As I watch the ongoing fight for the Republican nomination from across the Atlantic, I find myself wondering: has there ever been a worse presidential candidate than Mitt Romney?
Let me be clear, I am not criticizing Romney-the-potential-president (I happen to think he would do a perfectly decent job). I am criticizing Romney-the-candidate, especially his failure to capitalize on the near-perfect conditions for his run for the White House. Every time he seems to have finally broken through, there is another rejection of his candidacy from the Republican electorate. In theory, Romney should have wrapped up the GOP nomination with minimum fuss, as circumstances contrived to put him in what should have been a position of supreme strength. Here's why:
1) The timing
Pierre Trudeau, a former prime minister of Canada, said that the essential ingredient of politics is timing and 2012 should be Romney's time. Running as a successful businessman in a year when the economy and jobs are the most important issues for the majority of voters, he will never have a better chance of becoming president.
2) The competition
Has there ever been a weaker field of Republican candidates for president? Spared from going up against Republican big guns such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels, Romney has been fighting to be the number one heavyweight contender against a group of middleweights.
3) The crowd
What the Republican field lacked in quality it made up for in numbers. During the first six months or so of this race Romney shared the stage with seven other candidates: it was Mitt Romney and the seven dwarves. With his moderate record, Romney was always going to stand a better chance of winning the nomination in a crowded Republican field, one that splintered conservative support.
4) The money
Romney is the richest candidate ever, thanks to his Bain-boosted personal fortune. What's more, by the end of 2011, he had raised over $55 million, more than double that of any of his Republican rivals. Add to this the millions raised by pro-Romney super PACs and the former Massachusetts governor has a huge advantage in the money race. In Michigan, Romney is outspending his main challenger, Rick Santorum, by more than 40 to 1.
5) The planning
"A winning effort begins with preparation." So said Joe Gibbs and Romney has had the luxury of being able to prepare and hone his campaign infrastructure over a period of six years. As result, he has the best organization on the ground in almost all 50 states and is the only candidate in the race who has a framework in place to compete nationwide.
Sure, there have been serious presidential hopefuls in the past who have flattered to deceive -- the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Rick Perry. However, has a candidate for president ever run in circumstances as favorable as these and still made such hard work of winning his party's nomination? Perhaps experts in American political history can dredge up some names of people who match Romney in this respect, but to this fascinated foreign observer, none springs to mind.
Like all candidates Romney has his flaws. His lack of ideological backbone, enormous wealth and Mormon faith are all political liabilities. Yet his struggles seem to speak to a deeper problem. He never seems quite at ease when addressing voters and has done a poor job of defining his candidacy ("I can beat Obama" just doesn't cut it). His public missteps -- offering a $10,000 bet to Perry during a debate, saying that he is "not concerned about the very poor" -- paint a picture of a man who is out of touch with the average voter and falls firmly on the side of the 1%. It is, though, his inability to connect with voters that represents Romney's biggest flaw as a campaigner. In a country where it seems as if voters' support is based less on policy issues and more on gut feeling, this could prove fatal.
Of course, Romney could still win the nomination -- heck, he could still be the next president. However, his difficulties in the contest so far do not reflect well on him as a candidate. At the end of it all, Romney may indeed go down in history. He'll just have to hope that it is for the right reasons.
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
Dave Helfert: Mitt and the Republican Grassroots
Patrick Anderson: Presidential Politics in the New South
Carol Smaldino: The Mad Matter of Mormons Baptizing My People, and Other Dangerous Trends
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Knowing Mormon's like I do, I believe Romney's biggest desire is to be elected President so he can go down in history as the First Mormon President. He would be a hero to Mormon's and would make huge strides to legitimize his faith. That's why I don't trust him. I think this run has more to do with his Faith and less to do with serving all American's. I have never known a Mormon to separate any part of their faith from their life, so Mitt would serve his Church first and America second.
It's just about impossible to connect with the GOP faithful without whooping it up for religion, and it's even more difficult to connect with ANY voters if you can't brag on all the good things you did in your last elected office. Perhaps an astute natural politician along the lines of a Reagan or Clinton could find a way out of such a straight-jacket. But that's not Romney. He inherited his father's rather square, clumsy approach to politics but none of the integrity and gravitas that endeared the old man to Michigan.
it's not of his doing. Here are some problems...1. the ultra right wing conservatives. This also includes the
tea party . 2. You and all the republican media. I thought that the liberal media were bad , but you and
some others do nothing but try to shoot Romney down. If he's trying to address the economy, you say
he should be going bonkers on the social issues- and vice versa. He's spending too much money ( hey he's rich- why not use his own money?) , but that's wrong too. :You say he's too weak, not
making his "pitch" , but I and a lot of other republicans would really beg to differ with you. But we're
not the tea party. religious right, nor the media who JUST WON'T GIVE HIM A BREAK. I know that
he will make a fine president. Maybe even a great one. But we'll never know, because of a few rigid,
selfish conservatives and their media who just won't allow him to show us what he has. Remember
this- Ronald Regan was an ACTOR, for crying out loud. He somehow rose above it all. Mitt Romney
could be AWSOME, if we just take a chance on him.
In other words...voters chose Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich...and now Santorum...over Romney because the just don't like him.
The shame of it is, he was probably the best Republican president of the post-Watergate era. He had the guys to agree to raise taxes when it was needed, he handled the Gulf War very well and he cleaned up the S&L mess. He was much better for the country than Reagan.
Instead, he was out trying to compete with 9-9-9 plans. He COULD have said "Hey, the numbers for your plan don't add up. As a businessman, I know that you can't make a plan out of a slogan." But no, Romney instead competed in grandiose plans that couldn't add up. Balance the budget, cut taxes, AND make our military so powerful that noone would dare challenge the US? Romney looked at all the unserious candidates who had a following and determined that the way to get their followers was to act even MORE unserious.
If Obama engineered this, he is a genius, and the Republicans are stupid.
That won't stop us liberals from hoping for an explosion in Tampa. : ) It's just being realistic about our completely corrupted process.
Have you had a good look at Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann or the worst of them all - Rick Santorum????
Although I detest the man - Romney is actually the best of a really really really awful bunch.