Hunter Baker Mitt Romney scored an expected win, but benefited greatly from being able to give his victory speech early in the evening when a large audience was watching. He sounded well-practiced, interesting, and sharp. My guess is that many people saw him give the speech and felt they would be satisfied to see him take on the president.
Advertisement
Ron Paul doesn’t get the attention his campaign may merit because it is so unlikely that he will gain the nomination, and because he doesn’t have a big political future ahead of him. Too few are thinking about what his success means for the libertarian movement. Ron Paul’s determined efforts appear to be building libertarianism into a stronger segment of the Republican coalition. But, at the same time, there were moments in his speech — when he talked about the Fed, for example — when it seemed he was just letting the freak flag fly. The libertarian movement will find its Barack Obama (a charismatic ideologue to carry the message), just as the socialists found theirs. Ron Paul 2.0 or 3.0 might make a mark in America’s future.
Jon Huntsman did what he had to do to stay alive, with a solid third-place finish. Too few conservatives realize that his record is more conservative than his rhetoric has been. But his speech was really lacking; one would think that a campaign would be ready for its one spotlight moment. Huntsman’s wasn’t.
Santorum and Gingrich are splitting the votes of those nostalgic for the glory of 1994. Of the two, Santorum has more potential going forward. His showing was sufficient to demonstrate that he can maintain some of the momentum he picked up in Iowa. If it is possible for the conservative vote to coalesce against Romney, he is looking more and more like the one most likely to do it. But people are making their peace with Mitt Romney. The anti-Mitt camp is very rapidly running out of time, if not money.
Rick Perry was my governor when I lived in Texas. It is like a Texas A&M Aggie to stay in the race and not give up in the face of adversity. It makes sense on paper to think that he could make a stand in South Carolina, but Gingrich and Santorum are eating up his vote, and being irrelevant to New Hampshire hasn’t helped him, even if it was part of the plan.
— Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularism and associate professor of political science at Union University.
Mona Charen For the past year, the question has been whether Mitt Romney would be acceptable to the Republican party. We pined for other candidates, of ever diminishing plausibility, to enter the race. We “speed dated” any number of non-Romneys among the declared candidates, only to find each unsatisfactory in turn.
Some pundits continue to dream of a great conservative hope who will enter the race and save us from Romney — perhaps even at a brokered convention.
But the voters have now had two opportunities to speak. Two thirds of voters in New Hampshire said they were satisfied with the field. Romney has won a solid victory there. He succeeded with Tea Party supporters and self-described conservatives.
And now Newt Gingrich has offered Romney a gift. By attacking him from the left as a heartless tycoon, he has given Romney the chance to campaign as the defender of capitalism and free markets. This will burnish Romney’s conservative credentials and serve him well in South Carolina and elsewhere.
While it’s too early to say the race is sewn up, it is looking very good for Mitt Romney.
—Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
The general election will be a nothing less than a referendum on capitalism. Gingrich et al have set the stage nicely to begin the conversation and position Romney as the defender and champion of the free markets. Though the primaries are all but decided, the rest of the process can be useful in framing the coming debate.
The other important task for team Romney will be to court the increasingly relevant libertarian wing of the party. Better play nice with Paul.
Hunter Baker writes "But, at the same time, there were moments in his speech — when he talked about the Fed, for example — when it seemed he was just letting the freak flag fly."
Peter Robinson interviewing mainstream conservative economist Thomas Sowell on the FED
Mitt is looking better and better to me. I did like Newt until he started sounding like a misguided, left wing, marxist, drug taking OWS protestor that hasn't taken a shower in 6 months. So Romney it is.
Once again, the National Review commentators have spent way too long in NYC and DC.
New Hampshire voters are in no way reflective of typical Republican voters in the rest of the country. They are far, far more liberal. Which explains why Huntsman got so many votes, and Romney did so well.
In my neck of the woods (Texas), where real conservatives live, very few of my compatriots are even remotely sold on Romney. Living in a state that actually displays conservative values on a daily basis, we can recognize Progressives when we see them. Romney is a dangerous Progressive.
The NH primary does not reflect the views of NH Republican votes either. The impact of "independents" and the free state project on the primary, which is open, allows a large number of non-Republicans to weigh in.
Romney isn't a dangerous progressive. At worst, he's a moderate squish. While that's not lighting my fire, right now, it's highly preferable to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
However, you are right that NH isn't SC. The problem for conservatives is that Romney is leading in SC because the other candidates are split.
If Newt Gingrich was as smart as he thinks he is, and wanted to end Romney's candidacy as much as people seem to think he does, he'd pick another candidate (my preference would be Santorum, for both political and pragmatic reasons) and throw his weight behind him.
If conservatives are really worried about Romney, they need to get behind an alternative (other than Paul, that is).
The real problem for the alternative candidates isn't the votes, it's the money. Romney has it and the others don't. That and the silly tendency of voters to cave into "inevitability" and "momentum" instead of picking the candidate they feel will do the best job, gives Romney a big advantage right now.
