Protecting Romney as the Frontrunner

Via TownHall.com comes the request: Stop Beating Up On Mitt

Presidential primaries have a purpose. They test the candidates’ ability to face the opposition in the general election. Whatever is thrown at you by your own team usually pales in comparison to the abuse you receive from your opponents. Unfortunately, what some Republicans are throwing at Mitt Romney, last Monday’s Republican debate notwithstanding, is way off base.

Romney is receiving criticism principally on his efforts to reform the health insurance system in Massachusetts while he was Governor. By now, Romney has refined his response without pointing fingers at his successor, liberal Democrat Deval Patrick, who enacted changes that made the program far more costly and less effective. All of this reproof is pointless because Romney has no intention of replicating it on a federal level, nor would he have to appease a legislature overwhelmingly comprised of left-wing Democrats.

Mr. Romney has clearly stated that he will order his Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue exemptions from ObamaCare to all fifty states; meaning that the only individuals subject to this horribly misguided legislation and its crushing regulations will be the residents of Washington D.C. Frankly, that’s quite fitting. He’s also confirmed that he fully intends to work toward repeal of ObamaCare. What more can you ask of the man?

Romney is also accused with being short on charisma. Are we electing a President or head television huckster? We’ve already elected a hollow orator, but he’s a little short on the more vital Presidential qualities — starting with leadership. Romney has been proven to be an effective leader in both private industry and the public arena. For example,he averted a major national embarrassment by stepping in to professionally manage the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. He not only administered operations of the Olympics, but tactfully and sensitively worked with both the international community and the IOC. America needs an experienced leader who can get things done — not just smile and hope.

Some critics dismiss him because of his unsuccessful candidacy in 2008. It brings to memory Ronald Reagan, who spent the years 1976 to 1979 gathering support for his 1980 Presidential run. Like Reagan, Romney has spent the past three years building relationships, supporting other Republican candidates, and raising money – all in preparation for his formal announcement. This is the tried and true path to the White House. When we select inexperienced newcomers, we often end up with failures such as Carter and …

Republicans yearn for another Reagan. Alas, there will never be another Reagan any more than there will be another John Wayne, Babe Ruth or Marilyn Monroe. But Romney provides something that no other Republican candidate can deliver. He can dismantle Obama without offending voters. He reeks of nice. When Reagan destroyed Carter, he reeked of nice. There was no nasty side to Reagan and there’s no nasty side to Romney. Swing voters like that — a lot[…]

 

Romney and the “Price of Inexperience”

Governor Romney has written a new op-ed called  The Price of Inexperience (emphasis added)

By Mitt Romney
June 17, 2011

Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.

The Obama administration claimed at the time that the treaty was an excellent deal. This claim has been proven false. A new official accounting performed by the State Department acknowledges that the number of launchers and warheads in Russia’s nuclear arsenal was already below New START’s limitations when the treaty took effect, while the U.S. arsenal was well above them. In short: We’re the ones who now have to give, while Russia gets.

In agreeing to START, President Obama squandered an opportunity to extract a number of concessions from the Russians that would have advanced U.S. interests. He could have pressed for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its tactical nuclear force, which outnumbers ours by an overwhelming margin. He could have tried to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But instead he frittered away American bargaining chips and got nothing in return.

Unfortunately, that’s become a bit of a pattern. Before signing New START, he abruptly abandoned our Europe-based missile-defense program as part of his “reset” policy with Russia, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch. In return? Nothing. He’s been pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinians on settlements and borders even before negotiations between them begin. In return? Nothing.

There’s a price to be paid for inexperience in the White house. We are paying it.

-Mitt Romney

 

A Romney-Bachmann Ticket?

Interesting tidbits from James Taranto:

As for Bachmann, her biggest advantage over Sarah Palin may be that she is now running for president. That means that if Romney were to name her a year hence, she would be a far more familiar and media-savvy politician than Palin was in 2008. She would be much less vulnerable to both smears from the partisan media and unforced errors like Palin’s disastrous interview with Katie Couric, whoever that is. For those who care about such things, the presence of a woman on the ticket might serve as an excuse to vote against re-electing the first black president.

To be sure, Bachmann is running for the presidential nomination, and while no one considers her the favorite, she’s surely a shorter shot than she was a few days ago. But a rival who is able to attract significant support in the primaries is likely to bring more to the ticket than one who isn’t. What did Joe Biden get Barack Obama other than comic relief?

An interesting aside: A Romney-Bachmann ticket, or a Romney-Pawlenty one for that matter, would combine candidates from the only state Richard Nixon lost in 1972 and the only state Reagan lost in 1984. What’s more, of the seven GOP candidates on stage Monday, all but Rick Santorum come from the home state of at least one Democratic presidential nominee since 1960. The four states in question–Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas–have produced a majority of Democratic nominees (8 of 13) during that time.

Frum on President Personality Types

Media obsesses over Palin, ignores Romney

Was Bill Clinton undisciplined and indecisive? He was succeeded by George W. Bush, the self-described decider-in-chief.

Was Bush impulsive and aggressive? He was replaced by No Drama Obama.

Is Obama vaporous and utopian? Maybe what Americans are hearkening for is the analytic ability and negotiating prowess of the former CEO of America’s most successful management consulting firm. And just possibly, Republican primary voters have the self-control not to let the controversy over Romney’s health care record cloud their respect for their front-runner’s genuine executive abilities.

Bad signs for the GOP in 2012

Jeb Golinkin

writes at FrumForum.com that a quick glance at the 2012 GOP contenders reveals that the overwhelming majority of these candidates would have no chance of defeating an incumbent president, much less the Obama campaign machine, in a general election.
.

