Just a minute there Iowa and New Hampshire . . . there’s a fight a brewing in Michigan, the likes of which will overshadow these rather meaningless early contests in selected, very small areas of the country. The Weekly Standard has an interesting analysis and history of Michigan politics, and the implication for the republican nomination for 2008.What I find most interesting about many of the mainstream media articles about Mitt Romney is their classification of him in the upper tier of republican presidential candidiates. This one has him as one of the two front runners for the presidential nomination right along side Senator John McCain. There’s no discussion of Rudy, or any other major republican candidate:
This view has a lot to do with the two frontrunners, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. McCain, who has a rocky relationship with the Republican base dating back to 2000, has been vigorously mending fences with social conservatives. He’s also rounding up old Bushies, such as 2004 national political director Terry Nelson and media adviser Mark McKinnon, for his campaign. So far it’s working. McCain has emerged as the clear favorite among Bush’s top fundraisers–the “Pioneers” and “Rangers”–who are lining up to “max out” their political action committee donations for him.
Romney, the Mormon from Massachusetts, has an equally interesting story. He’s armed with movie star good looks and loads of charisma. He has a critically acclaimed health-care plan. And his appearances in early primary states are already drawing rave reviews. The great question mark on primary day? Romney’s religion is slightly less popular among Christian conservatives than Brokeback Mountain. Luckily for him, he’s drawn John McCain as his opponent. Those same Christian conservatives who make up the Republican base may dislike McCain even more than Mormonism.
Romney’s ace in the hole is not the fact he is governor of Massachusett, but rather the power his surname holds in Michigan:
Besides, in the political poker of presidential politics Romney has an ace in the hole. The fact that he is governor of Massachusetts may prove to be far less significant in electoral terms than the fact that, as the son of revered Michigan governor George Romney, he is seen by many as the state’s prodigal son. According to Thomas Ginster, longtime aide to another revered Michigan governor, John Engler, “Anybody over forty years old here remembers his dad; one of the main state government buildings here is called the Romney building. It’s just a household name. I think Romney will do better in Michigan than he would in Massachusetts.”
Michigan’s republican party is in the process of moving up their primary date, thereby giving Michigan a much more prominent role. If successful, the primary would be the first major primary after New Hampshire:
Right now, the Michigan Republican party is charging hard to move up the date of its presidential primary. If it has its way, the electoral powerhouse of Michigan will hold the first major primary after New Hampshire, the same day as South Carolina. If McCain can sweep New Hampshire and Michigan–states he won in 2000–and rack up South Carolina, the nomination is a lock.
But if Romney can pull off an upset either in New Hampshire, next door to his own Massachusetts, or in his home state of Michigan, he’ll survive past South Carolina, where he’s likely to get a thumbs down from Christian conservatives. The fight for the nomination could last all the way to Super Tuesday.
If Romney loses in New Hampshire, the media will pronounce his campaign on life-support. If McCain (who won the state by a hefty margin last time) loses in New Hampshire, we’ll be reading all the same stories about a reeling frontrunner that we did about Bush in 2000, and the media will put the same heat on McCain to win Michigan.
Both candidates realize how important Michigan is, and they’re acting accordingly. Romney’s national campaign headquarters is currently under construction in Oakland County. McCain is also active on the ground; his PAC recently announced it was giving over $120,000 to county and local parties in Michigan.
The rest of the article deals with a history of bad blood between the two operatives running the respective Romney and McCain campaigns. While the history and analysis is fascinating, the fact Romney is being considered right along side of McCain as a front runner for the republican presidential nomination is the big news that continues to come out of these mainstream media articles. It’s getting more difficult just to dismiss Romney as a third tier candidate with weird religious beliefs. The media is taking Romney’s campaign seriously and giving it a big boost in the process. An incredibly interesting political season is upon us.
