(Update 12/12/06 5:30 p.m.) Check out American Thinker on their take of a possible Romney/Rice ticket to counter a Clinton/Obama ticket–interesting times. Well, that is if you believe the Boston Globe. Thus far the Boston Globe’s reporting on Mitt Romney leaves just a bit to be desired–see here and here. But, I suppose that if the Boston Globe concedes that Governor Romney is a serious contender for the Republican Presidential Nomination there may just be something to the story.
Until very recently, Governor Mitt Romney has been a long shot preparing for a race — the Republican presidential primaries — that almost always goes to the favorite. But through shrewd moves and good luck, Romney has steadily risen through the ranks of GOP prospects. Now, almost everyone in Republican politics ranks Romney as the second-likeliest nominee, behind Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Apparently Senator McCain is also a believer since he showed up at the recent convention of the Republican Governors, of which Romney was the chair:
Last week, Romney was the runner-up to McCain in an exhaustive National Journal poll of Washington insiders. And McCain himself has validated the early soundings by crashing the annual convention of the Republican Governors Association, which Romney chaired. McCain knew that Romney’s ties to Republican governors could give him thousands of foot soldiers in the primaries. It was a testament to the extent of Romney’s support that McCain felt a need to intervene so early and so directly.
Romney has also helped himself with “conservatives” by going after the “liberal” establishment of his own state–which was easier to do since he wasn’t running for re-election:
But Romney’s own actions have played a role in his rise. Moves that were dismissed as craven in Massachusetts — denying protection to former president Mohammad Khatami of Iran or having State Police round up illegal immigrants — have played big in Washington.
Now, Romney is widely accepted as a true conservative, to the right of the quirky McCain, by the large GOP punditocracy. It helped that Romney made frequent trips to Washington to give speeches at conservative think tanks and to curry favor with GOP insiders.
Being regarded as a true conservative is crucial to Romney’s chances, since the Republican field is overloaded with moderates and mavericks. As a governor of ultra liberal Massachusetts who ran as a moderate for the Senate in 1994 and for governor in 2002, Romney might reasonably have been held in suspicion by conservatives.
But since deciding not to run for re election, he’s taken on the Massachusetts liberal establishment in such a showy way — especially on gay marriage — that national Republicans can’t help but cheer at the fox in the liberal hen house.
The conventional wisdom is that McCain is going to have a tough time in the primaries because he isn’t a “true conservative.” Then there is Iraq. McCain, unbelievably has actually called for more troops to be sent over to compound the mess that already exists:
That would leave McCain and a number of long shots, some of whom, such as Kansas’s socially conservative Senator Sam Brownback, could emerge as a true contender. McCain will be 72 in 2008, and has been an active supporter of the Iraq war.
Republicans like graybeards, having nominated a past-his-prime Bob Dole as recently as 1996, so McCain’s age won’t be a huge liability; but his support for the Iraq war — and especially his call for more troops — might be.
Romney has expressed some support for Bush’s past Iraq performance; but, with the new Baker/Hamilton Iraq Report he could use that to temper and distance himself from Bush’s failed Iraq policy. Given the political realities of the 2006 elections and current polls, Romney would be wise to heed the will of the American public on Iraq and begin to build a sensible policy on the most critical issue facing any presidential candidate. And, having a reputation as an excellent manager Romney would be a welcome change from Bush’s managment style:
Romney is free of any responsibility for the war, and his reputation as a competent manager might seem especially appealing after President Bush’s managerial failings.
Of course any Boston Globe article on Mitt Romney running for president would not be complete without some reference to his religious beliefs:
But Romney is otherwise untested, unvetted, with a trove of business deals behind him. And he’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which some conservative Christians hold in disrepute.
Funny how the Globe doesn’t see fit to mention word one about McCain’s religious preference, or that of Rudy Giuliani or anyone else for that matter. It’s only appropriate to point out Governor Romney’s religious affiliation. Why is that? Doesn’t anyone else go to church–or doesn’t it matter? Which is it Globe?
Finally, the Globe admits Romney is much better positioned today in the 2008 presidential race than anyone ever thought he would or could be:
Nonetheless, the country is starting to pay attention to the next presidential campaign, and Romney is near the center of the stage. Not a bad place to be, and far better than he had any reason to hope for six months ago.
It’s still early. Howard Dean was all the rage in 2004 and he self-destructed. I don’t see Romney as the self-destruct type; but, with all the hype about his religion and the media’s constant obsession with it, I am wary. I think the one thing that should not be an issue, is in fact the large unknown in how the future campaign will play out.
December 12, 2006 at 7:59 am
LOL, I was hoping someone would pick up this relatively positive story from the dastardly Boston Globe.
You ask why the Globe doesn’t mention the other candidates’ religious practices. Did you not get the memo that most people think Mormonism is a very odd religion? Very odd religions sell more newspapers than run-of-the-mill Protestants and Catholics or Jews
December 12, 2006 at 8:11 am
Yeah I saw something that looked like a memo–but was waiting for it to be read over in sacrament meeting!
