« Welfare and Work | Main | Obama Messiah Watch »

The Tempting of Mitt Romney

04 Jan 2008 12:22 pm

romneytempting.jpg

John Ellis:

A large part of politics is framing the context in which one's candidacy is understood. Romney was never going to be a base candidate. He's a Mormon and the base is not. Romney was never going to be the "conservative" candidate, he was the former governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal state in the country, and campaigned there for the US Senate (in 1994) and for governor (in 2002) as a moderate.

Romney's only real choice was to run as a Republican Gary Hart, the candidate of "new ideas" for a party in desperate need of same. That would have at least given him the flexibility to play to his strengths; his intellectual prowess, his business acumen, his demonstrable executive skills and his admirable personal qualities. And it would have enabled him to attract a wide array of advisors and intellectuals to help him think through innovative policy positions on what appear to be intractable issues.

Had Romney campaigned as the GOP Gary Hart, he would have emerged as an agent of change, regardless of caucus and primary outcomes. Long-term, that would have given him leverage within the Republican Party and with voters generally. If you're the "new idea" guy, almost by definition people want to hear what you have to say.

Having been pretty hard on Romney yesterday, let me say something in his defense. Like Ellis, I think he should have run as the candidate of new ideas, as a Republican Gary Hart, and in a different field - one with, say, a George Allen as the frontrunner - I think he would have. But in this field, this year, I can see why he didn't. In a race where his main rivals seemed to be John McCain and Rudy Giulani, the absence of a natural "base candidate" probably looked so glaring, and the benefits of filling that void so potentially enormous, that it's easy to understand what drove the Romney campaign to run things the way they did. Seizing the opportunity that presented itself, and assuming that they'd be able to pivot back to their candidate's real strengths once the nomination was sealed up, looks like a big mistake right now, but if Mike Huckabee had never caught fire everybody might have woken up this morning talking about what a great campaign Mitt Romney had run. And Gary Hart, you may recall, never won the Democratic nomination, let alone the Presidency.

Photo by Flickr user Why Tuesday used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments (21)

Even though I think your article yesterday was way off base, I like your writing Ross. Thanks for focusing on the issues today.

"Flip-Flopper" is code name for "No, I will not vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon"; which = BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!!

Many of us still believe in Mitt and his campaign. Iowa is just Iowa, it does not reflect all or the final nomination.

Considering what Romney had to go through in Iowa, he certainly did VERY well. Huckabee has been part of the Evangelical base for decades.

With their hands in the mouths of the average American, dentists have discovered what Americans want:

Presidential Election: Dentists Pick Romney and Clinton
http://www.pr.com/press-release/65979

Hi Ross,

I was just wondering what your thoughts were on why or how Mike Huckabee "caught fire." According to CBS news: "Evangelicals put in a strong showing at the caucuses - they made up an overwhelming 6 in 10 of attendees - and Huckabee was their darling, garnering 46 percent of their support in the crowded Republican field."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/politics/main3673124.shtml

It is obvious that Mike Huckabees faith and positioning versus Mitt Romney's faith and positioning will have an impact in New Hampshire, but how much? There is an independent film coming out shortly titled: “Article VI: Faith. Politics. America.” If you are not familiar with it, I suggest you check out the trailer, pretty powerful.

http://www.articlevithemovie.com/trailer.php

"Considering what Romney had to go through in Iowa, he certainly did VERY well."

What he had to go through was more than $10 million of campaign cash to get a weak second place showing.

I agree with Ross that if Romney had run on the same platform and with the same positions he had in Massachusetts, he would have walked away with the GOP nomination. Instead, he pretended to be a social conservative and the transparent ploy has come back to bite him in the a$$. Good riddance to Mr. Phony.

The Huckster "caught fire" because people think he is somebody that he is clearly NOT...and neither is Romney.

Get a clue on what embarrassment Iowa is looking at;

Candidate Research - Know Who You're Voting For
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

Huckabee is both a liberal and a Populist. Those two are not good for the Republican party.

Romney needed, and had, the money to spend in an area saturated with Evangelicals, of which Huckabee had been a part of for decades. Huckabee had a natural base in Iowa, enough so that his political record was hardly questioned --he ran on religion and personality. Hence, Romney's ad comparisons. As Huckabee's real positions and history come under scrutiny, the smoke and mirrors game will really go into play for he has a lot to hide for one who is campaigning as a conservative.

