At this point in 2007, many major candidates had announced their intention to run for President. However, today no major candidate has officially announced their candidacy. Regardless, most of the prognosticators have a pretty good idea of who is strongly considering a run. The Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, for instance, assembled a list of 15 potential candidates from which the rank-in-file at the annual conference chose their preference.

In light of CPAC, and on the verge of the primaries, I have delved into the very imprecise science of ranking the potential Republican candidates for President. I should forewarn that in the coming weeks and months my current preferences will doubtlessly change as I and the country learn more.

First, however, a note on the omitted candidates. Among others, I have not included Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, John Thune, and Bobby Jindal. All have been very clear as to their aversion from running. I would have put John Thune in the top 4 of this list, but he recently opted out of the race. Many believed that Pence would run, but he has chosen instead to run for Governor of Indiana. Although Bush and Christie are very highly regarded by conservatives, they have both made it very clear that they will not run for President. With a couple years more experience, I expect Christie would strongly consider running, and if such was the case I would put him very high, if not at the top, in any ranking. Similarly, Marco Rubio has only just been inaugurated as a US Senator, but I would bet a lot of money that he will be on a Republican ticket at some point in his life.

One last note. I am surprised at this point at how thin the list of likely candidates looks. Many qualified candidates, like those aforementioned, have no desire to enter the race and the list below includes many who are looking increasingly less likely to join the fray (read: Huckabee, Palin, although I would not be sad to see them abstain). I am glad that the process will not be starting until later this year, but I am concerned that there is a lack of urgency among Republicans. This election is a referendum on a President who has increased the size and role of the state as much as anyone in American history. We only stand a chance at defeating him and his vision, if we send out our best and brightest to do so.

With that said, here are the rankings:

T-10. Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Rick Santorum

These “compassionate conservatives” may have thick resumes in government but what they have accomplished is not all that appealing. As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee, pejoratively known as “Tax Hike Mike,” raised taxes and commuted the sentences of violent felons. As Senator, Santorum was best known for his focus on social issues, to which end he advocated increases in federal power over states and localities to enforce his specific viewpoints. He has also gone on the record in support of sodomy laws. Santorum probably has no chance at the nomination even if he runs, but Huckabee is polling at or near the top of potential candidates currently. Huckabee is remarkably charismatic, but that should not deflect the fact that his fiscal and economic record is atrocious. The Cato Institute even gave him a lifetime grade of D for fiscal responsibility due to his multitude of tax increases and a soft spending record. Under the likes of George W. Bush and Bill Frist, we were given big government in Republican clothing. If Huckabee were ever elected we’d get more of the same.

T-9: Rep. Michelle Bachman, Gov. Sarah Palin

These two fierce barnstormers have amassed their popularity mostly by campaigning and speaking around the country. In spite of their vociferous advocacy, they have built rather thin records of accomplishment when compared to the other individuals on the list. Generally, they demonstrate less enthusiasm for the substance of governing and specific solutions than they do for campaigns and public fights. Palin has not shown particular interest in doing her homework on policy issues subsequent to her VP run, not to mention finishing her term as governor. What we can tell of their substantive beliefs indicates that they are generally principled in their conservatism. But on the presidential front that is about all they have going for them. Neither seems to be particularly interested in doing the things incumbent upon a presidential contender, and perhaps the role they both currently play in the party is what best suits them.

8. Gov. Mitt Romney

I much wanted not to include Romney in the top 10 but the list of candidates is not long enough. The only reason I put him at 8 is because I think that he wants to be liked by conservatives so much that he may pretend to be relatively conservative while running and if elected. That’s not to say he is liberal, as much as he isn’t anything at all. Romney doesn’t hold any convictions except for one: he wants to get elected. That might be the only explanation for why someone who goes around touting himself as a “true conservative” passed the first universal healthcare program in America as Governor of Massachusetts. Frankly, there are no drugs in the world that could make a “true conservative” pass universal health care in any way, shape, or form. To be fair, Romney is a very smart guy, and is certainly qualified to be president. But he cannot escape the fact that he passed the precedent to Obamacare, and that he is partially responsible for the third wave of Progressivism in America. It would be a true disappointment and injustice for him to claim the GOP nomination in 2012.

