I’ve been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio lately, and one thing I’ve heard since the Nov. 7 election is a lot of talk about the 2008 race. Nov. 7 was such a disaster for conservatives that we like to look forward rather than back and hope for better results in 2008.
One interesting thing I’ve noticed is that conservative talk radio is consolidating around Mitt Romney as the “conservative candidate.” In fact, Michael Medved has said that twice in the last week — Romney is basically the best chance for conservatives. And Medved also said Romney is a candidate who most reminds him of Reagan.
And today Romney had some choice things to say about being a conservative candidate and some negative comments about McCain.
Talk radio seems to see three leading Republican candidates with a few dark horses. The candidates are McCain, Guiliani and Romney. There is a lot of discussion of Newt Gingrich, and he has certainly been prominent in the last few months. Gingrich has a higher national profile than Romney, but talk radio does not take him as seriously.
The corner, National Review’s primary blog, is filled with Romney love. I also visit Evangelicals for Mitt and the Elect Romney in 2008 blog.
Romney’s strategy appears to be to let the “moderate Republican” vote be divided between McCain and Giuliani while he consolidates support among conservatives. Will it work? Well, if you listen to prominent conservatives nationwide, many of them are rallying around the Mormon guy from Massachusetts.
And as for the “Mormon problem,” take a look at this comment from Jonah Goldberg (National Review — syndicated columnist):
The Low Expectations of Soft Bigotry [Jonah Goldberg]
I’m begining to think that the whole anti-Mormon thing isn’t quite the albatross some have made it out to be. Romney’s Mormonism lends itself to all sorts of favorable storylines. Americans love to think they’re voting for “inclusion.” Reporters love to conjure the story of JFK as the first Catholic President. They love to chatter about “firsts” and the like. I really don’t buy that anti-Mormon prejudice is nearly so strong as those polls would indicate. The stories in the mainstream press are going to treat his Mormonism as a net plus. The chatter about it will highlight Romney as a “believer” in the primaries, an identity he’ll have pretty much to himself so long as Brownback stays out. And when he does better than these undoubtedly soft poll numbers would suggest, it will give his campaign a certain success story narrative. I’m not saying his Mormonism is a pure asset by any stretch. Some people are clearly honestly turned off by it. But, it gives Romney a lot of opportunities to play subtle identity-politics games on the right and I think he’s shrewd enough to exploit those opportunities.
Update: From a friend well-versed in the highways and byways of the religious right:
Jonah,
I basically agree with your take on Romney’s Mormonism as a campaign issue. In fact, I think he has (probably unintentionally at first) used it to his advantage with conservatives so far. Everyone I talk to on the social right seems to say something along the lines of “well Romney looks pretty good, but the Mormonism thing might hurt him with conservatives.†The second part of that statement makes the first part possible—in other words, we don’t look at other things that might hurt him with conservatives, like the fact that he basically ran as a liberal just a couple of years ago for the job that he now holds, and has since changed all his views on social issues while in office. If the only thing that worries us about him is “the Mormon thing†then we’ve basically set him up as a test of our own open-mindedness, and Americans will almost always pass such a test. And anyway, everyone says it might hurt him with other conservatives, almost no one seems to be saying “I won’t vote for him because he’s a Mormon.†It’s a useful distraction from his point of view at this point, and will probably not be a huge impediment at a later point, and it’s giving Romney a chance to have people get used to him as the conservative conservative in the race without looking too hard at his record.
Anyway, my two cents—I really am impressed with him, although the Mormon thing could hurt him, you know.
And: From a longtime reader:
It’s just like any other generic ballot poll. When asked about X candidate vs. “othersâ€, the tendency is for people to conjure up their ideal candidate in their mind so X candidate just doesn’t stack up. When secular liberals hear Mormon, they think Bible thumper, when evangelicals (of which I count myself) they think cultist. The reason the evangelical leaders like Romney is they have met him. He is not “a Mormonâ€, he’s a guy with certain principles that happens to be a member of the LDS church and that’s how it will play out among most evangelicals…I think. Wasn’t Nixon a Quaker?