A populist tries to solve peoples problems,tries to say he is one with them, when in reality he is Big Government. And although the candidate cannot solve the problems he says he can, the people still like to hear it. Populists take away people's freedom and make them dependent. Edwards and Hillary are also Populists. The current Populist position has evolved from when it began, and it is not a positive approach to leading the American people.

Read the transcripts from Rush Limbaugh's show for today, he speaks about much of this.

-"Like Ellis, I think he should have run as the candidate of new ideas, as a Republican Gary Hart....."-

What "new ideas", Ross? What would a Mitt Romneypence favor?

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio will campaign with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, the next battleground in the 2008 presidential race. This is the guy that tells it like it is and is against illegal immigration. He endorses Mitt Romney.


Arpaio flies to N.H. to stump for Romney
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/12/31/daily49.html


Republicans want immigration reform and hate illegal immigration/amnesty. McCain and Huck are very weak (and destructive) in this area.

Arpaio's one of the loudest yahoos in the country, a real favorite of Bill O'Reilly's. Romney really will eat cheese off of the scales of the least common denominator to win this race, won't he?

On the Huck, do read the bracing words of VodkaPundit

Dear Iowa Republicans,

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter -- the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever -- and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

And by a pretty wide margin.

I’ll give you some credit where it's due: you guys had sense enough to give Fred Thompson a breather, and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts. But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is... every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked -- which is most of them.

So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?

All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,

VodkaPundit

Peter Leavitt, Senior Cheerleader for Dumbya Bush, the worst president in American history, repeats:

"The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter -- the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever -- and declared, “That’s our man!”"

In reality Jimmy Carter did not win the Iowa caucuses in 1976. "Uncommitted" did.

Once again Peter Leavitt displays his profound knowledge of the facts. He does have them, somewhere around his house, but they're buried under a mound of WMDs.

Oh, wait, those are BVDs. Never mind.

Moe:
You are always in attack mode. Stop hatin' How old are you? You act like you are one of the Huckabee sheeple.

Hey MoLarry

Meet me at the corner tavern.
We have a tent for you in the Arizona desert.
We'll need to fit you for your pink underwear,
and remember, bring your own coffee.

Best Regards
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Az.

Moe, your playing with words. The Iowa Primary played a major role in launching his dismal presidential career.

1976: A little-known Democratic governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter, campaigned heavily in the state and wound up coming in second to "uncommitted." That almost-win positioned Carter to later take the Democratic nomination. Republicans moved up their primary to make the Iowa caucuses a bipartisan national event. President Gerald Ford narrowly beat Gov. Ronald Reagan of California. Ford later won the Republican nomination, but lost the presidency to Carter.

Debrar, don't count on Moe taking your advice. Most on this blog find his risible and ignorant antics entertaining.

Peter Leavitt says: "Moe, your playing with words."

That's "you're," chuckles.

"Most on this blog find his risible and ignorant antics entertaining."

I know you admire the risible and ignorant because you're a two-time Bush voter, Peter, but "entertaining"? I wish I could say the same about your tedious offerings.

"Little man actually. His name is Jim Keane and when he's not busy ruining any possibility of interesting discussion from taking place at Ross' site, he is getting banned from Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism (and not for his choice of name as he will try to tell you)."

How come I am not the least bit surprised?

Fitz, thanks for this info, on Jim Keane. However risible and entertaining, this fellow is, he does tend to ruin the possibility of interesting discussion on this site. One has to either ignore his basicaly vicious remarks or try to make light of them.

Though Ross allows wide latitude of discussion on this site, he needs to can this rude character.

Peter Leavitt again: "However risible and entertaining, this fellow is, he does tend to ruin the possibility of interesting discussion on this site."

Peter, you wouldn't be interesting if your ass were on fire. You should probably brush up on your comma usage skills before you post again.

What's with the people who make themselves the designated Spell Checker of Grammar Guru? We're looking for concepts and conversation, not typo's that might slip into the blogging.

Moe,

I think Carter was our best postwar president on foreign policy, actually. At least he did something to ameliorate our abominable policies in Latin America, of supporting every right-wing tyrant to come down the pike.

Anyone who thinks that Carter was worse than the presidents who were responsible for the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the interventions in Iran, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Mexico, and I don't know where else, has a moral compass that is more than a bit out of whack.