If the pundit scuttlebut is to be believed, that leaves Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman Jr., Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Nobody it seems, is taking Mike Huckabee all that seriously for the next go around. Ben Smith thinks Romney has some significant advantages.

At this point, though, there's a fairly clear frontrunner, I think: Mitt Romney. While others may be indecisive or distracted, he's already, quietly, clearly focused on solidifying his position inside the party, backing House Republicans through his PAC and appearing at CPAC this week. And he has a crucial advantage over almost all the other Republican candidates who are mentioned: He's not in office, and doesn't have to spend the next two years (at least) raising taxes, cutting services, and/or borrowing huge sums. He's free to articulate a clear voice of opposition, and to position himself to play the role of the turnaround specialist if he can make the case that Obama hasn't delivered.

I really can't argue with this. I'm not hoping that things go badly, Its just that everything I'm seeing is telling me that it will go badly, and that's going to put 2012 right in Romney's wheelhouse. The real question is whether Obama can put half the country on welfare before the next election.

Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman Jr. are very much in the Bobby Jindal mold--good resumes, but no star quality. Huntsman's buzz as a presidential candidate is a real puzzle to me. He's a nice guy and an effective governor, but the reality is that his political career was bought and paid for by Daddy's money, he's not really very conservative and he lacks any discernable charisma that I can detect. He's a pale imitation of Romney, and I hope for everyone's sake he takes the Jeb Bush route and opts out of the race for higher office.

That leaves Gov. Palin, who quite frankly doesn't need to run in 2012 and probably shouldn't. Its a case of keeping her powder dry as she hones her political skills and resume. The best thing that can happen to her is for a Republican to win and for her to get a high profile cabinet post in which she can really shine.

Personalities aside, my real concern is with Republican policy, or rather the lack of it. I'm hearing a lot of the golden oldies these days, but there seems to be a notable tone deafness to some of the real problems ordinary people are encountering in American society. I must admit, Democrats are quite good at identifying those, but lousy at doing anything about them because ultimately they aren't interested in solving problems, but in using problems as justification for ever larger bureaucracies. You don't think cops actually want crime to disappear, do you?

Republicans are great at solving problems, but the libertarian view that government "is the problem" makes them reluctant to identify problems that might in fact benefit from government intervention.

I've give you a little example. Last fall I picked up a sports package from DirecTV for an additional ten bucks a month so I could watch BYU football. DirecTV took the opportunity to give me "free" movie channels, but didn't tell me, or if they did tell me, they buried it in the last paragraph of an email I got from them. After three months, again without notification, they start charging me and extra forty dollars a month for movie channels I didn't even know I had. When I complained, they apologized for the misunderstanding, agree to cancel the disputed package, but insisted that the existing charges be paid.

Now you and both know this is a scam, a surreptitious way to rob the American consumer and its not just DirecTV who are guilty of it. I did the right thing in a market economy and switched to Dish, but I'm under no illusions that they won't try the same thing, in fact the pulled the old bait and switch right out of the gate--bumping me to the more expensive package after I clearly indicated a lower value package. Caveat Emptor and all that, but honestly, don't you think the government has a role in policing this kind of criminality?

I have legalized robbery Called it a belief I have run with the money And hid like a thief I have re-written history With my armies and my crooks Invented memories I did burn all the books And I can still hear his laughter And I can still hear his song The man's too big The man's too strong

Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms, "The Man's Too Strong"

It seems to me that Republicans are missing a real opportunity. I even have a name for it--restoring the civil society, preventing the strong from victimizing the weak. Its populist and it can be reconciled with conservative and libertarian beliefs. What's more, it puts a target on the Democrat's back because no one enjoys legalized robbery more than a Democrat.

Lorie Byrd was asking for ideas the other day--this is a freebie.

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh gives Jindal some cover.

[T]he people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style. Because if you think — people on our side I’m talking to you — those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think — in fact, I don’t ever want to hear from you ever again. … I’ve spoken to him numerous times, he’s brilliant. He’s the real deal. Some of us in flyover country are getting sick of the East Coast elites bashing our conservative leaders.

I think Rush is trying to hang on to his dream. Its naive to believe that style isn't a critical element in an electoral process in which 90% of the country are basing their votes on things heard with half an ear and no reflection. We've just been through an election in which a man with no experience and no resume ran around the country intoning about hope and change, and won. We saw a Republican primary in which the winner beat rivals who where better informed, more articulate and certainly more coherent in the expression of their policies. When it comes to winning the presidency--its ALL STYLE.

Mark adds: First, I gave an involuntary smile when I saw Mick's post. Next, I've seen little of Jindal, but that's because the couple of samples I've tried have put me off. Next, the Ben Smith article has this in Romney's favour:

maybe it's no coincidence that of the three who have come to the fore post-election -- Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Bobby Jindal, none are white men. But beyond them, the party's top rank is overwhelmingly white and male.

to which a commenter replied:

Actually, Ben, the GOP doesn't give a rat's @ss what color your skin is, so your racial conspiracy theory makes no sense.

Last, as Mick makes clear, Romney is running for Nominee starting now and that's just great. Romney should be President now and might well have been, given his economic credentials, were the conservative nominee selected by conservatives. God or fate moves in mysterious ways. Maybe America needs to experience Obama to be cured of what he stands for.

UPDATE II: Beats me why Mark is grinning. I didn't say much about Tim Pawlenty, who is also being touted as a possibility for the Republican nomination, but something he said in a New York Times article drew my attention.

Among those taking something of a Republican middle ground was Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, another potential 2012 prospect. He emphasized in an interview that the party needs to attract women, Hispanics, younger voters and independents to recover.

“The Republican Party is going to have to adhere to its principles, because they are foundational and they are important. But they need to be presented in a hopeful, optimistic, up-tempo, modern, practical way, and that’s not what we have been doing recently,” Mr. Pawlenty said.

“We’ve become too petty and angry in many aspects,” he said. “That’s unappealing to swing voters.”

Pawlenty looks and talks like a caricature of an accountant. Impassive face with a barely modulated speaking voice. Its not altogether surprising that he finds emotional outbursts about the destruction of the American spirit to be distasteful. Who he is problematic, but what he thinks is far worse. He's right about having to attract new voters, but he's clueless about what kind of voters these are. None of these people voted for Obama because of his clearly articulated policy proposals or principles. They voted for Obama because they were mad at Bush, like the idea of a black guy as President, and thought we needed "hope and change".

By all means--win the argument on the issues, but understand that its one tactic out of many required in an overall strategy of putting the country back on the right track--on an American track. Any politician who doesn't recognize the value of the emotion being displayed by the public at this point is a fool. We've got to foster it and use it because the inescapable reality is that the vast majority of voters exercise their franchise solely on this basis.

A successful nominee has to validate that anger, even as they articulate those principles and proposals in building an intellectual argument for a return to power.