A funny thing happened to Mitt Romney on the way to his coronation as the inevitable Republican candidate for president of the United States. Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado happened. Rick Santorum beat him in all three states on the same day — and beat him by huge margins in two of those states, as well as upsetting him in Colorado, where the Mormon vote was expected to give Romney a victory.
The Republican establishment, which has lined up heavily behind Romney, has tried to depict him as the “electable,” if not invincible, candidate in the general election this November. But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been beaten, especially in a month when pundits had suggested that Romney might build up an unstoppable momentum of victories.
Advertisement
In a sense, this year’s campaign for the Republican nomination is reminiscent of what happened back in 1940, when the big-name favorites — Senators Robert Taft and Arthur Vandenberg, back then — were eclipsed by a lesser-known candidate who seemed to come out of nowhere.
As the Republican convention that year struggled to try to come up with a majority vote for someone, a chant began in the hall and built to a crescendo: “We want Willkie! We want Willkie!”
If there is a message in the rise and fall of so many conservative Republican candidates during this year’s primary season, it seems to be today’s Republican voters saying, “We don’t want Romney! We don’t want Romney!”
Even in Colorado, where Governor Romney came closest to winning, the combined votes for Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich added up to an absolute majority against him.
Much has been made of Newt Gingrich’s “baggage.” But Romney’s baggage has been accumulating recently, as well. His millions of dollars parked in a tax shelter in the Cayman Islands is red meat for the class-warfare Democrats.
But a far more serious issue is Obamacare, perhaps the most unpopular act of the Obama administration, its totalitarian implications highlighted by its recent attempt to force Catholic institutions to violate their own principles and bend the knee to the dictates of Washington bureaucrats.
Yet Romney’s own state-imposed medical-care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts leaves him in a very weak position to criticize Obamacare, except on strained federalism grounds that are unlikely to stir the voters or clarify the larger issues.
The Romney camp’s massive media ad campaign of character assassination against Newt Gingrich, over charges on which the Internal Revenue Service exonerated Gingrich after a lengthy investigation, was by no means Romney’s finest hour, though it won him the Florida primary.
This may well have been payback for Newt’s demagoguery about Romney’s work at Bain Capital. But two character assassinations do not make either candidate look presidential.
If Romney turns his well-financed character-assassination machine on Rick Santorum, or Santorum resorts to character assassination against either Romney or Gingrich, the Republicans may forfeit whatever chance they have of defeating Barack Obama in November.
Some politicians and pundits seem to think that President Obama is vulnerable politically because of the economy in the doldrums. “It’s the economy, stupid” has become one of the many mindless mantras of our time.
Oy, every time Romney loses it's an excuse to write an article like this one. Didn't see anything like this when Romney stomped everyone in Nevada. Isn't it normal for primaries to bounce around the candidates? Did anyone really expect Romney to win every SINGLE primary? I'd like to point out that even though Romney blew McCain out of the water in CO last cycle, guess who wasn't the nominee?
Look, I'll take off the pro-Romney hat because honestly, I like Santorum. I would be happy with Santorum for President. Gingrich would be a horrible choice, will Mr. Sowell admit that now though? Well, anyway, it's definitely a troubling sign for the Romney campaign because they did lose in two of the states by a wide margin. I also have to agree that I don't want the Romney campaign to go full negative on Santorum, I'd prefer more positive to negative. That said, let's not pretend that Mitt is still not the favorite to be the nominee. He'd make a good President, however, so would Santorum I believe. Just spare me Newt Gingrich, please.
Didn't see anything like this when Romney stomped everyone in Nevada.
Everybody expected Romney to dominate in Nevada. That wasn't a surprise.
But the editorial leading up to last Tuesday was far less predictive. I saw honest comments on this very sight that predicted, based on quite reasonable assumptions, that Romney would win one of Missouri or Minnisota. And the consensus seemed to be that, although it might be close, Romney would take Colorado.
The fact that Santorum swept all three, totally dominating two, was not really what the punditry nor the voters were predicting. And it should cause us all to step back and re-evaluate our presuppositions. We should be asking ourselves, "What's really going on here?"
I'm not saying that it all means that Romney is doomed; just that big surprises should cause us to think. Spinning it as unimportant is not really a healthy response, in my view.
If I have to chose between Mitt or Newt then it is Romney all the way. Newt creeps me out with his pals Pelosi, Dede Scazzofava, Fannie & Freddie, a CFR member with Bill Clinton, serial adultery, etc.
I absolutely agree. The issue then to decide is the large foreign policy dispute between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Ron Paul is way stronger on domestic issues than Rick Santorum but I can understand skepticism when it comes to his level of concern with Iran.
On what are you basing your claim that Mitt Romney would be a good president?
The closest match in his resume is Governor of Massachusetts. Are you saying he was a good governor of Massachusetts?
Based on what in his record?
Or his poll numbers?
One would think, for example, that he'd have left office a very popular man because he gave them universal healthcare, which is what they wanted. Right?
