In the least surprising political news of the season, Mitt Romney is announcing his candidacy for president. This is essentially a formality since he never stopped running after 2008. He comes into the race with what has traditionally been the enormous advantage in Republican politics of having run at least once before.
He is set up for a classic, grind-it-out, front-running Republican campaign based on money, endorsements, and staying power. But he enters this slot in the race in the weakest condition of anyone who has ever tried to occupy it. He has nothing like the strength of a George W. Bush in the run-up to 2000, and is running for the nomination of a party whose establishment is disdained by its base as perhaps never before.
Advertisement
We all know Romney’s potential problem with his Massachusetts health-care program. Here we focus on five other questions that will be central to the Romney campaign and determine whether he is yet another next-in-line GOP nominee, or the victim of his own weaknesses and a drastically changed Republican landscape.
Has He Overlearned the Lessons of 2008? In the early stages of the 2008 presidential race, the Republican primary field looked overweighted with moderates. Conservatives had strong disagreements with both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Romney differentiated himself by trying to run as the movement conservative in the race. Some of his advisers have concluded in retrospect that Romney went too far, especially since his efforts did not win him enough support among conservative evangelicals to win in places such as Iowa and South Carolina.
This time Romney is running as a business-oriented establishment Republican and keeping his distance from populist conservatism. In 2008 he tried to muscle aside conservative alternatives such as Fred Thompson. This time, Romney could benefit from crowding on the conservative end of the party as Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, and others make it harder for anyone to assemble a majority to his right. Last time, he staked everything on Iowa. Now he is competing there halfheartedly at best.
But Romney could be overdoing it again. At the same time he has moved, stylistically at least, to the left, the party as a whole has moved right. Romney is essentially making a bet that the tea-party phenomenon is overhyped. It’s a bet that went bad for several business-backed establishment candidates in the Republican primaries of 2010.
Romney may have learned another lesson from 2008 too well. Having been slammed for his flip-flops, he now seems to feel that he cannot switch positions on anything, from his Massachusetts health-care plan to ethanol subsidies. The other candidates (and possible candidates) are now exploiting his rigidity — advertising their own willingness to take on the ethanol lobby, for example. And it’s not at all clear that Romney is winning any points for his obviously calculated consistency.
Can He Overcome Doubts about His Authenticity? There are plenty of voters who find everything about Romney calculated. They are reacting partly to Romney’s persona — his perfectly tidy appearance and the air about him of a salesman. There’s nothing he can do about this; it’s just who he is.
Team Romney hopes, though, that different circumstances than those of 2008 will make it easier for him to convince voters of his sincerity. In 2008, a Romney sympathizer says, “We tried very, very hard to impress every voter we met. We were going through an introduction phase, and at the same time, trying to get them to make an investment in the campaign. It’s like introducing yourself at the same time you’re asking them to marry you.” Also, starting out from scratch, the campaign “had to be very focused on the positioning” of the other candidates.
Now, this supporter argues, Romney is known to many Republican voters and doesn’t have to worry about picking his spots in a race dominated by well-established candidates like McCain and Giuliani. “He’s a better known candidate,” he says, “and his qualities — his experience, his command of the issues, his optimism — will come through and many voters will be able to connect with them.”
Romney is most convincing when he’s running as an economic technician determined to fix the economy, the thrust of his campaign so far this time. He’ll have to make the sale — while seeming like he’s not making a sale. And he’ll have to hope that an economic technician is what Republican primary voters want.
The only reason Romney doesn't seem left wing is because the Obama administration and the Democratic party are so far left. Romney would be a good governor for a lefty state like California or Massachusetts, but he should not be the Republican candidate for President. We don't need another lefty in conservative clothing.
Why is he given the "front runner" tag on the home page?
I take his candidacy as seriously as Newt's, but then I guess I'm one of those overblown hype, astroturf, racist, Tea Party Nazis who's candidate is not in the race yet.
The reason he's given the front runner tag is...because he is the front runner. The polls show him 5-10% ahead of Palin (who's not even running) and more than that over all other GOP hopefuls.