But SC could change all that. Almost all of the symposium responses are predicated on the assumption that the primary season will go the usual route. It's not the usual situation, though.
One thing that repeatedly strikes me as I consider the primary process: why is it so oriented toward states with low populations of Republicans?
While Iowa is arguably representative of the country in certain ways, it just isn't a big state. And New Hampshire is just as small, and even less Republican. And then there are Nevada and Maine on the early primary trail. Nevada and Maine, really? Were Rhode Island and North Dakota not available?
What, exactly, would be the problem having the primaries focused on states where significant numbers of Republicans actually live - places like Texas, and Virginia, and Missouri, and Pennsylvania? The only state with a large Republican population early on the primary trail is Florida.
Why is it that the primary process gets sewn up in a very few states with small populations of Republicans who are, in so many ways, not representative of Republicans in general? Having New Hampshire play such a key role is particularly problematic - I love the state and admire its love of independence, but to be perfectly honest, it's a bastion for left-leaning Republicans and libertarians, and not in any way representative of what is going on in the rest of the country.
When do the bulk of Republicans actually get to have a chance to participate in the primary process rather than being resigned to signing off on a decision that has already been made?
Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and like places are still not angry enough to start paying attention and stop relying on the media and political parties to form their opinions.
Things have been bad enough in the Obama years to change this somewhat. We have the Tea Party now, after all. But tea partiers have jobs and mouths to feed, some of those mouths being in their own families and some of them being the mouths of those who pay no taxes, do no work, and support Obama.
Since when does South Carolina have a small contingent of Republicans?
I agree that IA and NH should not go first, but that is because I learned about sharing in Kindergarten, not because of the # of GOP voters who live there.
As well, lumping in North Dakota with Rhode Island is a very odd juxtaposition.
I agree, that it's bad because it isn't being shared between the states. But the fact that a few not-very-representative states have such a commanding position is making it worse.
South Carolina having an early place in the primaries is more appropriate. But I am really tired of New Hampshire going first; particularly since New Hampshirites have a long history of picking candidates who are outside of the mainstream of the Party (see: McCain, John).
I do think it is helpful for candidates meeting voters to start with just a few states rather than having to have them work all 50 states - but the early states should either be rotated or randomly selected.
"It's over"--how appropriate! That sums up the state of the Republican race, barring a meltdown by Romney at some point. He should now easily take South Carolina, and most certainly Florida, effectively ending the nomination process. Of course, he has mainly won by default. The other candidates have been woefully incompetent or off the ideological deep end, or morally bankrupt.
But that said, it is now time to move on to the real fight for America's future--ending Obamanation! A Republican Congress is the proper forum for the Right to fight over agenda priorities and differences. Without Obama gone nothing else matters.
The problem is, the GOP is ignoring just how ticked-off Conservatives are.
The Great Carl Rove/money, once hailed for structuring Dubya's elections, aparently forgets how Cons were not all that supportive of Dubya in his 2nd term.
The Great Carl Rove/money, who personally hamstrung the opportunity for a Republican Senate by derailing the Christine O'Donnell candidacy before it started, seems prepared to once again allow the Dem (in this case Obama) to win if his candidate is not the nominee.
If only the GOP could recognize the lesson of those Primary challenges of 2010, that Conservative support is no longer a given. If only the GOP could recognize that the resistance leadership faced on crucial House votes, is felt so much stronger by some voters than by the Representatives who failed us in Congress and acquiesced. If only the GOP could recognize the size and motivation of voters they are alienating and wasting. The Conservative wave that has been building since the late-mid 2000's and was glimpsed in 2010, is still their. It's just waiting to wash away Obama and his policies. All the GOP need do is throw us Cons a bone!
If the GOP gives me Romney, I don't vote the top of the ticket for the first time in my life - unless a better third option is made available.
We Cons know all to well what it is like to not have the support of the Republican Party. If only the GOP would see what losing Conservative support will bring them.
The Great Carl Rove/money, may enforce the "my ball, my rules" scenario, but he forgot that we Cons always have the option to go find anothrler game!
What a terrible waste of an opportunity. Just how alike must these two Parties be; just how deep opposition to a Conservative agenda must go - so that the GOP is willing to cede a majority to the Dems!
"If the GOP gives me Romney, I don't vote the top of the ticket for the first time in my life - unless a better third option is made available."
Right now, I'm no big fan of Romney (I'd prefer Santorum or Perry, personally) but lines like the one above are the kind of petulance that will get Obama reelected in a heartbeat.
Of the GOP candidates left, with the possible exception of Paul - because of his reckless views on foreign policy and his weaselyness on the newsletters - all are preferable to Obama.
If Romney wins the nomination, any GOP, conservative, or libertarian voter who stays home will be helping to hand the vote to Obama. That is a completely irresponsible approach.
