Mitt Romney 2012?
Since it has become fairly accepted to believe and say that John McCain and Sarah Palin will lose (potentially big) in November, the time has to ask which Republican will take Barack Obama to task in 2012. One of the likely candidates to do so is Mitt Romney.
Romney lost the Republican nomination because Evangelicals were hardpressed to support him, due to his Mormon faith. In the coming four years, however, he will have the time to make them acqainted with him and win their trust. If he wanted to win the Republican Party’s nomination he would have had to convince them that their religious differences were of no concern, because he agreed with the exact policies they based on their faith.
He failed to do so, however, causing him to lead, despite support from most fiscal conservatives in the party.
The coming years will give him all the opportunities he need to make up his past mistakes. He will be able to reach out to Evangelicals and to present himself as the unofficial leader of the Republican Party. John McCain is that leader now, at least in theory, but he will lose his position at the very moment he loses, which will be November 4th.
When McCain falls, Romney will be the only Republican left with national fame who is actually considered able of winning the presidency. The other Republican candidates for president - Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and the others - would simply have no chance of winning in a national election, and Republican voters know this. One of the reasons so many of them supported McCain this year was because they believed his maverick credentials would help him distance himself from George W. Bush, a necessity for Republican politicians who want to remain or get in office. This was a big, and for Republicans tragic, mistake. McCain was not able to fight of Obama’s assaults, nor was he able to present himself as more than an angry old man.
So that leaves only Romney standing for 2012. He is the only Republican who should be able to win a national election, he was Republican governor of a blue state, his main strength is the economy (and the economy will probably still have considerable weaknesses in 2012), he’s anything but an angry old man and he is the only Republican would-be president with national recognition.
I’m predicting: Romney-Jindal ‘12.
Well said!! I couldn’t agree more!
The evangelicals got what they wished for. I’m one of those republicans that backed Romney and realized that stone cold bigotry was the only catalyst to a McCain nomination. Personally I feel that an Obama presidency is necessary before a Romney presidency. That’s why I will be voting Obama this year like many others. In my mind it’s the lesser of two evils; Vote McCain and I reward bigotry, vote Obama and I set us up for Romney 2012. Great article.
From what I was able to tell (and I was watching very closely) the anti-Mormon bigot vote was going to / exploited by Huckabee, not McCain.
Roy -
I couldn’t agree more! The evangelical Taliban should NOT be rewarded or enabled for its bigotry. These bullies have been beyond disgusting!
Romney 2012!
I know that history will show Obama will be a Carter and Romney the Reagan in 2012.
I agree that Romney is looking like a good choice for 2012. However I worry about some talk I’ve been hearing about Palin making a run at it. I think the far-right might get behind her, despite the fact that she would have no chance against Obama. That could make things difficult for Romney to win the primary.
Whether Romney could beat Obama is another story. I think that depends on what happens in the next 4 years. We’ve already seen some Obama supporters become disappointed when he moved more to the center in the general election. If the Obama presidency doesn’t provide as much change as his supporters are expecting, that could make it hard to win the re-election (you can’t run on "change" as an incumbent)
Another question is what does Romney do for the next 4 years. He’s got to find a way to keep himself relevant so he doesn’t look like a has-been in four years, but he also can’t get too partisan so he keeps his outside-of-washington credential.
Mike -
If the far-right does not learn its lesson with Palin and the current election, GOD HELP THEM!
Jason. Managing Editor,
I agree 100% that Huckabee and his minions we’re the root of it. Huckabee was a keynote speaker at the big Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City in the 90’s. Have you ever wondered why they keep the transcripts from his speach under lock and key. The sad thing is that Mormons are historically about as loyal republicans as you can get. The Huckabee "Christian Candidate" circus was an obvious slap in the face to this loyal group of voters. I live in a prominent Salt Lake City neighborhood and I am shocked at the number of Obama/Bidin yard signs this election season. It’s truly eye opening in a state like Utah. I’ve never seen anything like it. I’ve heard it said that Huckabee will go down in history as the man who single handedly sabotaged the GOP. The wedge he drove into the party will take many years to remove. With the economy as issue #1, even the most bigoted evangelical has to admit that a Romney/? ticket would at least give us a fighting chance…or as in the words of Texas Pastor Robert Jeffress, "the eternal consequenses outweigh the political ones" to suppport a Mormon for President. (See quote below)
Romney, a Mormon, is not a Christian, the Rev. Robert Jeffress said, but a member of a "cult."