BTW, I take issue with one line in the article-
"He has nothing like the strength of a George W. Bush in the run-up to 2000"
Remember, Bush was running his "compassionate conservative" campaign back then. Which many conservatives found insulting, because it essentially accepted the liberals' line that conservatism is "not" compassionate.
Also there was the whole "nepotism" thing and the fact his father had lost the White House for the GOP to Clinton.
Additionally, he was losing to McCain. It was only when he won South Carolina, a strong military state that had been leaning to McCain, did he start to build momentum to the nomination.
So there wasn't as much "strength" there as the authors claim.
Mitt abandoned South Carolina in 2008? He spent a boatload of money here on advertising. Too much in fact. The words "saturated" and "over-exposed" come to mind. By the time of the primary election, we were sick of his ads.
I expect Pawlenty to pick up the mainstream (non TEA Party) Republicans.
As an evangelical, Romney's mormonism would not make me not vote for him. However, he comes across as another North East RINO - GOP establishment candidate. There are too many other more conservative candidates in the race that make him appear that way. It's almost like having to vote again for the GOP's dottering, compromising, "I can work across the aisle" old fool. But of course, he isn't old.
It'll be interesting to see how National Review continues to cover the Romney campaign. They endorsed him wholeheartedly in 2008 and he hasn't changed any of his positions since then.
And as it continues to become more and more obvious that he's not only the frontrunner in the GOP field, but also the candidate with the best chance at beating Obama, does NRO really want to keep hitting him and providing ammo for the Obama campaign next fall?
We can pick apart every GOP candidate from now until November 2012, but any one of them would be an improvement over the President who's currently sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. We're not going to agree with every candidate on every issue, but they share basic principles most GOP voters support. Smaller government, less spending and private sector growth.
What Romney did in Massachusetts years ago isn't going to impact what Republicans do (or try to do) to rid the country of the consequences of Obamacare, so why continue to dwell on it? In fact, perhaps it's a plus. He did what the people of Massachusetts wanted him to do, which is something the current President is seldom inclined to do. Will one GOP candidate emerge as the candidate every GOP voter wants? Probably not, but we'll end up with a candidate much closer to what we want than what we currently have.
If the American people don't realize by now that any of the potential GOP candidates would be a better choice than Barack Obama, then this country is in for a very rough ride, especially economically. With four years and no worries about reelection, President Obama will be unrestrained and dangerous.
Romney's record on health care will make it very difficult for him to defeat Obama. Chances of beating Obama should be the most important attribute when choosing a Republican nominee.
Mitt may have the problems you have outlined. They just do not seem to be very large. Mitt had the money in 2008 and little name recondition. Now he has both. The power of those early primaries continues to drop and 2012 will be no different. Tim Pawlenty seems like he could grow into a contender, but will he get enough money? Not likely. Huntsman who? What? Newt "foot-in-mouth" needs a better filter. Cain, Bachman, please.
As we all know, the only real player other than Mitt is Palin. If Palin gets in you will see Mitt's support firmed up pretty quick as all the anti-Palin people try to stop her. Her best strategy may be to wait until Romney and Pawlenty have firmed up the non-Christian vote and then announce.
There are a few reasons I could see why the left would love Romney to be the "next in lin pick". First of course is his Romneycare. If he tries to go after Obamacare while continuing to defend Romneycare (like he has been doing) it will come across as disengenous at best. Second, the fact that he is a Mormon will be used against him in multiple ways. He will be dogged in the media as belonging to some sort of cult as a way to scare uninformed voters. Not to mention the left will use his being a Mormon as a way to galvanize the gay activist vote and intimidation of voters (remember prop 8 in California). This is the type of attacks the left is famous for and have been effective in the past. There is also, as mentioned, that Romney will have a hard time convincing the Conservative base that he is not another McCain candidate.