Can Romney fool conservatives?

7. Gov. Haley Barbour

The smart money seem to be increasingly convinced that Haley Barbour of Mississippi will run for President. Barbour chairs the Republican Governors Association and was formerly a DC lobbyist. He is considered as good a strategist and fundraiser as there is in the party. Unfortunately his “insider” credentials will probably not resonate too well at this time. He’s a southern good-ole boy patronage politician who does not have much of a problem with spending taxpayer money, which reveals itself in the last three biannual report card grades that the Cato gave Barbour for fiscal responsibility (C, D, and C). To be fair, Barbour did reduce the budget deficit of his state in the early years of his tenure, but he has left much to be desired. Another glaring problem? When you type “Haley Barbour” into Google, the second suggestion that comes up is “Haley Barbour racist,” which comes from questionable comments he has made about the White Citizens Council and another off-hand remark he made to an aide. In our hyper-politically correct environment today, the racist label is thrown around with careless zeal. I have little doubt that Barbour is a fair-minded person, but politics is perception, and on that front the Governor has some hurdles to clear.

T-6. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

The second mormon on this list, Huntsman should also appeal generally to business people and more moderate Republicans. He has one of, if not, the most impressive resume on the entire list, twice elected Governor of Utah followed by a stint as Ambassador to China. He is a brilliant guy, as qualified as any, and I would much like to put him towards the top. The reason I cannot isn’t that he was an Ambassador in the Obama administration, but rather because as Governor he not only supported Obama’s stimulus but believed that it was not big enough. The stimulus is at this point Obama’s second most important legacy after healthcare reform, so it is difficult to see how he can stand as a principled conservative in spite of his otherwise sparkling track record. While there are a lot of parallels between him and Romney I think Huntsman is better in numerous departments. First of all, aligning with Obama on healthcare is worse than aligning with him on the stimulus. Second, Huntsman has an impressive record as a conservative Governor. He got a lifetime rating of B in fiscal conservatism from Cato, and was especially good on tax policy. There is much to be answered on what kind of candidate Huntsman would be, not to mention if he will run at all. But despite his CV, he will have serious questions to resolve about his philosophical credentials if he joins the race.

T-6. Rep. Ron Paul

I always really struggle with how high I can put Ron Paul on my list of preference. As long as we are talking about the leader of the free world here though, I cannot place him too close to the top. Ron Paul is an important intellectual voice for liberty in America and an indispensable member of Congress. On monetary issues now he’s actually showing how he can marry his orthodox libertarian philosophy with pragmatic solutions to move things in the right direction. Whether fair or not, it makes me very uncomfortable how many of those Ron Paul fanatics at his rallies are truth-ers. A more legitimate implication of Paul is the tone he takes when talking about American foreign policy. He often implies America gets what its asking for from terrorists. That’s not a morally correct point of view, and it’s not a responsible message for a Commander-in-Chief to espouse. If Ron were a little more like his Senator son Rand on foreign policy, other issues, and could practically apply his noble principles, then the Congressman would be a more viable candidate.

T-6. Speaker Newt Gingrich

Having formed his exploratory committee, it appears Gingrich will be the first big name to officially announce. I really did not want to put Newt Gingrich so high on this list, but there are simply not enough acceptable candidates in the field. That being said, I am putting him this high for his ideas and creative policy solutions, not for his political style or demeanor. No one can question the Speaker’s ample experience or issue knowledgeability, however he can be unpredictable and has a volatile track record. There were very commendable things accomplished during his four years as Speaker, including welfare reform and relative fiscal restraint. However he was also censured by the House and resigned due to unpopularity after four years as Speaker. Gingrich is a very important voice in the Republican party with a great mind, which is why he deserves to be relatively high on this list. But between his past and occasionally caustic approach to politics, he has more baggage than is ideal for a candidate. The GOP might be better off moving forward in 2012, rather than replaying questionable moves from the past.

