What’s so bad about Mitt?
Mitt Romney seemed to do well in last night’s first Republican debate, and Michelle Bachmann was the surprise success, for many. (Pawlenty seemed to confirm suspicions that he is the genuinely ersatz candidate of the race.) I was focused on the hockey game in nearby Boston, so didn’t watch, and am judging by the various live-blogging threads I checked in on. I’m pleasantly surprised Romney did well, as he has always seemed to me to be the natural leading candidate if the GOP wants to make a serious run at Obama, and I do think it’ll be a very tight race. Any Republican nominee, as any Democrat, will get a committed 45 percent, and it’s the few percentage points in the middle who will make the difference.
Romney has a record to run on, he looks good, and he can raise money. His health care plan in Massachusetts (source of Pawlenty’s “Obamneycare” dig) signals to the wider voting populace that he’s not an ideologue, as does his tack to the right to attract the more conservative GOP primary voters, and to rally the base of a more conservative Republican party. Romney is a politician who will do what his supporters want, and will also do what is possible and good for his track record. (Romney’s grown up response about Muslims also played well, and was refreshing; that must be an extension of his Mormon experience, and I hope he plays that out in the campaign, even though he’s vulnerable with many on his religion. Better to face it than run from it.)
Romney’s weakness in securing the nomination — a lack of ideological purity and right-wing culture warrior bona fides — would seem to hold him in good stead in the general election contest. And maybe Republican voters are sensing that too. A Gallup poll this week showed that 50 percent of Republicans would back the candidate with the best chance of beating Barack Obama while 44 percent would favor someone who shares their views on the issues they most care about even if he or she would not have as good a shot at the Oval Office.
Gallup also showed Romney widening his preference among Republicans, to 24 percent, with Sarah Palin coming in second. But Michelle Bachmann’s strong performance last night may switch things up, and make people realize what a nonentity Palin is, and what an underestimated, veteran politician Bachmann is. Those are encouraging developments, to me, because even if I don’t cotton to much Republican ideology these days, I do prefer grown-up pols who have a feel for governing.
So, “Romney-Bachmann 2012″? I have to discount Texas governor Rick Perry as yet another flavor-of-the-day for an underwhelmed GOP base. Besides he’s too busy trying to be the next Billy Graham, though the fact that he’s a cheapskate when it comes to the collection plate may not help him there.
I still think the GOP’s best candidate is “2016,” with a governor-to-be-named later. Same with the Dems. Cuomo v. Christie, anyone?
PS: Jon Chait sees Paul Ryan as the “missing man” who could instantly transform the field. Me, not so much. I think the party would rather keep him as the stalking horse for the more radical GOP agenda. But he’s be the third Catholic candidate! Ryan, Gingrich, and Santorum. Hmmmm….
I’ve had the Cuomo-vs-Christie thought, too.
Romney’s going to have some tough sledding. He’s a safe, faithful husband in an election in which conservatives are longing to have a torrid (and maybe deliciously illicit) affair. But steady does win the race from time to time.
If Romney is the Republican candidate, the next four years will look a lot like this year and next: President Obama with a divided Congress.
I’d swear that I heard Romney say that he would turn over the responsibilities presently assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the several states or, if he could, to private companies. Doing either of those things to FEMA would be madness. Think about this year’s Mississippi River flooding, the rash of tornadoes that ripped through several states this spring, the role of FEMA after the Gulf oil spills. Put these burdens on the several states, with their balanced budget laws and see how long it would take to get any relief to the needy people.
Can anyone corroborate that Romney said something so stupid? I can’t find any commentator who picked up on this point? I hope I am wrong about this.
What I clearly am not wrong about is the calls by one or more of all the candidates for a stripping of the federal government of many of its crucial functions. For example, Bachmann clearly called for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Think about how bright that idea is.
On the whole, the debate was craziness on stilts. And the press treats it as business as usual!
Jim P, if your prediction comes true (Prez Obama and divided Congress) it may not be so bad, as the GOP might realize things are what they are and start talking negotiation and compromise.
Huntsman’s entry will be very interesting, if he’s not already too late. He’s very impressive and is flying very low. It’s Romney’s to lose right now until he enters. By all accounts, Team Obama is going very negative this year, so the more boring the candidate, the better.
As for the comment about devolving FEMA’s responsibilities to the states, I think if you spoke to some of the folks in La and Ms who make frequent use of those resources, they’d be inclined to agree with such a devolution. The stories some of the shrimpers and fishermen utilized in the oil spill is chilling.
“Jim P, if your prediction comes true (Prez Obama and divided Congress) it may not be so bad, as the GOP might realize things are what they are and start talking negotiation and compromise.”