"I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian," Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, told a packed audience of journalists at last weekend’s Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) annual meeting. "The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. . . . Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God."
sorry to rain on all of your parades, but according to a new national poll it is Mike Huckabee who most say they would consider on theyre dream ticket. Not Romney or McCain. Did you see Romney flop at the RNC convention? What a loser. I felt bad for him. Romney’s time has passed. Go check the Poll out for your selves. 4 to 1 they preffer Huckabee over McCain.
http://www.mccanes.com
As a moderate Republican, former centrist, independent, the Romney who ran the Olympics and governed Mass was an interesting candidate. The guy who ran this year and who spoke in Minneapolis is a turn off. And there’s the "likeability" factor.
PS Four years is a loooooooooong time, those in the "inevitable" Clinton campaign can attest.
Peter -
Polls which include Dems mean little. Dems like Huckabee until one reminds them of Huck’s Obama gun "joke". Google "obama huckabee gun". You will get ONE MILLION HITS! Huck is the one who is done–stick a fork in him.
Oh, and just imagine once the liberal media helped elect Huck, how they would turn on him and play up the preacher with the history of ethics problems.
Additionally many who originally liked Huck have changed their minds now that they’ve seen the REAL HUCK! Any of you Huck-lovers thinking he’s still got a chance are delusional!
Maybe Romney could win the election in 2012. Problem is, there is no difference between him, McCain and Giuliani. They are all Neo-Con war addicts bent on enriching their already rich friends (lobbyists). Remember Romney saying in one of his commercials that he would increase the number of troops by 100,000! How the heck was he going to do that without a draft? None of the GOP and Democtratic candidates have a clue about the economy, that’s why they were very vague during the debates about this subject, well except Ron Paul of course. He’s the only one who has a clue about what should be done. He’s been warning about the current financial crisis for over 30 years now and always predicted recessions years in advance, but nobody listens. Maybe now people will open their minds and take a look at Autrian ecomonics who have within them many Nobel prize winners who at you might guess have also predicted this financial mess years ago. Romney wouldn’t change a thing when it comes to the economy, war & personal liberties, that was pretty clear in the debates. So for me, screw Romney in 2012, infact, screw the Neo-Con Republican party and the Democratic party aswell because there is little to no difference between them. Vote third party!
Jason (managing editor):
You are correct that Huckabee exploited the anti Mormon bigotry to his benefit, and he has now landed his talk show (have you seen it? it is awful), but it was McCain s who really benefited as it gave him the open door to the republican nomination.
Note by MvdG: I thank Hunter for reposting this comment. It was, seemingly, accidentally deleted.
I believe your analysis does not account for the changing political landscape, within the GOP, and the country at large.
I also believe that you also overestimate the ability of Romney to connect with the voters. Romney spent a fortunate in this election and failed to capture the imagination of the voters during the GOP primary. Given the economic and political events that are unfolding, I believe that Romney missed is window of opportunity. While it’s true that a pretty face and lots of money certainly helps in politics, I doubt those qualities will help Romney overcome the populist uprising that is likely to occur as a result of the economic meltdown that is developing.
Ron Paul will likely be the one person that stands to gain the most influence within the Republican Party over the next 4 years. Ron Paul’s supporters are the most committed activists within the GOP and the unfolding events are only serving to validate the political agenda that is the foundation of growing Ron Paul movement. The agenda is the
restoration of our Constitutional Republic and the Constitution which our nation is founded upon, fierce defense of civil liberties, a non interventionist foreign policy, the reestablishment of a sound monetary system, and the establishment of a truly free market economic system.
Ron Paul himself may not be a presidential candidate in 2012, his age makes that unlikely (but not impossible), however the “Campaign for Liberty” movement will likely put forth a successor to Dr. Paul, should he not choose to seek the presidency. This activist organization has already gained over 115,000 activists, whereas no such mobilization of committed activists has formed behind the other personalities you mention, such as Huckabee or Romney. This organization seeks to influence the GOP between presidential election cycles, therefore influencing the makeup and direction of the GOP between now and 2012. I see no evidence that Romney will attempt to have such a direct influence with the party members and the republican voters between now and 2012. His apparent plan of gaining influence with the party leadership leaves himself vulnerable to being outflanked by his more active and involved competitors, especially given the social and economic upheaval that is likely to occur between now and 2012.