July 5, 2006 at 6:04 am
It is an interesting political season. I like how Romney is playing himself. I think that my fears that religious conservatives in the South will not vote for a Mormon are pretty accurate, and Romney is preparing for that. His health care policy in Massachusetts does not play well with religious conservatives, but it does play very well with moderates. He’s impressed me in the interviews he’s given, and I may vote for a Republican in 2008. The only possible hitch now is how he views the war in Iraq. For me, anyone that supports Bush’s policy will not get my vote and I will push against that candidate. It is one thing to change Iraq, but another to go about Bush’s way, which has been a total disaster.
July 5, 2006 at 7:49 am
I am a little surprised that there is the thought that Romney will get a thumbs down from christian conservatives. In an objective way, politically speacking, a mormon should appeal to christian conservatives. At least most mormons.
July 5, 2006 at 9:12 am
Eric,
the problem is that Christian conservatives don’t see Mormons as Christians. They also are the main source of funds for anti-Mormon publishers. Maybe I will be surprised in 2008, but I am cynical when it comes to Christian conservatives.
July 5, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Dan–I too have been impressed by Romney thus far. I think he has some great potential, and he does not come off like the typical politician. He supports, as I recall the Iraq war now that we are actually there; however, any of the candidates who are anti-war are unelectable, I believe. I am very much anti-war, and the reasons we are there–but I’m prepared to compromise on that issue for the right candidate. I also think that as time goes along the public’s support will diminish more and more, particularly when we are about in the same place in 08 that we are now. You know with Dick Cheney claiming the insurgency is in its final throes, and George Bush’s tired tirade about stopping terrorists and making the word safe for democracy.
Public sentiment eventually shut down the Vietnam war. I think it can do the same here, and take the politicians along for the ride.
Eric–I’m with Dan on our “brother” Christian conservatives. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them; but, I don’t think there’s any love lost between them and McCain. They did w’s dirty work in the 2000 campaign against McCain. I’m not certain they are about to flock in droves to his campaign. I do agree with you, however, that on the critical social issues the Mormons and the evangelicals see eye to eye–which is why I think it is unlikely they will support McCain.
July 6, 2006 at 6:23 am
Guy,
I should clarify on my position regarding Iraq. I see Bush’s policy as “nothing is changing, everything stays the same.” A policy of hoping for the best from a flawed plan. Anyone who sticks with this plan is a loser and a failure. The plan is a failure. Just read any of the reports of the violence in Iraq. Compare Iraq to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan and you see a stark difference. If you continue with Bush’s plan, you will fail. It is inevitable, because the plan is a failure.
What needs to happen in Iraq are one of two things.
1. If we really want to fix Iraq, we must flood the country with troops. At the least a half a million. 450,000 troops covered war-weary Japan, and 370,000 defeated Germany. We really expect 140,000 to quell a country that has not been soundly defeated? This is what you get from people who diss nation-building as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have done. They do not know a thing about nation-building. The country must be flooded with troops. Put a soldier on every single corner of the country. Squash and stifle all possible hiding places, let the insurgents have no shadow to lurk in. It is impossible to do this with 140,000 troops in a country the size of Iraq. This project must take years, a lot longer than Bush and company want. See Bush is thinking about domestic politics when it comes to Iraq, and not how to actually fix his mess. He wants all violence to be over with by 2007. He wants a Republican legacy. It cannot happen with leaving Iraq, but it is political suicide to ask for more from Americans right now (or so he thinks).
The thing is that Americans are very patriotic, and if asked, they are quite willing to sacrifice. Bush has not asked Americans to make a sacrifice. He has in fact told Americans to go out and consume some more.
2. The other option is to follow Murtha’s plan of withdrawing from Iraq. Let the Iraqis duke it out. Let them stand on their own. The only way the current Iraqi government can be seen as legitimate in the eyes of its people is if it doesn’t have the American crutches anymore. We must let them go.
So that’s what I mean. Those who follow Bush’s plan will be failures and will never get my support.
July 16, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Dan, Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you 100% that the Bush policy is a complete failure, and always has been. I’m not convinced we can “fix” Iraq, or that they want “fixing.” What’s been going on over in the Middle East has been going on since Abraham kicked out Hagar.
I say bring the boys home, and let’s do what it takes to be energy independent so we can leave the middle east to their sand and their oil reserves.