ABC NEWS: ‘History’ is on Romney’s side
flockwoodABC News says Mitt Romney has a”decent chance” of winning the Republican nomination in 2012. Why? Because he lost the Republican nomination in 2008. Here’s ABC’s (somewhat shaky) logic:
“If history is any guide, however, Romney stands a decent chance of getting his party’s nod. Although he was hurt last time by questions about his authenticity, Republicans have a long tradition of nominating second-time candidates: think Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, and John McCain in 2008.”
[To read the entire article, click here.
Yes, by losing a race for the Republican nomination in 2008, Mitt Romney has given himself a “decent chance” of winning a race for the Republican nomination in 2012.
That news will, no doubt, boost the spirits of Romney — not to mention Mike Huckabee, Rudolph Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, Marion G. “Pat”, Robertson, Harold Stassen….and a host of other people who have run, unsuccessfully, for the Republican nomination over the years.
ABC has a point. Sometimes the Republican party’s presidential nomination is the equivalent of an honorary lifetime achievement award at the Oscars. It goes to an elder statesman who has served the party faithfully for decades without receiving the party’s highest honor (i.e. Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008). Or to a sitting or former vice president who has served the party faithfully for decades (Nixon, Bush). Or a politician who came within a whisker of winning either the presidency (Nixon in 1960) or the party’s nomination (Ronald Reagan in 1976) or the vice presidency (Dole in 1976). Or somebody who ran a strong second in a previous election (Dole in 1988, McCain in 2000, Bush in 1980, Reagan in 1976.)
They won’t turn to Romney because he “came close” in 2008. He wasn’t close two years ago.
Republicans won’t give the nomination to Romney in 2012 simply because “it’s his turn.” Others have a lot more seniority.
If the Republican Party choose Romney in 2012, it won’t be acting out of love or loyalty. Republicans will pick Romney for one reason and one reason only — because they believe he has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.
They’ll ask these questions:
1.) Does Romney have a biography that will appeal to voters?
2.) Can Romney raise money and build a strong organization?
3.) Does Romney have the discipline to run a strong campaign, to stay ‘on message’ and to handle the heat?
4.) Will Romney sufficiently defend and uphold Republican values?
5.) Can Romney fire up the Republican base, woo independents and win in 2012?
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
1. Yes.
2. Obviously. Already has.
3. Yes.
4. Yes…don’t know if that’s always a good thing…
5. Independents-yes. Win…? Not sure because the Republican base (see “Christian Right”) have already shown their religious bias in 2008. They helped nominate someone who would have never won the nomination with their support had the opponent not been a Mormon.
(No Caleb, I’m not “whining” about Mormon persecution. I’m simply stating the facts.)
Let’s be honest. Unless something major changes in the heads of the Christian right, Romney won’t be nominated because of the religious prejudices of that group, who control the nominating process in most states.
With the economy the way it was and still it, you would think that the GOP would have had the brains to nominate and the nation elect someone who actually understands the economics of this country. No way to prove it, but I would be that Romney would have come a lot closer to winning than McCain did. Perhaps the citizens of this nation will show more wisdom in the next election….but I doubt it.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I think you’re right about the reasons that Romney can’t win, David. Just as the country wasn’t quite ready for a Catholic president when Al Smith ran in 1928, it’s not quite ready for a Mormon president today, and for the same reason: the religious bigotry of conservative voters.
As to the questions, I only disagree with David’s answer to the first one. Mitt Romney is the son of George Romney, former governor of Michigan and head of American motors. He grew up rich, attended a yah yah private prep school in Michigan (though no one called him out on referring to it as a “high school,” the way they did when John Lindsay referred to St. Paul’s as a “high school”), and made a fortune investing other people’s money, often in ventures that those same conservative voters might find a bit uncouth. How is this an appealing background, other than for its similarities to those of John McCain, George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush, none of whom were world beaters?
I know there’s the whole thing about the Olympics, but I suspect that if Romney’s role in that fiasco was properly examined, it wouldn’t be as spectacular as he advertises. Plus, his record in Massachusetts wasn’t all that conservative, and in order to appeal to the true believing grass eaters, you’ve got to be seen as more conservative than everyone else, something he definitely can’t do. Some of his programs in Mass actually helped working class people, and the national Republican party sure can’t stand that.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
A couple of points. As for the SLC Olympics, the “fiasco” happened before Romney was a part of it. He took a bad situation and completely turned it around. I was here in the Salt Lake area and saw it. This area is still receiving accolades from those games and still receives economic profit from them as well. That’s something that can’t be denied. As for the “fiasco,” let’s be honest and state that what the original SLC organizers were caught doing…the bribery scandal…was common practice for all organizing committees up to that time. It just came out with the Salt Lake games. Romney had NOTHING to do with that at all. He came in after all of that came about and cleaned up the mess made by his predecessors, Mr. Joklike and Mr. Johnson. He took a $379M deficit and made the games profitable. How many other Olympic games have done that? (The answer would be 0.)
As for #1, my question to you, Caleb is this: Is it always a strike against someone that they were born into a wealthy family? Can’t a person of means be just as good as one who was born into poverty or the middle class? As for your assertion about how he made his fortune, would you care to elaborate or are you just putting out broad accusations that no one can really prove? Being born rich does not give you the ability to run successful companies (like Bain) or operations (like the Olympics). Being rich does not give you the drive and brains to graduate summa cum laude and valedictorian of your college class. Being rich certainly helps one pay for Harvard, but it doesn’t make one earn a joint JD/MBA degree from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, once again at the top of each class, both law and business.
And a startling difference between Romney and those you named, Caleb. I’m pretty darn sure none of them lived in a basement apartment, at $75/month, while in school.
Yes, he was born rich, but he’s more than “made his own way.” And as for making a fortune “investing other people’s money,” that is a skill, my friend, that doesn’t simply come to you because you were born rich. It takes brains to invest money and then turn a profit.
It’s been plain from other posts that you have some inherent intolerance for those of means. However, prejudice of that sort is no better than the prejudices of any other. It is wrong to place a man or woman into a generalization of your making simply because you don’t care for the group to which he/she belongs.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I do agree with you, however, that the, how did you phrase it….”grass eaters?” will wonder at his true Republican “virtues.” I agree that those aren’t always the best for the country. No one party has the answers. I obviously lean more right than left, but I’ll never be caught stating the GOP has all of the answers. As far as economics go, I believe both parties get in the way of letting the system work as it should and then Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” comes back and smacks us in the face.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I wonder how he feels about Kentucky Basketball!
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I don’t dislike rich people, David; I’ve spent most of my life representing them. I do, however, dislike rich people that, in my view, don’t show a due appreciation of their own luck and the bad luck that many poor people have suffered. I admit that Romney is not one of the worst offenders here (see, e.g., Jim Bunning), but he is not one of the better ones, either. My point was that in middle America, having been born rich is not a political asset. Whether it’s a liability, I don’t know, but I suspect you’ll have a hard time making anyone believe that it takes particular skill to invest other people’s money when the market is going up, as it was when he made his money: I made money in that market, too, and God knows no one thinks I’m an investment genius (including myself).
I think he has too many negatives, and you’re right that the grass eaters won’t see his moderation as a virtue, or the lack of moderation of his opponents as a vice, to channel Barry Goldwater, one of the grassier of the grass eaters. As far as Adam Smith’s invisible hand, I suspect it is as illusory as the Easter Bunny; Smith is not exactly in good odor these days among most economists, given that his theories don’t seem to work in the real world.