Linda Feldman in today’s Christian Science Monitor writes about Mitt Romney’s recent surge (dare I use that term?) in the traditional pre or early primary states: Iowa and New Hampshire.His early showing here is impressive, and reflects his organizational talents supreme:
Forget the national polls that show Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, as the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. A credible argument can be made that Mitt Romney is the front-runner.
The former governor of Massachusetts is now consistently running first in most polls of two key early nomination races, Iowa and New Hamsphire – states where the voters are paying closest attention. Mr. Romney, the top Republican fundraiser in the first quarter of 2007, is generally expected to match or exceed that total ($20.6 million) in the second quarter and maintain his status as No. 1 in GOP presidential finances.
More money means more TV ads and organization, two other areas where Romney is already ahead in the early states, enhancing a sense of momentum. Of course, before any actual votes are cast, nothing is certain. In previous cycles, leaders in polling and fundraising have fallen flat come caucus and primary day. And in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, the front-loading of the primaries makes the role of Iowa and New Hampshire less predictable.
But by playing the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire game, and so far doing well at it, Romney is putting the other top-tier Republican candidates on the defensive.
“Nationally, if his second-quarter fundraising numbers build on his first, then it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss him as flavor-of-the-month,” says Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire.
He and other political observers in both Iowa and New Hampshire credit Romney with being the best-organized GOP candidate in both states. Romney has also gone on the air first with TV ads in those states – plus South Carolina, another early-primary state – boosting his profile and poll numbers.
Ok, I agree with all that. Mitt is indeed an organizational whiz, and he has the early state poll numbers and fund raising figures to prove it. But, is it enough? I’m not so sure.
Recent opinion polls reflect that George Bush’s approval ratings are at an all time low, 29%.
While immigration issues play an important part (another area where I think Romney is wrong), I believe most of Bush’s low approval stems from his abysmal job performance from beginning to end in Iraq. Yet, Mr. Romney, while somewhat critical of Bush’s incompetence on the war, nevertheless embraces the war effort including Bush’s morally questionable interrogation techniques. It is clear to me most of America has overwhelmingly spoken against the war, and this administration’s war policies. Yet, Mitt Romney refuses to draw the sharp distinctions on the Iraq war and George Bush that I think he must make to take him out from under the cloud of Bush’s 29% approval ratings.
Romney has a history of organizational success stories, from the 2002 Winter Olympics, and effectively governing as a republican in heavily democratic MA. Yet, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why such an organizational genius continues to support an impractical approach to Iraq, the most unpopular aspect of George Bush’s presidency.
In my view, if Mr. Romney were to make a complete break with George Bush on Iraq, and vow to wind down that war, as an irrelevant waste of America’s resources, I think his chances, even in republican primaries would improve, beyond what his current organizational prowess provides.
Update 6/24/07: See also John F’s excellent post over at Headlife
June 15, 2007 at 9:36 am
Yeah, while I don’t support excluding harsh interrogation in any circumstance, what Bush’s allowed is unconscionable. I think Romney, if he didn’t want to alienate the radical wing on this, could have at least taken a stance more like McCain’s.
He’s very well organized but his flip flops and pandering really will come back to bite him once Fred Thompson enters the race.
June 16, 2007 at 5:06 am
Clark,
Of course we differ on the “harsh interrogation” issue; however, we do agree that Bush’s excesses were and remain unconscionable. I also agree that Fred Thompson’s entry will make the GOP race even more interesting.
I still think the GOP has been so damaged by Bush’s incompetence in office that even the democrats will have to really work hard to lose the White House in 2008–but we’re still along way from the election.
June 16, 2007 at 8:30 am
Guys,
Be ready for Bush to announce a pullout from Iraq next summer, before the November elections. That’s the rumor going around the military.
June 16, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Right now Romney’s goal is to win the Republican nomination. I think he campaign has a carefully-crafted master plan.
This is the only way a Mormon could be elected President, and it is fascinating to witness.
