CPAC goes for Multiple Choice Mitt. My early guess is that out of Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, the Massachusetts governor is likely to be the least-awful president if he wins and also the least-likely to win if he gets the nomination. So I'm all for conservatives falling in love with the guy.
« What About the Good News? | Main | Winslow Wheeler »
Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!
04 Mar 2007 10:50 am
Comments (14)
I hope Romney gets as much bounce out of this as last year's winner, former Senator George Allen.
Tomboy- Mitt's record in Massachusetts wasn't much to write home about, he didn't get along with the state legislature very well for most of his term. Another difference is that Bush was popular in Texas when he ran for President in 2000, Romney not-so-much.
Rudy and McCain both have horrible tempers and can be complete bastards.
But we're talking about who can attract the votes of the party that loves Ann Coulter, swiftboating, etc., so these are positive things.
Tomboy: Mitt's problem is simple: He's a mormon. Your committed conservatives at CPAC might be willing to look beyond it, your average evangelical: not so much. As Atrios often says, he's just not a person of the "right faith." If the evangelicals stay home or vote for a third party evangelical, it's curtains for Mitt.
Romney bused in supporters to CPAC.
nomnom and bhagavathy,
Your comments reflect upon the unlikely nomination of Mitt by the GOP. My comment, like Matthew's, reflected upon a world where this was already the case, where Mitt ran the gauntlet and secured the GOP nomination. I'm unsure, in that world, why Romney would be easier prey for a Hillary, an Obama, an Edwards, or for my choice, Al Gore.
Sure, I agree that conservative Christians currently have problems with Mitt, but they want to win. They have had quite a run of successes in the last 12 years, and the press has kissed their asses all along the way, writing about how important they are, how strong their values are, etc. If they think Mitt can win, and he is viewed a superior to Rudy in their calculus, they'll back him. Mormon or no.
My earlier point wass that I don't see why Mitt is less likely to win against a democrat once he got the nomination from the GOP, as compared with Rudy and McCain, whose credentials are both tied to the Iraq war. Mitt doesn't have the same immediate association with Bush foreign policy. Conceivably, he would win the GOP nomination by overcoming the objections of the most religiously intolerant Americans, Christian conservatives. That would make the anti-Mormon objections of moderates and independents seem easy to overcome.
My question is, if Mitt were to get the GOP nomination, why would he be easier to beat? Would he inspire a third party Christian candidate? I think Rudy might be more likely to inspire a pro-life third party that would divide the evangelical vote.
I also think that we tend to look at the GOP nomination process as being similar to our own. I think this is wrong. I keep hearing people saying that the GOP couldn't possibly choose Rudy because he isn't anti-gay enough. Or Mitt because he is a Mormon. Or McCain because he can't be trusted by evangelicals. If this is the case, why hasn't a Bush clone, with an evangelical pedigree, his support for the surge, etc. risen to the top of the GOP polls? Because although such a person would win the primary, he would get killed in the general election. The GOP is smart. They want to win.
I think they'll unite around the guy they think will beat Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards, or whomever. It may be that as the democratic picture becomes more clear, the republicans will choose someone that stacks up well against the democratic candidate. Right now the GOP choice seems like Rudy. The more that is written about Rudy's marriages, his pro-gay positions, etc, the more popular he has become with the GOP. Why? He is different from Bush in important ways (ways that appeal to moderates and independents), but still pro corporation, has a tough guy image, etc. Sure some will be pissed off by an eventual GOP choice that alienates a part of the base, but I think they will see it as necessary evil to differentiate the new candidate from Bush, who the country sees as a disaster. I think the GOP are pretty unprincipled, and they will choose whomever they feel will win.
I would argue that Romney would have a good shot at winning a race against Hillary Clinton - the entire right-wing will be galvanized whoever we pick then, the moderates will like his moderation and be turned off by all the lies they've learned about Clinton.