Dr. Paul was on to something when he proclaimed “the freedom message brings people together”, and I think the economic and political turmoil that is developing will cause the American citizenry to come together, rather than remain divided in the stale model of “Red” vs. “Blue” states. Where Romney will remain a strict partisan, Ron Paul’s movement is seeking to be something larger than one party, instead the intent is to become a populist movement attracting support from people of all political backgrounds.
Looking at Romney, I see the last vestiges of the political culture that has failed the American people: Crony Corporatism and Military Imperialism. I predict that the American people will reject the failed system that Romney represents. I believe that America yearns to be reborn as the beacon of liberty, prosperity and peace throughout the
world, which can only occur by adopting a dramatically different political agenda thatn what has brought us to this point.
I know that personally, that is why I would never support Romney, McCain, etc., since they represent what is leading to the downfall of our great nation. It currently appears that Obama is likely to be elected in November. After 4 years of Obama style “change”, resulting in worsening economic conditions, I believe the American people will turn against the Democrats and tire of Obama’s brand of socialism and that they will be turning to the change that Dr. Paul and his supporters are offering.
Time will tell.
Mike:
You mentioned " I worry about some talk I’ve been hearing about Palin making a run at it." I am not worried, in fact I think if she runs, it could benifit a possible Romney run in 2012:
First, I am one that predicted 4 things when Palin was picked as McCain’s VP nominee:
1) McCain would get a temporary big boost from Palin, as the newest of her choice wore off and as the American people got to know her, the would find that she is really a lite weight in politics, and that it would come back to hant McCain.
2) That troopergate would become a national issue that couldn’t be hidden away in some little part of Alaska above the artic circle where no light will shine on it throughout the winter months and be forgotten. I was one that was following the case before she was McCain’s VP choice, and was suprised that he picked her for this very reason. We all know what the ethics report said and it wasn’t good for her or McCain. If somehow McCain finds a way to win, I expect there to be either a criminal investigation made, or a lawsuite against her or the state of Alaska to be filed.
3) That the economy will be the biggest concern for the American people going into the election, and that Palin will do nothing - I repeat - nothing that will help a McCain ticket on economic issues.
4) Come November both McCain and the Republican Party will be lementing their choices. McCain because not picking Romney will have cost him the election as Romney would have strengthened his ticket particularly on economic issues and would have been the key to McCain capturing Colorado, Nevada, Florida, New Mexico, Michigan and the presidency. The Republican party because as we saw in the primaries, the economy was moving fast as the key election conern and without a strong candidate on the economy, the election would fall to the Democrats.
Now for 2012, I hope that Palin does run and she and Huckabee can fight it out over the fanatical right wing evangelical vote that will never vote for a mormon, while the rest of us who are smart enough to see that Romney’s (as well as most mormons) views are in line with main stream evangelical views on social, economic, and national security, and that Romney will again in 2012 be the strongest candidate, and the only candidate that has a chance at betting Obama in 2012.
Hunter, There are several reasons why I believe your analysis on why Ron Paul is poised to take over the Republican Party is just as much a fantasy as the predictions posted by the hundreds six months ago that Paul would win the primary and/or the election:
1) The continually bizarre behavior of a huge proportion of Paul’s supporters will keep the entire movement on the fringes of American politics. People generally — and conservative Republicans in particular — have little desire to be associated with (let alone ruled by) grungy conspiracy theorists who slavishly and spookily and endlessly quote the words of a leader they follow with cult-like devotion. Furthermore, most voters would be scared off by Paul’s associations with racist groups like Stormfront and the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists that infest the very core of his supporters. Quite simply, many, many, many of Ron Paul’s supporters scare off far more people than they attract. I would certainly never vote for a candidate controlled by the Ron Paul traveling freak show even if Ron Paul himself were gone. And from what I have heard from a LOT of independents and regular Republicans, my revulsion for the Ron Paul "movement" is pretty common.
