Romney

Frum on President Personality Types

Parker V 0 Comments

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.

Can Romney win against Palin?

Parker V 0 Comments

Daniel Larison says:

Do we really think that most Republican primary voters are more likely to nominate a woman for president than Democratic voters were two years ago? Do we really think that Republicans would prefer the less qualified candidate because she is a woman? Wouldn’t many Republicans want Romney to succeed to prove that the GOP is not dominated by religious conservatives who will not support a Mormon candidate? Wouldn’t that impulse to show religious tolerance overwhelm any impulse to promote Palin beyond her ability just to get credit for nominating the first woman nominee? If the 2012 nomination contest comes down to a head-to-head fight between Romney and Palin, there appears to be every reason to think that Romney prevails.

Scott Gallupo responds:

Does he beat her in New Hampshire? Let’s assume, given his New England ties, that he does. Throw in Michigan for identical reasons. Then comes South Carolina. And then Super Tuesday. Assuming Huckabee doesn’t run, Palin will crush Romney in Dixie, and she has obvious “Mama Grizzly” appeal in the Mountain states.

The Midwest and the Northeast will be competitive. There will be an anyone-but-Palin factor—but, in an open contest, this vote will split in any number of directions. Maybe that, plus the “It’s his turn” default thinking that seems to dominate Republican primaries, is enough to lift Romney in 2012.

Bad signs for the GOP in 2012

Parker V 0 Comments

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.

Is Romney too nerdy to be President?

Parker V 0 Comments

A blogger at the Secular Right blog who describes themselves as “positively predisposed toward Romney” says the former Governor can’t get the 2012 nomination because he just comes off as too “wonky and brainy”.

In many ways I think Mitt Romney is like Michael Dukakis. Both governors of Massachusetts, and nerds. Romney is physically robust and handsome, but for some reason he seems to come off as a nerd on testosterone to many people. I think this is why he was so detested in the 2008 primaries by his rivals. He’s smart, rich and handsome. These should be traits which make him an object of admiration and envy, but instead he is perceived as a striving overachiever, and elicits resentment from his peers. And I think that’s partly because he can’t mask his management consultant affect (I now suspect his flip-flopping and Mormonism come into higher profile because people want to give him a wedgie).

Romney appeared on the Today Show to talk about his new book and the current political climate:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

and later on Letterman:

A Romney run for Kennedy’s Senate seat: Smart or disaster?

Parker V 2 Comments

If he did, Romney would then have a platform to actually introduce legislation modeled on the proposals he put forward as a presidential candidate in 2008 and planned to put forward in 2012. No guesswork. No empty rhetoric. Real ideas, on the Senate floor, that could be evaluated, debated, and perhaps even voted on.

It would be an intriguing thing if, after waiting a day or two out of respect for the late senator, Romney were to downshift and announce he will be a candidate in the upcoming election to fill Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat.

Such an announcement would likely be embraced immediately by the Republicans, who would like almost nothing more than to deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada his new, hard-won, 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority. As a self-funding candidate who has already been elected once statewide, Romney has nearly 100 percent name ID. And, in an environment where President Obama seems to be dragging the Democrats down, he would be a serious threat to the Democratic hegemony in Massachusetts’s congressional delegation. Meaning Romney likely would win.

The Hot Air blog responds:

Would he? Obama’s still near 60 percent approval in Massachusetts. Given the creepy dynasticism of the Kennedy cult, you can expect them to lend their weight to a campaign for the seat to stay Democratic (“Do it for Teddy!”). Romney’s not the same pol who won the governor’s race in 2002, either: Remember, his conversion to the pro-life cause came while he was in office so he’ll be demagogued inside the state as a cynical sell-out to the hard right today. And there’s more to lose in doing this than there is to gain. If he wins, he ends up stuck in the minority with the rest of the GOP with no way to pass legislation unless he compromises with the Democrats — not something a guy who’s already suspected of RINOism is wont to do. If he loses, it proves he’s a paper tiger who can’t even carry the moderate states to which he’s supposed to appeal as a potential Republican nominee.

Running and winning would lend him some extra gravitas and name recognition, which he’ll desperately need in a primary against Palin and media darling Huckabee. But even so … seems like a longshot with the potential for catastrophe. Let’s vote on it.

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

Parker V 0 Comments

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.

Mitt Romney kinda sorta rules out running again, says no to cabinet position

Parker V 0 Comments

Romney told reporters this morning that he does not want a cabinet position in a John McCain administration, saying that he would not relish being “soldiered by 27-year-olds in the White House,” as his father did during his days as HUD secretary.

“That is not an attractive position in my view,” Romney said, citing the experience of his dad, George Romney, who served as the head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Richard Nixon after his defeat in the 1968 presidential race. “I’ve seen it too close-hand to think that’s something for me.”

In a press conference after remarks to the Utah delegation, Romney said that he expects to remain in the public sector after the November election and will not return to the business world, as many have speculated. But he demurred when asked about a second try at the Oval Office.

“I do not anticipate doing it again,” he chuckled. “It’s hard to imagine doing that.”

– SOURCE