Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Mitt Romney Threat

The Mitt Romney Threat

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In the endless fluidity of the 2012 stable of potential presidential hopefuls (“Will Sarah Palin run? Has Newt Gingrich cratered?”), there has been one solid: Mitt Romney.

After losing the 2008 GOP nomination to John McCain, the former Massachusetts governor never really stopped running. Romney picked up right where he left off once Barack Obama moved into the White House. 

He is set to officially announce his candidacy for 2012 on Thursday, and he could well become Obama’s worst nightmare — if only he wins his party nomination.

And there, Romney finds himself in an odd situation. He apparently is both the front-runner and, simultaneously, something of a second choice for many Republicans.

Romney clearly is the establishment candidate, evidenced by the fact that he collected more than $10 million in just one day of fundraising in Las Vegas.

Yet the fact that that Romney is leading the pack, according to one recent poll, with support from just 14 percent of his party indicates just how tenuous his leadership is right now.

The fact that in that same poll, a quarter of the GOP primary electorate isn’t even sure who they would vote for as their nominee tells me that Republicans aren’t exactly in love with Romney.

If Romney can sufficiently and effectively distance himself from the fact that his state healthcare reform in Massachusetts became the model for President Obama’s own national reform law, then he has a real shot to come away with the nomination.

The other reason Christian conservatives are said to dislike Romney is due to his Mormon faith. Romney can’t, nor should he, run away from his Mormonism. Unlike healthcare reform, or other substantive policy position, Romney’s religion is not a legitimate reason to oppose him. If Romney continues to push back against this bias as necessary, he well could neutralize it, at least enough to secure the nomination.

Remember, the conservative base wasn’t in love with McCain either, in 2008, when he locked up his nomination. The right flocked to his side only after he named Palin as his running mate.

Romney could follow a similar path, and name tea party darling, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, as his VP pick.

If he succeeds in this, Romney could well become Barack Obama’s undoing.

Right now, Obama appears cruising to re-election next year, unless Romney becomes the nominee.

Head to head, the president crushes his potential GOP opponents, often by double digits.

But against Mitt Romney, Obama barely squeaks by, 51 percent to 49 percent.

That doesn’t leave the president much margin for error.

And unlike McCain, who attacked Obama in 2008 on assorted character issues, Romney reportedly plans to hammer the president relentlessly on the continuing poor economy.

Further, remember that Romney once got elected as a Republican governor of a liberal state like Massachusetts. Clearly, he has the ability to communicate successfully with independents and cross-over voters.

So, yes, Barack Obama and his team have much to fear if he has to face Mitt Romney come Nov. 6, 2012.

Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • Steve

    All the other candidates for 2011 are only capable of highlighting current problems. Mitt is the only one in the pack offering real solutions. He’s got my vote.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And what ‘solutions’ has he offered? I’d really like to hear.

    But no, Romney doesn’t make me worried at all. IMO the only candidate that might stand a ghost of a chance is Romney’s fellow Mormon, Jon Huntsman…

    …but thanks to Rand Paul and the Great Anti-Medicare Lemming Race this year, though nothing is ever certain and we still have to work hard to get President Obama elected, I’m still not too worried.

  • Baronius

    “The other reason Christian conservatives are said to dislike Romney is due to his Mormon faith.”

    Scott, I don’t know where you got that. Evangelicals’ problem with Romney is that they don’t trust him on abortion.

  • Leroy

    The hard right crazies will probably undermine Romney in 2012 as they did McCain in 2008. They’ve found intransigence works against wimpy dem politicians but it doesn’t work against voters.

  • Cannonshop

    #4 When the choice is between a phoney conservative and a genuine, open-about-it left-liberal, voters will tend to vote for the guy who is what he says he is, rather than the guy who’s pretending to be what his record says he’s not.

    As for Romney, now… there should probably be some close examinations of his record as Mass. Governor, not just his campaign rhetoric. If the record lines up with the rhetoric, he’s going to be a serious threat to Team Obama, but if it doesn’t, then his nomination will be a sign the GOP doesn’t think it can win this-just as McCain’s nomination in 2008, or Dole in 2006.

  • Arch Conservative

    It’s the economy stupid.

    Unemployment is still very high and according to most polls people think the economy is still in the shitter. If that doesn’t change by early to mid 2010, all the Obama koolaid in the world is going to save the “one we have been waiting for” from his destiny as a one termed failed president.

  • Leroy

    Romney will have to pass the republican ‘purity’ test first, and even if he passes he’ll probably be undermined by lukewarm support from the tea party hardliners.

  • mike

    Rommy is the poster boy for,whats wrong with this great country!!!SameO SameO ;-(
    Lets see, he went to Harvard, nuff said!

    Ron Paul!!! 2012…Don’t Fear Freedom!!!!
    Please check this cat out!!!! Dr. Paul!!!
    I Want my country back!!!!! Damm it!!!