3. Gov. Gary Johnson

My 2012 darkhorse pick (Courtesy of Life)

The former Governor of New Mexico is sort of my cinderella pick on this list. I don’t think he has much of a chance to be nominated but he is among the highest caliber candidates. There are few as principled in their defense of small government, impressive in their track record, and none who have shown the integrity of Johnson. He should be more of a cult hero among conservatives than he is, having set national records for vetoes as a governor. During his tenure he actually vetoed more bills than all other governors combined. He left his state with a billion dollar surplus and also proposed the then-largest voucher program in the country. As a successful entrepreneur, he has an economic acumen as well. For some reason, however, he is better known for a libertarian streak. He is the highest ranking official in the government ever to come out against the War on Drugs. But he is much more in touch with political realities than Ron Paul for instance, and could never be found railing against “American hegemony,” or what not. My hope is that Johnson gets much deserved attention based on his outstanding track record as governor, even if he will never be a front runner.

2. Gov. Tim Pawlenty

And that brings us to our top two–and really the only two candidates that should be in serious consideration. As the Governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty closed deficits, cut spending, and kept taxes in check. He earned a lifetime grade of B for his fiscal responsibility from Cato, including an A for his last two years. Considering his staunchly conservative record, its that much more impressive that he was elected twice in one of the most liberal states in the union. Pawlenty has always been a happy warrior, positively espousing his principles without vilifying his opposition. He can explain in clear terms why small government and freedom empower and enrich individuals. Pawlenty is also a self-made man who overcame a lot of adversity in his life. Even liberals note that he has no real negatives. The question about Pawlenty though is whether he can rise to the occasion. He has done all the basics correctly, but can he be exceptional? At times I worry that Pawlenty panders–like in his disappointing CPAC speech and his awkward movie-trailer videos–and refrains from being more candid. T-Paw would benefit from simply being himself at all times. After all, thats whats gotten him to where he is today.

1. Gov. Mitch Daniels

My Man Mitch

Mitch Daniels is the Cincinnatus of 2012–a reluctant warrior who transcends the field of alternatives. I have been on the Mitch bandwagon for over a year now and I think he is starting to get the groundswell of support from major party thinkers (read: George Will, Charles Krauthamemr) that could convince him to run. A couple of weeks ago Daniels went to CPAC to speak like the rest of the potential candidates, but the 5’7” governor rose above all others in a speech that is truly indicative of who he is. While the other candidates went to throw the crowd red meat, Daniels told the truth in a truly remarkable speech. He made clear that our government’s debt is the defining issue of our time; that entitlements are the main driver of this debt; and that Republicans have to confront the issue itself and get something done if they are to be responsible stewards of our nation’s future. Daniels is a great intellect and a good communicator of ideas. He is never vitriolic or personal in his arguments. He does not entangle himself in political semantics and approaches politics in a manner that can only be described as presidential. As Governor of Indiana, Daniels cut the state workforce to the lowest levels of any state in the nation, privatized state assets in an efficient manner, and turned huge budget deficits into surpluses. His fiscal stewardship was so prudent that he procured the first ever Triple-A rating for the state’s debt. I do openly admit my concerns about Daniels however. First, he has been accused for having a soft-spot for spending on health care and education which is a legitimate concern because Bush had the same problem fiscally. Second, at the beginning of his first term he toyed with the idea of raising state taxes to address the major deficit problems facing the state. He has however admitted that was a mistake and has never come close to making the same error again. Last, Daniels seems very reluctant about running. That fact is not entirely negative, especially as our current president has been running for president his whole life, but Daniels of course cannot win unless he runs with all his effort forth. My hope is that in the next couple of months he will realize that the nation is at a crossroads and that he is not only the candidate his country wants, but the candidate his country needs.