It’ll be interesting to see what will happen. The bigger issue is what will happen after the nomination. Assuming Romney wins (which is not a sure thing by any means) would he put Guiliani on the ticker or go for a solid conservative ticket with Gingrich? Both would offer huge problems but I’ve heard those theories. Personally I think the lifestyle controversies with each would preclude that. I don’t think Guiliani has a hope of winning the nomination and is more aiming for a VP spot. But who would take him?
I think though that by portraying him as the conservative outsider, especially after events in the Senate leadership of the GOP, is amazingly wise. I think McCain is going to have some problems simply due to his place in the Senate. Not to mention that many in the grassroots don’t like him. McCain’s problem is going to be the primaries for sure.
It will be interesting to see what happens, won’t it? Mitt Romney is definitely what I think the conservative base is looking for. McCain is too moderate a republican. I think that was a lot the reason the republicans lost the senate and the house was because the republican party had left the conservative base high and dry. They’ve been in power for 12 years in the house and they had gotten power hungry. You’ve heard the saying, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The Republican Party had that happen and now they are going to have to start over with the conservative base to find someone for the presidency that so into the big government, spending, etc and I think Mitt Romney will fit that. We will have to wait and see though.
Clark, you bring up a good question about the VP. Who would be the best person for VP? I think that one would be hard to pick at this point.
Though Conservative Talk Radio hosts are now trying to distance themselves from the Republican party (aka Rush), I don’t think the conservative movement was ever able to get into power through polarization… You’re going to need a consensus candidate in order to win the presidency, I think, and I don’t know that playing the conservative crowd is the way to build a consensus….
In addition, a relatively unknown name like Romney compared to an incredibly well known name like McCain or Giuliani? I mean, the average non-mormon _might_ now that Romney is the current Governor in Mass. and that he was against gay marriage, but is that enough to win their vote, compared with the limelights that both Giuliani and McCain have received?
I dunno, I dunno…
My guess would be that if Romney becomes the candidate he will have to choose a prominent southerner as a running mate. Jeb Bush’s name has been bandied about, and that gets the Bush team on board, although there of course will be a fear of “Bush weariness.” Riley, the governor of Alabama, might be a good choice. Or he could even look at somebody like Newt Gingrich or Condi Rice.
But of course there is the small matter of Mitt actually declaring his candidacy first, and then actually running a campaign and then actually winning the nomination.
A Nonny, I agree that Mitt’s name recognition is low nationally right now. I am often asked by people I work with (non-Mormons) who I think will be president in 2008, and when I say “Mitt Romney,” I get blank stares. I have yet to meet anybody (outside of the Church) in Miami, where I live, who knows who he is.
Having said that, there is a very interesting effect that goes on with Romney — once people see him speak they get enthusiastic about him. People are simply not used to seeing politicians as articulate as Romney (especially after six years of you-know-who). His candidacy creates a lot of excitement quickly. It reminds me a lot of the Reagan campaign in 1978-79 (when I first got involved in politics — and I did not support Reagan in those days; I was a John Anderson fan).
I think it’s not that McCain is moderate. I don’t mind moderates actually. (Especially if the tend to be more on the economic conservative side of things but more skeptical of social conservativism) I think it’s that McCain has just alienated over the years a lot of the conservative base. On free speech issues alone many people had grave problems with McCain’s election reforms. I think many would wish he was more of an economic conservative. (i.e. is he a pork buster?) There’s the issue of his temper as well.
That’s not to say I don’t have some issues with Romney. I think he’s tried to have it both ways on some social conservative issues. I also think he is intentionally sailing right so as to try to get the conservative vote. How much of that is authentic is debatable. I also think there are still questions about his governorship as well. It’s also not clear what he’ll run on.
Geoff, at this stage what average Americans think is kind of irrelevant. Something the media oddly forgets in its coverage. Rather it is what the activists think. That’s always been the way of things. Thus McCain’s backroom deals with Republican movers and shakers over the past few years. That really is the biggest obstacle to Romney. In a way Bush defeated McCain last time because the big figures in the party liked Bush over McCain. However unlike 2000 there is starting to be a popular uprising against the current Republican leadership. This election and its aftermath hasn’t helped either. So there is a chance for Romeny.