  • Baronius

    But Leroy, won’t the white-wing Republicans rally around him just so he can beat a black guy? I thought you said that race was more important to these people than ideology.

  • Leroy

    Good point, Baronius. The teaparty visceral reaction may over-rule their newfound ideology fixation.

  • Baronius

    I hope that last comment was facetious, Leroy. I was pointing out how wrong you are when you reduce politics to race, and since you recognize that ideology prevented the right from coalescing around McCain, you realize that your race theory doesn’t correctly explain the actions of voters. This is the David Mamet conundrum: why claim to hold a view when you recognize that it doesn’t work in practice?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    1 – Evangelicals ALSO don’t like him because of his Mormonism. Remember, to many people, one’s religion is far more important than one’s politics.

    2 – Politics should not be ‘reduced’ to race…but it is naive to think that it doesn’t play a significant part…and the proof lay in the fact that Democratic rallies are generally quite mixed, racially and culturally, whereas Republican rallies are almost completely lily-white and non-any-religion-other-than-‘Christian’. And usually homophobic, too.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, you can look at a crowd and tell what percentage is Christian? You’re projecting so much that you’re not even making sense.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Get real. What do you really think would be the chances of, say, a Muslim being elected by Republicans? REAL close to zero, I think you must agree…but there is a Muslim in Congress – he’s a Democrat, of course.

    Are there any avowed atheists that Republicans would elect? Perhaps, but unlikely. What, Baronius, do you think would happen to a Republican candidate who came out and said that he doesn’t believe in God at all? And how many out-in-the-open homosexuals have the Republicans elected to office? Especially since there’s the “don’t-say-gay” bill that just passed in Tennessee….

    But they’re really eager to vote for those who say, “God told me to run for [list office here]!” – see Palin, Bachmann, George W. Bush, Huckabee…need I go on?

    You can deny it all you want, but racism DOES play a significant role in Republican politics (remember “Barack the Magic Negro”), religion DOES play a significant role in Republican politics, and homophobia DOES play a significant role in Republican politics…and hiding your head in the sand and pretending otherwise will not make it go away.

  • Clavos

    …but there is a Muslim in Congress – he’s a Democrat, of course.

    Worse than that, he’s from flyover country.

  • Cannonshop

    #14 Actually, Glenn, Racism is the glue that holds the Democrat Party together-fear of it, obsession with it,and most importantly, the ability to accuse their enemies OF it.

    That last bit’s critical, and why you folks make the ground-assumptions you do. It’s not Republicans that called Tony Snow “an Uncle Tom”, The fact is, Black republicans aren’t welcome to caucus with the Congressional Black Caucus.

    Your demons are in your own mind, please stop projecting them on other people.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “It’s not Republicans that called Tony Snow ‘an Uncle Tom'”

    Who called former Bush Press Secretary, the late Tony Snow, “an Uncle Tom”? Seems an odd insult to hurl at a white man

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “ideology prevented the right from coalescing around McCain”

    If that’s the case, it’s odd that Rove would have attempted to trick South Carolina voters into thinking McCain had an illegitimate black child. Should have stuck to policies and voting record

  • zingzing

    “Racism is the glue that holds the Democrat Party together-fear of it, obsession with it,and most importantly, the ability to accuse their enemies OF it.”

    easy to say. that’s a double-edged sword. think about how racism affects you, sir. the republicans are just as guilty of playing the race card, but they hold themselves in some esteem while doing so. i’m not saying the dems get off, i’m just saying you should look in the mirror if you want to play that. because that’s all you’re doing, time and time again.

  • Leroy

    11-Baronius: that was pretty complicated and I didn’t get it. I’m not very good at decoding irony.

  • Leroy

    16-Cannonshop: Wow! Do you think there are and have been so few black republicans in congress because they believe that the Congressional Black Caucus might slight them? Yet this cycle the CBC invited both elected republican blacks to join CBC and one accepted. Of course, he’s the only black republican because republicans almost never elect black congressmen. In fact only about 3 in the last 50 years. If that doesn’t scream out “Racism!” I can’t imagine what it would take.

  • Clavos

    If that doesn’t scream out “Racism!” I can’t imagine what it would take.

    Is it really racism? Or is it the fact that VERY few Black people are conservative, and choose not to join the Republican party for that reason?

    Not everything is motivated by racism, Leroy, not even in the minds of card-carrying racists.

  • Leroy

    It’s racism, Clavos. I’ve known many black conservatives and republicans who have built successful companies and community organizations and been professionals. They would like to join the party but there seems to be no room for them. Cf. JC Watts.

    There’s no shortage of qualified black conservatives.