2) Paul’s movement has been deliberately and repeatedly ANTI-Republican — it has gone out of its way to repeatedly offend the Republican Party mainstream at every opportunity, including holding a competing convention in Minneapolis and giving credentials to anti-Republican protesters so that they could get inside and disrupt the GOP convention by shouting at the speakers. These people are not going to be persuaded to jump on board, the only way you could take over the party would be to drive them out. And the result of such a purge (”influence the makeup of the GOP” sounds a lot like a purge) would be the creation of a new party that would be much larger than anything the Paulistas could muster. This is the same thing that happened to the Reform Party when it was taken over by the Pat Buchanan fringe (a precursor to the Ron Paul fringe — many of the exact same same people and philosophies). Ron Paul’s attempt to take over the Republican Party is unlikely to have any more effect than Lyndon LaRouche’s attempt during the 1980s to take over the Democratic Party. Both Paul and LaRouche represent very similar political beliefs and tactics and both are condemned by their very definition to remain on the lunatic fringe of their chosen target parties.
3) The Ron Paul movement is not likely to gain much traction from current events, at least not among anyone who has basic information to answer back the Paulist misrepresentations and conspiracy mongerings. The financial crisis that Paul claims to have predicted did not, in fact, result from failure to be on the deflationary gold standard and if we were to react as Paul demands (deflating the currency to force-fit it back into an 1870s version of the gold standard) we would wind up repeating the mistakes that turned the 1929 financial crisis into the Great Depression. The very LAST thing you want to do during a credit crunch is to deflate the money supply as Paul and his supporters demand — the result of that is to respond to an economic cancer by garroting of the patient — the deflation that Paul advocates is how to kill an economy a rapidly as possible. Of course, Paul and his followers don’t really care, since theory trumps experience in their world and “let the markets crash” fits nicely into their deep hatred for most of modern American life. But those who DO want to avoid the practical consequences of the Great Depression more than they want to validate the bizarre theories of Ron Paul vastly outnumber the Paulistas.
4) Paul’s policy proposals are deceptively labeled and non-responsive to real world problems. His purist desire for free trade and an isolationist foreign policy (you can dispense with the "non-interventionist" spin — any policy that mandates withdrawal from NATO is properly called isolationist) would lock the United States into a gruesome economic isolation cut off from other countries’ markets (those countries would be free to impose massive tariffs on U.S. products because Ron Paul’s unilateral guarantee of zero tariffs operating outside of the context of any treaty (let’s remember that Ron Paul rejects all treaties as unconstitutional by definition — a bizarre misrepresentation of the actual Constitutional text that is completely overlooked by his supporters)) and unable to muster any tools with which to combat unfair trade practices from other countries. Once again, Paul’s affinity for Lyndon LaRouche’s peculiar brand of abstract theories would render his movement unpalatable to any well-educated segment of American policymakers.
5) Paul’s hatred for the Federal Reserve and often announced desire to abolish it would threaten to make monetary policy a partisan plaything, vulnerable to massive political business cycles (where politicians inflate the currency prior to elections to gain the illusion of economic growth) and periodic deflationary depressions. These would not only be financially disastrous to the economy, they would be pretty transparently unpopular even prospectively. People are not likely to embrace a philosophy of blanket opposition to an independent and technocratic central bank that has not only been proven to be a failure every time countries with independent central banks are compared to those that lack them, but which offers to give politicians direct control over the money supply. Limited technocracy is the will of the people, in spite of attempts by people like Paul to exploit its failures to press for an even worse alternative.
Perhaps I am placing too much hope in the ability of the people to actually be able to see the grotesque foolishness and shallowness of the Paulist political program, but I think that there are enough people with enough limited knowledge of the real functioning of the economic system to see through Paul’s attempts to exploit it even in a time of crisis. Furthermore, my confidence is enhanced by the fact that even if people are ignorant of the underlying economic facts that would make a Paulist takeover disastrous, I am fairly certain that the continually bizarre and often racist and violent behavior of so many of Paul’s supporters would add enough additional numbers to the anti-Paul reaction as to make his takeover of the party or the country highly unlikely.
If not, I would hate to have to leave the smoking ruin that he and/or his supporters would leave if they were empowered to do so. I would definitely prefer to live in Germany or Britain or Australia or even Poland rather than the hateful, violent, and economically depressed ruin that Paul and his supporters would rule over.