Regarding VP there is no way Romney will put a Bush on the ticket unless world events significantly change the next year. Romney is running as the outsider. Having Romney put a Bush on the ticket is about as likely as Bush setting aside Cheyney and making Romney acting VP.
The VP vote though will probably be to appeal to more moderate voters since Romney will almost certainly have a rep as a far right conservative by the end of the primaries. As with most figures he’ll have to tilt left after he wins the nomination. (Bush was the exception there – but he was running in a nomination primarily between two moderates and Cheyney was in a way appealing to the right of the party)
Looks like Mr. Romney’s support for President Bush’s torture laws is reaping rewards amongst conservatives….
Dan, I agree with you on the torture issue. Romney is embracing George Bush on this and also in Iraq–two positions that may help in in the far right republican primaries; but, certainly didn’t play too well earlier this month. On those two issues, Romney has been an incredible disappointment. But, at least he hasn’t called for more troops, as has McCain. It does boggle the mind.
McCain, the enemy of the First Amendmentand a protected border, the founder of the gang of 14 and amember of the Keating 5, and a man who has equated terrorists with legal combatants can never get a nomination from the Republicans. His campaign is only a figment of the MSM media’s imagination.
Giuliani could conceivably get it if he said, “I support gay rights and abortion but I believe that this is a decision for the people not the courts.”
I we conservatives wanted what Dan wants (#9) we would vote for a good Democrat like liar Kerry.
O come on George!
If you’re going to ridicule Kerry, at least make it snappy. I’ve had a long day here… Amuse me!
“liar Kerry” just leaves everyone unhappy. We all deserve better.
Here’s one way it might work out.
1. In order to get the Republican nomination, Romney (or whoever) will have to embrace Bush, Bush’s supporters, and Bush’s war.
2. To Bush, withdrawing from Iraq is equivalent to defeat. We will still be in Iraq in 2008.
3. The war in Iraq was not popular with voters in 2006. It will be even less so in 2008.
4. The Republican nominee who supports the war will get flattened in the general election.
5. Republicans vow never again to nominate a candidate who is a (pick one: flamboyant New York moderate, contrarian Arizona reformer, Mormon).
You never know, maybe the Democrats will nominate someone who is discovered to be a secret member of the Nazi party, and all bets are off. But which of the assumptions above are wrong? The Republican base won’t nominate an anti-war or anti-Bush candidate, will they? Bush won’t withdraw US forces from Iraq. The war will not get more popular. And the war will not become less of an issue as long as Americans are stationed there.
Seth, I call it like I see it. Would would Prevarikerry have suited you better?
Jonathan, I think you make some good points. Whoever is the Republican candidate in 2008 will most likely have an unpopular war to deal with. You could compare the situation to 1952, where the Republicans won at least partly because of the unpopular Democratic war. Or you could compare it to 1972, where the Republicans won despite an unpopular war because the Democrats nominated somebody who was too far to the left. But anybody thinking that the war will not be a factor, and a dangerous factor, for the Republican candidate in 2008, is wrong. If Romney is the candidate, he will have to deal with this issue and have a good strategy.
My personal opinion is that Romney’s strategy would be to discuss competence and problem-solving. Depending on events in the next year or so, he may continue to support the president but have new tactics to deal with Iraq and the war on terror. He will emphasize his competence in implementing such tactics, highlighting his achievements in the 2002 Olympics and as Gov. of Massachusetts. He may even agree to adopt constructive suggestions from the Democrats.
I think we can also agree that winning the election in 2006 puts new pressure on the Democrats. They cannot just sit on the sidelines carping at the president — they need to come up with solutions because they are the majority party in Congress. Please note I am not saying all Democrats have done this — some such as Biden have made constructive suggestions — but a large number of Democrats have spent the last few years doing nothing but criticize without offering alternatives.
Geoff,
Again, that is very disingenuous and untrue, and you know it. You just don’t accept their alternatives.
Well then, Dan, why not humor us by referencing a few well thought out alternatives offered by Democrats between the last two elections (other than Murtha’s plan of “redeploying” to Okinawa).