Seems to me Boehner could conduct a master class for Pres. Obama and the Dems in negotiations tactics judging by the latest round – not “will there be cuts, but how big will the cuts be” seems a good starting place for the GOP.
David G, it all depends on the staying power of the Tea Party. It terrifies traditional Republican pols who might otherwise be inclined to negotiate. If the Tea Party can somehow stay organized and on point during the primary season – a very tall order for something that genuinely had major elements of spontaneity and disparity – then we’re looking at four more years of the same. If, as seems likely enough, the fire goes out for the tea partiers, and they either check out completely or dissolve back into the general conservative sea, then Boehner et al may feel empowered to do what comes naturally to legislators – play Let’s Make a Deal.
I, too, watched the Bruins win (I think Mike Emrick is one of the greatest sports announcers of all time). From the commentary I have read on the debate, it seems that Pawlenty is running for VP.
Jim P., I’ve seen polls indicating a lot of the Tea Party fire/instransigence/whathaveyou is tempering, though the lsowing economy may change that. I think it’s an inevitable part of the “domestication” of any movement, but your reading is right. They are pushing the party in a certain direction, but as we’ve seen in some local races, they can wind up hurting their own cause.
Huntsman is interesting, and appealing, but just seems to have no buzz. I don’t know where it might come from, either.
I think Mitt’s Mormon issues could be more troublesome than you think, David. He tried to put it all aside the last time, but since he didn’t the nomination, there was no probing into his real beliefs and practices or into Mormon notions about other religions, including Catholicism.
I think some Americans may underestimate (or be unaware of) the deeeep hatred some Christians, particularly in the South, have for Mormons (and Catholics). The Republicans will take that into consideration, imho.
Reading the tracts, message boards, church bulletins, journals, etc., of some groups can be enlightening.
There is nothing so bad about Mitt Romney. He’s a terrific candidate and he’ll be a terrific President.
Gerelyn, I do think his Mormonism will be a problem, and it’s terrible — Mormons today really are the Catholics of 1960. (Muslims and atheists, on the other hand, are beyond the pale.) But I think that if he can survive the primaries, where white evangelicals could pose the greatest hurdle, we could see a real sea change election, akin to Obama’s, perhaps. Opposition to Obama could united evangelicals and Mormons. And hey, “The Book of Mormon” wone NINE Tonys!
But yes, it’s an issue.
Felapton, that is your opinion, and that’s fine — but there clearly have been strong reservations among GOP voters, and GOP bigwigs. Are they coalescing around Romney, finally? And will Romneycare etc (the flip-flopper label) hurt him in the primaries or general election?
Yes, the success of Book of Mormon could dilute/dispel some of the antipathy.
There’s something about Mitt that I like. The blandness, maybe. Compared to the fire breathers and the history haters, he seems unthreatening, unscary.
“but there clearly have been strong reservations among GOP voters, and GOP bigwigs. Are they coalescing around Romney, finally? And will Romneycare etc (the flip-flopper label) hurt him in the primaries or general election?”
I saw a recent poll of GOP Primary voters (I think by CNN) that indicated that most of them were more interested in a candidate that can beat Obama in the general than ideological purity. So far, only Romney fits that bill even with his noted weaknesses. As Peggy Noonan noted on Morning Joe yesterday, once he starts laying in to Obama, a lot will be forgiven by the GOP primary voters who are eager for that fight. Romney’s too wooden for me; Huntsman has his credibility and policy acumen with an actual personality, which is why I’m interested to see what effect his entry has.
Romney’s flip-flopping will wound him in the primary, mortally in the general election and, if Obama implodes and Romney is elected, finish him as president. That said, he’d make a great cabinet member.
David Gibson and Gerelyn, do you really think that a black Democrat who has been styled a hard leftist and “the most pro-abortion president in history” would trump a white Mormon among Southerners and fundiegelicals?
Maybe my Yankee roots are showing, but, no, don’t see it happening.
I don’t think the Broadway show “The Book of Mormon” is going to help any LDS candidates …
The leap from a House seat to the presidency is a pretty big one. I don’t know to what extent this has been the case for Bachmann and Ryan, but many House seats are pretty safe seats, and the incumbents really haven’t been vetted the way a candidate needs to be vetted for the presidency. I guess that’s the purpose of the primary season, though. Arguably, President Obama hadn’t really been through the annealing fire until he ran against the Clinton organization.
Hi, Jean:
The stuff I’ve read about the Church of Christ (Tennessee version, Freed-Hardeman wing) makes me think they would have a hard time choosing between a black Democrat and a white Mormon.
Also between a Mormon and a member of the United Church of Christ, as Obama once was.
