GOP hopefuls candid on delayed bids

It has been often discussed and widely agreed on that the potential Republican presidential candidates have been unusually slow in announcing their 2012 bids. 

But what’s more surprising is how candid those candidates have been about their reluctance to publicly jump in the race. 

{mosads}Instead of relying solely on ambivalence as the motivating favor behind their public hesitation, leading presidential prospects are also admitting some of the strategy involved, and that’s a reflection of a historical phenomenon that can’t be appreciated until you look at what the prospects have said.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has rattled off a list of reasons for why he’ll wait until summer or later to announce his decision. In an interview with Fox News last week, he isolated two factors — the cost of a long campaign and potential overexposure.

“Very few people can sustain the burn rate of a campaign if it’s going to have to last 18 months. You can’t raise and go through that much money.”

Additionally, he added, “I think people get sick of us if we’re out there for too long a period of time … you’re the stale loaf of bread on the shelf, and it’s very difficult to make your message fresh.”

His appeal to overexposure might be a bit surprising, considering he has a weekly TV show on Fox and is a frequent commentator on other shows, but the next candidate who’s been candid can’t be accused of televised ubiquity.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be the front-runner, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, but he’s the only one of the top four candidates who’s not employed by Fox News. Romney seems wary of the potential for overexposure, telling reporters in Georgia that “I’m not on TV that much, and that’s just fine with me.”

The inference is the same as Huckabee’s — that too much ubiquity is costly, and what’s a more public move than announcing your candidacy for president?

Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom connected the dots more clearly in a recent interview, telling the Los Angeles Times: “Mitt Romney learned a few things from his last campaign, and one of the lessons was that it got started too early. He’s not in any hurry to make an announcement.”

Another leading 2012 prospect, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, has appealed to a somewhat arcane but very real advantage for putting off an announcement. 

In the run-up to the fall elections, he told Fox News: “There are very profound reasons under the Federal Election Commission rules to not become a candidate, because there’s all sorts of immediate consequences.”

Of course, Gingrich also maintained that he was genuinely undecided on a presidential run, but the mere fact he’d allude to the legal ramifications of becoming a candidate is a testament to the field’s willingness to admit that strategy plays a part in delaying announcements.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is another potential candidate who’s talked about the perils of announcing too early. Last week, he told a South Dakota TV station that, while he’s expecting to make a presidential decision within two months, he’s cognizant of the downside to jumping in before the rest.

“Obviously, somebody gets out there early; you become a target very early. And I think that’s why some of the potential candidates have not officially entered the race,” he said.

That means four top prospects have admitted to some of the truest dangers of going early — financial burn rate, overexposure, and turning into a sitting duck.

So what’s behind all the candor? There could be a simple reason. None of the leading Republican candidates in Rasmussen’s poll holds elective office, which means popular excuses for delaying an announcement don’t hold as much water for the top dogs.

Contrast the type of comments you’ve just read with those of two possible candidates who currently hold elective office: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Both have said they’re waiting on announcing a decision until their state’s respective legislative sessions are over. To do otherwise, they claim, would be an injustice to their current jobs.

It’s an effective answer — one that Romney, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich can’t resort to, because they’re all former governors without legislative sessions to attend to.

Add that to the fact that these top dogs already have high name ID, large political organizations, and rich political action committees that serve as fairly transparent conduits through which to run a national campaign, and you can see why the press demands — and the candidates are often delivering — some candid answers.

Heinze, the founder of GOP12.com, is a member of staff at The Hill.  Find his column, GOP Presidential Primary, on digital-staging.thehill.com