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is too old, too polarizing, and too Washington to have a fighting chance at winning the presidency.

Sarah Palin: 55% of Americans view her unfavorably. That’s pretty much game over, but even if it wasn’t, the fact that the number holds among independents (55% of them view her unfavorably and 40% of that group said they view her in a “strongly unfavorable” light) also would be a knockout. 41% of all polled view her as strongly unfavorable. In short, that means she can write off 40% of the electorate before the race even starts. Her chances of beating Barack Obama are slim.

Mitt Romney: Deemed the “frontrunner” by many, Romney would get destroyed in a general election. Flip-flop. Flip-flop. Flip-flop. The label destroyed John Kerry, and Romney’s propensity to change his mind makes Kerry’s switches look tame to the point of irrelevance. And did I mention that Obamacare looks like Romneycare on steroids? No chance.

Mike Huckabee: Christians heart Huckabee. Independents do not. Next.

Gary Johnson: Who is Gary Johnson?

Rick Santorum: Staunch social conservatives need not apply for the presidency. Santorum tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design nationwide in 2001. Not a single Latino in America is going to vote for this guy. Neither are independents, moderate Democrats or a lot of moderate Republicans. If he is lucky and Obama does a lot of things very, very wrong between now and 2012, Santorum might… just might lose 65-35 to Obama.

Ron Paul: The man is a fringe lunatic. The answer is no.

Mike Pence: Who is Mike Pence?

Tim Pawlenty: The only candidate of the batch that I am not 100% confident would get absolutely mauled by Barack Obama in 2012. A smart, competent, seemingly likeable candidate. Relatively moderate. But he is from Minnesota and not really popular there anymore. In March, a poll of 500 Minnesotans pegged his approval at 42%. If his own voters don’t like him, it will be hard for him to beat an incumbent in a general election for the presidency.

And if you think this is meaningless because the Republican savior just hasn’t shown themselves yet, think again…

The GOP’s star is not coming. Obama became a superstar at the Democratic Convention in 2004 and by 2006 (two years before the election….), every single person that followed politics knew who Barack Obama was. We have neither a Hillary Clinton (a powerhouse presumed nominee) or a rising star who captured the nation’s attention. Paul Ryan is a darling amongst conservatives but about ten mainstream Americans have ever heard of him. Jindal was supposed to be the rising star, but he blew his “national unveiling” with an awkward response to Obama’s State of the Union.

But FrumForum commenter MaxTwain puts this analysis into context with a historical record of GOP candidates:

Let’s review the GOP fields from the past few elections. I think after you see where we’ve been and what we had running in the past you will realize just how much better the 2012 field can be.

1996: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, Richard Lugar, Robert Dornan, Pete Wilson, Arlen Specter, Alan Keyes

2000: George W. Bush, John McCain, Steve Forbes, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Lamar Alexander, Dan Quayle, Elizabeth Dole

2008: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Ton Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore

2012: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, George Pataki, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson

If you look at our primaries in the recent past you begin to realize our field is deeper then in the past. In fact, without George W. Bush in 2000, you could argue 2012 will have the best potential field of candidates. Sure, no one is the next Reagan, and no one will have the media drooling quite like Obama did, but we have a solid list of credible candidates, far more credible then Dole or McCain were when they got the nomination.

I think the problem you are having is that for decades the GOP nomination has been a orderly process, and now, just as in 2008, we are starting to have primary campaigns that are more like Democrats, where the next in line might not be the next in line, and where someone new could emerge from the pack and upset the established order just as Carter and Obama did.

Rasmussen: Obama 45, Romney 45; Obama 48, Palin 42

For some reason, the poll speculates about Palin running under a 3rd party:

Just 21% of voters nationwide say Palin should run as an independent if she loses the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee should not run as an independent. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

If Romney secured the GOP nomination and Palin chose to run as an independent candidate, Obama would win the resulting three-way race with 44% of the vote. Romney is the choice of 33% of the voters under that scenario, with Palin a distant third with 16% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided…

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin…

In a three-way race, Palin hurts Romney by drawing 28% Republican support. Romney captures 52% of the GOP vote in that scenario.

McCain and Romney: Mitt’s moment – at last?

A McCain-Romney ticket makes political sense for the GOP.

John McCain and Mitt Romney fought bitterly as presidential candidates and don’t seem to like each other very much.

But, to quote Vice President Dick Cheney in his recent interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz: “So?”

A presidential nominee doesn’t need another best friend. He needs a ticket-balancer – and from the ridiculous to the sublime, his ex-rival fits the bill.

Romney has hair; McCain has much less; Romney is robotic; McCain is temperamental. Romney shifts positions with enthusiasm; McCain does it without any. Romney is a very wealthy man who invested $45 million of his own money in his presidential campaign; McCain is rich, but not that rich. He took out a $3 million line of credit to subsidize his campaign.

But seriously – and I mean it – Romney offers much to McCain’s presidential bid.

So says Joan Vennochi in the Boston Globe.
Among his assets to the ticket:

ENERGY: Romney is 61 – A decade younger than McCain. He’s a tireless campaigner, a good speaker, and strong debater. He dominated several of the showdowns between Republican contenders, and won their last debate in California.

CONSERVATIVES: Conservatives love him, they trust him more than McCain to be right wing on taxes and having Romney as veep would “put conservative pundits and talk show hosts behind it, with passion instead of resignation.”

STATE GRAB: Even if Massachusetts is more than a long shot, Romney might help McCain snatch New Hampshire from the Democrats. Romney could also be helpful in Michigan, the state where he was born and beat McCain; and in Nevada, which has a large Mormon population