There's a lot working against Mitt including being the favorite. He's a weak favorite at best, garnering no more than 15% - 20% of GOP primary support. Polls that include Huckabee, Palin, and/or Trump often see him not being favored at all. And even when he's in first, he's not that far ahead of even candidates such as Cain and Paul that the distinction means much. However, because he is the weak early leader, he has expectations attached that Cain doesn't have. A third- or fourth-place finish in an early state like IA would be a strong finish for Cain but a serious blow to Romney.
I suspect that Romney's lead in most polls comes from the fact that he is the only remaining "moderate" in the field, and he is one of only two candidates that is nationally known at this point.
Given those two facts, his current lead is not all that impressive.
This article, whie interesting, is way over the top in its analysis. Was there nothing else to write about this week? The authors contort and conject about a bunch of "what ifs", as though each was an already existing obstacle for Romney.
Frankly, he's about the only guy I have heard thus far with the brains to lead the free world and solve our jobs problems. He served as Mass Gov without taking a salary and what could be more conservative than that?
I agree with the "frontrunner" tag, at least unless Sarah Palin jumps in - he's got the lead in money, organization & name recognition. That combination is usually enough to carry even a very weak candidate to the nomination.
But how do we always end up with such lousy frontrunners? This time we've got a one term governor with a plastic personality, a long history of being well to the left of the party, and whose most significant accomplishment as governor was signing disastrous health care legislation.
Another key thing to remember...all the "RINO problems" that are talked about with Romney and how it "might prevent him from getting the nomination"?
Nearly identical to the "RINO problems" of McCain 2008.
"Maverick" had come off of the 2000s with open statements opposing the Bush tax cuts, in favor of immigration reform, and supporting cap-and-trade.
In the end? He blunted Romney (who would be "Huntsman" or "Pawlenty" next year), isolated the Social Cons to Huckabee (who would be "Bachmann", "Santorum" now), ignored the Keyes/Thompson/Paul pittance ("Cain", "Paul (again)", "Johnson")... and won plurality wins in the Primaries.
There are important differences between now and 2008, SmallGov, and they all make Romney's task much harder than McCain's was.
The most basic is simply the rise of the Tea Parties and the shift away from the RINO / Rockefeller Republicanism of the Bush / McCain era and toward the Paul Ryan end of the spectrum. That alone makes Romney a far less viable choice than he (or especially McCain) was in 2008.
Another differnce is that you're overstating McCain's RINO-ness, especially in comparison to Romney then and now. Despite his amnesty debacle, McCain was a longtime conservative with an excellent ACU rating and was the most center-right of the 2008 Republicans, which is how he ended up winning. He ran in-between Romney and Rudy on the squishy left, and Huckabee (and arguably Paul) on the conservative wing.
Romney isn't in that position and can't get there. He's still the least conservative of the candidates, excepting perhaps Huntsman. As the GOP has shifted right since 2007-08, he has actually been left even further from the center of the conservative coaltion than he was four years ago.
Finally, McCain won by moving back to the right. He admitted he was wrong about amnesty. Romney won't climb down - instead he's doubling down on socialized medicine and ethanol. He's already signalling he's not taking the McCain path, he's taking the Giuliani path.
"He pulled up stakes early" in South Carolina? Because he didn't go straight from Michigan to South Carolina you call it "pulling up stakes early?" There was what, three or four days between Michigan and South Carolina? How does this qualify in anyone's mind as "pulling up stakes early?"
Your comment would qualify if you said it about Giuliani in New Hampshire, when he decided to stop campaigning in the state a month or two before the election.
Be critical, but be fair or you'll find that you are the ones whose authenticity is being questioned.
We need someone who is running not because he has run before, but because he actively wants to roll back four disastrous years of Obama.
The worst possible thing for this country is ~not~ four more years of Obama, but replacing him with a Dem... I mean a "Republican" who will tweak Obama's programs and by accomodating them endorse and forever freeze them in place.
Forget about the same old politicians. Let’s try something new – Herman Cain, 2012. Someone who isn’t politics as usual, can run a successful business, and has some ideas on how to get the economy moving again. External Link