Romney has a bad chance against any other Democrat. A lot of the evangelicals and pro-lifers may be unable to galvanize themselves to vote. It's worth remembering the dilemma the Republicans have created - specifically Bush. The Republicans are split down the middle:
1) Bush is well loved (STILL) by the core Republican evangelical, pro-life base. They think he agrees with them on everything and they see him as a vindication of their core religious beliefs. They also support our foreign adventures, and they have no idea how things are really going in Iraq.
2) Bush has created a rift with the more moderates of their party - his total incompetence makes him look horrible. They hate the Iraq War.
So, one reason I strongly oppose Clinton - she gives them an easy out. A Clinton run allows them to pick a person who appeals to group (2) (Romney is such a person), and still get group (1). This goes to energy and commitment. I don't think the Democrats have any chance of winning group (1), but group (1) may not turn out.
Romney would lose otherwise because the Republican brand limits his ability to reach to the center, but he would not energize group (1).
Romney is the most dangerous of the 3. More telegenic, impeccable family life.
In the general, his MSM supporters will say
"he was governor of MA, he can't possibly be a real winger"
And more importantly, he is the most distanced from the Bush regime.
Mitt Romney is a one-term governor, and a flip-flopping phony with no obvious base of support outside of the state of Utah. He's spent the past few weeks changing his stance on every major social issue and insulting the voters of the state he previously represented. All major Democratic candidates defeat him in head-to-head polling. If he really is the strongest Republican candidate, then Republicans are almost certainly facing a landslide defeat.
Unfortunately, he isn't. Not by a long shot.
It is a serious mistake to assume that Giuliani cannot win the nomination against the extremely weak competition he is facing. And it is a serious mistake to assume that a far-right third party candidate would get any traction as a spoiler running against a Democrat as reviled by the Republican base as Hillary Clinton.
Mitt Romney is a one-term governor, and a flip-flopping phony
Yes, but he's also tall and has thick hair. That will get you far in both business and politics. If it comes down to a contest between him, Giuliani, and McCain, primary voters will be choosing between two men with hideous combovers and one guy with "executive hair." They'll go for the guy who "looks" like he should be in charge.
Giuliani is toast. From yesterday's NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03032007/news/nationalnews/rudy_dragged_down_nationalnews_ian_bishop__post_correspondent.htm
I called this one long ago. Broadway can look at that picture and say "camp", Peoria looks at it and says "fag in drag"
Romney is toast. The fact that the Google search "Romney Mormon underwear" turns up 43000 hits tells you all you need to know. http://wonkette.com/politics/2008/mitt-romneys-underwear-coverup-217378.php
I am not saying that it is fair, just that someone is going to use these items, and to deadly effect. There is not enough image control in the world to counteract the ads that pretty much write themselves. Assuming that either Giuliani or Romney actually make it through the primary, someone somewhere is going to be circulating ads based on this to suppress Republican turnout. The Democratic candidate for President may well be sailing along well over the fray, but campaign consultants for lower level offices in heated races are not going to be held back by some qualms about 'PC-ness', particularly in purple to red states.
"Giuliani's liberal stance on abortion, guns and gays wasn't his biggest problem yesterday as he addressed a conference of conservative activists - it was his having dressed in drag.
A whisper campaign targeting the front-running GOP White House contender's cross-dressing stunts at gala political dinners in New York and on "Saturday Night Live" was the hot topic among right-leaning activists."
This may have been news to attendees at CPAC this weekend but I project it will be the buzz among the grassroots in no time. "Well sure he is a gay loving, anti-gun New York City papist. But he looks fabulous in a pink dress. Rudy's my boy!" Well maybe not.
And whatever your views of Mormonism it just lends itself to cariacature. Fair? Unfair? Well it depends on your perspective but outside of Utah and Idaho there is very little political downside to vilifying Mormons.
I mean come on, this is the Republican Party, home of Willie Horton and John McCain's black love child. You think that they are just going to leave this stuff on the shelf? And that if they do that Democrats are going to be so high minded as not to deploy it?
