear with gasoline. He's got the look, but not much else.
Herman Cain is out because he is fairly unvetted (I remember his Georgia Senate campaign and nobody took him seriously enough to spend any money vetting him), has zero government experience (which, for me, equates to no political allies which is a negative), and his "bridge to Fair Tax" 9-9-9 plan is a nice conversation starter but is a tax policy non-starter. I personally like Cain's reckless, entrepreneurial approach and unabashed embracing of his blackness on his own terms, but I think the book on him is pretty accurate - he's a lightweight benefiting from the overall weakness of the GOP field but won't get the nod.
The idealistic Tea Party movement gave the GOP a much-needed shot in the arm after they were bludgeoned electorally in 2008. For that reason, Republicans are in a situation where they have to give nationally unviable candidates lip service because the announced candidate with the best chance at winning the election - Romney - is a pragmatist and not an ideologue. Oh, and while that candidate was governor of a Democrat state he supported a heath care program that has large similarities to the one the GOP wants to hang around President Obama's neck. Boy it sucks to be them.
For me, the fundamental problem with the GOP is them making the same assumptions about the 2010 election the Democrats made about 2008. Principally that the victory was some sort of blanket endorsement of their ideals when it was more the electorate lashing out against incumbents for the current economic climate.
While I think there is need for Obama and his people to be concerned, I don't think he is in as much trouble as many pundits believe. With the exception of Huntsman, the entire Republican field is extremely vulnerable in the general election. Right now, I would give Obama a 70% chance of being re-elected.