Dan, even your friends at the NY Times (an openly pro-Democrat newspaper) admit that the Democrats do not have a unified plan. See this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/weekinreview/17broder.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=e43eb9b755b6a54d&ex=1316145600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
To summarize from this article:
“Democratic candidates around the country are trying each of these approaches in a cacophony of frustration and sorrow, reflecting divisions in the party at the national level. If it is hard to see a Democratic plan to end the war, it’s because there isn’t one.”
It’s time for the Democrats to present a unified plan. The Republicans clearly have one: stay in Iraq until the country is stabilized. An increasing number of Americans disagree with that plan, but it is plan nonetheless. And, yes, there are some Republicans who disagree, but the vast majority, including Romney, support the president’s plan today.
Democrats have a wide variety of plans, from immediate withdrawal, to phased withdrawal to Biden’s plan to Murtha’s plan to support of the president’s plan. Based on that, they spend most of their time carping because they have nothing else to offer. Sorry, Dan, on this one you are way off.
Yeah Geoff, that George McGovern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern), man he was so far left–that anti-war radical (read WW II, Distinguished Flying Cross Winner–35 mission bomber pilot). Wow! It was certainly a good thing Richard Nixon won, and we got all that “peace with honor” junk (at the cost of 1000’s of American lives), and the most scandalized administration in history (the current one excepted).
Guy, it is really tiresome when people take something you write and totally twist it into something it is not. I really try not to do this with anybody on the Bloggernacle because it creates a lot unnecessary contention.
Virtually every modern historian agrees that Nixon won because McGovern was too far left for the electorate at the time. This is not a value judgement about an election (in which I did not vote because I was too young). This is simply an objective statement of fact. As a conservative, I can tell you I don’t support Nixon and think he was a horrible president, one of our worst ever. He was certainly not a conservative (wage and price controls, increased welfare, increased government spending, Realpolitik international policies). So if you want to totally change the point of this post and take it on a needless tangent, I will agree with you completely that Nixon was a disaster.
Returning to the point of this post, the Democrats have some interesting lessons from history. History shows that if you choose a leftist “peace candidate” he will probably lose. This is why Hillary is trying to stick to the center, which is wise on her part.
Can I ask you as a fellow permablogger to please not take unnecessary pot-shots? It really makes this no fun at all. Thanks.
Re #1
Once the voting public learns of the current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being a “long-time practicing/active mormon,” I believe Mr. Romney’s religious affiliation will become a non-issue.
Right-wing radio will need to make a point of it for “mormonism” to be a non-issue.
Geoff, if I’m tiresome–then feel free to delete me. I took you to task on McGovern, because he was painted far left and a “peace candidate” rather than the war hero he was, by people who made statements just like the one you made. I didn’t bring up McGovern or Nixon–you did. I apologize if I don’t know or properly understand which of your comments are fair game for subsequent commentary in your posts.
Guy, I would ask to re-read the point of the post and then re-read Jonathan Green’s comment and then re-read my answer and then re-read your comment #19. I will try again: neither the post nor my comment was a value judgment on McGovern vs. Nixon. It was an objective discussion of campaign strategy based on an objective view of history (yes, McGovern did lose in 1972, and yes the main reason he lost was that he was perceived to be too far left). Whether or not McGovern really was too far left is a completely different issue and irrelevant to this post. If we still cannot understand each other, I just say we drop it. Thanks.
When did Romney become a conservative? He used to be a moderate Republican. Listening to him suck up to the right wing makes me want to puke.
Does it disgust you as much as Hillary’s sucking up to the center?
Geoff,
Hold on a sec. You’ve moved the goal posts. In your first post you said:
Then you change it to this:
In the first case you criticize Democrats for “doing nothing but criticize without offering alternatives.” Then you say that “Democrats do not have a unified plan.” Those are two very different things. On the one hand, all Democrats have some sort of plan, whether it is the full withdrawal of troops, or partial withdrawal, phased withdrawal, or even some Democrats that say we should stay until the job is done. On the other hand, you’re right, Democrats do not have a unified plan, and I’ve never said they have. You also claim that Republicans are unified in “finishing the job.” I’m glad you realize that not all Republicans are unified under this plan, but you seem to easily swipe them off to the side, but criticize Democrats for not being unified. I’m glad to see you hold Democrats to such high standards, but wonder why you don’t hold your own party to that same standard. Should Republicans be unified under one plan? Or can different Republicans offer different plans, like in the Democratic party?