  • zingzing

    well, clavos… many black people are profoundly conservative. they just don’t vote for republicans all that often. maybe they view the gop as racist. maybe their brand of conservatism doesn’t preclude them from voting for a dem if they agree on other issues. maybe they just don’t vote. i dunno. hard to say. it’s different for everybody.

    the political lines we draw here on bc and the political lines we see in the press don’t really reflect the country at large. many people don’t see those lines, or they ignore them. it’s only the stubborn, the (political) junkies and the ideologues that really do. i’m stubborn. you can’t convince me otherwise.

  • Clavos

    There’s no shortage of qualified black conservatives.

    Sorry, Leroy, but your personal acquaintances don’t constitute an accurate sampling.

    The Berkeley Daily Planet, an award-winning politically progressive newspaper in that city, recently conducted a survey:

    New research done by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research (BACVR) reveals who the real liberals in American are and the answer is not the tree-hugging, ponytail wearing ex-hippies you might expect. Instead, the new face of American liberalism is of a decidedly different hue. The nation’s remaining liberals are overwhelming African Americans.

    The BACVR study that ranks the political ideology of every major city in the country shows that cities with large black populations dominate the list of liberal communities. The research finds that Detroit is the most liberal city in the United States and has one of the highest concentrations of African American residents of any major city. Over 81 percent of the population in Detroit is African American, compared to the national average of 12.3 percent. In fact, the average percentage of African American residents in the 25 most liberal cities in the country is 40.3 percent, more than three times the national rate.

    Blacks are significantly majority liberal, and they vote that way. There’s a good reason for that: the Democrats have been courting them and aiming their policies and platforms at them for years.

  • Leroy

    Your post is about black liberals, not conservatives.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Blacks are significantly majority liberal, and they vote that way.

    It’s more accurate to say that most African-Americans are politically liberal but socially conservative; as are most Americans of Latino descent. That’s one major reason why Proposition 8 passed in California despite the state’s reputation for being heavily liberal.

    But when it comes to voting for a president or a congressperson, as Archie so aptly reminded us earlier, “It’s the economy, stupid”. Every time.

  • Cannonshop

    #21 No, Leroy, there are so few Black republicans in congress because there are so few Black Republicans-but I stand by what I said, Black-and-Conservative gets painted with the worst slurs the Left can invent, and they’re essentially persona-non-grata to other Black politicians…

  • zingzing

    so you’re saying that there are so few black conservatives because liberals and other black people make fun of them? and that’s it?

    if you stand back and look at that, do you not see how idiotic it is?

  • Clavos

    It’s more accurate to say that most African-Americans are politically liberal but socially conservative…

    Agreed.

  • Leroy

    You republicans are grasping at straws. The evidence of congress tells the tale: black republicans don’t get nominated and elected by the republican party. The party is racist.

    I was just reflecting and I realized that my black friends are almost never employees. They are almost always small or medium business operators. And it seems to me they are mostly conservative by temperament. I understand that an ambitious black would end up starting his own business because corporate hiring practices have always been so white. Independent business was one place where merit could come to the fore.

    So the slavish way that republicans submitted to large corporate interests would be a natural turnoff for small business blacks. So the small business black woman running a neighborhood hardware store would have as little reason to ally herself with Home Depot backing republicans as she would with big government democrats.

  • Clavos

    The evidence of congress tells the tale: black republicans don’t get nominated and elected by the republican party.

    Because there aren’t any.

  • zingzing

    “there aren’t any.”

    what about all those black tea party people?

  • Sam

    For some odd reason, him being a Mormon is having a huge negative affect on me. I don’t mind any other sect but the Mormons are a little too fanatic for me. I won’t be voting for anyone that adamant about religion in a country that was founded especially for freedom of religion. He’s a creeper.

  • Clavos

    what about all those black tea party people?

    You’re barking at the wrong guy.

  • zingzing

    “You’re barking at the wrong guy.”

    maybe. good to know you’re on an even keel. ha. that was a yachting joke, the first i’ve ever brought to home, anchored in a bay of yucks. yar.

    also, i don’t bark, i meow-fit-fit. cat person. libruls, you know.

  • zingzing

    “I won’t be voting for anyone that adamant about religion in a country that was founded especially for freedom of religion.”

    frankly, i don’t think his mormonism has really affected his policy (as far as i’ve seen, but i could be wrong). and if he’s a mormon, i don’t think that should make one bit of difference. he’s probably like most other politicians: “religious” by the fact that they’re politicians.

    his mormon beliefs are between him and this christian right. no one else gives a shit.

  • zingzing

    port! damn it.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    “A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. For me, that alone disqualifies him from my vote.”
    — Warren Cole Smith in Marvin Olasky’s World magazine

    This may not be a majority view among evangelical Christians, but it is firmly held by some.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Romney is so patently insincere and opportunistic, changing his views on multiple issues just to chase votes.