Except he left as an unpopular governor.
Perhaps because the state was 47th in job creation under his tenure?
Because he was out of state more than 200 days during his last year as governor?
Why again would he be a good public sector executive for the nation using his record as public sector executive for Massachusetts as a measure?
I have been posting for some time that Romney is definately beatable, especially in a general election. The major issue of Obamacare gets taken off the table with Romney. Because of this it makes him a weak candidate.
His money issue is of no concern to me. Its his, he can do whatever he wants with it. Anyway, I believe seven of the ten wealthiest representatives are Democrats.
I still find it hard to believe that this lot of canfidates is the best we have
"If Romney turns his well-financed character-assassination machine on Rick Santorum..."
I hope he's decent enough not to do so, but I expect that he will. Too much of Romney's candidacy is premised on calculations about electibility and organization, and far too little about the political philosophy that (ha-ha) drives his political ambitions.
He attacked Perry from the left, scare-mongering seniors about entitlements, and Romney started the scorched-earth tactics against Gingrich in Iowa. I suspect he'll try to do the same against Santorum.
Part of me thinks that his doing so will be a necessary evil, to give Santorum a chance to show his ability to withstand what the Obama machine will doubtlessly hurl his way if he wins the nomination.
And it will give us more evidence of who Romney is.
If Romney didn't think Perry needed attacking, he sure wasted a lot of time, money, energy and bile blasting his candidacy from the moment he got in the race. Not to mention all those fliers left at FL nursing homes claiming Perry would destroy SS. Romney's minions sure seemed to think Perry needed attacking, too, based on the number of lies, distortions and personal attacks they posted on this website and others.
It is a sign of the unserious nature of the entire campaign and the farce that televised debates have made of it that the most qualified candidate by far, with the most successful and consistently conservative governing record -- not to mention the only candidate who voluntarily served his country in uniform as an air force pilot -- is no longer in a race that determines its survivors more like "The Bachelor" than on their actual records and accomplishments.
Perry aside, Romney's concerted effort to personally smear and distort and flatly lie about the record of any other candidate he views as a threat is well-established. His entire campaign has been based on divide and conquer because he has nothing to recommend himself. He and his Super Pac have relentlessly assaulted the threat de jour, while carefully avoiding any overt criticism of the other right flank candidates who, at that moment, are not perceived to be threats. That way, the conservative field remained fractured even as the candidates who would begin to rise were pummeled unmercifully. The more conservative candidates contributed to the strategy's success by focusing their own criticisms on each other, as they vied to become the conservative alternative. Romney just laid back and played whack-a-mole, marshalling his resources to destroy, one-by-one, the candidates who appeared to be breaking out of the pack.
It was and is a cynical exercise devoid of any positive contribution to the party or the country, but it has also been an effective one as long as multiple conservatives remained in the race. But it comes up empty when, as happened in Missouri, Romney faces a single, conservative alternative. The only question is whether either Santorum or Gingrich exits the stage soon enough for conservative voters to consolidate around a single alternative. If that happens, Romney should be prepared to repeat this week's experience many times in the weeks ahead, because Dr. Sowell, as usual, is right. The one clear message from the party's base is that we do not want Romney. If, in the end, he does win the nomination and belatedly discovers he needs us, he is going to rue the day he chose to run a scorched earth policy against the candidates we did want, and the ideas and principles they represented.
Yes, we do want Romney! I suppose all of the thousands of people that have voted for him do not know what they are doing. We want a real leader, one who has demonstrated personal and financial success. A person with strong moral and ethical beliefs. Why would we not want the only person that could possibly beat Obama, this is what our main goal is, we must take back our country and save America. Mitt Romney is a good decent person, he does not tout his accomplishments or good deeds naturally, this is not what truly good people do. Unlike the two candidates that are fighting each other for who the best is. Romney does not do that, he does good things because it is the right thing. He has to defend himself, the media certainly will not, they are owned by the liberals and the unions, and yes the losers. Let's not forget these people know that Romney is their only worry, so they use the non- Romney people to help them try and destroy our best hope. They are the one's that have promoted the destruction of our best candidate , and encouraged the inept candidates to believe that they stood any chance at all of beating Obama. Remember Santorum did vote against right to work states and loves earmarks. Not big on the abilities of women in the military. Gingrich, his faults are too many to list, how anyone would have even given him a thought speaks volumes in support of making Obama a two term President! Let me repeat, Yes, we do want Romney!
"We don't want Romney" can be generalized into, "We don't want liberals". Forget dependency on the government for their livelihood; when Americans become dependent on the government for their very lives, the entire landscape changes. See England for an example of this. The conservatives in Britain do not question the legitimacy of their Health Service. The debate is over.
People talk about the danger of America becoming Greece. The more apt threat is that we will become England.
This really is an easy one, but some distinctions should be made clear.
There is a difference between Republicans and Conservatives, and there is a difference between an anti-Romney vote and a not-Mitt position. There also seems to be a distinction between the So-Cons and the Fi-Cons as to where they fall.