The stars are aligning… conservative traditional southerners will pick Mitt over Hillary Clinton, who will be the Democratic nominee. McCain’s campaign is submarining. Fred Thompson is way less qualified than Mitt Romney, and when people see Fred in action they will hop off his bandwagon.
June 16, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Guy, my friend, which Democrat do you see working hard at losing the Presidency in this upcoming election? Do you see a clear, qualified, capable Democratic candidate? I think you’re correct, in the Democratic debates I’ve watched, I have seen a bunch of losers, not all but most. It is unfortunate that many with good ideas and questions in both parties who are not the clear front runners are not even listened to by their own candidates. And since the anti-Bushies tout the low approval ratings of Bush (see earlier graphics), where is the acknowedgment of the low approval ratings of the Democratic led Congress? What is their souce of increasing disapproval by the electorate? While real things, promised things, could have been done, they waste time grilling Gonzales. That will make my life so very much better, the guy appears to be a screw-up but let’s move on and accomplish your promises (lies?). Nice cave in on the funding of the Iraq war. Yep, impressed I am with Brother Reid and Left Coast Pelosi. Happy Father’s Day Guy and fellow bloggers.
June 17, 2007 at 8:20 am
Dan, Do you have any sources for this rumor? Given George Bush’s inability to admit mistakes or admitting that he is capable of making of them I find it hard to believe he will begin an voluntary withdrawal of any forces during his administration.
John, You may be right; but, I find it incredibly disappointing that men who seek power still adhere to the philosophy that the ends justify the means. I would have hoped Mitt Romney would be different.
Brian, Happy Father’s Day my friend. I see most all of the democratic candidates much more qualified and capable of sitting in the Oval Office than is its current occupant. In fact, I think most of the republican candidates are also more capable and qualified than is George Bush; but, I think the American electorate will be so tired of what George Bush has done to this country that the democrats will really have to work hard to lose that election in 2008.
Congressional oversight on the Constitutional abuses of George Bush and his administration is not a waste of time. It is Congress’ function, and one that has been missing in action over the last several years of republican rule in Congress.
My sense is that if the Executive branch does not begin to wind down the Iraq war within the next two years, that at some point Congress will have the political will to do that which should be done: De-fund this war, just like they did with Vietnam.
My whole point of this post was to highlight where I think Romney’s greatest weakness lies: His unwavering support of George Bush’s immoral and wasteful war.
Romney would do well to take a page from Ron Paul’s play book, and make the break from the lies and deceit of the Bush administration. Tell America the truth. We are starved for it. It’s absence for the last 6 plus years has diminished America’s great moral leadership role in the world.
If Romney were to break with Bush on the Iraq War and his view of the war on terrorism, whatever that is, I think Romney would be an unbeatable candidate: one who has a strong chance of not only winning the republican nomination, but also the White House.
June 18, 2007 at 8:25 am
Guy,
this is the source.
Admittedly an “email from a friend who works in the military” is not enough to base anything substantive on. However, it fits the Bush M.O., seeing how frequently he has politicized the military and how reckless he has been with our nation’s security.
June 18, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Never, ever, ever underestimate the Dem’s ability to make a loser out of a winner. The top candidates are Hillary and Obama. A Minion of Satan and a black guy. No way in hell either of them wins against any Republican candidates. ANY of them.
June 22, 2007 at 6:27 am
Guy,
Romney _is_ different. But, maybe not different enough.
June 24, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The low approval ratings of Congress are the result of Democratic disaffection when the Congress continued to fund the war.
Mitt Romney continues to push the failed Bush approach because the 29% Americans who support the war are over eighty percent of the Republican primary electorate.
I do agree with Ann that Hillary’s negatives are a problem. Obama’s race will not be. Of course, there are still folks who will not vote for a Black candidate but there are a lot of swing voters who are eager to demonstrate that they are no longer racists. The soccer moms will join Obama in droves.