Like Catholics, they seem to hate other factions of their own religion more than other religions. E.g., the Polishing the Pulpit type preachers consider Max Lucado types apostates.
But those are just the impressions of an outsider. In the secrecy of the voting booth, I don’t know what would happen. Women, e.g., who are required to submit to their husband’s leadership in all matters, might take that little opportunity for some disobedience / passive aggression. Etc.
Agree that The Book of Mormon won’t affect anyone.
Okay, if the “Book of Mormon” (and the Newsweek cover, Mormons Rock!”) doesn’t do it, how about “Big Love” or the fact that Stephenie Meyer is a Mormon AND author of the Twilight series?
And Harry Reid is a Mormon, and possible a vampire…
Just sayin’.
http://www.religionlink.com/tip_110520.php
A good site, David. I would add, under “What Mormons Believe”, these links:
1) Forums. They show what ex-Mormons are thinking about, and they demonstrate Mormon humor. (Like Catholic, in many ways, imho.)
http://exmormon.org/phorum/list.php?2
2) Mormon recovery board.
http://www.exmormon.org/
3) Short topics. (For those unaware of the little things.)
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon_shorts.htm
If you want to see heartwarming Mormons, try the documentary, “The Secret Daughter,” in which June Cross, the illegitimate daughter of a white mother and black father, meets her mother’s white Mormon relatives for the first time.
Jeff Landry:
Today the Missouri River levees were breeched sending flood waters into Missouri and Iowa. Thank God there is FEMA. Otherwise the complications of figuring which state would pay for what and how it would get the supplies it needed would take inordinate time.
Only people who are woefully ignorant or who are blinded by foolish ideology would want to risk having no national rapid response capability for such emergencies.
When it’s explained how Romney outsourced/eliminated jobs when he headed up Bains. he won’t be close to winning the primaries. .
“Only people who are woefully ignorant or who are blinded by foolish ideology would want to risk having no national rapid response capability for such emergencies.”
Having lived in southern Louisiana which has experienced not 1, not 2, but 3 separate major natural disasters in the course of roughly five years, I can assure you that the state and local government agencies and officials of various political parties who are consistently critical of FEMA’s response to these incidents are neither “woefully ignorant” nor “blinded by foolish ideology.” They recognize a role for the federal government via FEMA, but are consistent in concluding that that role should be streamlined in various ways in order to ensure a “national rapid response capability”. Part of the change needs to remove the political appointee at the head FEMA making that person more accountable to just the political whims of the President in office at the time.
Jeff Landry:
If the local officials recognize an important role for FEMA why would they not be horrified that Romney would propose that there should be no FEMA? Your last sentence is just smoke blowing.
I admit it: I have a bias against Mormons and Mormonism. I see them as a homegrown (as in American) fertility and prosperity cult erected on deluded fantasies and fraudulent history. When I hear that someone is Mormon I think less of them than I previously did. These things, I suspect, are awful to say.
Well, that’s not the most tactful formulation of the issue, but it’s not altogether irrelevant either. There will be people who will wonder (not altogether unjustifiably) what influence Romney’s religion will have on his policies on social issues.
I myself would not want to be a Mormon (or join SSPX) any more than you would. But we need to be cognizant of the fact that many people do find that lifestyle spiritually fulfilling. Some people do not want to live the sort of post-modern, cosmopolitan, individualistic lifestyle people live in Cambridge (MA) and Madison (WI) and some people do. The people who don’t happen to be a large majority of mankind. Any religion that doesn’t make room for them or political party that treats them with disdain has a gloomy future.
Romney does not appear to be an extremist on social issues. And social issues do not weigh heavily in how I, or most people, vote. Romney is a smart, patriotic guy with an outstanding record of accomplishment, and he knows you can’t balance a budget by running up two trillion in debt every year. He’ll be a huge improvement.
I totally get that many Americans did (and perhaps do) feel a similar way about Catholics and Catholicism as I express above with respect to LDS.
And yet this: I would much prefer a Mormon (including Romney) to any of the Christianists on the right, e.g, Bachman, Palin, Huckabee or the Randians. If Obama is to lose, Romney and Huntsman are about the only two I could ‘deal with’ and have reasonable hope for success in the impossible job of the Presidency.
Hi, William F, I note you didn’t include Rick Santorum (not that he’s on anyone’s list of likely contenders). Do you lump him in with Bachman/Palin/Huckabee, or is he a different category?
I don’t know exactly where to place Santorum, he being a Catholic, but I see him largely in the Christianist camp, with an American Protestant flavored form of Catholicism. Mostly, I see him as a distraction. He isn’t up to the task.