The Globe cracks me up. They spend all this time and effort in all their hack stories about Mitt. Then, I suppose this is their fair and balanced article–who knows!
You’re right though–they do know how to sell newspapers when they need to.
December 12, 2006 at 8:39 am
By the way, did you see this “Worst Person of the World” clip from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann about Mitt Romney hiring illegal immigrants to mow his lawn? Not a deal breaker by any means, but it will no doubt be dredged up and used against him in the ’08 election.
December 12, 2006 at 9:38 am
I count myself as a conservative who has been suspicious of how conservative this republican from Massachusettes is. What are his true colors? Red or blue (maybe light blue)? Or is he some type of chamelion who changes color to suit the situation?
December 12, 2006 at 11:11 am
I vote for chameleon rather than “true” anything. The recent re-leaking of his 1994 letters to gay organizations wherein he pledged to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay issues is symptomatic of an extremely rough transition to cultural conservatism (which I don’t equate with true conservatism anyway) for the primaries.
Now, his defenders say that on gay rights and other social issues Mitt has had a true change of heart and is sincere in his realignment with evangelical politics. That’s fine with me, but these are some of the same people who turned changing your mind into a vice during the 2004 election by calling it “flip-flopping”.
December 12, 2006 at 12:04 pm
“That’s fine with me, but these are some of the same people who turned changing your mind into a vice during the 2004 election by calling it “flip-flopping”.”
Actually, that is not entirely true. There are many who still hold to the “flip-flop” vice that are very critical of Romney. In fact, that is perhaps more of a worry about his getting picked than his Mormonism by comments that have been made. I think that Brownback might have a better chance than Romney on some Conservative issues.
December 12, 2006 at 12:59 pm
some of the same people who turned changing your mind into a vice during the 2004 election by calling it flip-flopping
Yes, yes, that was called attacking. It’s when one party uses any method possible to discredit the opponent. They insist they believe it was a bad thing when in reality they are just thirsting for power. The same poeple who defended Kerry’s flip-flopping will likewise use it to attack Romney. Welcome to polidiotics
December 12, 2006 at 9:42 pm
ECS:
I didn’t see that clip till you posted the link. As I said on your BT thread, I think the immigration story is a non-story. But, if Keith does–well it’s his show. I often agree with Keith. In fact I did for the finally winner on that segment. I just don’t think Mitt Romney deserved to be considered for it.
Eric: Well, he has a track record in MA–check it out. My concern is whether he’s too conservative (at least for my tastes).
lief: I didn’t see the 94 thing as a big deal either. I think one can be for equal rights without claiming marriage to be one of those rights.
Jetboy: But Romney has spent a great deal of time and effort to get where he is. I think he’s been successful in painting himself as the “true” (whatever that means) conservative.
Ryan: So cynical!
December 12, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Romney’s problem is that he has shifted on two major hot-button right wing social issues that most Christians believe should be matters of conscience – homosexuality in the public sphere and abortion.
I don’t believe that candidates should be punished for “flip-flopping” when they discover new information and rationally modify their positions (in fact, it’s politicians who don’t change their positions when confronted with new information that are dangerous). I just don’t have faith that the right wing powers that be are so forgiving on these particular issues.
The timing of these changes is unfortunate, too – when running for governor of Mass. Romney promised to do more than Ted Kennedy for equal rights for gays and leave abortion alone, when running in the republican primary he is far more to the right on these issues. The timing makes Romney’s stances seems malleable on what, for social conservatives, should be bedrock moral principles.
Up against a McCain or a Guliani, Romey does very well with social conservatives. But up against Brownback or Huckabee, the flimsiness of Romney’s conservative credentials really stands out.
December 26, 2006 at 10:49 am
Prolife Catholics who have worked to protect unborn children and the sanctity of their own children in public education are preparing reports which they are sending around the national prolife network.
You can find copies of the report throughout the internet now – here are two links.
http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/
http://romneyforpresident.typepad.com/catholicpunditwatch/
Merry Christmas.
December 26, 2006 at 11:11 am
Lief,
I can tell you that the bigger issue for Catholic prolifers in Massachusetts is certainly not the fact that he has changed positions. (We call that conversion, and most of us have been through it on various things.)
The fact of the matter is, at the very time we would read his statements that he had changed positions,that he understood the value of life from the moment of conception, that he understood that Catholics were being forced to kill an unborn child if he did not exempt us under religious protections afforded to us by law regarding passing out abortifacients at hospitals and pharmacies – he went ahead and denied us our civil and constitutional rights of protection. Illicitly, he sided with Planned Parenthood and directed that we be forced.
During his tenure, he has repeatedly undermined parents who objected to what his own Department of Education was forcing upon children as righteous sexual practices – all the while, claiming “he” had a conversion. I can assure you that the sexual concepts he endorsed while preserving the solitude of the sanctity for himself, we found unhelpful and in fact, disingenuous.