Cons see the GOP as part of the problem. In fact, we have seen the disdain and hostility they heaped on us over the past year. The GOP is sadly mistaken when they assume Conservatives remain as part of their base. We may lean Republican, but have no loyalty nor anchor to the GOP.
An anti-Romney vote is exactly that, a vote to express dissatisfaction with that candidate. A not-Mitt position is harsher, and a subset of the anti-Mitt crowd. We hold a hardline position that Romney (and thus the GOP) are not an acceptable destination for our votes. We are fully cognitive of our standing with the Republican Party, and refuse to abet a platform in such contrast to our ideals any longer. A "not-Mitt" is not just a "no" vote on Mitt - it is a "no vote" for the GOP. Whether a home for this vote can be found, or whether it just remains un-cast, has yet to be determined.
Lastly, there is the distinction between the Cons. A Fi-con, I believe, tends to see things in black and white. We are less likely to allow for shades of grey, and therefore tend to fall into the not-Mitt crowd. What the GOP has failed to do is work to get our vote. We TEA Partiers really believe the catastrophe is imminent. We really believe we are at the precipice of disaster. In fact, a lot of us really believe that we, in all likelihood, have past the point of recovery, and the failure to draw a line on spending and Govt growth, WHEN WE GAVE THE GOP THE POWER AND MOMENTUM TO DO SO over the last year (just not the integrity apparently), will be a burden we must bear. See we also believe our silence and acquiescence over decades of poor Republican candidates - makes us complacent, if not responsible for, much of the damage.
So, the Anti-Mitt crowd is now rallying behind the true Conservative, Rick Santorum. Popular radio hosts and other media pundits say, "We got our man." I can understand how radio and TV personalities use their media power to sway the Useful Idiot audiences, but I expect a little different from NRO.
Sowell uses the popular complaint that we cannot pick Romney because he would have a weak position on healthcare, but, he seems to put his head in the sand when it comes to other "popular" conservative positions on other candidates, as if their Anti-Mitt Christian male is so much better. Let's take the case of the flavor of the week, after all a really popular radio host is proclaiming Santorum is our conservative.
Concerning Rick and his conservative positions, a quick look into his past might expose otherwise:
1. He says Mitt position on healthcare excludes him to argue against Obama. However, Rick voted for Medicare Part D, which according to sources costs not Mass. taxpayers, but the US taxpayer $60 billion dollars a year, and $16 Trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
2. Strongly encourage and voted for federal government control of local education via No Child Left Behind. In his popular book, he also strongly advocate for a certain type of cirriculum to be taught nationally. Conservative?
3. Rick also voted to double the size of the Dept. of Education.
4. Endorsed liberal Arlen Specter over the Conservative candidate Pat Toomey.
5. Of course my personal favorite of this new Anti-Mitt true conservative is his special promotion of the "K Street Project" linking GOP leadership with lobbyists concerning ear-marks.
6. And the Anti-Mitt crowd yells, "Rick is Anti-Establishment" just like they did with Newt. However, 20 years of Washington insider peddling proves otherwise, even NRO's own Jonah Goldberg and Michael Tanner have proved otherwise in past articles.
Let's remember Mr. Sowell, RIck is the better candidate to argue against Obama because Mitt cannot argue against healthcare and the case is closed against Mitt.
Finally - Please NRO quit writing "The Establishment" start man-ing up and list specific names, I am so sick and tired of Fox News Hosts, popular radio hosts, who all brag about their ratings, saying "The Establishment" when they are the establishment.
I’m a bit confused just what the Republicans are talking about. We are not in a place where this nation can afford to be—business as usual.
The dollar on the world market is sinking faster than a torpedoed air raft—while no one is saying anything about little things of importance; like the stable commodity of oil is the measurement of the value of the dollar.
Today, oil is the same value as when this absolute incompetent took office. Yet we are spending twice the amount; simply because the dollar has devalued by half.
Our monetary and fiscal policy of this nation is disgraceful. America as Europe is convinced that the politics of an ostrich—only sticking our heads in that cavity of our anatomy we identify as where the sun never shines—will result in miraculously some cure.
Believe me if Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee it won't matter what the Romeny camp does.
Obama wins.
In every debate Rick Santorum has come across as sanctimonious, indignant and angry.
The media will run with his “holier than thou attitude” and turn the election into a culture war, which means the election will no longer be a referendum on Obama.
Guess who wins that fight?
Good luck GOP with your angry, self righteous and smug candidate.
Absolutely true: Obama wins. It's fascinating to follow the higher-order cluelessness, delusion, religious folly bandied about by so-called conservatives, right-wingers, & (probably) leftists who rail against Romney. Fact is 30% x 2 are either left- or right-wing True Believers, and never the twain shall meet; it's the 40% Moderates & Independents who will actually elect the next president...& possibly decide the fate of America. Better be sure the Republican candidate is NOT a right-wing version of Obama.