<blockquote>Now for 2012, I hope that Palin does run and she and Huckabee can fight it out over the fanatical right wing evangelical vote that will never vote for a mormon, while the rest of us who are smart enough to see that Romney’s (as well as most mormons) views are in line with main stream evangelical views on social, economic, and national security, and that Romney will again in 2012 be the strongest candidate, and the only candidate that has a chance at betting Obama in 2012.</blockquote>
I think the far-right evangelical political movement (please note I don’t include all evangelicals in this group) has proven itself determined and politically savvy. I don’t think they will be so easily split. With two very similar candidates, I think they would quickly choose a side. I can’t image Palin and Huckabee going at each other. From early on I think there would only be room for one of them.
Sorry for the rejected html. I’m a newbie on this blog.
Those who will only vote on religion can split the vote between Huckabee and Palin letting Romney take the nod in 2012. All’s well that ends well.
I think you are absolutely right! Bravo. only i am voting for mcCain…. I have thought over and over again about how i would feel afterwards if i voted for Obama and I just cant do it. As much as i would like to see mcCain reap what he sow, I cant vote for obama. and I believe Obama will win regardless! So I totally agree…the only way america will fully appreciate Romney is after Obama ruins everything. Romney will then bring our conservative party back and all the rights that maybe taken from us in the next four years…and he will Fix this disastorous economy crisis. You think its bad now…just wait.
@Roy
I think the Republican nominee in 2012 could easily be someone not currently on the radar. So much depends on how the party shakes out after what looks to be a beating this year. What new equilibrium will emerge between the socons, econocons, and the oddly named neocons. What faction will dominate and what faction(s) will be forced to take a back seat. The outlook for 2012 depends almost entirely on this. If the econocons take the lead, then Romney has a shot otherwise I don’t think he has much of a chance.
Anyone holding out hope for Ron Paul is in for an even bigger disappointment than this time around. Maybe he can run as with the Constitution Party.
@Rex Hump
I disagree that the far religious right is bigoted in the way that is implied. The religious right has just as much right, constitutionally, to feel and express their views as do others. If you want to look at bigoted, then look toward the black vote. It was almost exclusively for Obama. It was done nearly entirely on racial lines. The Christian right votes mainly on principle, that’s all.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean this comment for Rex.
Rex, I meant to say I agree with what you expressed, and hope that Romney has the integrity that Reagan had. One thing I know about Romney is this: I heard him say something about the rampantness (paraphrase) of pornography on our culture. No one else seems to have the intestinal fortitude to name that tune. This speaks a volume to me of integrity on Romney’s part.
It is sad to see this happen but I can’t wait for the 2012 election. I like Sarah Palin but that was McCain’s fault for bringing her in. I think Romney will have a tough battle in 2012 but he will be our country’s next Reagan. Also I am glad to see all the Propitions defining marriage as one man and one woman. We will see how Obama does but I don’t there will be change. It is funny because there realy isn’t anything wrong with Romney’s record just people could not trust a mormon so I hope with Mormon church being a huge contributor as defining marriage between one man and woman, the republican base will have trust in a mormon president.
Romney 2012
I don’t think so.
Gov. Romney presents too many baggages.
I prefer Gov. Palin. She took all that they could dish out and stood stoic without whinning. And her stance on issues are core conservatism.
Plus, her record and accomplishments say that she won’t stand for corruption.
AND her popularity in the rallies tell you that a lot of middle America adore her.
I’ve heard of many centrist Democrats voice support for her.
Palin and whoever she want to pick for a running mate works for me, big time. I would love to see the debate between Gov. Palin and Obama.
She can carve him up while smiling to the camera. It will be a kodak moment.
@Tired of being called racist
Palin is no where close to the political savy Romney has. As a Roman Catholic I would be more than happy to vote fro Romney. You could not name me one person on either tikets(or 2012 probably tikets for that matter) who had the experience in the private sector that Romney has. You colud not name me one candidate who has the midas touch, like Romney does, when it comes to restucuring something and creating a sruplus out of it. Every time Romney has faced debt he turned it into a surplus. Palin has never, I repeat NEVER, faced a budget deficit before. Ohh and BTW…Palin struggled to beat Biden who the F@CK do you think she could beat Obama?