Personal disclaimer. I am not associated with any Democratic political campaign and given the rhetoric I have deployed here and there over the last six or seven years don't expect to be getting any job offers (can I sit by Amanda?). But I am literally sick of living in George Bush's America and have no intention of spending 2009-2017 in either Giuliani or Romney's America. I fully expect both Giuliani and Romney to implode and relatively soon. If not I am perfectly prepared to do a little controlled demolition on either or both.
What's that smell? Burnt toast.
From the comments here, one thing is quite clear. McCain, Romney, and Giuliani all have mountains of negative issues associated with them. Hagel, the potential candidate not mentioned has none of them. We Democrats can only hope that the GOP doesn't see the light and nominate Hagel.
Since everyone has an opinion, I thought I would give mine.
McCain is out because I don't think anyone in the GOP trusts him. Big business doesn't know if he will rant against their corrupting influence in the government or grant them tax cuts. The Social Conservatives don't trust him because one week they are purveyors of hate and the next he is giving speeches at their universities. The general GOP hates the war, and he is very much in favor of the war and the surge. He is too unpredictable.
Giuliani is very pro business, so he has that part of the GOP sewn up. He hasn't really taken any high profile position on the war other than to contribute Bernard Kerik early on, but that has been lost in the many hued disaster that is Iraq. He is not going to talk too loudly against Bush and Iraq because he doesn't want to piss off the few still in favor of Bush's policy, but he doesn't want to get tainted as a supporter of the war either. The conservatives have publicly thrown over McCain, so that leaves Giudy and Romney. Giuliani is the right kind of Christian (Catholic), so it is still possible to overcome his liberal past with the right penitence. He is already making the right kind of noise Christian conservatives like to hear. He is now personally against abortion and would appoint only strict constructionist to the courts. Is this enough to win them over? I think so. The Christian Conservatives have had a gold mine with George Bush and his faith based initiatives, more importantly, they've been front and center with policies and opinions for the past 8 years. If there is a Democratic President, they will lose the bully pulpit that George Bush has given them. None of the true conservatives have any traction in the polls, and they have even less financial support. Given the choice between Giudy and losing the White House, they will take Giudy.
This takes us to Romney, who has a similarly problem as McCain. Multiple Choice Mitt has way too many positions to explain away and he is(Gasp!) Mormon. If he makes it out of the the Primaries, the Christian Conservatives will vote for him, but he is their least favorite.
My money is on Giuliani to take it all. All as in the GOP nomination for POTUS.
It is a serious mistake to assume that Giuliani cannot win the nomination against the extremely weak competition he is facing.
Why do you ask this question? Is anybody "assuming" this now? The question ought to be: can anyone stop Giuliani, and can anyone make a race of it, and is John McCain toast? As countless pundits have been breathlessly pointing out of late, no GOP candidate has ever failed to win the nomination at this stage in the game with such a large lead (15-25 points, depending on whose polling your trust).
Surely the single most likely match-up now is Rudy vs either Clinton or Obama (or Gore, should he decide to enter, which I personally find quite probable).
Comments closed March 18, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm unsure why you think he'd be the least likely to win if he got the nomination. Is it the Mormon thing? The flip-flopping?
He's the smartest of the republican candidates, and I feel the least likely to say something really dumb. Rudy and McCain both have horrible tempers and can be complete bastards. Both have made a lot of enemies. Mitt hasn't been on the scene long enough to have the enemies of these two, plus he was raised in a political family that schooled him in the importance of not making rash statements.
Mitt also has the "conservative who was able to get things done in a liberal state" thing going for him. As I remember, GWB's appeal to moderates rested in part on his record of reaching across the aisle in Texas. Certainly Mitt has that quality, plus he has substantive success on a liberal issue, health care. The details of that plan and its relative success or failure will only become known long after the election, much like Texas' previously lauded school reforms. That too gives him a leg up with moderates.
Which of the three is most likely to inspire a third party run from the right? Which is least likely to cause a candidacy of a Bloomberg? That is who is most easily beaten.
Posted by tomboy | March 4, 2007 11:17 AM