    You could compare him in this to John McCain, but McCain seemed more sincere as a maverick moderate, and sour and enervated as an unconvincing right-winger, while Romney has remained plastic and robotic and entirely lacking in conviction throughout his political career.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. For me, that alone disqualifies him from my vote.”

    But that would only apply if someone from the true religion is running. If no one from the true religion is running, then I see no obstacle to voting for him…other than the fact that he’s not a liberal, of course.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Based on the evidence, all religions are false, so what difference does it make?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    ZingZing#33, I got busy googling “Black Tea Party member” for a link to prove you wrong (but I DID,at least, finally realize you were making a joke BEFORE you had to tell me), and I found a link for “GREEN Tea Party member,” which may be of interest to libertarians, anarchists and RoseAnne fans alike.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    handyguy(#39)Mark DeMoss, who is somewhat influential in the Evangelical community, does support Mitt Romney as a candidate.

    I hope someone else convinces Evangelical Republicans to support Ron Paul, for many of the same reasons Mark DeMoss supports Mitt Romney, having more to do with generosity of spirit than with politics.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Based on the evidence, all religions are false, so what difference does it make?

    I thought that way once, too. I really did…until something was shown to me that I couldn’t deny.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, you’ve coyly referred to this life-changing experience of yours but refused to go into details.

    However, there is still zero evidence to support the notion of the existence of any deity, so it is far more likely that you are deceived.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Glenn, you’ve coyly referred to this life-changing experience of yours but refused to go into details. However, there is still zero evidence to support the notion of the existence of any deity, so it is far more likely that you are deceived.

    I can easily understand your skepticism and frustration – I honestly can! Indeed, if our positions were reversed I might not be as polite and courteous about it as you are.

    But I was shown something I couldn’t deny – the likelihood of something of this magnitude being mere coincidence is quite low.

    BUT why do I not go into it? In Romans 10 it states in so many words that one cannot believe without receiving the Gospel from a preacher who is sent by God. I’m not a preacher, so anytime I start going into details, I’m actually overstepping my bounds.

    That said, Chris, you also know that unlike many of those who follow a religion, I’m always eager to see what the next scientific development is – and I’ve got a really interesting article pending right now on something not too many people have heard of: quantum biology.

    But back to your statement – I disagree – there IS evidence. The evidence is not in the form of, say, a bunch of golden tablets like the Mormons claim, but an actual honest-to-goodness fulfillment of a prophecy that is fairly easy to verify. The fulfillment can be easily found in history books or online…and no other religion on earth has this prophecy.

    If I weren’t shown all this to my satisfaction, then I wouldn’t have stayed strong in the Church for close to 20 years now…and I certainly wouldn’t be worrying about how to keep my sons strong in the Church.

    But it’s gotta be a minister to show it to you – I can’t, because I am not sent by God to do so.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, I don’t feel skepticism or frustration, you have simply leapt to an erroneous conclusion.

    As to the rest of your comment, it is just another circular self-serving argument that gets us both nowhere.

    However, in particular I completely fail to see how the fulfilment of a prophecy proves anything at all, but then faithists are not known for their logic…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    As to the rest of your comment, it is just another circular self-serving argument that gets us both nowhere. However, in particular I completely fail to see how the fulfilment of a prophecy proves anything at all, but then faithists are not known for their logic

    First – thank you very much for taking care of the problems!

    Second – I’m sorry we can’t agree…but I cannot explain further. I will say this: I know that several religions have ‘secret’ teachings or ‘proof’ that they never show to anyone, like the Scientologists and the Catholics and the Mormons.

    This isn’t at all like that. Once the minister shows you the applicable Scripture and explains it, you’re able to dig out a history book – in fact, you probably don’t need a book – and then grab out a pen and paper (or a calculator) and do the math yourself. To me, what I was shown was too precise, and the events concerned were too important (both less than 100 years ago), to be mere coincidence. It’s not a secret nor is it some kind of numerological trickery.

    Chris, sometimes I jump the gun and sometimes I’m downright goofy…but I’m not gullible or naive (despite what the BC conservatives will say).

    And for those who may be getting frustrated thinking I’ve ‘hijacked’ the thread – I had to respond to Chris…and I know how you feel (since ‘RJ’ hijacked the comments section of my most recent article).

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, if you are going to remain coy, your only real option would seem to be to shut up…

    As far as I can tell based on your typically faithist cryptic mutterings, you are basing your belief on a prophecy, which I’ve already said doesn’t prove squat.

    It could be dumb luck or co-incidence, no matter how precise, so it certainly seems to me that you are being both gullible and naive.

    Furthermore, I don’t see any difference between the alleged secret teachings of other religions and whatever yours is. It’s all mystical shit that tries to put itself beyond the normal standards of evidence and proof, simply because it can’t stand up to the scrutiny because there is nothing there in the first place.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Yeah, I’m just a mutterer :)

    BTW, my newest article was just published. Have fun!