So I am correct in saying you are being disingenuous and untrue in your depiction of falsely accusing Democrats of not offering alternatives. They do offer alternatives. You just don’t like them. Please admit it.
Also, I would be worried about this poll from Rassmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/MormanMittRomney.htm
It seems to indicate that 43% of Americans would never vote for a Mormon as president. My guess, majority of those are conservative Christians. In fact, according to that survey:
Worse, Andrew Sullivan ( http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/the_mormon_ques.html ) who is no hardcore conservative, but rather moderate doesn’t see Mr. Romney as a Christian:
I will say it again, a Mormon will have a better chance being president of the United States if he is a Democrat.
So Dan, again, what exactly are those plans? I’ve heard “full withdrawal of troops”, “partial withdrawal”, “phased withdrawal.” All I’ve heard is “withdrawal.” What I haven’t heard is an intelligent argument on the consequences of doing this. The only prominent Dem I’ve heard say we should stay has been forced out of the party.
Yes George,
Prevarikerry is much better. I have been appeased. Go thy way and write some more.
Well, “withdrawal” is definately a game plan.
Whether it’s a good game plan is another story.
But they do have a plan…
Tossman,
Could you also please get into the details of just what it means to “stay until victory?” just curious.
I’d be happy to, but I’ll go ahead and do that after you answer my question.
Romney is many things but “conservative” isn’t one of them.
Human Events recently listed him #8 in their “Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129):
And lets not forget that whole socialized medicine thing he enacted. Now picture that, but on a national scale. (shudder)
Mike, you know very well that Romney’s plan in Massachusetts was far from “socialized medicine.”
Here’s a story to remind you of the details:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html
The plan requires people to buy health insurance, just like people who drive are required to buy auto insurance. In reality, this is a plan supporting a private solution to medicine rather than a public plan. I don’t support such a policy nationwide because I don’t think it will work, but Masschusetts had a special situation where hospitals were required to provide health care, and the state was paying for this. This plan may actually end up costing Massachusetts less than what they were paying anyway, so total government costs may go down.
By the way, I have heard Romney say that he supported this solution because of Massachusetts’ special government outlays. He implied that he would not necessarily support this nationwide.
As for Romney not being a conservative, do you think he is more conservative than McCain and Guiliani? And, if so, can you name another Republican candidate who is more conservative than Romney who has a realistic chance of winning?
TEST (can’t post for some reason; “invalid comment”)
More on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/mormons_and_chr.html
He was corrected by a reader, an ex-Mormon, who gets bothered when people refer to Mormons as not Christian. Here is Mr. Sullivan’s reply:
If a moderate conservative like Mr. Sullivan has a hard time seeing Mormons as Christians, just what do you think hardcore Baptists think?
Here is an interesting point that seems not to be mentioned much. Mit Romney became governor of the state of Massachusetts. Let me ask you this, could a Mormon become the governor of any southern state? He won in one of the most liberal states in the country. Was his religion an issue to voters? Not really. I believe Romney will not get the conservative vote in the primaries, solely because of his religion, unless Protestants not show up at the polls. I wait to be surprised.
The evangelicals and fundamentalists will never, when pressed, accept the LDS as fellow-Christians. Andrew Sullivan puts it nicely (he’s one of my favorite political commentators anywhere, btw). Maybe Mormons should ask the Baptist types to call them Christian-like, or para-Christian, or something like that. : )
Many evangelicals also consider Catholics to be non-Christian as well. Who cares? I don’t worry about what the world’s billion Muslims think of my religious views, why these people?
Their willingness to vote for a Mormon who shares their political and moral views will be the true test of their own political maturity. I think it could go either way.
Time magazine just did an article on Romney.
thnx